Ha, Yoonhee2016-06-022016-06-022016http://udspace.udel.edu/handle/19716/17768This dissertation seeks to clarify the appropriate economic development paradigm that can be applied to solve diverse challenges and crises bedeviling modern global society. These crises include climate change, environmental degradation, resource depletion, stagnation in growth, widening inequality gap between the rich and the poor leading to social polarization, and the deterioration in quality of life, among others. Global society including leading international agencies and inter-governmental groups embraced Green Growth as a new economic paradigm to address these challenges without harming its economic development. The economic blueprint was premised on developing a new economic architecture that would make material expansion possible without sacrificing the environment. In this regard, the developed world could obtain a new growth engine utilizing its advanced green technologies while developing countries could find a means to decouple their economic development from the deterioration of the ecosystem. At the time of its launch, the paradigm was accepted as revolutionary, both for its ethics and its efficiency. For this reason, Green Growth has been regarded as a paradigm shift. However, doubts have emerged as to whether Green Growth is indeed this paradigm shift. Does it resolve the current conflict between economic growth and the environment; does it reintroduce an ethical perspective in addressing the relationships between peoples and their governments or between humanity and the natural world as would be necessary of any true paradigm shift? In this dissertation, I analyze Green Growth in terms of a logical conceptual paradigm shift from the currently prevalent exemplar that resulted in the modern anomalies discussed above. The theoretical framework is based on Thomas Kuhn’s ‘paradigm shift’ theory. According to Kuhn, the closing of a crisis happens in three ways. The first option is when normal science ultimately proves able to deal with the crisis-provoking problem. A second path occurs when the crises resists even the most radical measures and scientists conclude that no solution will be forthcoming in the present state of their field and so defer the problem to a future generation who have more advanced skills and tools. The last possibility is that the crises bring forth a new paradigm and the battle over its acceptance then begins (Kuhn, 1996). A review of the diverse literature on the subject shows that a paradigm shift occurs when there is a transformation in society’s belief system and power structure (Hollinger, 1973; McDonagh, 1976; Dolfsma & Welch, 2009). In order to verify this shift, I use a number of diverse methodologies. The core methodologies provide a characterization of the current Progress Paradigm and Green Growth, and analyze a case study of South Korea’s Green Growth Initiative. This study seeks to assess the claim that Green Growth constitutes a paradigm change. It determines whether any change has occurred in the values and power structure of society having political, economic, and ethical criteria. Positivist science, which has been the predominant influence on social thought throughout the modern era, maintains that rational outcomes can only be obtained through value neutrality. However, this study’s understanding of political economy and ethics borrows from an alternative academic tradition of what some have called “value rationality” or “phronesis”. To this end, Flyvbjerg (2001) suggests that social science ask four key questions: Where we are going? Who gains and who loses by this choice? Is this desirable? And what is to be done?. This study uses three questions of phronesis analysis as the basis of its investigation into the validity of the so-called paradigm shift represented by Green Growth policy and institutional development. It comments on but does not address at length the question of what is to be done. A core task of this study is to establish criteria for comparing two paradigms. To this end, five core characteristics of the current Progress Paradigm are identified. In the current Progress Paradigm: (1) material growth is seen as progress per se, (2) technological optimism reigns, (3) government functions must meet market demands, (4) there is a predominant belief in human mastery over nature, and (5) power and authority are possessed by experts and bureaucrats. The study also discusses the characteristics of Green Growth, which was proposed as a new paradigm by its proponents. On the basis of the characterization of the Progress Paradigm and Green Growth as a paradigm candidate, the study attempts to verify whether a paradigm shift is likely at the theoretical and policy levels. The Korean case is a good model for the Green Growth study regarding a possible policy shift since its green principles were embedded in every sector of the economy. The government mobilized political, economic, social, and administrative resources to ensure successful implementation of the Green Growth initiative. The motivation for the full implementation of the economic blueprint stems from a desire for the country to emerge as a strong global economic leader. Of the major countries that sought to implement the Green Growth strategy, the Korea Green Growth Initiative (KGGI) was outstanding, principally due to the country’s tradition of government-led economic development (though market-led growth has expanded its scope after the IMF bailouts in 1997 and 1998). For this case study, I conducted in-depth interviewees with Korean senior government officials who were deeply involved in the implementation of the KGGI. In addition, I analyzed a myriad of documents including official government papers and press releases, business proposals, reports by the civil society, publications by national research institutes, press reports, memoirs or books of key persons, etc. The study consists of two parts. The first part is a theoretical analysis that covers chapters 2 to 6. This part encompasses the study’s theoretical framework, the characterization of the current Progress Paradigm, and the characterization of the candidate paradigm Green Growth. The second part consists of a policy analysis that contributes to verifying whether Green Growth has resulted in a paradigm shift and policy change by analyzing actual policy programs introduced in the KGGI, such as the Korean permit trading system, the new energy regime of the KGGI, the 4 Rivers Restoration Project, the governance of the KGGI, and R&D directives. Chapter 7 to 11, which form the second part of the study, parallel each section of chapter 4. For example, section 4.1 describes the first component of the PP (the belief in material growth as progress per se) and chapter 7 analyzes actual KGGI programs to determine if they are overcoming this ideology. The paradigm change analysis presented in these chapters focuses especially on whether the KGGI has altered the prevailing ideology and power structure, i.e., the core values and the winner/loser structure of society. The analysis of the KGGI in chapters 7 to 11 leads to the conclusion that Green Growth has inherited the core elements of the PP. For this reason, it is difficult to view Green Growth as a paradigm that could solve the crises of modernity. The analysis of the KGGI conducted in chapters 7 to 11 reveals that Green Growth reinforces key modern ideologies, such as an unwavering belief in material progress, technological optimism, and human mastery over nature. In addition, the governance through which Green Growth programs are administered does not differ meaningfully from the PP. Traditional power elites represented by bureaucrats and professionals still control decision-making processes and their decisions serve to further the interests of vested rights, specifically, businesses. In this way, Green Growth strengthens the coalition between the government and the market. In the programs designed to foster Green Growth, the main beneficiaries are always large businesses, who continue to be seen as the leading contributors to GDP growth, and therefore progress. Ordinary citizens remain the passive recipients of policies. Under this situation, the status of existing winners is hardly undermined and losers remain losers. Material growth is the prime objective of Green Growth, just as it was for the PP. There has been no change in priorities. One of the most powerful ideologies of modern society that equates material growth with progress per se still overwhelms other values. Newly emergent, largely non-economic values that promote, among other things, coexistence, diversity, civil engagement, and a better quality of life are not pursued for their own sake, but rather utilized to create new sources of material growth. Moreover, the policy analysis conducted in chapters 7 to 11 revealed that the KGGI failed to create significant policy change. A representative example was the Korean government’s failure to normalize the price of electricity despite it being a key tool for solving the Korean energy crisis. Lastly, this study finds the possibility of paradigm change in a polycentric approach (Taminiau & Byrne, 2015) that focuses on promoting a more bottom-up system of governance and diversifying the agents that lead change.Economic development.Sustainable development.Economic development -- Korea (South)Sustainable development -- Korea (South)Thesis951024065