The developmental state in the era of globalization: beyond the Northeast Asian model of political economy

Abstract

Criticism of the developmental state can be divided into two categories. One is the neoliberal position that criticizes the efficacy of the developmental state model itself. According to this view, the developmental state was not an important factor in East Asian development and the adoption of industrial policy would in fact be detrimental to developing countries. A second critical position concedes that a degree of achievement was indeed attained by the developmental state in the past, but argues that the developmental state model is no longer a viable option today. This position holds that the high level of government intervention in successful East Asian countries more or less contributed to their economic development, but that this policy is no longer feasible. While deepening globalization in the world economy is regarded as inimical to the developmental state, some also argue that the developmental state model could only have worked during the Cold War and could not function in today's international political and economic climate. Despite these negative observations, the purpose of this article is to demonstrate the viability of the developmental state model. First, the article supports the statist position by broadening the scope of the argument: developmental states exist not only in Northeast Asia, but also in Southeast Asia, and the East Asian authoritarian regimes had a role in economic development. Second, this article directly counters new criticism of the developmental state. It argues that the developmental state model is still an effective development strategy in the post-Cold War period and even in the era of globalization: the model was useful in East Asia, and could be useful beyond East Asia.

Malaysian Airlines, Neoliberalism and Business as Usual in Malaysia

“…At the same time, at the ubiquitous corner teashop and in everyday conversa tions, the "new" Malaysia, Inc. served as a metonym for the systematic transfer to and reconsolidation of resources by a particular contingent of politicallyconnected elites. Comprehending Malaysia, putatively a nation-state, as a cor porate entity in both local and international parlance was not an innovative discourse (Gomez and Saravanamuttu, 2012;Hayashi, 2010;Tabb, 2004;Calla han, 2006), but it became increasingly useful as the addition of the adjec tive "new" enabled a re-branding of Malaysia and Malaysian companies in the international competitive arena (Bunnell, 2004;Lai, 2006;Sloane-White, 2011). Originally ascribed to an unidentified source close to the re-nationalisation schemes, the expression "new Malaysia, Inc." was used by commentators with a considerable amount of irony, as the beneficiaries of the government's on-going re-nationalisation and privatisation were the same urban, Oxbridge-educated, governmentally-or royally-connected elite bumiputeras who benefited from the first privatising incarnation of Malaysia, Inc.3 In private, corporate exec utives and officials sidelined by Dr. Mahathir's new crew referred to the "new" bumiputera tycoons as "bums".…”

Impact of the 2007–09 global economic crisis on human resource management among Chinese export-oriented enterprises

“…By the end of 1999, the nonstate sector contributed nearly 80% of China's gross industrial output (Schlevogt 2002). Despite several obstacles, the Chinese government has skilfully promoted successful economic development (Hayashi 2010). It has opened up the capital markets and embraced globalization.…”

Developmental States: A Review of the Literature

“…Despite the tradeoffs that developmental states involve that Vu highlights and posits that "the experience of developmental states may not be worth emulating" (2007, p.49), there has been a concerted concern with what can be learnt from the East Asian experience (Wade, 1990;Evans, 1998;Williams et al 2011;Hayashi, 2010). However, given the vast array of interpretations of what factors were the most influential in producing developmental states what lessons are to be transferred remains highly contested.…”

“…Woo-Cumings observes that there have been distinct peaks of research on developmental states when they are prosperous (1999, p.2). In addition Hayashi argues that the intense focus on the 'stellar' successes of the North East Asian States (Japan, South Korea and Taiwan) has obscured the gains of South East Asian states (Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia) whose experience he contends may actually offer more lessons to other developing countries than those of North East Asian states (Hayashi, 2010). Whilst the focus on success is perhaps understandable it does tend to narrow the focus in a way that can distort the fuller picture and miss some elements entirely from the frame.…”