Advertisement

The Newly Industrializing Economies as Models for Establishing a Highly Competitive Industrial Base — What Lessons to Learn?

  • Wolfgang Hillebrand
Part of the Europe-Asia-Pacific Studies in Economy and Technology book series (STUDIES ECONOMY)

Abstract

The amazing success of the “Newly Industrializing Economies (NIEs)” in Asia as large-scale exporters of industrial goods has aroused the interest of both policymakers and academics from the outset. To date, however, their various attempts to explain the dynamics of export-oriented late industrialization in Southeast and East Asia have failed to produce a consensus as regards the key determinants and the links between them:
  • One school of thought, which may be labelled the “liberal school”, maintains that the success of Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Korea (Rep.) is mainly due to the fact that these economies have, by and large, “got their prices right”, i.e. they maintained a competitive exchange rate, relied on low levels of effective protection, emphasized competition on domestic markets, implemented policies that did not, in aggregate, discriminate between broad groups of industrial activity, and reduced the role of government as the economy became more complex.1

Keywords

Economic Management Indirect Form Late Industrialization Government Guidance Facility Equipment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    World Bank, Worlk Development Report 1987, p. 71Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    A full account on the controversies over the different theories of allocation is given in Hillebrand W. (1990) Industrial and Technological Strategies of Newly Industrializing Countries. Controversies over Theories of Allocations and Conclusions Based on the Korean Experience. (Forthcoming) Berlin.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Weiss D. (1981) Some Reflections on Outward-Looking Economic Management in a Turbulent International Environment. L’Egypte Contemporaine, Revue Trimestrelle de la Société Egyptienne d’Economie Politique, de Statistique et de Législation, Cairo, No. 385.Google Scholar
  4. 3a.
    Sagasti F. (1988) National Development Planning in Turbulent Times: New Approaches and Criteria for Institutional Design. World Development, 16:4, pp. 431–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 4.
    Ministry of Science and Technology (1987) Introduction to Science and Technology, Republic of Korea, Seoul, p. 72.Google Scholar
  6. 5.
    A detailed assessment of the Taiwanese approach to economic management is given by Taake H. H. (1973) Politische Planungs- und administrative Entscheidungsprozesse bei der Aufstellung und Durchführung von Entwicklungsplänen. Empirische Analyse einiger ostasiatischer Länder unter besonderer Herausstellung Taiwans, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  7. 5a.
    See also Galli A. (1988) Taiwan ROC: Eine chinesische Herausforderung. Von der Handelsmacht zum Technologiezentrum. München.Google Scholar
  8. 6.
    For a discussion of cultural factors in development with respect to Japan see Wiliams D. (1985) Beyond Political Economy: A Critique of Issues Raised in Chalmers Johnson’s MITI and the Japanese Miracle. East Asia, 3:231–247.Google Scholar
  9. 7.
    Balassa B. (1977) A “Stages Approach to Comparative Advantage”. Washington.Google Scholar
  10. 8.
    Commission of the European Communities (1980) Industrial Specialization in Twelve European Countries Before and After 1973. Series FAST, Brussels, No. 1.Google Scholar
  11. 9.
    Kaplinsky R. (1988) Industrial Restructuring in LDCs: The Role of Information Technology. Brighton (mimeo), pp. 33–36.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin · Heidelberg 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wolfgang Hillebrand
    • 1
  1. 1.Senior Industrial EconomistGerman Development Institute (GDI)Berlin 10Germany

Personalised recommendations