The story of Asia’s economic growth is multi faceted, and could never be fully told in one book. Perhaps that is why I was disappointed with this work by TIME business journalist, Michael Schuman. Schuman’s main focus is the political and economic personalities of the post war era including Park Chung Hee of South Korea, Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore and Malaysia’s own Mahithir Mohamad. Doubtless these figures have been hugely influential in the change that has taken place within a generation, and as a biography it fulfils its task adequately. But by focussing on the many personalities, it spreads itself too thin for the 359 pages and does not explore to any satisfying degree (except in the introduction) what the title suggests – evidence for and against the range of theories that explain why this phenomenon has occurred.For as Schuman points out, economic success has not been fortuitous. Case in point Africa, whose wealth, or lack of it, was comparable to Asia 60 years ago and has since remained stagnant. Or even some Asian economies such as the Philippines, who lag behind their neighbours.
The story of a nation’s economic success or failure cannot be explained by numbers and academic theories alone and I suggest that is why Schuman has followed the human element in his story. However some of the theories do have a fascinating human ingredient. For example, one school of thought argues that there is something special about the Asians themselves. A wonderfully controversial subject, but unfortunately only warrants two paragraphs.
This is a well written introductory work on the rise of the Asian economies, however for those seeking something that offers more then superficial, disappointment awaits.
Do you conclude that a classical democracy can produce the results that China, Singapore, Malaysia etc have generated in transforming from pure 3rd world countries ?
ReplyDeleteLike hell.
Countries like India and probably Indonesia are a good example of the failure of democracies in this large developing economies.
Dictatorship rather than management by committee is the way to transform, so long of course that they are "generally" not corrupt and have a global vision to improve life for the citizens.
Just one mans observation :-)
Yes I agree, however India may prove this theory does not apply across the board. STill to tell, but their growth indicates a tigerish quality that may compare favourably with the others in the next decade or 2.
ReplyDeleteIncidently Steve, According to data presented in the reviewed book, Indonesian % increase in GNP from 1969 to 2007 was 2257% compared to Malaysias 1882%. Furthermore, the precentage increase was only marginally behind China.
ReplyDeleteI remain a skeptic on India. The country is an absolute mess ! No infrastructure and its a political democratic nightmare. Happy to be proven wrong, but i'm "short" on India.
ReplyDeleteHaving spent some time in Indonesia the reality in the country does not correspond to those statistics.
The statistics are probably right as there is undeniably immense wealth in the country. There is typically no empty seats in the first class section on the flight from Singapore to Jakarta as its full of rich Indonesians.
The problem with the country is the wealth has been concentrated in the select (and often heavily corrupt, friends of Suharto ...)few. At least the other countries have made progress in building an emerging middle class. China has made something like 300 million move out of poverty in the last 20 years .....
An interesting subject !