This book compares the rapid development of South Korea over the past 70 years with selected countries in sub-Saharan Africa to assess what factors contributed to the country’s success story, and why it is that countries that were comparable in the past continue to experience challenges in achieving and sustaining economic growth. In the 1950s, South Korea’s GDP per capita was $876, roughly comparable with that of Cote d’Ivoire and somewhat below Ghana’s. The country’s subsequent transformation from a war-ravaged, international aid-dependent economy to the 13th largest economy in the world has been the focus of considerable international admiration and attention. But how was it that South Korea succeeded in multiplying its GDP per capita by a factor of 23, while other Less Developed Countries continue to experience challenges? This book compares South Korea’s politics of development and foreign assistance with that of Ghana, Nigeria, and Zambia, which were also major recipients of the U.S. aid, to investigate the specific contexts that made it possible for South Korea to achieve success. Overall, this book argues that effective state capacity in South Korea’s domestic and international politics provided an anchor for diplomatic engagement with donors and guided domestic political actors in the effective use of aid for economic development. This book will be of interest to researchers and students working on development, comparative political economy, and foreign aid, and to policy makers and practitioners looking for a greater understanding of comparative development trajectories.

This book theoretically and empirically explores recent internal and external challenges to South Korea's foreign policy. It analyzes how democratization and economic globalization have changed domestic politics in South Korea and reshaped its foreign policies.

These essays support the argument that strong and effective presidential leadership is the most important prerequisite for South Korea to sustain and project its influence abroad. That leadership should be attentive to the need for public consensus and should operate within established legislative mechanisms that ensure public accountability. The underlying structures sustaining South Korea’s foreign policy formation are generally sound; the bigger challenge is to manage domestic politics in ways that promote public confidence about the direction and accountability of presidential leadership in foreign policy.

This book examines the evolution of foreign aid policy in Japan and South Korea, analyzing policy rationales, institutional developments and policy choices. The book searches for new strategies of international development cooperation in an uncertain world. The book compares two countries’ policies in a unique way: pairs of Japanese and Korean scholars examine same policy themes in separate chapters, contrasting differences and similarities. This book will be of great value to scholars of international development cooperation, public policy and East Asian politics.

Against the backdrop of China’s mounting influence and North Korea’s growing nuclear capability and expanding missile arsenal, South Korea faces a set of strategic choices that will shape its economic prospects and national security. In South Korea at the Crossroads, Scott A. Snyder examines the trajectory of fifty years of South Korean foreign policy and offers predictions—and a prescription—for the future. Pairing a historical perspective with a shrewd understanding of today’s political landscape, Snyder contends that South Korea’s best strategy remains investing in a robust alliance with the United States. Snyder begins with South Korea’s effort in the 1960s to offset the risk of abandonment by the United States during the Vietnam War and the subsequent crisis in the alliance during the 1970s. A series of shifts in South Korean foreign relations followed: the “Nordpolitik” engagement with the Soviet Union and China at the end of the Cold War; Kim Dae Jung’s “Sunshine Policy,” designed to bring North Korea into the international community; “trustpolitik,” which sought to foster diplomacy with North Korea and Japan; and changes in South Korea’s relationship with the United States. Despite its rise as a leader in international financial, development, and climate-change forums, South Korea will likely still require the commitment of the United States to guarantee its security. Although China is a tempting option, Snyder argues that only the United States is both credible and capable in this role. South Korea remains vulnerable relative to other regional powers in northeast Asia despite its rising profile as a middle power, and it must balance the contradiction of desirable autonomy and necessary alliance.

This book explores South Korea's phenomenal economic rise and the impact that this has had on the country's foreign policy.

Bringing together an international line up of contributors, this book examines South Korea’s foreign policy strategies designed to cope with the challenges of the post-Cold War regional order and the emergence of a "Korean paradox". Focusing on non-material factors in shaping the decision-making processes of primary actors, such as traditions, beliefs, and identities, this book begins by analysing the emergence of the "Asian Paradox" and explores how different political traditions have influenced South Korea’s foreign and security policies. In the second part (from Chapter 4), this book goes on to deal directly with the key issues in South Korea’s foreign policy today, with an emphasis on the progressive and conservative approaches to the challenges the country faces. This includes the North Korean threat, the alliance with the U.S., relations with China and Russia, the complicated relationship with Japan, and the emerging role of South Korea outside of Northeast Asia. An innovative study of the domestic sources of South Korean foreign policy, The Korean Paradox investigates South Korea’s growing role at both regional and global levels. As such, it will be useful to students and scholars of Korean Studies, International Relations and East Asian Studies more generally.