콘텐츠 바로가기
로그인
컨텐츠

Category Open

Resources

tutorial

Collection of research papers and materials on development issues

home

Resources
Economy General

Print

On controversies over the East Asian growth miracle

Related Document
Frame of Image
  • On controversies over the East Asian growth miracle
  • Cho, Dongchul; Han, Chin Hee
  • Korea Development Institute
Contents

link
Title On controversies over the East Asian growth miracle
Similar Titles
Material Type Reports
Author(English)

Cho, Dongchul; Han, Chin Hee

Publisher

Seoul:Korea Development Institute

Date 2000
Subject Country South Korea(Asia and Pacific)
Language English
File Type Link
Subject Economy < General
Holding Korea Development Institute

Abstract

Sustainability of rapid growth in the East Asian countries was called into question by Krugman on the grounds that the growth of the region is mostly input-driven. The recent economic slowdown of the region seems to be putting more weight on Krugman's view. The discussions in this essay shows that his gloomy prediction could well be based in shaky grounds, both theoretically and empirically. However, it will take long until the debate reaches a consensus, especially with regards to the causes of fast growth future growth prospects, and the role of government.
Then, what lessons can we draw form the above discussions on the recent debates? In other words, what are Krugman's contributions? First of all, his argument and the subsequent debates have renewed attention to the importance of technological progress or improvements in efficiency in the economic growth process. Economic growth is important since it can raise the living standard of people. However, a blind pursuit of high growth rate is neither desirable nor feasible without increases in the level of technology or efficiency. In Korea, R&D expenditure as a share of GNP is now over 2.6 percent, which is higher than that of the United Sates. However, not only the size but also the efficiency of R&D is crucial for maintaining further growth potential.
Secondly, in as much as technological knowledge can be productive only when it is human-embodied, more attention should be paid to producing creative and high-skilled labor force. For this, more efforts have to be directed towards devising incentive schemes that favor knowledge creation and diffusion activity.
The final lesson we can draw is on the role of government. Despite Krugman's assessment of the past role of East Asian governments is somewhat questionable, his emphasis on free markets would be a timely advice for East Asian policy intellectuals. This is to way that, whatever the past roles of the governments mights have been, future policies of East Asian governments have to rely more on market mechanism; for increases in efficiency and further technological progress we just don't have a better alternative than relying on market forces. In this respect, the current reform efforts in various areas-- labor market, financial market, and education system-- should be pursued without succumbing to political pressures. If these reforms are successfully accomplished, we might be able to say 'Krugman was wrong' someday later.