IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wbk/wbrwps/1881.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Asian miracle and modern growth theory

Author

Listed:
  • Nelson, Richard R.
  • Pack, Howard

Abstract

In the past 35 years, China, Hong Kong, Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan (China) have transformed themselves from technologically backwards and poor economies to relatively modern, affluent economies. Each has experienced more than a fourfold increase in per capita income. In each, a significant number of firms are producing technologically complex products competitive with firms in Europe, Japan, and the United States. Their growth performance has exceeded that of virtually all comparable economies. How they did it is a question of great importance. Virtually all theories about how they did it placed investments in capital stock at the center of the explanation. The authors divide most growth theories about the Asian miracle into two groups: 1) The"accumulation"theories stress the role of capital investments in moving these economies along their production functions. What lies behind rapid development, according to this type of theory, is very high investment rates. If a nation makes the investments, marshals the resources, development will follow. 2) The"assimilation"theories stress the entrepreneurship, innovation, and learning these economies went through before they could master the new technologies they were adopting from more advanced industrial nations. They see investment in human and physical capital as an essential but far from sufficient part of assimilation. In addition, people must learn about, take the risk of operating, and come to master technologies and other practices new to the country, if not the world. The emphasis for assimilation theorists is on innovation and learning, rather than on marshaling. If one marshals but does not innovate and learn, development does not follow. These are complex theories that raise as many questions as they answer. The authors discuss differences in the way the two groups of theorists treat four matters: entrepreneurial decisionmaking; the nature of technology; the economic capabilities possible with a well-educated work force; and the role exports play in a country's rapid development.The differences between the theories matter because they affect our understanding of why the Asian miracle happened and because they imply different things about appropriate economic development policy.

Suggested Citation

  • Nelson, Richard R. & Pack, Howard, 1998. "The Asian miracle and modern growth theory," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1881, The World Bank.
    • Handle: RePEc:wbk:wbrwps:1881
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/1998/02/01/000009265_3980312102622/Rendered/PDF/multi0page.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert J. Barro, 1991. "Economic Growth in a Cross Section of Countries," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 106(2), pages 407-443.
    2. Abramovitz, Moses, 1986. "Catching Up, Forging Ahead, and Falling Behind," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(2), pages 385-406, June.
    3. Michael Hobday, 1995. "Innovation In East Asia," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 226.
    4. Crafts, Nick, 1996. "'Post-neoclassical Endogenous Growth Theory': What Are Its Policy Implications?," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 12(2), pages 30-47, Summer.
    5. Abramovitz,Moses, 1989. "Thinking about Growth," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521333962.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Szirmai, Adam, 2012. "Proximate, intermediate and ultimate causality: Theories and experiences of growth and development," MERIT Working Papers 2012-032, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    2. Angus Maddison, 1997. "Causal Influences on Productivity Performance 1820–1992: A Global Perspective," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 8(4), pages 325-359, November.
    3. Crafts, Nicholas & O’Rourke, Kevin Hjortshøj, 2014. "Twentieth Century Growth*This research has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) / ERC grant agreement no. 249546.," Handbook of Economic Growth, in: Philippe Aghion & Steven Durlauf (ed.), Handbook of Economic Growth, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 6, pages 263-346, Elsevier.
    4. Jorge Niosi, 2010. "Building National and Regional Innovation Systems," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14006.
    5. Lydia Greunz, 2001. "European regional growth, technology gap and R&D efforts," ERSA conference papers ersa01p92, European Regional Science Association.
    6. Rossitsa Rangelova, 1999. "Economic Growth in Transition CEECs: Implications for and of Modern Growth Theory," ERI-BAS Chapters, in: Mitko Dimitrov & Wladimir Andreff & Laszlo Csaba (ed.), Economies in Transition and the Variety of Capitalisms. Features, Changes, Convergence, edition 1, chapter 12, pages 102-126, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute.
    7. repec:ilo:ilowps:366690 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Jan Fagerberg & Bengt-Åke Lundvall & Martin Srholec, 2018. "Global Value Chains, National Innovation Systems and Economic Development," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 30(3), pages 533-556, July.
    9. Dowling, Malcolm & Ray, David, 2000. "The structure and composition of international trade in Asia:: historical trends and future prospects," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 301-318, December.
    10. Andersson, Fredrik N.G. & Edgerton, David L. & Opper, Sonja, 2013. "A Matter of Time: Revisiting Growth Convergence in China," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 239-251.
    11. Can Huang & Naubahar Sharif, 2016. "Global technology leadership: The case of China," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 43(1), pages 62-73.
    12. repec:use:tkiwps:3232 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Francesco Quatraro & Marco Vivarelli, 2015. "Drivers of Entrepreneurship and Post-entry Performance of Newborn Firms in Developing Countries," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 30(2), pages 277-305.
    14. Miketa, Asami & Mulder, Peter, 2005. "Energy productivity across developed and developing countries in 10 manufacturing sectors: Patterns of growth and convergence," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 429-453, May.
    15. Folster, Stefan & Henrekson, Magnus, 1999. "Growth and the public sector: a critique of the critics," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 337-358, June.
    16. Santos, Eleonora & Khan, Shahed, 2019. "FDI Policies and Catching-Up," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 0(7(61)), pages 1821-1853.
    17. Angelica Sbardella & Emanuele Pugliese & Andrea Zaccaria & Pasquale Scaramozzino, 2018. "The role of complex analysis in modeling economic growth," Papers 1808.10428, arXiv.org.
    18. Timmer, Marcel P., 1999. "Climbing the Technology Ladder Too Fast? An International Comparison of Productivity in South and East- Asian Manufacturing, 1963-1993," Working Papers 99.2, Eindhoven Center for Innovation Studies.
    19. Archibugi, Daniele & Coco, Alberto, 2004. "A New Indicator of Technological Capabilities for Developed and Developing Countries (ArCo)," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 629-654, April.
    20. Iancu, Aurel, 2009. "Real Economic Convergence," Working Papers of National Institute for Economic Research 090104, Institutul National de Cercetari Economice (INCE).
    21. Adriana Di Liberto, 2007. "Convergence and Divergence in Neoclassical Growth Models with Human Capital," Economia politica, Società editrice il Mulino, issue 2, pages 289-322.
    22. Paul Johnson & Chris Papageorgiou, 2020. "What Remains of Cross-Country Convergence?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 58(1), pages 129-175, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wbk:wbrwps:1881. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Roula I. Yazigi (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dvewbus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.