Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

State-Market relations in East Asia and institution-building in the Asia-Pacific

  • East Asian Economy
  • Published:
East Asia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the economic development of East Asain countries during the 1980s and 1990s, there has emerged a distinct form of capitalism characterized by active state intervetion in the economy and close state-business relations. This article attempts to identify the key ingredients of the relations between the state and market that has led to industrial development in East Asia. It also explores how these characteristics are reflected institution-building in the Asia-Pacific as, for example, in the case of APEC where conflicts have developed between the Asian and western members in their attempts to promote economic cooperation

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. For instance, trade between East Asian countries (ASEAN, South Korea, Japan, and the three Chinese entities) jumped from 32 percent of those countries trade in 1983 to 43 percent in 1993. The Economist, November 12, 1994, p. 12.

  2. Nicole Gallant and Richard Stubbs, “APEC's Dilemmas: Institution-Building Around the Pacific Rim.” Pacific Affairs, Vo. 70, no. 2 (1997); Deng Yong, “Japan in APEC: The Problematic Leadership Role.” Asian Survey, Vol.37, no.4 (1997).

  3. John Stremlau “Clinton's Dollar Diplomacy,” Foreign Policy, Vol. 97 (1994/95), p. 21.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Walden Bello and Shea Cunningham, “Trade Warfare and Regional Integration in the Pacific: The USA, Japan and the Asian NICS”. Third World Quarterly, Vol. 15, no. 3 (1994), p. 456; Mark Beeson and Jayasuriya Kanishka, “The Political Rationalities of Regionalism: APEC and the EU in Comparative Perspective.” The Pacific Review, Vol. 11, no.3 (1998), p. 328.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Joseph A. Camilleri, “Regionalism and Globalism in Asia-Pacific: The Interplay of Economy, Security and Politics.” http://www.org/joseph-camilleri.html

  6. Anne O. Krueger, “The Experience and Lessons of Asia's Super Exporters.” In: V. Corbo, Anne O. Krueger and A. Ossai (eds.) Export-Oriented Development Strategies Boulder, Co.: Westview Press, 1985); Bela Balassa, “The Process of Industrial Development and Alternative Development Strategies.” In: Bela Balassa (ed.) The Newly Industrializing Countries in the World Economy (New York: Pergamon, 1981).

    Google Scholar 

  7. The World Bank long stood in line with the neo-classical perspective. However, it gradually modified its tune. In The East Asian Miracle report, the bank admitted that in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, the government intervened to foster development and that “these strategies of selective promotion wereclosely associated with high rates of private investment and, in the fastest-growing economies, high rates of productivity growth” (World Bank, The East Asian Miracle: Economic Growth and Public Policy [New York: Oxford University Press, 1993], p.6) The 1997 World Development Report further assesses the role of state, proposing a two-part strategy for greater state effectiveness: to match the state's role to its existing capability, and to reinvigorate the state's institutional capability through rules, partnerships, and competitive pressures (World Bank, World Development Report 1997 [Washington D. C.: World Bank, 1997]).

  8. Chalmers Johnson, MITI and the Japanese Miracle: The Growth of Industrial Policy, 1925–1975 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1982); T. J. Pempel, Policy and Politics in Japan: Creative Conservatism (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1982); John Zysman, Governments, Markets, and Growth: Financial Systems and the Politics of Industrial Change (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1983).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Chalmers Johnson, “Political Institutions and Economic Performance: The Govemment Business Relationship in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan.” In Frederic C. Deyo (ed.) The Political Economy of the New Asian Industrialism, (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1987); Alice H. Amsden, Asia's Next Giant: South Korea and Late Industrialization (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989); Robert Wade, Governing the Market: Economic Theory and the Role of Government in East Asian Industrialization (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  10. D. Friedman, The Misunderstood Miracle: Industrial Development and Political Change in Japan (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1988); G. W. Noble, “The Japanese Industrial Policy Debate.” In Stephan Haggard and Chung-in Moon (eds) Pacific Dynamics: The International Politics of Industrial Change (Inchon: Center for International Studies, Inha University: Boulder, Co.: Westview Press, 1989); Moon Chung-in, “Beyond Statism: The Political Economy of Growth in south Korea, “International Studies Notes, Vol. 15 (1990); Sato Yukihito, “Taiwan no keizai hatten ni okeru seifu to minkan kigyo” (Government and firms in Tai-wanese economic development) in Hattori Tomio and Sato Yukihito (eds.) Kankoku taiwan no hatten mekanizumu (Development mechanism in Korea and Taiwan), (Tokyo: Ajia keizai kenkyujo, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Richard J. Samuels, The Business of the Japanese State: Energy Markets in Comparative and Historicalo Perspective (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press 1987). Frances M. Rosenbluth, Financial Politics in Contemporary Japan (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1989); Moon Chung-in, “Changing State-Business Relations in South Korea Since 1980.” In Andrew MacIntyre (ed.) Business and Government in Industrializing East and Southeast Asia, (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell university Press, 1994); Calder Kent E., Strategic Capitalism: Private Business and Public Purpose in Japanese Industrial Finance (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Richard F. Doner, “Limits of State Strength: Toward an Institutionalist View of Economic Development,” World Politics, Vol. 44 (1992); Peter B. Evans, Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation (Princeton N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1995); Linda Weiss and John M. Hobson, States and Economic Development: A Comparative Historical Analysis (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995).

  13. Evans, Embedded Antonomy

  14. Weiss and Hobson, States and Economic Development.

  15. Johnson, “Political Institutions and Economic Performance,”, p. 152; Wade, Robert Wade, Governing the Market: Economic Theory and the Role of Government in East Asian Industrialization (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1990). pp. 217–24.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hilton Root, Small Countries, Big Lessons: Governance and the Rise of East Asia (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 25–26.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Inoue Ryuichiro, “An East Asian Industrial Policy Model,” In Inoue Ryuichiro, Hirohisa Kohama, and Shujiro Urata (eds), Industrial Policy in East Asia (Tokyo: JETRO, 1993), p. 18.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Gyokai normally mean a formal association (industrial association) which represents the interests of a specific industrial sector. Sone uses the term of gyokai in a broader sense, referring to “all of the entities (firms, enterprises, and trade associations) that fall under the legal jurisdiction of a particular ministry” (Sone Yasunori, “Conclusion: Structuring Political Bargains: Government, Gyokai, and Markets”, In Gary D. Allinson and Yasuniro Sone (eds), Political Dynamics in Contemporary Japan (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1993), p. 300.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Chung H. Lee, “The Government, Financial System, and Large Private Enterprises in the Economic Development of South Korea,” World Development, vol. 20, no. 2 (1992), p. 192.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Linda Weiss, The Myth of the Powerless State: Governing the Economy in a Global Era (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1998), pp. 62–63.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ibid., p. 59.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Carol A. G. Jones, “Capitalism, Globalization and Rule of Law: An Alternative Trajectory of Legal Change in China,” Social and Legal Studies, Vo,. 3, no 1 (1994), p. 197.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Johnson, MITI and the Japanese Miracle.

  24. World Bank, The East Asian Miracle.

  25. Jose Edgardo Compos and Hilton L. Root The Key to the Asian Miracle: Making Shared Growth Credible (Washington D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1996), p. 9.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ibid..

    Google Scholar 

  27. Murakami Yasusuke, Han koten no seiji keizai gaku (An anti-classical political economic analysis) (Tokyo: Chuo koronsha, 1992), p. 90.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Unofficial regional institutions were formed before such as, the business related Pacific Basin Economic Council (PBEC) in 1967; the academic Pacific Trade and Development conference (PAFTAD) founded in 1969; and the Pacific Economic Cooperation Conference (PECC, now Council) in 1980. For the role of non-governmental fora in promoting regional economic cooperation, see laurence Woods, Asia-Pacific Diplomacy: Non-governmental Organisations and International Relations (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1995).

  29. The founding members are the six ASEAN members, the United States, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand. The membership expanded to 21 by 1998.

  30. Open regionalism is referred to as regional economic cooperation that is consistent with the GATT principles and does not discriminate against other economies (Elek Andrew, “Pacific Economic Co-operation: Policy Choices for the 1990s,” Asian-Pacific Economic Literature, Vol. 6, no.1 [1992]). The benefits of trade liberalisation in one economy are expanded not only to all APEC member economies, but also to any non-member economy.

  31. It is dangerous to classify the APEC members into the two groups too simply. For instance, Indonesia joined Australia and the United States in formulating the liberalisation goals in 1994, although Japan, China, and Malaysia sought to hold back. However, it is still possible to identify general differences in approach between the Asian and western members.

  32. Gallant and Stubbs, p. 209; Deng Deng Yong, “Japan in APEC: The Problematic Leadership Role.” Asian Survey, Vol.37, no.4 (1997). p. 358.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Funabashi Yoichi, Asia-Pacific Fusion: Japan's Role in APEC (Washington D.C.: Institute for International Economics, 1995), p. 121.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Stephan Haggard, Developing Nations and the Politics of Global Integration (Washington D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1995), pp. 113–14.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Ecotech was first referred to development cooperation as APEC's major concern. Ecotech began in seven areas: 1) review of trade and investment data, 2) trade promotion, 3) expansion of investment and technology transfer, 4) human resource development, 5) energy, 6) marine resource conservation, and 7) telecommunications. In the 1991 Seoul ministerial meeting, three more areas—transportation, tourism, and fisheries—were added.

  36. Yamakage Susumu, ASEAN pawaa: Ajia taiheiyo no chukaku he (ASEAN power: Toward a Center of, the Asia-Pacific), (Tokyo: Tokyo daigaku shuppankai, 1997), p. 245.

    Google Scholar 

  37. nYamakage, Ibid., p. 229; Kikuchi Tsutomu, APEC: Ajia taihieyo shin chitsujo no mosaku (Search for a new order in the Asia-Pacific) (Tokyo: Nihon kokusai mondai kenkyujo, 1995), pp. 194–96.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Charles E. Morrison, “APEC and Regime Formation: Regional and Global Dimensions,” paper presented at the international Symposium of Special Research Project on the New International System, University of Tsukuba, September 17–18, 1996, p. 276.

  39. Funabashi, p. 123.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Robert Wade, “Japan, the World Bank, and the Art of Paradigm Maintenance: The East Asian Miracle in Political Perspective,” New Left Review, Vol. 217, (May/June 1996).

  41. Funabashi, p. 122.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Frank B. Gibney, “Creating a Pacific Community: A Time to Bolster Economic Institutions,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 72, no.5 (1993), p. 21.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Alan Oxley, “The Ecotech Agenda—APEC's Other Side: Will Infrastructure Be APEC's New Orientation?” paper presented at the APEC Study Centre Consortium Conference, Banff, Canada, May 24, 1997, p.3.

  44. Stuart Harris, “Policy Networks and Economic Cooperation: Policy Coordination in the Asia-Pacific Region,” The Pacific Review, Vol. 7, no.4 (1994), p. 392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. C. E. Barfield, “Regionalism and U.S. Trade Policy,” In J. Bhagwati and A. Panagariya (eds), The Economics of Preferential Trade Agreements (Washington D. C.: AEI Press, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Gallant and Stubbs, “APEC's Dilemma,” p.213; Helen E. S. Nesadurai, “APEC: A Tool for US Regional Domination?” The Pacific Review, Vol. 9, no.1 (1996), p. 32.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Amitav Acharya, “Ideas, Identity, and Institution-Building: From the ‘ASEAN Way’ to the ‘Asia-Pacific Way’?” The Pacific Review, Vol. 10, no. 3 (1997), p. 329.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Amitav Acharya, “Multilateralism: Is There an Asia-Pacific Way?” NBR Analysis, Vol. 8, no. 2 (1997), p. 14.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Robert B. Reich, “Who Is Us?” Harvard Business Review, Vol.68 (1990).

  50. Marie Anchordoguy, “Japan at a Technological Crossroads: Does Change Support Convergence Theory?” Journal of Japanese Studies, Vol. 23, no.2 (1997), p. 386.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Linda Weiss, “Developmental States in Transition: Adapting, Innovating, Recomposing, not ‘Normalizing’,” paper presented to the Conference: Beyond Liberalisation: Making Economic Policy in Europe and the Asia-Pacific—Comparisons, Regions, Linkages and Lessons, European University Institute, October 15–16, 1998, p. 6.

  52. Kohama Hirohisa and Urata Shujiro, “Industrial Policy and Development Strategy in East Asia,” In Ryuichiro Inoue, Kohama Hirohisa, and Urata Shujiro (eds.) Industrial Policy in East Asia (Tokyo: JETRO, 1993), p.273.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Helen V. Milner, Resisting Protectionism: Global Industries and the Politics of International Trade (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1988).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Sakakibara Eisuke, Shinpo shugi kara no ketsubetsu (A Departure from Progressivism), (Tokyo: Yomiuri shinbunsha, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Kenichi Takayasu, Yukiko Ishizaki, and Mori Minako, “Kyoso jidai wo mukaeru tonan ajia chiiki no jidosha sangyo” (The Imminent Advent of the Age of Global Competition for the Automobile Industry in Southeast Asia), Kan taiheiyo bijinesu joho, Vol. 3, no. 34 (1996), p. 27.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Funabashi, p. 122.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Ponchiano S. Intal, “Comments,” APEC: Liberalization or Development Cooperation? Joint U.S.-Korea Academic Studies, Vol. 8 (1998), p. 101.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Ro Jaebong and Ahn Hyungdo, “APEC Economic and Technical Cooperation: Prospects and Issues,” APEC: Liberalization or Development Cooperation? Joint U.S.-Korea Academic Studies, Vol. 8 (1998), p. 70.

    Google Scholar 

  59. World Bank, World Development Report 1997.

  60. Acharya, p. 332.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Acharya, p. 14.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Kikuchi, pp. 328.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Acharya, p. 335.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Donald Crone, “Does Hegemony Matter? The Reorganization of the Pacific Political Economy,” World Politics, Vol. 45 (1993), p. 525; Higgott Richard, “APEC—A Sceptical View,” In Andrew Mack and John Ravenhill (eds.) Pacific Cooperation: Building Economic and Security Regimes in the Asia-Pacific Region (Boulder Co.: Westview Press, 1995), p. 74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Hidetaka Yoshimatsu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yoshimatsu, H. State-Market relations in East Asia and institution-building in the Asia-Pacific. East Asia 18, 5–33 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12140-000-0002-9

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12140-000-0002-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation