Search

The causes for various short-run economic crises and their impact on macroeconomic fluctuations in Latin America are examined. A neoclassical growth framework to compare Latin America's macroeconomic output to that in Europe and East Asia is presented.

The roles of product quality and increasing returns in international trade and economic development are analyzed. The dynamic effects of trade on the patterns of cross-country growth are also examined. Quality, trade, and growth are linked to develop a model that simultaneously explains the East Asian Miracle and the empirical finding of conditional convergence.

This paper evaluates the five most popular analytical approaches to the East Asian 'miracle' economies: neoliberal, structural-institutional, 'flying geese,' Greater China, and dependency perspectives. Distinguishing between national and regional development visions, we specify the key forces that each approach sees driving industrialization and growth, as well as the most likely barriers each sees to continued growth and development in East Asia. In pointing out the main analytical shortcomings of the five perspectives in light of the East Asian crisis, we sketch some key elements of a Marxist framework capable of overcoming these difficulties in a politically useful way.

This article questions lessons learned from East Asia's late 1990s economic crisis, how the crisis will affect East Asia's growth, and whether aspects of East Asia's development model contributed to the crisis.

This article surveys the recent empirical literature on total factor productivity (TFP) growth in East Asia, and the debate about the sources of growth in the region. It is concluded that: (i) the main merit of this literature is that it has helped focus the attention of scholars on the growth process of East Asia; (ii) the theoretical problems underlying the notion of TFP are so significant that the whole concept should be seriously questioned: (iii) the TFP growth estimates for the region vary significantly, even for the same country and lime period; and (iv) research on growth in East Asia based on the estimation of TFP growth is an activity subject to decreasing returns. If we are to advance in understanding how East Asia grew during the last 30 years we need new avenues of research., I. INTRODUCTION The revival of the interest in growth theory during the 1980s with the development of the new neo-classical endogenous growth models [Lucas, 1988, 1993; Romer, 1986, 1990] has [...]

It is widely believed that the East Asian economies performed exceptionally well not only in generating growth but also in keeping inequality low. This study tries to answer the questions raised by the claims of exceptionality of income distribution in East Asia. Central findings are that only Japan, Korea and Taiwan have legitimate claims to low inequality; that the East Asian economies distinguished themselves by their ability to translate high profit shares into high savings and investment rates; and that low inequality and high profit shares coexisted primarily due to the unusually even distribution of wealth., Europe was so organised socially and economically as to secure the maximum accumulation of capital. While there was some continuous improvement in the daily condition of the mass of the [...]

It is possible to question the widely-held view that very high levels of economic growth among East Asian Newly Industrialized Economies will continue into the 21st century. Recent research indicates that total factor productivity growth has not been the main driving force behind East Asia's economic performance. It will be necessary to increase cultivation of human resources and for governments to play an active role in social and economic infrastructure investment if economic dynamism is to be sustained.

Three issues are discussed in this paper. First, I argue that it is impossible to understand the East Asian growth miracle without appreciating the important role that government policy played in stimulating private investment. Second, I will summarize some of my work on the determinants of policy effectiveness, based on a cross-country comparison of export subsidy regimes, and show that the usual rules of thumb on what makes for good policy (uniformity, transparency, non-selectivity, etc.) are quite useless in predicting which policy regimes perform better in practice. Third, I will provide some evidence that the government's social insurance role creates a complementarity between states and markets. These three sets of ideas yield a more balanced and nuanced view of the role of the state in economic development than has recently become commonplace. Keywords: Economic development; The state; East Asia

East Asia has been the fastest growing area in the world for the past three decades. The economies of Japan and the Newly Industrializing Economies (NIEs) of Hong Kong, Singapore, [...]

Energy issues involving oil and other resources are eliciting lot of concern. The problem is not merely that crude oil has broken through the barrier of $60 a barrel and continues to set new record highs, provoking concern about economic growth around the world in the future.

A new paradigm to the East Asian Cooperation has been described. Any East Asian economic pact should enable not just free movement of goods but also harmonization of rules related to investment, stipulating national treatment of foreign investors to meet up to the hopes of the region's countries.

The sources of economic growth in East Asia are discussed. The statistical estimations of production function do not provide any evidence regarding whether the production technology of the economy is described or whether the production function actually exists.

The causes of the spectacular economic success achieved by the East Asian newly industrialising countries (NICs) are debated by the scholars and policy makers. The agrarian roots that explain the different development routes and performance of the East Asian NICs are discussed.

Both success and crisis in East Asia are interpreted, in the 'Washington Consensus', by reference to the laws of the market, and to the economic policies and institutional frameworks of 'countries'. This approach rules out consideration of the connections between economics and politics, the context of imperfect competition, the role of goal-oriented policies, and regional interdependence. This article provides an introduction to the debate about the main factors used to explain growth in East Asia, and goes on to analyse the regionalisation process in a context of growth, crisis, and recovery by 'regional contagion'.

This article offers an interpretation of East Asia's on-going financial and economic crisis, and of its developmental achievements in the previous decades known as the 'East Asian miracle'. The interpretation centres on the notion of a regime of accumulation that covers the region as a whole. It submits that the competitive advantages and disadvantages of the regime rest on the interaction between the region's economic institutions and world capitalist development. This interaction has been, in turn, mediated by a range of history-specific developments in East Asian economies and societies.

Economic factors based on endogenous economic theory such as physical and human capital accumulation along with technology-led productivity growth may be the reasons behind the success of the eight high performing Asian economies (HPAEs). This economic phenomenon may be deemed a miracle if government success is impossible. It could also be described as a pleasant surprise if the combination of strong institutions, political will and a concept of social contract contributed to growth with equity.

The growth experience of economies in East Asia is examined using a neoclasical perspective to assess whether poorer countries are growing at a rate where they will catch up the richer countries in East Asia. The data used for the study is from the period 1960 to 1994, and countries surveyed include Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Malaysia and Indonesia. Convergence speed for these economies has been estimated at an annual level of 4.8%. This rate has implications for both richer and poorer countries, where technology will become more important.