Perspectives on East Asian Development: An Introduction

2019

Précis: This paper examines the dominant forces at play in East Asia in an effort to chart regional dynamics within a global non-Eurocentric framework in the course of three epochs.* In the first era, spanning the 16 to the early 19 century a China-centered tributary trade order provided a geopolitical framework within which private trade could also flourish. At its height in the 18 century, as East Asia linked to a wider regional and global economy, core areas achieved high levels of peace, prosperity and stability. The second period is notable for dislocation, war and radical transformation spanning the years 1840-1970. In this era profound transformations were the product of system disintegration, colonial rule, world wars, and anti-colonial wars and revolutions. With the collapse of the regional order, bilateral relations, colonial and postcolonial, predominated. Since the 1970s there have been signs of the emergence of a third epoch notable for progress toward the formation of ...

Journal of international & global studies, 2015

The Copenhagen Journal of Asian Studies

The multifarious forces of globalization have profoundly changed not only the global economic landscape but also the identities of ethnic groups, nations and regions. As highlighted in the four articles that constitute this special issue, globalization has led to increasing cooperation between East and Southeast Asian countries through the simultaneous processes of regionalization and regionalism. Each country contributes to closer cooperation in Asia, albeit unevenly and in different ways (Frost 2008: 14). Since the 1990s, regionalism has been viewed as a potent force in the globalization process as 'it represents concentrations of political and economic power competing in the global economy, with multiple interregional and intra-regional flows' (Mittelman 1996: 190). This powerful force is extended into cross-regional interstate cooperation in terms of seeking preferential trading relations with countries outside the region through free trade agreements (Solis and Katada 2007). The current trend leans towards establishing more extensive and multifaceted external linkages within a multipolar context. The ASEAN Six

Political Studies, 2009

There is a good deal of scepticism about the prospects for regionalism in East Asia. There are, however, grounds for supposing that the outlook for regional integration in East Asia is brighter than it has ever been, partly as a consequence of the ‘rise of China’. This paper explains why an earlier attempt to integrate the region under Japanese imperialism failed, why US foreign policy has effectively foreclosed any possibility of East Asian integration up to now, and why it may be accelerating as a consequence of China’s growing economic and political impact on the region. To explain these different historical experiences I draw on a form of critical geopolitics, which has recently emerged in economic and political geography, and which can usefully be incorporated into international relations scholarship.

International Affairs, 2020

The distinguished Indian economist, Deepak Nayyar, has written a fascinating and illuminating account of the economic rise to ascendancy of Asia over the course of the past 50 years. Its rigor, lucidity, statistical evidence, and reasoned analysis entitle this book to stake a claim of being the definitive account of the Asian extraordinary rise that has reconfigured the world economy since the collapse of European colonialism in the two decades after World War II. Nayyar tells us near the beginning that "The object of this book is to analyze the phenomenal transformation of Asia, which would have been difficult to imagine, let alone predict, fifty years ago."[4] It would indeed seemed so absurd to have been upbeat about the Asian economic future as late as 1960 as to exhibit the "imagination running wild."[2] To drive this striking point home he looks back at The Asian Drama (1968), the classic threevolume work of the celebrated Swedish economist, Gunnar Myrdal, who despite a magisterial effort to marshal all available information at the time, turned out to be totally wrong in its central pessimistic prognoses of the economic future of Asia, which accorded with and reinforced the conventional wisdom of the time. Nayyar helps us understand why Myrdal was so wrong, and if I get correctly the force of his well-honed argument, the foreboding prognosis resulted from the gross underestimation of Asian human resources and governmental capabilities. Asian states emerged from colonial governance and imperialist exploitation much less shattered than did their African or Latin American counterparts, and were better able to steer their economies in ways that produced developmental success. A major theme of Nayyar's groundbreaking study of what he labels 'Asian resurgence' is the critical importance of rational guidance of development by a strong and autonomous state that can operate in a rational manner when it comes to formulating its approach to economic development. As a result, Asian governments did not need to defer to the status quo orientations of traditional elites while implementing polices designed to promote rapid industrialization, education, health, and technological innovation. A distinctive feature of Nayyar's ambitious approach is to broaden inquiry beyond the rise of China, or at most China and India, to examine the economic experience of no less than 14 Asian economies over the half century, beginning in 1970. This comparative methodology enables a search for clues as to why some countries in Asia did far better than others when it comes to GNP growth per annum and per capita without losing the other part of the story, which tells of the startling progress achieved by Asia as a whole. In effect, some Asian countries did better than others, and some did better in certain intervals than at other times, accounting for two dimensions of diversity. Yet this deconstructive insight should not divert attention from the central assertion: that Asia as a region did much better than was expected, at least after 1970, and from economistic perspectives far better. It is obvious that Africa and Latin America did not fare nearly as well as Asia, which is a part of the puzzle that Nayyar takes note of, but does not try to solve beyond a casual observation that their state formation lagged, their human capital declined, and these countries did have nearly as robust pre-colonial economies as Asia with its impressive manufacturing and governance capabilities. In one sense, the most startling finding, given this comparative approach, is that ideological orientation meant far less than the effectiveness of state intervention in the economy by its pursuit of industrial policies designed to promote growth, especially via export promotion and an opening of the national economy to trade and investment potentials arising from profits, CHALLENGE

Asian Studies Review, 2016

2021

In the past seventy–five years, developing Asia has transformed more rapidly than any other region. What is behind this success? Will Asia go on to lead the world, or will its rise encounter obstacles? Asia is politically diverse, with democracies, hybrid governments and numerous authoritarian regimes. Several are unstable. Paths to prosperity have varied, including the East Asian model, China’s “socialist market economy”, Indian self–reliance, and economic transition in Central Asia. Regional cooperation is chronically weak, due to the youthfulness, dispersion and diversity of Asia’s sovereign states. China’s rise threatens to fracture the region further. As the region emerges from the Covid–19 crisis, East Asia is well positioned to lead an economic recovery. However, many challenges remain. Political and governance systems are weak. Territorial disputes could escalate into open conflict, including Taiwan. Human capital is poorly developed, and populations are aging. Finally, the ...

Revista de Fomento Social

In the past seventy–five years, developing Asia has transformed more rapidly than any other region. What is behind this success? Will Asia go on to lead the world, or will its rise encounter obstacles? Asia is politically diverse, with democracies, hybrid governments and numerous authoritarian regimes. Several are unstable. Paths to prosperity have varied, including the East Asian model, China’s “socialist market economy”, Indian self–reliance, and economic transition in Central Asia. Regional cooperation is chronically weak, due to the youthfulness, dispersion and diversity of Asia’s sovereign states. China’s rise threatens to fracture the region further. As the region emerges from the Covid–19 crisis, East Asia is well positioned to lead an economic recovery. However, many challenges remain. Political and governance systems are weak. Territorial disputes could escalate into open conflict, including Taiwan. Human capital is poorly developed, and populations are aging. Finally, the ...