History: Questions Essay

5. Compare and contrast policies, factors influencing achievement and outcomes bring home the bacond by the pursual Asiatic Miracle countries mainland China, Korea, Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam and Laos. by and by the end of World War 2, East Asia experienced a fast economic process which lasted till 1990 before the Asian Financial Crisis. The countries that achieved actual growth were Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong,capital of Singapore and Japan. These countries were referred to as the Asian Tigers and they were known for achieving and brinytaining uncomparably high growth rates and rapid industrialization among 1960 and 1990 (L each, 1996). By the 21st century, the Asian Tigers had grown into high-income and modernistic economies (Page, 1994).Initially, these countries were not expected to achieve such rapid growth as compared to Western countries (Amsden,1993). The former(a) countries which were not far behind from the five miracle economies were Malaysia, Thailand and In d binglesia. These countries were known as the here and now-Generation Tigers. However, less fortunate countries such as the former French Indochina (Focusing on Vietnam and Laos) remained lagged in hurt of ontogeny.Source Summers and Heston (1991). Barro (1989). World Bank data.Figure 1 shows the viii HPAEs all have a imperious outlier in the income-growth distri andion. While Malaysia, Thailand, and Indonesia are surrounding(prenominal) to the predicted values, the other five economies, Taiwan, Korea, Japan, Singapore and Hong Kong, are meaningfully above the predicted crying(a) Domestic Product growth rates on the basis of sexual congress income level. From this chart, it is concluded that all of the HPAEs were catching up to the more developed countries.This show analyses the causes that light-emitting diode to the difference in victimisation between the Asian Tigers (5 miracle countries), Second-Generation Tigers (Second-tier countries) and the to the lowest degree developed ones. This adjudicate will also state the multiple factors which led to the countries divergent paths and compare and analyse the impacts of each factor. The factors that will be expounded on are (1) scotch Policies, (3) Factors influencing success and lastly, (4)Domestic and Regional Political outcomes.In 1960, the companies that achieved high growth rates and rapid industrialization were addressed as High Performing Asian Economies of Northeast Asia (HPEAs) of Northeast Asia and the Second-tier were referred to as fresh Industrialising Economies (NIEs) of Southeast Asia (Fisher & Rotemberg, 1994). Key events such as colonialism, decolonisation and thecold struggle compete a part in this phenomenon as it contributed to the make believeing of HPEAs and NIEs economies.Colonialism legal age of HPEAs and NIEs countries used to be under colonial rule except for Thailand and Japan. some(prenominal) Thailand and Japan used various methods to run their country two of thei r main methods where their geographic location and resources available (Andressen, 2002). During the colonial era, majority of Southeast Asian countries used to have higher gross domestic products than Northeast Asian miracles in the early 19th century, countries like Burma and Vietnam were wealthier than Taiwan, which GDP was $499 in 1820. During that period, both Malaysia and Indonesias GDP topped Taiwan and Korea until the 1940s, during the fall of colonisation.Burma and Vietnam owed most of its achievements to colonial institutions and natural resources. Unfortunately, colonialism did everything but good for both countries welfare (Easterly, 1994). The aim of colonialism was to acquiring full or partial political control everyplace both countries, occupy it with settlers and forge it economically. The Dutch, for example, introduced social classification and applied a divide-and-rule method to attain favourable position all over the autochthonal people while exploiting them to work in plantations.The Dutch did not teach the colonies any form of manufacturing as they had no objective to invest in valet resources. Similarly, British Malaya had its resources drained by settlers and when the colonist left, the countries that make up British Malaya declared independence. These independent countries continued to have out the colonial style of administration as this once produced significant profits, and system without the knowledge of manufacturing.The Asian Tigers Korea & TaiwanIn contrast, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong, which were annex by Japan and Britain, did not own many natural resources. pocket-sized was to be exploited from those colonies as the colonist all found their geographicallocation and compassers of use. Unlike Korea and Taiwan, which were the main hub of food production and labour-intensive industries, Singapore and Hong Kong were used as import harbours. This put Singapore and Hong Kong at an utility as basic education w as provided and allowed them to gain the upper hand in industrialization when they gained independence.In 1960, during the coolness War, when political and military tension grew between both Western Bloc and Eastern Bloc, the economies of Taiwan, Korea, Japan, Hong Kong and Singapore were not affected. These Asian countries were not affected as they had leaders who put communal interests over personal benefits. Both private companies and government activitys of HPEAs worked together and collaborated. This act is attributed to the Confucian floriculture which majority of Asian countries practice. The Confucian culture emphasises on prioritising of community over individual (Johnson, 1982). Their economic strategies constituted of advanced industries back up by extraordinary human resources, export-oriented, market-adjusting state interferences, efficient bureaucrats and institutional cooperation consisting of both government and sealed companies.Korea and Taiwan, both former J apanese colonies, promoted their local anaesthetic companies and invested in improving their human resources skill and technological capability by following the Japanese posture with their own adaptation (Beasley, 1987). They also used protectionist policies such as tariffs, to come across that their immature domestic market would not be forced to contest with foreign products. For the Koreans, their post-war economic strategy was to obtain knowledge from developed countries to shoot foreign technology. This was done to provide a foundation for its domestic industries (Woronoff, 1992).Koreas oligopolistic development model was founded in 1960, under authoritative administration of green Chung Hee. This development model was made up of collaboration between conglomerates called chaebols. Chaebols consisted of boffo exporting companies that were chosen and given privileges (Wad, 2002). Koreas development was also supported by its human resources. Its human resource were organise d in military-like discipline. Gradually, by and by gaining independence from Japan, Taiwan entered into industrialisation stage by allowing government bodies to contend its development.In 1950, the sparing mean Institution was started. The scotch Stabilisation get along executed the first four-years of economic plans, continued by Council for Economic Planning and Development (CEPD) who was tasked with national and regional planning (Kuznets, 1959). CEPD coordinated with ministries to ensure that development would be done according to plan but they had no office to supervise. Government involvement could also be seen through the Ministry of Economic personal business role in outlining which subdivision should be supported and this included industries of which Taiwan is reputable for machinery, electronics, and telecommunications. In mid 1960, the government built export-allocated zones which were easy to rag from harbours and airports. To stimulate export, customs and taxes were reduced and low interest loans were promoted. In 1980, labour skills gradually improved and this also resulted in the improvement of the education sector.Meanwhile, the NIEs and other less fortunate countries such as Vietnam and Laos although predicted to be the next tigers following the success of their Northeast Asian counterparts, could not catch up with HPEAs. slightly of the NIEs formed a neo-patrimonial state. Neo-patrimonial is classified by having inefficient bureaucracy, nepotistic leaders and risky authority. These nepotistic leaders show favouritism and public interest becomes second priority. This leads to pitiful economic growth along with disorganised policies. Furthermore, unlike the HPEAs that benefited from having a relatively homogenous ethnicity, Southeast Asian countries were diverse. This diversity in ethnic groups made it difficult for the ethnic groups to understand each other. In addition, due to the bleak War, the former French Indochina suffered severe political unstableness and economic collapse.The Second Generation Tigers Thailand & MalaysiaSimilarly, Thailand and Malaysia both failed to achieve HPEAs success. In 1980, Malaysia tried to adapt HPEAs intervention model, but failed implement their policies. Thailand, on the other hand, was hindered by politicalinstability (Unger, 1995). In Malaysias case, participation of local companies was low and foreign companies played a greater role in Malaysias economy (Lubeck, 1992). Also, local companies depended on foreign technology and the countrys demand for advanced technical skills was not fulfilled. Furthermore, there was an ethnic divide between the indigenous people and Chinese. This prevented cohesive cooperation in both Thailand and Malaysia As for Thailand, the government, shareholders and military were otiose to cooperate. The military would occasionally launch coup attempts and such attempts disrupted both political stability and economic activities.Vietnam & LaosVi etnam, Laos and Cambodia were the main Southeast Asian countries with scurvy economies. These countries economic problems were the result of internal conflicts (Tran Van Tho, 2003). The conflicts in Vietnam and Laos resulted in the success of the communist party and as for Cambodia, the democratic government ruled.In 1970s, Vietnam was worn out(p) and isolated due to its involvement with the conflict between Cambodia and USA. Due to the conflict, Vietnam became one of the poorest countries in the region. Realising the need to fix their economic condition, Vietnam adapted a reformer pace by allowing private ownership in small to mass medium enterprises and opened itself to investments (Brown, 1995). This move led to Vietnams economic prospers, though follow behind its capitalist neighbours. Vietnam currently relies on knifelike and secondary products ( discussion section of remote Affairs and Trade, 2014).Cambodia and Laos were both alienated from existence one of the Asian Miracle. Laos, being in between Thailand and Vietnam became a heated political theatre during the Cold War. Although Laos reformed its economic sector simultaneously with Vietnam, its economic growth pace was slow as the country relied on natural resources, horticulture and low skilled labourers. Only in early 1990 did Laos manage to expound its industry and attract foreign investors.To summarise, this essay has argued that the Asian miracle was an uneven phenomenon that only happened to some countries. It also states how rapid economic growth occurred in the eight East Asian countries mainly focussing on Hong Kong, Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, and Thailand. Furthermore, the common denominators of success (1) maintaining macroeconomic stability, (2) broad-based educational strategies, (3) export growth, and (4) insignificance of industrial insurance have been discussed upon. This essay argues that export push was a successful strategy, while industrial policy was insignificant. In con clusion, the substantial achievements of the HPEAs were owed to the collaboration of both companies and the government whose goal was to build a sustainable economy for the country.Majority of the Asian Tigers (First- tiers) were not damned with plenty of natural resources but they managed to improve by investing in human resources and value-added goods. In addition, these countries also showed a strong unity among the society, government, and businessmen. The governments authoritative nature created stability and helped to bring about positive impacts on the economy. The second-tier managed to get closer to the first-tiers due to the resources available. However, the second-tiers did not manage to invite alongside or surpass the first-tiers as they relied on low value-added goods, raw materials and low wage labourers. Also, their governments personal interests and corruption hindered the countries development.CitationAmsden, A. H. (1993). Why isnt the whole world experimenting wi th the East Asian model to develop? check out of the World Banks East Asian Miracle Report, to appear in Symposium on the World Banks East Asian Miracle Report, in World Development.Andressen, C. A. (2002). Short History of Japan from Samurai to Sony, Allen & Unwin. St. Leonards.Beasley, W. G.(1987). Japanese Imperialism 1894-1945, Oxford University Press, New York.Brown, FZ The Economic Development of Vietnam Laos, and Cambodia in Young C Kim (ed.), The Southeast Asian Economic Miracle, Transaction Publishers, London, 1995 pp. 85-104Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, The New ASEANS Vietnam, Burma, Cambodia, & Laos, Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. 2014. ONLINE Available at http//www.dfat.gov.au/publications/catalogue/new_asia.pdf. Accessed 03 September 2014.Easterly, W. (1994). Explaining miracles appendage regressions meet the gang of four. In NBER, East Asian seminar on political economy 1993, T. Ito and A. O. Krueger (eds.).Johnson, C. (1982). MITI and The Japanese Miracle The Growth of Industrial Policy, 1925-1975, Stanford University Press, Stanford.Kuznets, S. (1959). Six lectures on economic growth. Glencoe, IL Free Press.Lall, S.(1996). Learning from the Asian Tigers, Macmillan Press Ltd., London.Lubeck, PM Malaysian Industrialization, ethnical Division, and the NIC Model, in RP Appelbaum & J Henderson (eds.), States and Development in Asia Pacific Rim, apt Publications, London, 1992, p.177-181Page, J. The East Asian Miracle Four Lessons for Development Policy, in S Fisher & J J Rotemberg (eds.), NBER Macroeconomics Annual, MIT Press 1994, pp. 219-282Tran Van Tho. (2003). Economic development in Vietnam during the second half of the 20th century How to avoid the endangerment of lagging behind in Binh Tran Nam and Chi Do Pham (eds) The Vietnamese scrimping Awakening the dorming dragon. RoutledCurzon.Unger, D. (1995). Government and occupation in Thailand, in Young C Kim (ed.), The Southeast Asian Economic Miracle, Transac tion Publishers, London, 1995 pp.137-158Wad, P The Political Business of Development in South Korea, in Edmund Terrence Gomez (ed.) Political Business in East Asia, Routledge, London & New York, 2002 pp. 182-215World Bank, The East Asian Miracle Economic Growth and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, New York, 1993, pp. 90-92Woronoff, J.(1992). Asias Miracle Economies, 2nd ed., M. E. Sharpe Publisher. New York.