Why Leapfrogging is Future Development Paradigm for Both Koreas
[IDEA2050_012E]
Junghun Cho (Head of AJOU Institute of Unification)
“What would happen if North Korea ‘leapfrogs’?”
Surrounded by global superpowers, the Korean Peninsula has been a place of dramatic history and today is no exception. The trade war between the US and China is ever-aggravating, and the deep-rooted historical conflict between Korea and Japan seems now extending to economy, politics and overall society. The two Koreas started attempts to establish new relations recently, after over 70 years of hostile relations since their separation, only to realize how difficult it is to make progresses.
In the midst of these unpredictable ups and downs, why are we even contemplating on the possibility of leapfrogging of the Korean Peninsula? The fact that a group of people are contemplating a possibility on ‘leapfrogging’ of the Korean Peninsula could sound somewhat abrupt. However, thinking over on how tightly development and security are intertwined in a place like the Korean Peninsula, we have come to a conclusion that the only way to achieve security and peace is through mutual prosperity of both Koreas. Also, the striking contrast between South and North Korea increases the possibility of leapfrogging of North Korea rather than decreasing. That’s why the Korea Leapfrogging Network has been established in October 2018.
Korea Leapfrogging Network is a network with eight members from seven entities, including the Institute of Unification at Ajou University, LAB2050, Social Innovation Company Deoham, C.O.D.E., startup company Glance, Dongcheon Public Interest Foundation and Chosun Biz. It has hosted three leapfrogging forums to date.
Modernization and sustainable development, what’s next?
Leapfrogging is an alternative international development paradigm and approach based on the realization of the limitations in the past approaches. Speaking from my own experiences of working in the international development field as a member of the World Bank for more than 15 years and observing how countries around the world respond to orthodox development strategies such as modernization and sustainable development, it seems clear that international development needs to find alternative paradigm to overcome so-called development fatigues and create success cases of dynamic catching up of countries with low income to the level of or even beyond rich countries.
Historically, the root of international development discourses is economic growth based on the modernization theory. The linear process of transitioning into mass consumption society from so-called primitive society is the core of this development discourse.
Korea is a country that successfully implemented the strategy. However, serious side effects merged. Today, the youth in Korea sarcastically call their own country ‘Hell Joseon’, rather than enjoying the fruits of economic growth miracle. Traditionally, Koreans used to encourage each other to work hard even though they were poor, but nowadays they suffer in solitude from various worries ranging from survival to dignity. Now Korea has become one of the fastest-aging society with one of the lowest birth rate in the world. Moreover, inequality deriving from lack of a new growth engine, environmental issues such as fine dust and lost social mobility are pervasive in people’s lives.
This bitter-sweet experience of modernization process of Korea is not unique. Many nations with low income started to question whether there is only one recipe for development and it should be economic growth only. Awareness about climate change and the recognition that material abundance is not a sufficient condition for individual and social development have created a strong cause and substantive grounds for sustainable development.
Reflecting the increasing voice of doubts on modernization process, the global community has come up with so-called second-generation international development paradigm. This is affectionately called ‘sustainable development.’ Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), introduced in 2000 and 2015, respectively, are the highlights of sustainable development paradigm. Although there exist different degree of mainstreaming and support, all international development organizations including the World Bank and numerous private organizations have officially incorporated this paradigm into their strategic development and implementation of projects.
However, after almost 20 years of implementation, it is questionable whether sustainable development paradigm has produced its intended outcomes and whether citizens and policy makers in countries with low income have meaningfully shifted its development orientation from economic growth -based modernization into sustainable development one. Among the reasons of this rather uneven enthusiasm and ensuing doubts, the most important one seems to be that sustainable development paradigm is mainly for rich nations while asking for unfair share of sacrifice from poor countries.
From the poor nations’ perspective, sustainable development paradigm asks them to bear unrealistic and unfair burden to deal with non-economic issues such as environment and human rights, thus, causing them to lose their opportunity for rapid economic growth. In the meantime, citizens in rich countries enjoy increased quality of life by protecting the environment, managing consumption and saving resources. It is also pointed out that the environmental degradation and other issues that threaten global sustainability are largely responsibility of rich countries as they failed to address these issues during their own economic development.
Furthermore, there is increasing doubt, especially among citizens and policy makers in poor nations that sustainable development paradigm would, intendedly or unintendedly, tend to maintain, if not expand, the gap between advanced countries and underdeveloped countries rather than decrease such gap. At this moment, it is unclear whether by 2030 sustainable development paradigm would turn around the world and make it really sustainable, which is the official objective of SDGs.
On global inequality, it seems clear that the gap is actually widening at an alarming speed. Thus, alternative to modernization and sustainable development paradigms are warranted to successfully deal with the issue of inequality and encourage country with low income to embrace global sustainable challenges as their own.
Third-generation International Development Paradigm — Leapfrogging
In this context, the Korea Leapfrogging Network believes that ‘leapfrogging’ could be the third-generation international development paradigm.
To explain what it means by leapfrogging, understanding the concept of ‘take-off’ should precede. ‘Take-off’ was a term used by W.W. Rostow in his book Stages of Economic Growth (1960). He categorized social development into five different phases: traditional society, preparation, take-off, maturity and highly advanced mass consumption. When a given phase matures enough, it proceeds to the next phase. Take-off refers to rapid change.
Out of the word, ‘leapfrogging, ‘leap’ generally means a ‘quick, single’ move. In other words, ‘leapfrogging’, as an alternative development paradigm to modernization and sustainable development, could be defined as the fastest strategy to create society we want most.
With this conceptual understanding, leapfrogging can have different meanings in different development stage of each country. For countries with low income, it could be a development strategy to induce fast transition into the highest level of production system, superseding the traditional social development stage. In a rich country with often various interests and laws intertwined, it could be a development strategy which overcomes existing path dependency and embraces technology and innovation. It could also be a development strategy that rectifies and resolves shortcomings of industrial capitalism.
Transition of production system is at the heart of leapfrogging, but it also includes transition of various fields such as environment, education and culture. It contrasts with modernization approach which ‘follows’ the path of economically more advanced countries. Leapfrogging approach allows, if not maximizes, the possibility to bridge the gap between countries and give new opportunities to socially vulnerable groups by enhancing social mobility.
In addition, It would be wrong to assume that leapfrogging approach does not take into account sustainability issues such as environment and voices. The reason is straightforward; leapfrogging approach aims to reach the level of most desirable development conditions from the early stage of development process and no human being wants to suffer from clogging air pollution and voiceless governance system, for example.
Two conditions of leapfrogging — Technological innovation and social economy
It is believed that there are two major conditions for leapfrogging to succeed in a real world. First is the technological development symbolized by the fourth industrial revolution, and second is a social innovation movement dubbed as ‘social economy.’ The former is related to process and methodology of leapfrogging approach while the latter is related to direction and destination of leapfrogging approach.
The fourth industrial revolution enables society and country to leap beyond the path of technological innovation. For example, telecommunications industry started with corded telephone networks and advanced into mobile phone networks, but many countries with low IT base are now adopting high-speed wireless networks without establishing the old communications networks. Rich countries adopted streaming services after video tapes, DVDs and file sharing services, but leapfrogging countries could adopt high-speed streaming services using smartphones without going through prior transitions. Countries with a poor public transport system are adopting sharing economy and mobility services more quickly, and some establish finance infrastructure in a short period of time through smartphone banking.
Another aspect of leapfrogging is social innovation through social economy. Two bills proposed in the South Korean National Assembly define social economy as below.
“All economic activities carried out by social economic organizations based on mutual cooperation and social solidarity to uphold common interests and realize social values of social members such as resolving polarization, creating quality jobs and social services, reviving local communities and circular economy, increasing the quality of people’s lives and strengthening social integration.”
(Social Economy Basic Law, proposed by lawmaker Ho Jung Yun and 27 others on August 17, 2016).
“All economic activities that create social values such as cooperation and solidarity of citizens, enhancing social services based on active innovation and voluntary participation, promoting welfare, creating jobs, developing local communities and contributing to other public good.”
(Social Economy Basic Law, proposed by Seung Min Yoo and 15 others on October 11, 2016)
‘Social economy’ suggested by these bills is the efforts to resolve issues caused by capitalism such as inequality. It does not anticipate a trickle-down effect, which argues that once economy kicks off and fully develop, the fruits of economic growth from the top would naturally trickle down to all members of society. Instead, it suggests bridging the gaps between the have and the have-not would not happen unless specific efforts are made toward this goal. It also regards restoration of communities and social integration importantly to solve the issue of human alienation brought by capitalism and urbanization.
Why the Korean Peninsula Needs Leapfrogging
Now let’s turn to the Korean Peninsula. As mentioned at the beginning of this article, the Korean Peninsula is one of the rare cases where two countries, which shared the same initial conditions of development, have experienced totally different trajectory of development over the past 74 years. South Korea has joined the club of OECD and become one of the richest countries in the world, while North Korea remains as one of the poorest nation in the world with very poor record of human rights and other human development issues. However, although it may sound ironic, this contrast offers an unique opportunity for leapfrogging for both Koreas. Yes, not only for North Korea, but also for South Korea.
Let’s begin with North Korea. Since Kim Jong-un took the power from his father, Kim. Jong-il on 2011, North Korea has shown its willingness to bring considerable change to the 74-year-old isolation policy. North Korean authorities seem very eager to change the country’s image of a rogue state and endeavors to be included in the global community. It has already officially announced development strategies befitting the era of the fourth industrial revolution, instead of the past models of heavy industry-based industrialization society by using terms such as ‘leapfrogging’ and ‘innovation for the new era.’
One may argue that North Korea’s current situation is too grave for any leapfrogging to take place. There is strong sense of truth to that argument. Indeed, meaningful leapfrogging in North Korea would require quite significant changes in how the regime operates the country and society as a pre-condition. But this does not necessarily mean an overhaul of political structure. As demonstrated by remarkable development stories in China, Vietnam, Myanmar and Central Asian countries, authoritarian regime could also leapfrog.
As a late starter, North Korea could also take good advantage of the fourth industrial revolution and the social economy paradigm to propel leapfrogging. Of course, if South-North Korean bilateral cooperation becomes active again, North Korean leapfrogging would get very strong tail wind. If successful, North Korean leapfrogging development could transition into society where developed technologies, communities and social trust are harmonized without tumultuous times that South Korea went through.
On South Korea, leapfrogging has somewhat different meaning. Its main objectives should be to overcome various side-effects of the modernization-based development process such as inequality, environmental degradation, and deteriorated sense of community. Recent reform efforts, which have been mainly incremental patch works, seem to vindicate that a comprehensive overhauling is warranted to tackle these challenges. Therefore, leapfrogging is as much needed in South Korea as in North Korea.
Of course, there are many obstacles in the road towards leapfrogging. The concept of leapfrogging has not yet been clearly defined nor consensus established. To develop concrete discourses for leapfrogging, a deep understanding and insights on previous discourses is a prerequisite and an insightful and critical understanding on the fourth industrial revolution and social economy is indispensable.
There is another challenge that the leapfrogging development will face. Technological leapfrogging and socio-environmental leapfrogging may collide in its impact and direction toward development. In other words, ends and means may come into collision. There is no guarantee that all technological progresses enabled by the fourth industrial revolution are helpful for leapfrogging. If technology brings human alienation and makes robots replace human jobs in a massive scale, it would be difficult to say that it is leapfrogging that everybody wants and be content with.
Furthermore, the Korean Peninsula has its unique problems — division and ideological conflicts left by the Second World War. Socialist discourses have been tabooed in South Korea as a result. For example, even though leapfrogging is a general term, South Koreans may be repulsed just because it is a term used by the North Korean regime as well.
The situation in North Korea is even more severe. Discourses other than ‘Juche’ economic ideology are not even matter of consideration. Leapfrogging would be even more difficult if they refuse to accept the process to nurture individuals’ capability to embrace change because of their ideological belief. Considering this, the South and the North would have to overcome division to ultimately complete leapfrogging.
In conclusion, leapfrogging, its process and destination, offers an alternative development paradigm to modernization and sustainability paradigm. Economic growth and environmental and human sustainability are not ignored with leapfrogging approach but it aims to achieve these objectives with other important objective in mind, namely inequality among nations and among citizens. Advent of technological advance and elaborated experience of social economy seem to make leapfrogging not just a wishful thinking but a distinct possibility for realization. Finally, it is no surprise that leapfrogging paradigm is advocated in the Korean Peninsula. The unique historical and development experience of South and North Korea make the Korean Peninsula probably the best testing ground for leapfrogging even though a number of daunting challenges remain.
