Abstract
This is the second part of a two-part study of the three primary paradigms employed in the study of marketing and economic development. In Part I, the paradigms were evaluated and compared on a conceptual basis, using what Halbert (1964) calls pragmatics criteria. In this part, the same paradigms are used to analyze the Republic of Korea. Differences in emphasis and resulting interpretations are presented. It is found that the political economy (or institutional) approach allows for a fuller explanation of Korea's economic development than either the modernization or radical paradigms. Future researchers studying economic development are strongly encouraged to consider the use of the political economy approach.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
