Search

This paper examines defense industrialization in three leading arms-producing states in Asia - India, Japan, and South Korea - and how their experiences compare to China's recent defense industrial developments. It argues that despite decades of considerable effort and investments in pursuit of a techno-nationalist self-arming strategy, these countries have experienced only modest success when it comes to achieving such self-reliance. Most regional defense industrial bases lack the necessary design skills and technological expertise in order to truly innovate, and at best these countries act as 'late innovators' when it comes to armaments production. The experiences of these countries have lessons for China as it attempts to move into the first tier of arms-producing states. China has over the past 15 years made significant progress in modernizing its defense technological and industrial base. At the same time, China faces the same long-term challenges that currently confront other regional arms industries - that is, making techno-nationalism work at the later stages of innovation. This is particularly critical as China's defense industry strives to move from a basically platform-centric to an increasingly network-centric technological-industrial process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the rapid rise of competitive space activities within Asia, this study examines the prospects for increasing international cooperation. After discussing relevant conceptual issues, it surveys the space policies particularly of China, India, Japan, and South Korea and examines the skewed patterns of cooperation seen at the international, regional, and bilateral levels. It then analyzes the historical, technology, and political factors that have impeded, especially regional, space cooperation in Asia to date. The study concludes that expanded regional space cooperation is an unlikely near-term outcome, but the paper also argues that the risks entailed in the current situation are growing and that US policy initiatives could make a difference in helping to lead countries out of this dead-end. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on economic growth and economic development models in Latin America. It states that Latin American governments have used three different economic development models in the 20th Century: the Ricardian comparative advantage model, the import substitution industrialization model, and trade liberalization. It comments on problems with trade liberalization and its negative effects on economic recovery in many Latin American countries. It examines long-run economic growth patterns in Latin Americans between 1960 and 2006 and compares it to Asian economies in China, India, and South Korea which did not use the Washington Consensus framework.

When the subprime-induced financial crisis broke out in the U.S. housing sector in the summer of 2007 and mushroomed into a global financial crisis by September 2008, it was widely believed that the Asian economies, especially the 'big four'-Japan, China, South Korea, and India-would remain largely immune from the worst of the crisis. However, this assumption has proven to be false. All four countries have felt the negative impact of the financial contagion-albeit differently. Whereas China and India have been moderately impacted, Japan and South Korea have experienced heightened financial instability, sharp economic contraction, and a deep recession. What explains the big four's vulnerability to the crisis, and why have Japan and South Korea been affected more negatively than China and India? How have the four countries responded to the crisis, and what can they do to further insulate their economies from the vagaries of the global financial markets? In this article, the author addresses these interrelated issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study compares the patterns of women's employment in four major Asian economies: China, India, Japan and South Korea. It illuminates how the heterogeneous characteristics of political regimes, institutional arrangements and societal values are manifested in the employment system and human resources of each country. It also reveals the varying cultural, social and institutional forces that prevail, despite similar outcomes of women's employment. The contribution adds to existing knowledge of women's employment through the comparison of four major Asian countries which remains under-explored. It also contributes to the theoretical debates of gender and employment by adopting an interdisciplinary analytical framework that incorporates socio-cultural, politico-economic and institutional perspectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]