Statism and asian political economy: Is there a new paradigm?

Transnational Asia and Regional Networks: Toward a New Political Economy of East Asia

“…It is also argued that ''the uniqueness of statism as a paradigm depends on defining the state as both as autonomous and a developmental entity.'' The primary payoff from an autonomous state in the statist design is ''the enhancement of the state's developmental potential by allowing technocrats to have a free hand in designing policies attuned to market rationality'' (Choi 1998).…”

“…In conjunction with rapid economic development of East Asia between the mid-1960s and mid-1990s, various propositions were put forth in explaining the dynamics and patterns of the region's growth. Rejecting the Dependency Theory that was prevailing in much of the literature in the 1970s/1980s, the World Bank Report (1993) underscores the significant role played by the Newly Industrialized Countries (NIC) governments in formulating and implementing ''market-friendly strategies'' as well as their interventionalist stance through institutional mechanisms in facilitating the East Asian economic miracle, such as the insulation of economic technocrats from political influence, efficient and high-quality bureaucracies managing policy, and public-private consultative bodies that shared information (Hawes and Liu 1993;Choi 1998;Suehiro 2008;Yeung 2014). Approximately at the same time, Confucianism and other East Asian cultural values such as propensity for hardworking, discipline, education and familism (which have shared traits originated mainly from the Sinic civilization) were considered by some as key elements behind the region's remarkable economic growth and social cohesion (cf.…”

Korea vs. Italy: Why Culture is Important in Keeping your Country Competitive

“…In fact, UNESCO (2012: 205) once again picked up the issue of Ghana vs. Korea and argued that Korea defeated Ghana in economic development by lion's share due to Korea's success in equally distributing skills to workers by expanding secondary education enrolment. However, apart from the strong state thesis, advanced by many statists in the 1980s and beyond (see inter alia Johnson, 1982;Skocpol, 1985;Im, 1987;Migdal, 1988;Choi, 1998), these previous comparisons failed to pinpoint Korean institutions, although they were very clear and confident about Korean education. Indeed, institutions, whether political, social, or economic, are not as obvious or confident as education.…”