The East Asian ‘Tigers’: Following Russia and Latin America?
Probably, the title of this paper is surprising for many specialists in various fields of economics, politics and other social sciences. Indeed, despite the financial-economic crisis of 1997-98, the newly industrialised countries (NICs) of East Asia (‘East Asia’ herein refers to East and Southeast Asia together) have been symbolised the successful development’s pattern for the non-western regions while neither Russia (and the other CIS countries, formerly republics of the USSR, as well) nor Latin American nations demonstrate fascinating achievements in development over the last fifteen-twenty years, good rates of the economic growth in some periods notwithstanding. By dynamics of the social indicators, such as a life expectancy, infants’ mortality, or human development index, the both regions lose competition to the East Asian countries, too. Therefore, it is seemingly difficult to find real foundations for a comparison of Russia and Latin American countries, on the one hand, and the East Asian NICs, on the other, if such a comparison is not used for banal conclusion about rather negative than positive results of reforms in the first case and acquired success in the second one. However, as Karl Marx once noted, “all science would be superfluous if the outward appearance and the essence of things directly coincided.” [Marx K., 1959, p. 797]. In the recent study, a matter of comparison can consist not only in a recognition of predominantly extensive character of the economic growth in the both groups of countries under consideration, as Paul Krugman argued in his famous paper of 1994 [Krugman P., 1994]. Also, it concerns some other invisible similarities hidden beyond the formal statistical indicators. Respectively, the object of this paper is threefold: at first, to find out such similarities; secondly, to propose the proper assessment of the Asian crisis of 1997-98 and the regional post-crisis recovery in light of Russian and Latin American experience over the last decades, and, thirdly, to stimulate discussion aimed at re-thinking widespread approaches to a complement of development studies.
|Date of creation:|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Phone: +54 911 57651065
Web page: http://www.caei.com.ar
More information through EDIRC
|Order Information:|| Postal: Argentine Center of International Studies, Cafayate 1031, CP: 1408, Buenos Aires, Argentina.|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cis:asia00:017. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Ariel González)The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Ariel González to update the entry or send us the correct address
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.