The East Asian Developmental State Model - Literature review Example

THE EAST ASIAN DEVELOPMENTAL STATE MODEL IS NOT REPLICABLE IN THE TODAY’S DEVELOPING COUNTRIES Student’s Name Course Title Name of Instructor Institution Location Date THE EAST ASIAN DEVELOPMENTAL STATE MODEL IS NOT REPLICABLE IN THE TODAY’S DEVELOPING COUNTRIES The developmental state model was largely used in the twentieth century by scholars whenever they referred to the East Asia state-led macroeconomic planning. Thus , a number of issues have to be considered when questioning whether the East Asian ‘developmental states ‘ could be replicated in the developing countries across the world. In a report released by the World Bank titled “The East Asian Miracle” a detailed explanation on the rapid and continual economic growth in this region is given. The author claims that the East Asian states which include; Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea and Singapore were all characterised by unanimity which was crucial in the experienced economic development of these East Asian states (Ahn 2011 pp.419-443). Moreover, the East Asian states are also notably claimed to have embraced the authoritarian style of leadership which was characterised by autonomy levels that were significantly high due to the pressure from the society associated with prioritization of industrialization and economic development. This paper therefore, aims to attests to whether the applicability of the developmental state model is applicable in today’s developing countries. The term ‘developmental states’ was first created by Chalmers Johnson in his widely popularised book MITI and the Japanese Miracle where he reviewed the Japanese state and its role in Japan’s post-war enrichments. After this book reaching relatively many audiences the concept of East Asian developmental state also started to gain popularity (Storm and Naastepad 2014, 1059-1094). As by the 1990’s a lot of literature on this concept had been written in addition to this, the development state approach was being championed by a relatively huge number of scholars and economist in the developing countries claiming that it could be perfectly replicated in the developing countries in order to foster regional development within these developing countries (Barrett 2013, pp.201-206). This concept of developmental model gained popularity and huge following due to the fact that it went against the notion of neo-liberal approach considering that it had been a huge failure in the structural adjustment in developing countries in Africa where it had been implemented. Additionally, economists argued that the impact of the developmental state model is evident since in the 1960’s most of the East Asian Countries were at par with the African countries in context to development but currently their GDPs have increased exponentially (Kim and White 2012, p.123). However, by the 1990’s these East Asia Countries were evidently miles ahead in regards to developments after embracing the developmental state model. This therefore draws the question, whether this model could be viewed as a possible solution for the other developing countries. Eun Mee Kim a professor in of arts and author from South Korea agrees that the developmental state model could be ideal for the developing third world countries however; he cautions that there is need for consideration for the applicability of the model (Kuznets 2013 pp.S11-S43). In this case, he argues that consideration of the possibility of the East Asian developmental state model to be replicated is ideal as well as is the need for speculation of the desirability of this model to be replicated. In line with this, he claims that weighing this issued will lead to the realization that there are a number of problems associated with the East Asian developmental state and it might be inapplicable in some of the developing countries. One crucial question to ask in regards to the weighing whether the East Asian developmental states model could be applied in the developing countries is the ability to replicate this model in these developing countries? This particular concern has generated a lot of debate especially on whether the replication of this model could solve the problems characterised by these developing countries such as the problems facing Latin American and African countries (Kwon and Kang 201, pp.116-130). Tak-Wing Ngo and Richard Boyd claim that the desire associated with replicating the developmental state model considering that this theory is flexible depends on the adopted leadership systems in these developing countries that needs to be characterised by confinement of the vagaries and dependency of the marketplace. In addition to this, there is also some evidence of some features associated to this theory which are attributed to the uniqueness of the East Asian developmental state making it perfectly ideal for the East Asian Countries (Ahn 2011, 419-443). Therefore, applying this model to other developing countries that are quite distinct to the East Asian Countries is nearly impossible. Ziya Onis (1991: n.d) in his works ‘extremely a historical’ states that since it is during the international context where the East Asian development states emerged, during the Post-war period which was ideal to its success. Therefore, this approach had a significantly high impact on these East Asian Countries. Additionally, he stresses that the success of this model was due to some of the condition in the East Asian Countries during the End of the World War II which hugely impacted to the success of this model (Öniş et al. 1991). Consequently, there is a significantly high likely hood that today’s developing countries capitalistic approaches and their present day conditions marred by poor leadership could not be ideal for replication this model in these developing countries (Storm and Naastepad 2014, p. 1059-1094). For instance, during the implementation of this model to the East Asian countries there were a lot of threats hindering the success of this model considering that it was during the Cold War period. This led to threats associated with security, an issue which fostered nationalism and commitment to the transformation of East Asian Countries economies. In this case, states elites were therefore not worried about problems related to income distribution and social welfare allowing them to concentrate their attention to the region’s economic growth (Kuznets 2013, p.11-43). On the other hand, considering that some of the East Asian Countries such as Japan were faced with threats related to Communism they benefited from foreign help more so from the United States which gave them an advantage over these threats. On the other hand, Taiwan and Korea partnered with Japan and the United States which was considered as an advantageous relationship that fostered the growth of the economies of these East Asian Countries since the US market acted as the ideal market for these countries exports contributing to their development (Lee 2012 pp.29-40). Apart from the provision of a scenario which led to the access of markets for the East Asian Countries the Cold War on the other hand, fostered the developmental state approach considering that most allies from the West overlooked the East Asian Countries’ regimes which were crucial in fostering the implementation of authoritarian leadership and market intervention approaches with these East Asian States becoming rigidly anti-Communist (Perkins 2014, p.155). On the other hand, the timing of the reintegration of the East Asian Countries into the global economy was essential for success of this approach in these countries. In line with this, Joseph Wong argues that the success of the East Asian developmental state could be attributed to the place and time factors (Ahn, 2011 pp.419-443). This therefore suggests that the replication of the developmental state model is impossible since it might not encourage late development in the currently developing countries considering that the context that it occurred in the East Asian Countries might not be inexistent today. In a comparison of the Chinese and Japanese experiences Mark Beeson claims that despite the distinctness of these two nations and the culture associated with each one of them the developmental state Model was seemingly easily adopted in china (Perkins 2014, p.155). This could suggest that this model could be replicated in other countries considering the distinctness in the Chinese economy with the economies of the East Asian Countries, however it is evident that there are inherent characteristics in Asia that drives its success unlike other parts of the world. In this case, a number of reforms have been put in place by the Chinese Communist party which have fostered economic growth in this country. Aside from this, Shaun Breslin, stresses that despite the common similarities between China and East Asian Development states the developmental state model has not been emulated fully by China rather China’s trajectory developmental model (Storm and Naastepad 2014, pp.1059-1094). He further goes on to mention the main factors which he claims to be incompatible with the developmental state model. These factors include; external economic interests which fostered the developmental processes and policies, political demands which barred the implementation of national economic development strategy that was convincing and productive and economic decision-making powers redistribution to the local level form the centralised level (Wang 2010, pp.47-67). The mentioned factors by Breslin led to the central states becoming significantly weaker which are termed as obstacles for the long terms economic policy’s impact. This notion therefore contributed to the thought that this model seemingly cannot be replicate considering the inability to fully replicate it in China. The other issue which makes the developmental state relatively unique in Asia as well as making it impossible to be replicated in other developing countries is the cultural factors. In these case, some cultural factors tend to be specific depending to particular regions due to variety of cultures across the world (Hood 2004, n.d). In this case, Steven Hood claims that there are a number of Confucian values which are evident in the society in East Asian countries. In this case he claims that the East Asian societies are characterised by group as opposed to individual welfare. In this case, he stresses that these values are quite ideal for the adoption of the developmental state model as it was the case for the East Asian Countries since more focus is placed on quest for economic growth sacrificing the welfare of the citizens (Barrett 2013, pp.201-206). In addition to this he claims that the Confucianism attributes evident in the East Asian Countries drew some respect to the hierarchical society as well as the readiness of these nations’ citizens in making required sacrifices for the successful following of the state’s goals which is key in adoption of the developmental state model. In regards to the mentioned regional specific factors which range from the international and Confucianism factors relates to the developmental state it can be claimed that it is impossible to replicate this model in other regions (Hood 2004, n.d). On the other hand, despite the hindrance of the replication of the developmental state model in the developing countries as well as the unique international context associated with this developmental state model this possibility could be prevented by today’s international context which is quite distinct from that time when the model was adopted within the East Asian Countries (Kuznets 2013 pp.11-43). Since the developing countries are now faced with changing global conditions which range from new industrialization to new economic barriers emulating the development state model might be quite difficult in this current time and age. In line with this, the experiences in technology advancements has led to the production digressing to the core, an issue which has led to the demand for labour in the production process to significantly diminish. This has proven to be disadvantageous to these developing countries whose productive capabilities are significantly large. On the other hand, the efforts to foster the regional blocs for instance the European Union and the North American Trade Agreements has made these developing countries to enter the global market (Kwon and Kang 2011, pp.116-130). On the other hand, Onis (1991), is doubtful on the success of the reciprocation of the state model in an environment that is rather less favourable characterised by a significantly declining growth in world trade and protectionism. His doubts underline an actual state of the current Global climate an issue which contributes to the argument that the developmental state model cannot be applicable in the developing countries at this time and age. Despite that its evidence has been drawn on the inability to replicate the developmental model in the current developing countries with the main reason being the differing international context it is ideal to assess the desirability of replicating the East Asian Developmental state model to the developing countries. There are a number of characteristics of developmental states which can be claimed to foster the replication to the current development countries in the world (Barrett 2013, pp.201-206). These factors include; oppression of labour and authoritarian nature of most of these developing countries. On the other hand, the problems faced by the East Asian developmental state could also be claimed to make the replication on this model more undesirable. The main issue to consider when reviewing the potential of a developmental state to be replicated in a developing country is the East Asian model’s authoritarian nature and its compatibility with democracy. This is likely to lead to problems in regards to the democratisation of the developing countries which is claimed to be designed to allow long term development (Lee 2012 pp.29-40). In line with this, economic experts claim that there is possibility for compatibility between democracy and developmental states. However, Onis (1991) also claims that these are also instances which are not compatible especially for the African countries which are largely considered developing countries. In this case, he claims that these African countries which are characterised by being in the development stage are quite different to developed states in an example they compare the distinctness between Mauritius and Botswana as examples of democratic developmental states which are quite different. In addition with this, Onis claims that this distinctness could cause neglecting of the main objective of economic growth through encompassing them along with the bigger issues such as political reforms and addressing various groups’ demands. This therefore leads to the notion of the developmental state being incompatible with the democratic system of government such as in South Korea. Conversely, the emergence of powerful groups in South Korea such as; Chaebol were fostered by the democratization movement. This group also spearheads some significant changes in the countries structure and goals as well as addressing this groups demands an aspect that led to confusion of the country’s economic direction (Barrett 2013, pp.201-206). This is the reason why South Korea is claimed to be facing relatively a lot of problems as opposed to Japan. Therefore, separating the societal and state pressure could be claimed to be ideal for achieving the main objective for developmental state which is economic growth. Lack of autonomy could be claimed to hinder the Post –colonial and Latin American states which are currently developing the capacity to have developed earlier (Kwon and Kang 201, pp.116-130). Evidently the economic developmental state approach has proven to be a success in fostering economic growth within the East Asian Countries. However, shift of focus to the promotion of economic development led to some costs which were the human development and the citizen’s welfare. This led to the strategy of withdrawal of workers right in an effort to make the economic developmental state approach more impactful (Storm and Naastepad 2014, 1059-1094). On the other hand, it could also be argued that this sacrifices led to some experienced challenges to the citizens the main one being cheap docile labour considering that it was imperative to this approach. This led to challenges within the industrialized countries workers who were faced with working conditions that were unhealthy and hazardous as well as working for relatively longer hours. Additionally, majority of the workers were repressed with the women workers being exploited. This can be characterised in reference of South Korea during this industrialization period between the years 1963 to 1980 where it was claimed that the wages for the women workers was merely half of that of the male workers (Perkins 2014, p.155). Besides, Onis (1991) claims that despite the success of the economic developmental state approach in East Asian Countries the welfare state within these countries was virtually absent. Thus, he claims that this approach was strategically created to assume no responsibilities outside the range of capital accumulation and production (Wang 2010, pp.47-67). In regards to the mentioned challenges it could be argued that the development state approach is not ideal for current developing countries since they are now responsible for providing their citizens with some level of welfare and not solely focusing on economic growth. In regards to the series of problems that the East Asian Countries were faced with in the late 1990’s with the most notable ones being the financial crisis it can be claimed that the development state approach with time became less impactful in fulfilling its purpose. It is stated that it later on became less desirable especially after majority of the East Asian stated associated with this approach faced increased periods of economic stagnation and decline (Kim and White 2012, p.123). This therefore, puts doubt on replication of the developmental state model approach in the developing countries today since evidence of the East Asian Countries during the 1990’s suggests that it is success is short lived. In this case, the financial crisis of the year 1990 also shows that this approach was not ideal due to its impetus and the growing perceptions that it might be dead also put to doubt it reciprocation to the developing countries today. In conclusion, it is evident that the Development State model cannot be applied successfully in today’s developing countries because of their glaring differences with most East Asian countries where this model was first applied. On the other hand, it is also evident that it is as well not desirable to replicate this model considering that its features do not align with the developmental goals in these developing countries today such as gender equality, democratization and fundamental human rights. Hence, its success in one region cannot be used a benchmark to replicate it in developing countries without considering the consequences. References Ahn, C. 2011. A search for robust East Asian development models after the financial crisis: mutual learning from East Asian experiences. Journal of Asian Economics, 12(3), pp.419-443. Barrett, R. 2013. In Search of an East Asian Development Model. Peter L. Berger , Hsin-huang Michael Hsiao. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 38(1), pp.201-206. Hood, S.J., 2004. Political development and democratic theory: Rethinking comparative politics. ME Sharpe. Kim, K. and White, G. 2012. Developmental States in East Asia. The Journal of Asian Studies, 48(1), p.123. Kuznets, P. 2013. An East Asian Model of Economic Development: Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 36(S3), pp.S11-S43. Kwon, J. and Kang, J. 2011. The East Asian model of economic development. Asian-Pacific Economic Literature, 25(2), pp.116-130. LEE, C. 2012. Economic Development Strategies in Korea: Some Valuable Lessons to Asian Developing Countries. East Asian Policy, 04(04), pp.29-40. Öniş, Z., Amsden, A.H., Deyo, F.C., Johnson, C. and Wade, R., 1991. The logic of the developmental state Perkins, D. 2014. East Asian Development: Foundations and Strategies. Southeast Asian Economies, 31(1), p.155. Storm, S. and Naastepad, C. 2014. Strategic Factors in Economic Development: East Asian Industrialization 1950-2003. Development and Change, 36(6), pp.1059-1094. Wang, Y. 2010. Understanding Economic Development and Institutional Change: East Asian Development Model Reconsidered with Implications for China. Journal of Chinese Political Science, 16(1), pp.47-67. Read More

Additionally, economists argued that the impact of the developmental state model is evident since in the 1960’s most of the East Asian Countries were at par with the African countries in context to development but currently their GDPs have increased exponentially (Kim and White 2012, p.123). However, by the 1990’s these East Asia Countries were evidently miles ahead in regards to developments after embracing the developmental state model. This therefore draws the question, whether this model could be viewed as a possible solution for the other developing countries.

Eun Mee Kim a professor in of arts and author from South Korea agrees that the developmental state model could be ideal for the developing third world countries however; he cautions that there is need for consideration for the applicability of the model (Kuznets 2013 pp.S11-S43). In this case, he argues that consideration of the possibility of the East Asian developmental state model to be replicated is ideal as well as is the need for speculation of the desirability of this model to be replicated.

In line with this, he claims that weighing this issued will lead to the realization that there are a number of problems associated with the East Asian developmental state and it might be inapplicable in some of the developing countries. One crucial question to ask in regards to the weighing whether the East Asian developmental states model could be applied in the developing countries is the ability to replicate this model in these developing countries? This particular concern has generated a lot of debate especially on whether the replication of this model could solve the problems characterised by these developing countries such as the problems facing Latin American and African countries (Kwon and Kang 201, pp.116-130). Tak-Wing Ngo and Richard Boyd claim that the desire associated with replicating the developmental state model considering that this theory is flexible depends on the adopted leadership systems in these developing countries that needs to be characterised by confinement of the vagaries and dependency of the marketplace.

In addition to this, there is also some evidence of some features associated to this theory which are attributed to the uniqueness of the East Asian developmental state making it perfectly ideal for the East Asian Countries (Ahn 2011, 419-443). Therefore, applying this model to other developing countries that are quite distinct to the East Asian Countries is nearly impossible. Ziya Onis (1991: n.d) in his works ‘extremely a historical’ states that since it is during the international context where the East Asian development states emerged, during the Post-war period which was ideal to its success.

Therefore, this approach had a significantly high impact on these East Asian Countries. Additionally, he stresses that the success of this model was due to some of the condition in the East Asian Countries during the End of the World War II which hugely impacted to the success of this model (Öniş et al. 1991). Consequently, there is a significantly high likely hood that today’s developing countries capitalistic approaches and their present day conditions marred by poor leadership could not be ideal for replication this model in these developing countries (Storm and Naastepad 2014, p.

1059-1094). For instance, during the implementation of this model to the East Asian countries there were a lot of threats hindering the success of this model considering that it was during the Cold War period. This led to threats associated with security, an issue which fostered nationalism and commitment to the transformation of East Asian Countries economies. In this case, states elites were therefore not worried about problems related to income distribution and social welfare allowing them to concentrate their attention to the region’s economic growth (Kuznets 2013, p.11-43). On the other hand, considering that some of the East Asian Countries such as Japan were faced with threats related to Communism they benefited from foreign help more so from the United States which gave them an advantage over these threats.

Read More