In A United and Western-Leaning Korea, How Well Off Would the South be?

In a world where the Un won the Korean War fairly quickly (so less time for the North to get bombed) and the whole peninsula is united under a capitalist and pro-western regime, how well off would the initially underdeveloped South (which American planners thought would only be suited to agriculture and light industry) vis a vis a relatively undamaged North open to capitalist development? Would the North become better off in relative terms?
 

Jack Brisco

Banned
In a world where the Un won the Korean War fairly quickly (so less time for the North to get bombed) and the whole peninsula is united under a capitalist and pro-western regime, how well off would the initially underdeveloped South (which American planners thought would only be suited to agriculture and light industry) vis a vis a relatively undamaged North open to capitalist development? Would the North become better off in relative terms?

I'd think the South would do well. Believe it had more people than the North, so more workers. Development would also mean agricultural development, as well, with a certain level of mechanization, use of the various agricultural chemicals, etc., increasing yields.

The North could have a lead going in, but as time went by the chaebols may have built the factories where the workers are. And if Seoul is the capital there will be a lot of financial activities headquartered there. Would also see a certain amount of foreign aid from the USA and reparations from Japan, which would help development.
 
I'd think the South would do well. Believe it had more people than the North, so more workers. Development would also mean agricultural development, as well, with a certain level of mechanization, use of the various agricultural chemicals, etc., increasing yields.

The North could have a lead going in, but as time went by the chaebols may have built the factories where the workers are. And if Seoul is the capital there will be a lot of financial activities headquartered there. Would also see a certain amount of foreign aid from the USA and reparations from Japan, which would help development.
My personal opinion is that the North would initially dominate into the 80s (a headstart is a wonderful thing, ain't it), but, as Korea would become wealthy as least as fast as OTL, deindustrialization would hit the almost entirely second-sector North hard starting in the 90s, while the South, with an economy based on tech and the service industries, would take off.
 
My personal opinion is that the North would initially dominate into the 80s (a headstart is a wonderful thing, ain't it), but, as Korea would become wealthy as least as fast as OTL, deindustrialization would hit the almost entirely second-sector North hard starting in the 90s, while the South, with an economy based on tech and the service industries, would take off.
Is this a valid argument?
 
How would an united Korea trade with China and Japan? It might provide another clue on the eventual economic development.

Could Korea be a door to trade with Northern China and the USSR?
 
Frankly, I would say worse off for OTL ROK, but only comparatively. The same sort of concentrated industrialization that as achieved in OTL is unlikely to have gone through, meaning by the time you have the Opening of Red China, Korea would probably not be in the position to keep several step ahead (Red China relies so much on Korea for basic components, a war would likely cause a recession at the minimum). I'm looking at more of a moderately developed society as opposed to the highly advanced economy of OTL.
 
Frankly, I would say worse off for OTL ROK, but only comparatively. The same sort of concentrated industrialization that as achieved in OTL is unlikely to have gone through, meaning by the time you have the Opening of Red China, Korea would probably not be in the position to keep several step ahead (Red China relies so much on Korea for basic components, a war would likely cause a recession at the minimum). I'm looking at more of a moderately developed society as opposed to the highly advanced economy of OTL.
I disagree. Real China, as I recall, didn't receive that much direct American economic aid, and it became an Asian Tiger as well.
 
I disagree. Real China, as I recall, didn't receive that much direct American economic aid,

Blue China received a more than ROK on a per capita basis.

L5bX9gH.png


ROK has 2.13 times the population but 1.73 times the aid. Furthermore, you're forgetting how Blue China had the global overseas Chinese network to support it. ROK had to build everything from scratch.


and it became an Asian Tiger as well.

Always hated that term. You do not compare cats (Hong Kong, Singapore, Taipei) to an full-sized actual tiger.
 
Blue China received a more than ROK on a per capita basis.

L5bX9gH.png


ROK has 2.13 times the population but 1.73 times the aid. Furthermore, you're forgetting how Blue China had the global overseas Chinese network to support it. ROK had to build everything from scratch.




Always hated that term. You do not compare cats (Hong Kong, Singapore, Taipei) to an full-sized actual tiger.
I had no idea.

Just to clarify, I meant the ROC when I said "real China"
 
My personal opinion is that the North would initially dominate into the 80s (a headstart is a wonderful thing, ain't it), but, as Korea would become wealthy as least as fast as OTL, deindustrialization would hit the almost entirely second-sector North hard starting in the 90s, while the South, with an economy based on tech and the service industries, would take off.

But presuming the UN won the Korean War and the North was part of the same Capitalist economic unit as the south, who's to say the south would take dominance in tech/service industeries? Its not like that early on Il Sung's regieme has had enough time to make the North's culture too anti-business. Indeed, being on the Chinese border means both the Korean government and the US are going to want to see infastructural development there (For military purposes) and to put forth the best example of Capitalism they can to counter any Chinese propaganda/potential domestic unrest that might draw in the Soviets and Red Chinese.
 
If the country is united as a free/capitalist country then I expect the countrywide GDP per capita will be pretty much the same as now. A great deal of the pverty of the north has to do with the rule of the Kim dynasty. Historically for geographic reasons the south was always the major food producing area in a united Korea the food issues of the north don't exist. Also the south now has access to the hydroelectric assets (developed and potential) of the north as well as the mineral resources (concentrated in the north like food was in the south). For both the south and north the money and effort that has gone in to military spending since 1953 will be to a large extent diverted to civilian/industrial needs. There will be a strong Korean military (after all it borders Russia and China) however the US alliance would be the ultimate guarantee against those two giants.
 
Frankly, I would say worse off for OTL ROK, but only comparatively. The same sort of concentrated industrialization that as achieved in OTL is unlikely to have gone through, meaning by the time you have the Opening of Red China, Korea would probably not be in the position to keep several step ahead (Red China relies so much on Korea for basic components, a war would likely cause a recession at the minimum). I'm looking at more of a moderately developed society as opposed to the highly advanced economy of OTL.
So like the Philippines or Thailand?
 
It depends how one defines 'South' Korea in this context. If it's just the same geographic designation as OTL, then overall it's likely to be a bit better off per capita. This would be misleading however, as it's likely that cities, in particular Seoul, would be considerably better off while more rural areas that OTL developed due the lack of the North would remain relatively worse off. Korea as a whole is likely to be richer per capita than OTL's South Korea simply due to greater resources, economies of scale, and no need to build and maintain a large military. Development would be dispersed quite differently however.
 
It depends how one defines 'South' Korea in this context. If it's just the same geographic designation as OTL, then overall it's likely to be a bit better off per capita. This would be misleading however, as it's likely that cities, in particular Seoul, would be considerably better off while more rural areas that OTL developed due the lack of the North would remain relatively worse off. Korea as a whole is likely to be richer per capita than OTL's South Korea simply due to greater resources, economies of scale, and no need to build and maintain a large military. Development would be dispersed quite differently however.
Probably would need to have a considerable military, given Red China and the USSR.
 
Top