Policy Choices under Military Rule: A Comparative Analysis of Developmental Divergence in South Korea and Myanmar

ARAM ‍LEE^*

• Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Seoul, Republic of Korea

This article investigates the strikingly divergent economic trajectories of South Korea and Myanmar— two nations that experienced military coups during the early 1960s and were subsequently governed under authoritarian rule. Despite their shared point of departure as newly independent states under military regimes, the two countries adopted fundamentally distinct economic strategies: Myanmar pursued an inward-looking socialist model grounded in self-reliance and state ownership, while South Korea implemented an outward-oriented capitalist development strategy emphasizing industrialization and export growth. Drawing on a comparative political economy framework and employing a mixed-methods approach that combines qualitative historical analysis with quantitative Difference-in-Differences (DiD) estimation, this study examines how institutional capacity, leadership orientation, and economic policy choices shaped the long-term developmental outcomes of these regimes. The theoretical foundation of the study builds on Peter Evans' concept of the developmental state and its contrast with predatory state dynamics, extending it through empirical validation. The DiD results, derived from World Bank and Maddison Project data (1955–1985), reveal that South Korea's GDP per capita and urban population share increased significantly more than Myanmar's following the respective military takeovers. The interaction term in the DiD regression model indicates a statistically significant treatment effect of over $620 in post-1962 GDP per capita, with urbanization following a similarly divergent pattern. These findings support the hypothesis that military regimes are not economically deterministic; rather, their developmental trajectories are contingent upon the strategic capacity and orientation of the state. By illuminating the divergent policy paths and institutional configurations of these two authoritarian regimes, this study contributes to the broader literature on political development and authoritarian governance. It underscores the critical role of state autonomy, technocratic capacity, and developmental leadership in fostering sustainable economic transformation under non-democratic rule.