Search

Institutions have played a central role in political economy explanations of East Asia's growth, from the developmental state to the micro-institutions of industrial policy. A review of these institutional explanations finds that few if any of the postulated institutional explanations involve either necessary or sufficient conditions for rapid growth. This finding suggests two conclusions. First, there are multiple institutional means for solving the various collective action, credibility, and informational problems that constitute barriers to growth. The search for a single institutional ‘taproot’ of growth is likely to be a misguided exercise, and more attention should be given to understanding the varieties of capitalism in East Asia. Second, institutions are themselves endogenous to other political factors that appear more consequential for growth, including particularly the nature of the relationship between the state and the private sector. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Focuses on the impact of globalization on the politics and financial institutions of East Asia. Implications on the rapid recovery of East Asia from economic crisis; Significance of a reformed business-government relationship on East Asian economic growth; Effect of globalization on industrial policies.

The East Asian financial crisis of 1997-98 has provoked yet another round of controversy on the institutional foundations of the region's growth. This article provides some flavour of this new work by examining three factors that impinge on economic policy and performance: the role of political regime type; the structure of business-government relations; and the design of government agencies. Institutional weaknesses contributed to the onset of the Asian financial crisis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Explanations of the growth of the newly industrializing countries (NICs) by neoclassical economists and dependency theorists neglect the role of politics in shaping development strategies. Different social configurations, state structures, and ideas about development help explain the divergent policy choices made by the export-oriented East Asian NICs—Korea and Taiwan—and the more "inward-looking" countries of Latin America, particularly Mexico and Brazil. These different strategic choices, in turn, account for variations in the patterns of external "dependency" that characterize countries in the two regions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purely economic analyses of the East Asian newly industrializing countries have overlooked the politics of their growth. Why were these countries able to pursue strategies that combined rapid growth with a relatively equitable distribution of income? The reason lies partly in external conditions, including expanding world trade, and, in the case of Taiwan and Korea, pressure from the United States for policy reform. Domestic social and political conditions were also auspicious, however. Export-led growth was facilitated by weak labor movements and the absence of leftist or populist parties. A relatively brief period of import-substitution policies prevented the development of strong protectionist business interests. Equity was advanced by land reforms in Korea and Taiwan and by the absence of a rural sector in Hong Kong and Singapore. No explanation is complete, however, without reference to the strength of the East Asian states, including their insulation from interest-group pressures and their cohesive, meritocratic bureaucracies. These political institutions facilitated coherent, decisive, yet flexible policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]