Korea and Taiwan: The Crisis of Investment-Led Growth and the End of the Developmental State

Pirie, Iain

doi:10.1080/00472336.2017.1375136

Cited by 27 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Some analysts say that, as of today, the Northeast Asian developmental state has eroded to the point that 'the developmental state is dead' (Pirie 2017). It is true that as the economies achieved 'high income' they moved in a neoliberal direction, both for structural reasons and also to bolster their alliances with the West.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Escaping the periphery: The East Asian 'mystery' solved

Wade¹

2018

WIDER Working Paper

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

provides economic analysis and policy advice with the aim of promoting sustainable and equitable development. The Institute began operations in 1985 in Helsinki, Finland, as the first research and training centre of the United Nations University. Today it is a unique blend of think tank, research institute, and UN agency-providing a range of services from policy advice to governments as well as freely available original research. The Institute is funded through income from an endowment fund with additional contributions to its work programme from Finland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom as well as earmarked contributions for specific projects from a variety of donors.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Escaping the periphery: The East Asian 'mystery' solved

Wade¹

2018

WIDER Working Paper

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Korea's jumped from 10 per cent in 1960 to 36 per cent in the late 1970s, at the height of the Heavy and Chemical Industries drive; then it fell slightly, before rising to 39 per cent between 1991 and 1996. By way of comparison, the UK figure for 1990 was 19 per cent, the US figure 17 per cent (Pirie, ). The very high levels of investment in East Asia are also shown in Table…”

Section: Explaining the East Asian Catch‐up Storiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Public social spending as a share of GDP remains far below the OECD average, and the share of the labour force in independent trade unions also falls far short of the OECD average. The governments have allowed the share of wages in national income to keep falling — in Taiwan, from 55 per cent in 1995 to as low as 48 per cent in 2011 (Pirie, : 47). Income inequality has steadily risen since the 1980s.…”

Section: Explaining the East Asian Catch‐up Storiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This was just one thrust of its wider ‘577’ programme — 5 per cent of GDP invested in R&D, with a focus on 7 major areas, to become one of the 7 major science and technology economies in the world. Indeed, Pirie acknowledges of Korea, ‘The state's role in promoting collaborative research and managing “competition” goes far beyond what we may expect a “normal” neo‐liberal state to play’ (Pirie, : 35).…”

Section: Explaining the East Asian Catch‐up Storiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Developmental State: Dead or Alive?

Wade¹

2018

Development and Change

163

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Before the 1980s, the mainstream Western prescription for developing countries to catch up with the West assigned the state a leading role in governing the market. In the 1980s, this shifted to a framework‐providing role in a largely deregulated and maximally open economy. Also in the 1980s, it became apparent that some East Asian capitalist economies were growing so fast that they would become ‘developed’ in the foreseeable future, marking them out as completely exceptional. Mainstream economists explained their success as the result of following the Western prescription, while other scholars attributed this rapid growth to ‘the developmental state’. This essay compares these two explanations of successful economic development, concluding in favour of the latter — with respect to the catch‐up decades. But what happened subsequently? Several scholars who accept the key role of the developmental state in the early period of fast industrialization in East Asia now argue that South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore have transformed from developmental to close‐to‐neoliberal states. This contribution argues that the erstwhile East Asian developmental states have indeed changed, but they have not transformed into neoliberal states. Rather they have adapted and evolved, but still undertake market‐steering, ‘societal mission’ roles well beyond neoliberal limits. The essay also suggests how other developing countries can learn lessons from their experience.

show abstract

“…First, while the debate on the developmental state has taken several turns since the Asian financial crisis of 1997/98 and the global financial crisis of 2007/08, the question of the developmental state in East Asia continues to be assessed within the framework of whether and how much the state has retained or lost its power over domestic firms in terms of nurturing and directing them, on the one hand, and whether and how much it has changed its orientation from ‘national’ to ‘global’ on the other hand. In other words, has it become ‘neo‐developmental’, been replaced by a ‘post‐developmental state’ or transformed into a ‘hybrid type’ (see Haggard and Zheng, ; Hayashi, ; Hundt, , ; Kalinowski, ; Pirie ; Stubbs, ; Yeung, )? While these discussions entail important insights at the level of policy changes, they tend to magnify differences between these newly labelled (developmental) states while bypassing the question of what unifies them beyond apparent differences, that is, their being capitalist states.…”

Section: Developmentalism and Statism: Limitations Of Extant Critiquementioning

confidence: 99%

From Getting the Development Question Wrong to Bringing Emancipation Back In: Re‐reading Alice Amsden

Song¹

2019

Development and Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article appraises Alice Amsden's theory of development. In particular, it focuses on Amsden's juxtaposing of the concrete and the universal, and the national and the global, as antithetical, and her prioritizing of the former over the latter. The author argues that this key feature of Amsden's work reduces the concept of development to a nationally determined process and empties capitalist development of its class content. It is argued that Amsden's primary focus on why and how development occurs in the Third World bypasses the question of what development is, thereby reinforcing ‘Third World developmentalism’, and removes the emancipatory content from the concept of development. Given the continued legacy of Amsden's theory, as evidenced in recent debates, and the inadequacy of extant Marxist critiques in addressing its conceptual and political problems, this article proposes an alternative conceptualization of concrete–general and national–global relations based on Marx's critique of political economy, and calls for the resuscitation of the emancipatory content of the concept of development.

show abstract

Korea and Taiwan: The Crisis of Investment-Led Growth and the End of the Developmental State

Cited by 27 publications

References 53 publications

Escaping the periphery: The East Asian 'mystery' solved

Escaping the periphery: The East Asian 'mystery' solved

The Developmental State: Dead or Alive?

From Getting the Development Question Wrong to Bringing Emancipation Back In: Re‐reading Alice Amsden

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About