EASTERN ASIA ECONOMIC GROWTH
In the evaluation of the economies in the world, eastern Asia has been ranked as the nation with greatest economic development. Its proliferation in terms of economic growth has been viewed as a miracle after the world war. The prosperity is from the accumulation of the economies from nations such as Japan, Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan over the years. The economic model, which is attributed to the growth, is exemplary if it is to be implemented in other nations. This model has been argued to be a summation of other models as one is not enough. This is because for each model different unrelated strategies were followed. There are several ideologies developed to explain why the models proved functional in East Asia after the world war until today. However, if followed accordingly, these ideologies have proved to be ineffective to other nations and there three crucial points that further explain this occurrence.
- Relationship of states and business trade and establishment
In the 1950’s, there were several aspects which arose. This was immediately after the post war. The first aspect was the Bureau Pluralism, which was efficient in ensuring the economy flourished (Masina 2012, 2). It involved a process, which was well executed between the states and the businesses. The interests of the firms and private businesses were forwarded as those of the federal industries under the associations. The second step involved the interests being presented the department responsible for trade and industries known as the Genkyoku (Masina 2012, 7). This was seen as the representative of the private sector to the government. Due to the pressure from the private sector, the government was tasked with the responsibility of focusing on two sections; supply of materials for infrastructure and industry rationalization. This move rationalized the Japanese economy and catapulted it into the global economy in the year 1949. This strategy was effective in Eastern Asia because the relationship between the aforementioned entities was close knit. The same cannot be said for other nations. In some nations, the private sector is a single entity run by its own policy, the aspect of bureau pluralism is not present thus flawing the model if it is to be tested.
In its simple definition, the term Confucianism can be defined as a guideline through which relationships are directed. This aspect worked as a contributing factor to the success of the East Asia’s economy. This is because it rationalized the hierarchy of the political system and created a sense of loyalty and respect (Nasim 2013, 2). Another positive factor was that it instilled work ethic, which increased labor productivity in the Eastern Asian communities. Despite the fact that the argument is flawed it has contributed to accumulation of human capital and increase in productivity. This aspect worked perfectly and played a crucial role in the success of the economy, however, if it would ineffective in other nations in implementation. The first reason is that nation like America believes in the free market and the liberty of private owned businesses to partake in transactions and make decisions in accordance to their targets and goals set. In the Eastern Asian model, the government was part of making these decisions as seen in the case scenario whereby MITI was hell-bent to merge Mitsubishi and Isuzu yet it preferred Chrysler (Masina 2012, 24).
- Lau’s Theory of Tangible Capital Accumulation
This theory argues that tangible capital was the labor from the Asian workers. The key component focused on is labor. In previous studies, there has been valid evidence which point out that the eastern Asia nation invested in the productivity of it workers more than technological advancement (Nasim 2013, 5). The theory is intertwined with Confucianism. These two points if implemented in other nation will and have proved to be inefficient. The reason is that for there to be maximum productivity, the workers would have to be obedient and hardworking. In various nations in the world, these characteristics are not widespread thus getting a partial part of a continent to behave in the same way is involving and has a high likelihood of leading to failure.
In conclusion, the
three mentioned points sum up to the geopolitical context of East
Asia as contributing to the proliferation of its economy. The
implementation of the models would prove ineffective because most nations are
different in terms of their political systems and geographical locations and
these two elements cannot be changed easily without disrupting the economic
stability of a nation.
Masina, Piertro. Rethinking Development in East Asia. Academic Edu. (December 2012): 1-26. http://www.academia.edu/1476670/Rethinking_Development_in_East_Asia_from_Illusory_Miracle_to_Economic_Crisis
Nasim, Sheena. Was Post-WAR Economic Development in East Asia a Result of its Geopolitical Context. Academic Edu. (August 2013): 1-6 http://www.academia.edu/4765279/Was_post-war_economic_development_in_East_Asia_a_result_of_its_favourable_geopolitical_context