Indicative planning in Korea

Kuznets, Paul W.

doi:10.1016/0147-5967(90)90046-c

Cited by 15 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Решение именно такого рода задач роднит советскую плановую модель с плановыми моделями в послевоенной Европе (Rosser J., Rosser M., 2004;Estrin, Holmes, 1983), Японии (Moriguchi, 1980;Хлынов, 2000) и позднеев новых индустриальных странах (Kuznets, 1990;Balassa, 1990). Все они обеспечивали быстрые и глубокие структурные сдвиги.…”

Section: результаты и их обсуждениеunclassified

Soviet Planning: What and Why Is Relevant in the XXI Century

Kolganov

2021

Ekonomicheskaya nauka sovremennoy Rossii

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Planning has become widespread in countries with different socio-economic systems. At the same time, both the evaluation of the results of using planned methods and these planned methods themselves have significant differences. They depend both on the features of the socio-economic systems in which planning was applied, and on the tasks that it solved. To study these dependencies, it is useful to turn to the experience of planning in the USSR, which demonstrates different options for using planning methods. During the years of the new economic policy, planning functioned in the conditions of a broad development of market and capitalist relations. Therefore, the planning methods were adapted to the market conditions. The planning itself was mainly indicative, and the achievement of planned results was built by influencing the economic interests of economic entities. Therefore, it is possible to find a significant similarity in the model of Soviet planning during the years of the new economic policy and those planning methods that were used in the post-war period in Europe, Japan, and then in the new industrial countries. The model of directive planning, which was developed in the USSR in the 1930s of the twentieth century, provided both certain advantages in the development of the economy (the mobilization and concentration of significant masses of resources for deep structural changes in the economy, the implementation of large scientific, technical and social projects), and was burdened with serious contradictions. The Soviet model of directive planning did not have effective institutions that expressed the economic interests of enterprises and their collectives, did not create incentives for technical re-equipment of existing enterprises, and ultimately led to the predominance of the interests of the top government departments. To prevent the development of such contradictions, one-sided reflection of the interests of narrow social groups, the planned system should be built on democratic grounds.

show abstract

Section: результаты и их обсуждениеunclassified

Soviet Planning: What and Why Is Relevant in the XXI Century

Kolganov

2021

Ekonomicheskaya nauka sovremennoy Rossii

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In that period, the governments of the Republic of Korea formulated a series of five-year plans for economic growth. The objective of the first two plans was to build an industrial base, increase energy production and encourage companies to invest in technology acquisition (Hong, Jeon and Kim, 2013;Kuznets, 1990;Collins, 1990).…”

Section: Trade Diversification and Economic Development Over The Lastmentioning

confidence: 99%

The great divide: Economic complexity and development paths in Brazil and the Republic of Korea

Britto¹,

Romero²,

Freitas³

et al. 2019

CEPAL Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper uses the product space methodology to gain new perspectives on the relationship between economic complexity and economic development, illustrated by case studies of Brazil and the Republic of Korea. It takes import data as an indicator of revealed comparative disadvantage to highlight the relevance of the local market. Product space networks for each decade between 1960 and 2000 are then presented, revealing the significant changes in each country's position in the international division of labour. Lastly, a structural development index is used to measure economic development in each country. The revealed comparative advantage and disadvantage indices indicate that while both countries had similar levels of per capita gross domestic product (GDP) in the early 1960s, the Republic of Korea saw faster growth than Brazil thanks to its early specialization in more complex, technology-intensive goods.

show abstract

“…Between 1960-1980, Korea experienced a vast economic growth, and the country is now considered 'wealthy' (Kuznets, 1990;Chang, 2010). Around 1980, when Chun Doo-hwan administration come to rule the country after Park Chungh-hee, Korea was still more of an authoritarian than democratic state and had a nationalistic agenda with authoritarian and militaristic features.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Converging cultures? A comparative analysis of South Korea and Sweden’s national curricula, 1980–2018

Boman

Mosesson

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Relating to world culture theory, this article aimed to discern similarities and differences between the South Korean national curriculum (1981, 2015) and the Swedish national curriculum (1980, 2018) and a set of complementary documents, both more broadly and with special emphasis on middle school level mathematics education. The findings suggest that the latest curricula accentuate knowledge and skills. However, Sweden’s national curriculum underlines knowledge and values, while the South Korean counterpart stresses character education and a ‘well-rounded personality’. Mathematics education has not changed much since 1980 in both countries. However, cosmopolitan tendencies are more present in the latest Korean curriculum. Overall, an unequivocal converging effect has not been discerned.

show abstract

Indicative planning in Korea

Cited by 15 publications

References 4 publications

Soviet Planning: What and Why Is Relevant in the XXI Century

Soviet Planning: What and Why Is Relevant in the XXI Century

The great divide: Economic complexity and development paths in Brazil and the Republic of Korea

Converging cultures? A comparative analysis of South Korea and Sweden’s national curricula, 1980–2018

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Indicative planning in Korea

Cited by 15 publications

References 4 publications

Soviet Planning: What and Why Is Relevant in the XXI Century

Soviet Planning: What and Why Is Relevant in the XXI Century

The great divide: Economic complexity and development paths in Brazil and the Republic of Korea

Converging cultures? A comparative analysis of South Korea and Sweden’s national curricula, 1980–2018

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Soviet Planning: What and Why Is Relevant in the XXI Century

Soviet Planning: What and Why Is Relevant in the XXI Century