url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCYQFjAA&url=http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/Holcombe_Cronyism_web
url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCYQFjAA&url=http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/Holcombe_Cronyism_web
url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCYQFjAA&url=http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/Holcombe_Cronyism_web
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
while businesses that it supported have consistently not<br />
lived up to expectations. 15 The areas in which the Japanese<br />
government restricted competition to encourage growth,<br />
such as chemicals and software, are the industries that<br />
struggle the most. 16 The strongest sectors of the Japanese<br />
economy—automobiles, electronics, and robotics—are<br />
the areas in which the Japanese government restricted<br />
competition the least. Similarly, South Korea boasts the<br />
second-largest shipbuilding industry world, but its industrial<br />
policy has dulled the firms’ competitiveness to the<br />
point where the industry depends on bailouts to survive.<br />
The connected chaebols in South Korea received larger<br />
shares of government assistance despite offering lower<br />
returns than smaller competing firms. 17 This evidence suggests<br />
that the South Korean and Japanese economies did<br />
not grow because of their industrial policies, but rather in<br />
spite of them.<br />
The social costs of state-driven industrialization policies<br />
are significant. They deprive consumers of low prices<br />
and expanded choice while forcing them to subsidize<br />
the companies that lobbied for the policies. The benefits<br />
of East Asian industrial policy can charitably be called<br />
mixed; although Japan grew substantially from the 1950s<br />
through the 1980s, and South Korea’s growth that started<br />
in the 1960s has continued into the twenty-first century,<br />
the industries that the government supported were not<br />
the only ones to drive this growth. Both countries started<br />
with the advantage of low wages and were able to adopt<br />
technologies that had been developed elsewhere. Their<br />
growth has slowed as they have approached the technological<br />
frontier and as wages rose so that they were no<br />
longer low-wage countries.<br />
100 LIBERALISM AND CRONYISM