1.

Relevance of The Stages Of Growth model to South Korea and Argentina

Ans.South Korea's stages of growth is something of a genius in itself if I say so myself. It gradually started
somewhat slow when it came to shares, so much so that it didn't even make Rostow's Stages Of
Economic Growth which was written in 1960. Their economic development shocked the world by the
early 2000's when their GNI rose from 15% to 30-40% GNI. Modern technologies and innovation that's
inspired by the Koreans, which then are being consumed by the masses were the driving force that
propelled them in the position that they are today. Moving on to Argentina's growth model. This
country was ranked 11th back in 1870 in per capita income. It was also in this period where capita per
inhabitants were ignored and relied on technological absorption, not having the innovation to be
different and unique that would uplift the lives of their people. The country's development was then
ruined by the first world war, hindering it of any improvements that it may develop. It didn't help that
growth rate were so bad they slumped to a negative rate from 1956-1990. That, combined with their
growing debt goes to show development progress is not irreversible and sustain growth can fall down in
shambles if nothing is done to improve or maintain the normal quota. Their relevance is they're both
successful, with Argentina being one at the moment and Korea starting from a small percentage and
rising up the ranks and is now well established as one of the greatest innovators in the world.

2.Relevance of The Structural Patterns model to South Korea and Argentina

Ans.While both are heavily hand in hand on agriculture, I can't just wonder why Argentina has taken a
slump for the past years. South Korea's improvement has been drastic, slowly but surely as they say.
They never stayed one dimensional and focused itself in improving its stocks, education and so much
more that the Korean citizens per capita income increased by 7% during 1965-1999. A great
improvement to take note of putting Argentina's structural pattrens to shame. With them being one
dimensional and not seriously tackling their countries shortcomings, they could only wish to obtain and
possess the wealth the South Korea is basking on right now.

3.Relevance of the Dependence Revolution model to South Korea and Argentina

Ans.While both of them were successful countries at one point (which is the only thing that they have in
common), South Korea's Dependence Revolution is too far for Argentina to achieve. Koreans would take
advantage of debts and would use them to enhance its people through education and different jobs
offered for added versatility. This together with their high rate of per capita income certainly helped
cemented their status as one of the strongest countries in the world, while Argentina fell victim to
British and American corporations disrupting the flow of their independency and their tendency to grow
as a country.

4.Relevance of The Neoclassical Counterrevolution model to South Korea to Argentina

Ans.Another relevance of the matter is both countries declined at some point, one being unable to
reverse the decline while the other one didn't seem to be that much affected and quickly recovered.
With South Korea being highly interventionist at home and international trade, with the government
making extensive use of development planning, using wide range of tax breaks and incentives to induce
firms and orchestrating the various industries to upgrade the different attributes that made South Korea
into what it is today. Meanwhile, Argentina was based on faulty interventionist restrictions, being biased
against production exports that ended up hurting industry and entrepreneurship which says a lot for a
country that's always on a decline and barely scraping by for their percentage to spurt even if it's just a
teensy bit.

5.Strengths and Weaknesses of classic schools of thoughts from the cases of Argentina and South Korea

Ans.While yes it is better to leave something that's functioning properly, let us not take out the phase;
Change is constant. And it couldn't hurt to try and spice up something new if it means improving the
lives of your people. This is what I saw from South Korea. Being able to jump from an unknown rank to a
now well known country that's famous for its advanced technologies and innovations. Starting small is
one way to improve something and hindering change and not accepting it would play a role in your
demise just like what happened to Argentina. Being complacent is just plain naive and would not uphold
the test of time.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/
1FAIpQLSfiIZuurTcaHpTUzEnrmZ6Ky45YgA6rrCCnX1pWtv4XcgDONQ/viewform