In evaluating the economic reform pursued by North Korea, many researchers have contrasted it with that taken up by China. Amongst a number of transition economies, China has shown the best performance whereas the reform processes followed by the former Soviet republics and the East European countries, according to the ``usual`` consensus, resulted in large initial output declines and high inflation rates. Not a few researchers have endeavored to find the key to China`s success as well as its implications upon the plausible model North Korea could make available to herself. Yet, they have concluded, by and large, that it would be difficult for North Korea to follow China model. They have attributed the success of China`s reform to the followings: (1) the so-called market principle China has not been reluctant to embrace, and (2) China`s initial conditions and environments conducive to her pursuit of the reform. In contrast, the argument goes, the political leaders of North Korea are facing a dilemma. They should pursue the economic reform as soon as possible; however, the very economic reform and its corollary -the open-door policy-might, in all probability, threatened their political regime. To make matters worse. North Korea has neither the resource nor the technology essential for the economic reform. It has also been pointed out that the nuclear weapon problem prevents North Korean from securing the foreign aid. There is no doubt that the market economy is more efficient than the planned economy and the market oriented reform is necessary to economic growth. And it is also obvious that China has much initial endowments that North Korea has not. Yet, it is a non sequitur that North Korea`s economic reform is doomed to fail because she is not in possession of the conditions conducive to the economic reform that China has enjoyed. Western scholars used to compare the traditional Chinese society with theirs, the former of which they diagnosed as suffering from the economic backwardness. Capitalism and the market economy brings economic development to western societies, but China was, to their eyes, the exception rather than the rule, i.e .. a stagnated society having not benefited from capitalism. They were busy finding fault with the traditional Chinese society - for instance, the lack of ``initial conditions`` such as bourgeoisie, market, and Protestantism. The irony is that China has achieved great economic development despite the absence of those initial conditions. The moral is simple: There is no unique economic development path, much less a set of initial conditions absolutely necessary for the economic development. To build a constructive argument on the outlook of North Korea`s economic reform, while avoiding falling prey to the non sequitur pointed out above, we may well focus on the advantages peculiar to North Korea.