Why Is Leadership, Political Stability And State Capacity?
From the above paragraphs, the best factors behind should be leadership, political stability and state capacity. Note that any one of them alone is not enough for the economic boom. They are actually interdependent. Political stability is a prerequisite for state capacity. With a high degree of political stability, enforcement of policies are not obstructed by political chaos, and thus state capacity increases. With high degrees of political stability and state capacity, leaders with good aims can put economic plans into practice. Political stability and state capacity alone would not do good to economy if leaders are corrupt and never care about livelihood of people while leadership alone would not guarantee that policies of good aims can
…show more content…
As stated in the third paragraph, no one in Taiwan was ever able to challenge the rule of the two Chiangs. No military coup succeeded in overthrowing the government established by the two Chiangs. However, the political stability of South Korea was threatened by the north. Even President Park himself was attemptedly assassinated by North Korean spies at least twice, once in 1968 at Blue House by a 32-member North Korean Commando, another in 1974 at the National Theatre by a North Korean, both stated by Kim (2004). Besides, he promoted in 1972 Yusin constitution, which changed the regime of South Korea, aiming at further consolidate Park’s power, as stated in Gemici (2013). He even enforced the martial law in 1972 and stated emergency order in 1974, as stated by Kim (2004). It is obvious that President Park faced great challenges in his rules and he had to change the regime, which is the set of rules by which political power is allocated and an ‘institution with clear substantive and geographical limits, bound by explicit rules, and agreed on by governments’ (Ward, 2015), to respond to it. Though political stability was a key factor in both countries, letting the leaders promote long term economic plans, President Park paid a much higher cost than the two Chiangs in maintaiming political …show more content…
An easily observed difference is that, Taiwan government strived hard for a better state capacity much earlier than the South Korean government did, and from a different background. Admittedly, both President Park and the two Chiangs strived hard for a great state capacity to seek legitimacy through performance, and to exercise greater controls, at least, over all government bodies. But the reasons behind President Park gained power in 1961 through a military coup. In this case, he was certainly not a democratic elected leader, lacking legitimacy. As suggested by Kim Hyung-a (2004), he established a new bureaucracy, the Supreme Council for National Reconstruction (SCNR) and was himself appointed as the chairman. Besides, as also stated by, Kim Hyung-a (2004), he established ‘administrative democracy’ and thus tightened control over the country. Through the above action, President Park successfully strengthened his control and ensured that his policies were put into practice. The reason why he was determined to improve the state capacity is his lack of legitimacy due to the fact that he rose in a military coup in 1961. The legitimacy problem faced by the elder Chiang was not as serious as that of President Park, as the elder Chiang was elected by National Assembly representing electorates all over China, stated by Nohlen (2001).
As stated in the third paragraph, no one in Taiwan was ever able to challenge the rule of the two Chiangs. No military coup succeeded in overthrowing the government established by the two Chiangs. However, the political stability of South Korea was threatened by the north. Even President Park himself was attemptedly assassinated by North Korean spies at least twice, once in 1968 at Blue House by a 32-member North Korean Commando, another in 1974 at the National Theatre by a North Korean, both stated by Kim (2004). Besides, he promoted in 1972 Yusin constitution, which changed the regime of South Korea, aiming at further consolidate Park’s power, as stated in Gemici (2013). He even enforced the martial law in 1972 and stated emergency order in 1974, as stated by Kim (2004). It is obvious that President Park faced great challenges in his rules and he had to change the regime, which is the set of rules by which political power is allocated and an ‘institution with clear substantive and geographical limits, bound by explicit rules, and agreed on by governments’ (Ward, 2015), to respond to it. Though political stability was a key factor in both countries, letting the leaders promote long term economic plans, President Park paid a much higher cost than the two Chiangs in maintaiming political …show more content…
An easily observed difference is that, Taiwan government strived hard for a better state capacity much earlier than the South Korean government did, and from a different background. Admittedly, both President Park and the two Chiangs strived hard for a great state capacity to seek legitimacy through performance, and to exercise greater controls, at least, over all government bodies. But the reasons behind President Park gained power in 1961 through a military coup. In this case, he was certainly not a democratic elected leader, lacking legitimacy. As suggested by Kim Hyung-a (2004), he established a new bureaucracy, the Supreme Council for National Reconstruction (SCNR) and was himself appointed as the chairman. Besides, as also stated by, Kim Hyung-a (2004), he established ‘administrative democracy’ and thus tightened control over the country. Through the above action, President Park successfully strengthened his control and ensured that his policies were put into practice. The reason why he was determined to improve the state capacity is his lack of legitimacy due to the fact that he rose in a military coup in 1961. The legitimacy problem faced by the elder Chiang was not as serious as that of President Park, as the elder Chiang was elected by National Assembly representing electorates all over China, stated by Nohlen (2001).