Economic History of Asia: comparative perspectives (original) (raw)

AAS Workshop "New Frontiers in Asian Economic History" (May 11-15, 2017, MSU)

The value of economic history as an area of enquiry stems from the centrality of economic activity to the human condition. With a significant fraction of the world's population living in Asia and some of the largest and fastest growing economies in the world, Asia is poised to become the center of the world economy. Economic historians in the disciplines of history and economics have responded with a renewed interest in the historical roots and contexts behind this growth. At the same time, they have faced obstacles rooted in the demands of their disciplines, in constraints on the ability to work on certain regions of Asia and in the large investment necessary to pursue a research agenda that combines linguistic and regional expertise and diverse methodological skills. This workshop recognizes the increasing number of scholars, particularly younger ones, embarking on the study of Asian historical economies, the breadth of topics encompassed by their work and the importance of overcoming obstacles to this research and opening new opportunities for future work.

The economic development of Southeast Asia: 1870–1985

Australian Economic History Review, 1991

ANNE BOOTH This article provides some quantitative comparative indicators of economic performance in Southeast Asia over the last century and attempts to explain the very different pace of economic growth and structural change in the different countries of the region. Estimates are provided of the growth of output, population and foreign trade, and of the role of the government sector. It is argued that, although all the Southeast Asian economies responded positively to the opportunities offered by the rapid growth of world trade in the latter part of the nineteenth century, there were a number of factors which prevented them from embarking on a process of sustained economic development. These factors included deteriorating commodity terms of trade, large export surpluses sustained over long periods of time and trade policies which discriminated in favour of imports from the metropolitan power and retarded the growth of domestic industry Although all countries in the region had gained political independence by the 1960s, their very different colonial legacies and the reaction to them on the part of successive post-independence governments have greatly influenced economic performance. See Falkus, 'Thailand'. Booth, 'Southeast Asia', Table 4. Migration from China also played an important part in accelerating population growth in Thailand and in parts of Indonesia in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. See Sompop, 'Economic development', pp. 32-3.

Asia’s Development Experience in the Twenty-first Century

Millennial Asia, 2019

Asia is one of the largest continents in the world in terms of both the size of population and the geographical area. It constitutes of 48 countries, six non-UN States and six as dependent territories. Asia has emerged as the fastest growing region of the world economy during the first two decades of the twenty-first century (The World Bank, 2018). The share of Asia in the global GDP is 46.7 per cent (IMF, 2019). In terms of global trade in goods, Asia accounts for one-third of it. There is a surge in Asian capital flows and air travel and their global share has risen to 23 per cent and 40 per cent, respectively (Woetzel & Seong, 2019). The sustained rise of Asia in the global economy is essentially attributed to the increasing linkages among the Asian countries, in terms of trade of goods, capital flows and air travel. It is not exaggeration to say that Asia has emerged as an engine of economic growth of the global economy. It has moved at a fast pace from a low income to a middle income group. Thus, the twenty-first century can be called as the 'Asian Century'. It is widely acknowledged that the global economy has been undergoing dramatic transformation. The Asian transformation plays the lead role in terms of innovations in public policies, unique short cycle technologies (Lee, 2019) and inter-and intra-regional economic transactions. This region has immensely contributed to the reduction of global poverty and a substantial improvement in social indicators. Asia is highly diverse in terms of structure and stage of economic development across countries (Nayyar, 2019a, 2019b). The emergence of Asia as an economic power faces challenges from the world economic order dominated by the super power. The rising conflict and restrictions on international trade between China and the USA reflects this. However, apart from global challenges,

Economic Growth in East Asia: Accumulation versus Assimilation

Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1996

THE IMPRESSIVE economic performance of many Asian economies during the past three decades is now an old story. The growth of per capita GDP averaged over 4 percent in China and the major East Asian economies (Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, and Thailand) between 1960 and 1994, compared with less than 2 percent in other developing economies and 2.6 percent among the industrial countries.' East Asia stands out as the only region where living standards are catching up to those in industrial countries, while other parts of the developing world seem to be struggling to either tread water or fall further and further behind (see table 1). The exemplary performance of many East Asian economies has been the basis for a large and varied literature, much of which explores reasons for the persistently high growth and draws lessons for other countries that would like to follow suit. A surprising aspect of this literature is the lack of agreement on fundamental aspects of the performance record that analysts seek to explain. Is the basis for East Aslihan Yildiz assisted in the preparation of the paper, and a special debt is owed to Yu-Chin Chen, who assisted with the construction of the data for the growth accounts. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representative of the staff or trustees of the Brookings Institution. 1. East Asia, as a region, is defined to exclude China and Japan. Our somewhat unconventional group of East Asian economies is based on the availability of data to construct the growth accounts. We include all but two (China and Hong Kong) of the eight economies that were the focus of the World Bank study The East Asian Miracle (World Bank, 1993a) and add the Philippines. We include Japan with the industrial economies. 135 136 Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2:1996 Table 1. Basic Indicators of Economic Growth, by Region and Countrya Units as indicated Per capita incomec Growth rates, 1960-94d Region and Population country I990b 1960 1990 GDP Population Labor force China 1,134 0.6 Source: Population and GDP are the authors' calculations based on data from the World Bank's CD-ROM World Data 1995 (hereafter referred to by its title alone). Per capita income is calculated using data from the Penn-World Tables, mark 5.6 (accessed via the worldwide web page of the National Bureau of Economic Research). Labor force numbers are from unpublished data provided by the International Labour Organisation. a. Computed using the eighty-eight country sample. Regional averages are calculated by weighting each country by its average GDP over 1960-94, as measured in 1985 dollars. b. Millions. c. Thousands of 1985 dollars. d. Annual percentage rate. Asian growth the maintenance of high rates of physical and human capital accumulation over a number of decades-a willingness to make the sacrifices of current consumption necessary to invest for the future? Or has the key been the less costly approach of adopting existing technologies from more advanced economies, which may be associated with increased capital accumulation along the way? Establishing which of these characterizations is correct is a crucial first step in extracting appropriate lessons from East Asian growth experiences and is a primary motivation for this paper. If the accumulation view is correct, these experiences reinforce the lesson that to improve living standards requires investment, paid for in large part through forgone current consumption. The alternative assessment, which Paul Romer has referred to as narrowing the "idea gap," implies a much more optimistic message.2 No opportunity cost need be incurred to 2. Romer (1993). Susan M. Collins and Barry P. Bosworth 137 incorporate ideas. Instead, they could be transmitted to the mutual benefit of suppliers and recipients. Deciphering East Asia's rapid growth would thus hold forth the promise of a much less steep road to prosperity. A long list of authors implicitly or explicitly highlights productivity growth as the key to East Asian success. One strand of literature has engaged in a debate over the role of government policies (particularly microeconomic) in achieving productivity increases. In the early incarnation of this debate, some pointed to high-growth Asian economies as proof that "market friendly" approaches, including the maintenance of an open trading regime, promoted increased efficiency.3 Others characterized government strategies in the region as targeted intervention, not laissez-faire, arguing that the experiences showed how "getting prices wrong" and picking winners were the road to catching up with industrialized nations.4 Thus the same group of countries became poster children for conflicting policy advice. Views in this debate have moved somewhat closer over time. In particular, there is now broad recognition that the high-growth Asian economies exhibit a range of government strategies, from extreme laissez-faire to extensive intervention in some sectors. A growing number of analysts have also concluded that some interventions were beneficial.5 However, considerable disagreement remains over the importance and transferability of active intervention.6 This debate still centers on the role of the public sector versus the private sector in generating productivity growth. A second strand of literature stems from dissatisfaction with the ability of traditional growth models to explain observed features of economic growth.7 The result has been an exploration of alternative frameworks, known collectively as models of endogenous growth. Some of the underlying ideas can be found in the development literature of the 1950s and 1960s, but the associated explosion of attention to how rapid economic growth may be spurred by increases in efficiency is certainly new. In these models, while productivity gains may induce 3. See World Bank (1993a) and, more recently, Krueger (1995).

The East Asian Model of Economic Development and Developing Countries

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2014

This paper examines the debate on the East Asian model of economic development in light of the different approaches undertaken by different groups of countries (economies) in Northeast Asia and Southeast Asia. The common strengths and weaknesses shared by the East Asian countries (economies) have helped to reinforce the misconception that there is a single East Asian model of economic development. There are, however, significant differences in economic structures as well as development experiences among the East Asian economies, especially between the economic development paradigms of Southeast Asia and Northeast Asia. Nonetheless, one single common thread underlies the differences in development strategies and experiences among the East Asian economies-the role of the government. The governments of East Asia have recognized the limitations of markets (or market failures) in the allocation of scarce resources in the economy, and have used government interventions to promote economic development. The recent Asian crisis hardly signifies the end of the so-called East Asian model of economic development.