The present article is part of a theoretical line that researches the relationship between institutions, the State and economic performance. Its central object is the study of Developmental States, that is, interventionist states that performed a central role in the development strategies of certain countries. In spite of the numerous historical analyses that have been carried out regarding these experiences, the theme is considered controversial and many economists are reluctant in accepting that such states made any positive contribution. The article therefore deals with a theme that is very dear to economic science from the upstart, the relationship between State and market and its impact on the "wealth of nations". It attempts to contribute to this issue through a critique of more abstract analyses geared toward interpretation of the Asian model and the 1997 crisis. Identifying a methodological flaw in these analyses, we argue that the crisis cannot be deduced from possible institutional weaknesses in the South Korean model. Institutional characteristics, including the developmental State and large entrepreneurial groups, were the central variables used to explain South Korea's major success in the decades that followed 1960. In this regard, the difficulties of the 1990s should be interpreted as the result of a hurried process of economic liberalization and deregulation, implemented before a new regulatory structure to substitute earlier forms of regulation could be established. In refusing certain interpretations of the crisis, this article emphasizes the importance of recognizing the institutional specificities of different countries and the existence of different types of capitalism. The South Korean case, just as the Japanese one, reveals a model of capitalism in which the Developmental State played an extremely active role, constituting a fundamental variable for explaining the major success that these countries' development strategies were able to achieve.
South Korea; Developmental State; models of capitalism; Asian crisis; institutions; development