Peter Katzenstein's “analytic eclecticism” argues for problem‐driven, policy‐relevant international relations, where “messy” problems in the world encourage creative recombinations of theory and sidestep paradigmatic debates. Ideally, the rigor of theory and originality springing from atypical reconfigurations improve policy recommendations. This paper applies this approach to South Korea and Abenomics. Seoul's elites have generally opposed Abenomics, but my eclectic approach argues for six theoretically informed but practically relevant ways in which Japan's reflation is, in fact, in the national interest: First, as a “responsible middle power” in the G‐20, “Global Korea” is expected to act with a wider view of its national interest in support of global institutions. Second, as a major trading partner, Japan's reflation is good for Korean growth. Third, an appreciated won is good for heavily indebted Korean consumers. Fourth, a normally growing Japan is good for Korean security. Fifth, a normalized Japan is more likely to deal calmly with Korea on history issues. Sixth, a normalized Japan is likelier to contribute to the costs of eventual unification. Per the eclectic approach, these arguments, first, are not selected for paradigmatic commensurability, but rather for problem/policy‐relevance. Second, they leverage international relations theory to enrich the menu of options in the ROK policy space.