Essay Contest Result
Image of Korea from the International Point of View
Undeniably Korean economic development has a remarkable place in world history. A simple comparison of Seoul’s pictures after the Korean War and now is sufficient to determine, without specialised financial knowledge, how much the country has changed. This significant economic development has become known as the "Miracle on the Han River" and this concept alone has become South Korea's brand abroad. Moreover, it is an important element of the country's soft power. The example of Korea is analysed around the world. Not only during classes on finance but also on politics, policy-making or even management. Several studies tried to create a model for developing countries based on Korea's economic boom.
Nevertheless, the concept of "Miracle on the Han River" has never been precisely defined. This causes many problems with using it for various purposes, which may consequently lead to the deterioration of the image of Korea and the weakening of its soft power. Therefore, in the first part of the essay, focus is being put on different approaches used to define the term "Miracle on the Han River". Then the potential problems are shown. Lastly, possible solutions have been proposed. For the purpose of an essay over 60 online available resources such as research papers in international journals, books and textbooks, reports and articles on websites were examined. 18 have been quoted to illustrate examples.
Websites and brochures in English prepared by the Korean administration or Korean institutes were analysed first. As a rule, the information they contain is fairly consistent and coherent. They show that the duration of the “Miracle”, is from 1953 to 1997-98, that is, from the end of the Korean War to the Asian Financial Crisis. Nevertheless, there is a naming problem. On KOREA.net, which is the official website handled by the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, it is defined as “the Miracle on the Hangang River”, the same case is in a study by The Academy of Korean Studies. Putting “gang” for some foreigners may be incomprehensible and create confusion, which is unnecessary, since right after the word “gang” is its equivalent in English. Dual naming also leads to a decline in brand popularity, as results in internet search engines break down into two terms.
In the same way, studies tend to dilute the time when the economic miracle ended and describe subsequent years, which can also lead to the belief that the period was longer. The KDI School presented the most accurate characterisation of duration, although it was noted in the study that the definition is open-ended. The analysis shows that 1962 should be considered the starting point when the Economic Planning Board was established and the first 5-Year Plan for Economic Development was introduced. However, some publications stand in opposition to the proposed time frame. The Ministry of Education material states that “Korea overcame the despair and rapidly grew economically to create the Han River Miracle in the 1970s.”, completely flattening the duration presented in all other studies.
Other sources of knowledge acquisition are textbooks and articles published in international scientific journals. A Google Scholar search for the phrase “Miracle on the Han River” yielded about 39,000 results, a large part of which are in free access, allowing wide availability of information. These materials are not as consistent as the brochures prepared by Korean institutions. Also the term “Miracle on the Han River” is often treated as a synonym for the whole of Korea’s economic development without any time frame. In the academic world, it is desirable to have a discourse or dispute over terms.
However, in this case, the authors are more likely to determine the duration of the Korean economic miracle on their own rather than to challenge other opinions, which could result in a better understanding of the phenomenon. Some studies try to set a time frame for Korean economic growth. Starting with the broadest one, based on the Rostow model, the first phase “Traditional society” goes back to before 1910 and the “Take off” stage is set in the late 50s. Other authors propose starting dates such as the end of World War II, the early 1960s or 1962 , as the year of the introduction of the first Five-Year Plan. Also determining the duration of the phenomenon is confusing. Depending on the source, it can be seen as 18 years or six decades. There is also a group of publications in which the concept is ignored.
This may suggest that there is still a large fraction of scientists who are unfamiliar with or unwilling to introduce the concept. For example, in the two books “From Miracle to Maturity. The Growth of the Korean Economy” and ”The Korean Economy. From a Miraculous Past to a Sustainable Future,” the word “miracle” appears in the titles and in the main part of texts as a replacement for, among other things, ‘economic success’ or ‘significant growth of the economy’, but the term “Miracle on the Han River” is not defined at all, nor does it appear in publications. The books were published appropriately in 2012 and 2015, so it should be worrisome that they did not even mention the phenomenon.
The most diverse information can be found in reports, working papers and similar materials prepared by non-government organizations, economic consulting firms, etc. This poses a serious problem, as these sources are one of the easiest to find online. There have been texts where an incomplete name was used, as in the case of the NBER publication “From Hermit Kingdom to Miracle on the Han: Policy Decisions that Transformed South Korea into an Export Powerhouse”. Moreover, the main body of the text does not once refer to the introduced concept. Only in a footnote does the term “East Asian Miracle” appear.
Concepts in texts tend to go far beyond those presented in Korean materials or by scientists. A Cebr report on its website indicated that “Korea's growth miracle” lasted from 1953 to the present time (i.e., 2023, the year the text was published). No academic study had such a broad view. McKinsey & Company, on the other hand, proposed one of the shortest periods, where “Miracle on the Han River” was said to cover 1980-2000, which is also significantly different from most publications. The question arises as to where organizations and companies obtain their knowledge from, since the information is so far from that presented in Korean materials.
The open-ended definition causes two major concerns. The first is related to the use of the brand “Miracle on the Han River” to increase organisations’ image or to claim to have an important role in economic success, e.g., the Olympic Committee's text “Miracle on the Han River” describes the process of transforming the river and linking this to economic growth was not justified enough in the text. In the case of a brochure published by The Korea Green Growth Trust Fund, it states that “The ‘Miracle of the Han River’ would not have been possible without successful water resources management.”, but no figures supporting the thesis appeared. The second issue can arise in the diplomatic sphere. The view, which is conveyed to other countries, that extraordinary growth happened in one generation time (“from a struggling nation to a prosperous one within a generation”) when contrasted with studies showing that the Korean economic miracle took 60 years can lead to a sense of disappointment and even weakened soft power.
Although “Miracle on the Han River” is a concept first used by a politician, economic miracles are an informal economic concept. Firstly, only one brand name should be used in all official materials. Then the issue with improper time frame can be addressed. As long as there is no official duration time proposed, it is possible to manipulate the concept according to the needs of a particular person or company rather than a country and its soft power. The simplest solution to the problem of different usage might be to set an economic framework covering the years 1962 to 1997. However, the concept also serves to build South Korea's position on the international stage. Therefore, choosing the period 1953-1997 would also have the effect of educating international opinion about the Korean War, which left its mark on Korean society and its consequences were a serious setback in building a prosperous society. What is more, it allows to highlight the collective effort of the nation to rebuild not only the economy but also the country. That solution can simultaneously fulfil its objectives in the international arena, as well as have a positive impact on Korean society by strengthening national pride and a sense of accomplishment.
In conclusion, South Korea achieved remarkable success that is analysed and presented not only by the Korean administration but also in international articles, textbooks, popular science studies, reports and brochures. The international instruction materials shape foreign public opinion. There are important sources of information not only for people, who are simply curious about South Korea, but also economists, scholars and politicians. However, the information presented mainly online is inconsistent and “Miracle of the Han River” as a brand is being used by other parties to gain recognition. Therefore actions must be taken to introduce a unified approach that incorporates historical context. Thanks to one, coherent policy, South Korea would have control over how opinions are formed and prevent the detoration of the brand, which is a result of the hard work of its governments and many citizens over the generations.
Nevertheless, the concept of "Miracle on the Han River" has never been precisely defined. This causes many problems with using it for various purposes, which may consequently lead to the deterioration of the image of Korea and the weakening of its soft power. Therefore, in the first part of the essay, focus is being put on different approaches used to define the term "Miracle on the Han River". Then the potential problems are shown. Lastly, possible solutions have been proposed. For the purpose of an essay over 60 online available resources such as research papers in international journals, books and textbooks, reports and articles on websites were examined. 18 have been quoted to illustrate examples.
Websites and brochures in English prepared by the Korean administration or Korean institutes were analysed first. As a rule, the information they contain is fairly consistent and coherent. They show that the duration of the “Miracle”, is from 1953 to 1997-98, that is, from the end of the Korean War to the Asian Financial Crisis. Nevertheless, there is a naming problem. On KOREA.net, which is the official website handled by the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, it is defined as “the Miracle on the Hangang River”, the same case is in a study by The Academy of Korean Studies. Putting “gang” for some foreigners may be incomprehensible and create confusion, which is unnecessary, since right after the word “gang” is its equivalent in English. Dual naming also leads to a decline in brand popularity, as results in internet search engines break down into two terms.
In the same way, studies tend to dilute the time when the economic miracle ended and describe subsequent years, which can also lead to the belief that the period was longer. The KDI School presented the most accurate characterisation of duration, although it was noted in the study that the definition is open-ended. The analysis shows that 1962 should be considered the starting point when the Economic Planning Board was established and the first 5-Year Plan for Economic Development was introduced. However, some publications stand in opposition to the proposed time frame. The Ministry of Education material states that “Korea overcame the despair and rapidly grew economically to create the Han River Miracle in the 1970s.”, completely flattening the duration presented in all other studies.
Other sources of knowledge acquisition are textbooks and articles published in international scientific journals. A Google Scholar search for the phrase “Miracle on the Han River” yielded about 39,000 results, a large part of which are in free access, allowing wide availability of information. These materials are not as consistent as the brochures prepared by Korean institutions. Also the term “Miracle on the Han River” is often treated as a synonym for the whole of Korea’s economic development without any time frame. In the academic world, it is desirable to have a discourse or dispute over terms.
However, in this case, the authors are more likely to determine the duration of the Korean economic miracle on their own rather than to challenge other opinions, which could result in a better understanding of the phenomenon. Some studies try to set a time frame for Korean economic growth. Starting with the broadest one, based on the Rostow model, the first phase “Traditional society” goes back to before 1910 and the “Take off” stage is set in the late 50s. Other authors propose starting dates such as the end of World War II, the early 1960s or 1962 , as the year of the introduction of the first Five-Year Plan. Also determining the duration of the phenomenon is confusing. Depending on the source, it can be seen as 18 years or six decades. There is also a group of publications in which the concept is ignored.
This may suggest that there is still a large fraction of scientists who are unfamiliar with or unwilling to introduce the concept. For example, in the two books “From Miracle to Maturity. The Growth of the Korean Economy” and ”The Korean Economy. From a Miraculous Past to a Sustainable Future,” the word “miracle” appears in the titles and in the main part of texts as a replacement for, among other things, ‘economic success’ or ‘significant growth of the economy’, but the term “Miracle on the Han River” is not defined at all, nor does it appear in publications. The books were published appropriately in 2012 and 2015, so it should be worrisome that they did not even mention the phenomenon.
The most diverse information can be found in reports, working papers and similar materials prepared by non-government organizations, economic consulting firms, etc. This poses a serious problem, as these sources are one of the easiest to find online. There have been texts where an incomplete name was used, as in the case of the NBER publication “From Hermit Kingdom to Miracle on the Han: Policy Decisions that Transformed South Korea into an Export Powerhouse”. Moreover, the main body of the text does not once refer to the introduced concept. Only in a footnote does the term “East Asian Miracle” appear.
Concepts in texts tend to go far beyond those presented in Korean materials or by scientists. A Cebr report on its website indicated that “Korea's growth miracle” lasted from 1953 to the present time (i.e., 2023, the year the text was published). No academic study had such a broad view. McKinsey & Company, on the other hand, proposed one of the shortest periods, where “Miracle on the Han River” was said to cover 1980-2000, which is also significantly different from most publications. The question arises as to where organizations and companies obtain their knowledge from, since the information is so far from that presented in Korean materials.
The open-ended definition causes two major concerns. The first is related to the use of the brand “Miracle on the Han River” to increase organisations’ image or to claim to have an important role in economic success, e.g., the Olympic Committee's text “Miracle on the Han River” describes the process of transforming the river and linking this to economic growth was not justified enough in the text. In the case of a brochure published by The Korea Green Growth Trust Fund, it states that “The ‘Miracle of the Han River’ would not have been possible without successful water resources management.”, but no figures supporting the thesis appeared. The second issue can arise in the diplomatic sphere. The view, which is conveyed to other countries, that extraordinary growth happened in one generation time (“from a struggling nation to a prosperous one within a generation”) when contrasted with studies showing that the Korean economic miracle took 60 years can lead to a sense of disappointment and even weakened soft power.
Although “Miracle on the Han River” is a concept first used by a politician, economic miracles are an informal economic concept. Firstly, only one brand name should be used in all official materials. Then the issue with improper time frame can be addressed. As long as there is no official duration time proposed, it is possible to manipulate the concept according to the needs of a particular person or company rather than a country and its soft power. The simplest solution to the problem of different usage might be to set an economic framework covering the years 1962 to 1997. However, the concept also serves to build South Korea's position on the international stage. Therefore, choosing the period 1953-1997 would also have the effect of educating international opinion about the Korean War, which left its mark on Korean society and its consequences were a serious setback in building a prosperous society. What is more, it allows to highlight the collective effort of the nation to rebuild not only the economy but also the country. That solution can simultaneously fulfil its objectives in the international arena, as well as have a positive impact on Korean society by strengthening national pride and a sense of accomplishment.
In conclusion, South Korea achieved remarkable success that is analysed and presented not only by the Korean administration but also in international articles, textbooks, popular science studies, reports and brochures. The international instruction materials shape foreign public opinion. There are important sources of information not only for people, who are simply curious about South Korea, but also economists, scholars and politicians. However, the information presented mainly online is inconsistent and “Miracle of the Han River” as a brand is being used by other parties to gain recognition. Therefore actions must be taken to introduce a unified approach that incorporates historical context. Thanks to one, coherent policy, South Korea would have control over how opinions are formed and prevent the detoration of the brand, which is a result of the hard work of its governments and many citizens over the generations.
[Excellence Prize]
Magdalena Szymczak
(Country of Activity: Poland)
Magdalena Szymczak
(Country of Activity: Poland)
