East Asian is one of the fastest-growing regions, with fascinating developments in trade growth since the 1960s (World Bank,1993). Yet different economists tend to describe East Asian's phenomenal economic growth according to thier own ""pet theories, ""through ""partial insights and shaky evidence"" (Wade, 1992). Among many theoretical arguments, macroeconomic stability, high saivngs rations, heavy investment in physical and human capital, and outward-looking trade policies are the commonalities in East Asian developments that most economists could agree upon (Birdsall and Japersen), 1997). On empirical grounds, trade as the engine of growth has been playing a catalyst's role in East Asian development, with japan as the leader for those latecomers to industri-alization in the region. The timely shift of trade strategy from import substitution to export promotion in the first tier of the newly industrialized countries (NICs) - i.e Hong Kong, Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan - in the 1960s enabled them to penetrate the world market at least one decade ahead of most Latin American countries. After the first energy crisi of 1973-1974, the export-promotion strategy in the Asian NICs was follwed by the ASEAN-4 - i.e. Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand - which is generally considered as the second tier of NICs, and by China after its economic reform and openness in 1978-1979. However, even within the relatively less disputable topic area of export- led growth (Bhagwati, 1999; Balassa, 1988), empirical studies on East Asian trade patterns could hardly support any single trade theory that describe what has generated East Asian trade performance. Rather than joining the debate on which development theory or model best explanis the East Asian development path. this book analyzes trade thier patterns in these three representative groups of ecoimies by relating thier trade competitive edges wit technological development and factor endowments. The three representative groups in this study are: the NICs that adopted an export-promotion strategy since the mid-1960s; and the second-tier Nics (ASEAN-4) and China. These three country groups with diffrent levels of development and industrialization provide a laboratory test to answer the question of whether the followers have been technologically catching up falling behind the industrial lead of Japan, and to reconcile the techonologic ""catching -up or falling behind"" hypothesis and ""factor proportions"" theories. Thourgh vigorous stufdy of the performances in the past decades, East Asian trade and industrialization experiences may offer some lessons for all developing countries.

Tidak tersedia versi lain

Tidak Ada Data