My Politics lecturer made an interesting point today

[Avonrepus]

He was comparing India to South Korea, how they had been in a similar state of development in 1960 and yet 40% of Indians today live in poverty whilst South Korea has around the same life expectancy as most of Western Europe.

However in order to achieve such a state of sustained growth, South Korea, until 1987 endured a period of authoritarian rule and extreme working hours (1 day off a month) and no democracy. India on the other hand is famous for being the largest democracy on Earth.

His point was, if you were transported back to 1960 as a farmer, would you rather live in Korea where you would know that your standard of living and those of your children would continue to grow but you would have to surrender your freedom of speech. Alternatively would you want to have lived in India where you would live in poverty and the chances are your children would not be able to read or write but you could write to a newspaper and complain about the government without fear of being censored?

What are people's opinions of this? would you rather have freedom of speech and freedom from human rights abuses, or guaranteed and significant improvement of your financial situation? It seemed to be an interesting point, but then again all of Adrain Leftwich's lectures are.

[Bridget Burke]

1. Could there, possibly, be any other differences...

between the two countries than South Korea's period of suppression of human rights? Did your lecturer cover any details such as history, environment, population? How about US aid?

I can see how long working hours could contribute to economic development, but wonder how surrendering freedom of speech is a positive thing. With a typical American education, my knowledge of Korean history is fairly minimal. But a quick search reveals that the Koreans did not submit meekly like little worker ants to the suppression. There were riots, imprisonment, assassination & a lot of deaths.

I'd rather have freedom of speech and freedom from human rights abuses AND a chance for improvment in financial matters. How many protesters would you like to see shot, in order to improve your bank balance?

[Brian Sweat]

4. Never underestimate the economic power of a large military occupation.

South Korea, with a population of about 50 million, has about one twentieth the population of India. The United States has stationed tens of thousands of military personnel in South Korea since the end of the Korean war. In addition we employ thousands of South Koreans.

In addition, the United States provided substantial economic aid to South Korea for over 30 years.

[Postman]

2. I choose neither. The world doesn't begin or end with India or S. Korea.

Interesting how a "client state" of the US (i.e. S. Korea) had less freedom than one (i.e. India) that was not.

How about asking this question..

What role does capitalism play? Is the goal capitalism? Or Democracy? Which takes precedence over the other? Why?

[TreasonousBastard]

3. Yet another false choice.

Germany in the 30's underwent an economic miracle under Hitler. Speer and the industrialists rebuilt a war-ravaged country that was enduring the Depression.

On the other hand, West Germany after WWII also underwent an economic miracle without the heavy hand of dictatorship, althought it did have some "guidance" from the Allies.

No doubt the authoritarian rule in Korea, as in Singapore and China, helped somewhat in its economic growth, but there are vast cultural and other differences between the two countries. India's problems are vastly different from and much greater than Korea's.

This guy does raise a valid question, though. Why do some countries with equivalent natural resources and populations do well while others sink? Why have Japan, North America, and Europe become the industrialized world? What happened to South America, Africa, and much of the rest of Asia and the Middle East?