How did East Asia become rich in a single generation?

[fromthbottomofmyheart]

It's always perplexed me as to how several disparate economies with disparate strengths (and economic models, it seems) managed to develop so rapidly. I could ask the same question about the West, but we have popular explanations for that (first to industrialise, colonialism, etc.)

How about East Asia? How did the economies of Japan, HK, Taiwan and S. Korea develop so fast? And with China catching up apace? I don't think they are abudant in natural resources. Either, unlike the Gulf states.

But generally workers recruited to the Uk are doing jobs that are either directly public sector ( nhs) or paid for by the public sector ( care homes) so higher wages for caring sector workers =higher taxes. The unpalatable truth is the Uk cannot afford its welfare state as the tax base has got too narrow due to a whole host of factors.

@watersprites companies in the uk have been systemically supported by UC and tax credits so they won’t and now we have inflation raging they can’t

I th

China’s rapid economic development is no mystery. Nobody ever accused the Chinese of being either stupid or lazy, but for decades they lumbered themselves with a ridiculous economic system, Maoist communism, that did not work and could never work.
Deng Xiaoping understood this and introduced structural reforms which created a functioning market economy, and he opened up trade with the US, Japan and the EU. China used its limitless supply of cheap labour to become the factory of the world which enabled it to run massive trade surpluses. As money flowed into the country it was re-invested into more advanced manufacturing facilities. Which is why the iPad on which I’m typing this was assembled in China.
The Chinese have also been completely ruthless about using industrial espionage to steal Western technology and then sell the products back to us. Which is why it’s brand new passenger aircraft, the Comac C919, looks suspiciously similar to the Airbus A320…

Innovation and globalism.

As for S Korea, a very concerted and impressive focus on the arts (yes that includes the cheesy boy bands).

It's definitely complex but wages are dreadful, with no growth for over a decade. Hence why HCPs are going abroad.

And yes the conundrum is how do you have a functioning NHS etc & an ageing population. Far too much money is tied up in housing for one. Tax is too skewed towards income. Its controversial but I think older people will have to pay more towards their overall care i.e not just for care homes. People won't vote for it though so it will become a system of "if you can't afford to go private the op has a 3 yr wait", "no carers to come to your house I'm afraid", you will need to arrange something privately.

companies in the uk have been systemically supported by UC and tax credits so they won’t and now we have inflation raging they can’t

It's part of a wider issue though. Many western countries have labour shortages & ageing populations. The UK will have to compete for these migrants more.

I have no idea what you're talking about

Isn't the notion of a nationalistic Japan quite dated?

@fromthbottomofmyheart I was replying to @illiterato but forgot to tag her.

or him

Separate conversation took place, I see.

I think the NHS is broken.

This s why I love mumsnet.

so interesting some of the well- informer responses on here.

great question op.

The Mainland’s success can be summed up nicely in Deng Xiaoping famous saying "It doesn't matter whether a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice." Also the Confucianist principles of family and education first and foremost; families invest in the next generation. Think the progress has been achieved in 3 generations.

There is another factor which is that countries which develop first do so slowly, for example the industrial revolution. But once these technologies have been developed and been used for several years, it's easier for other places to copy them and make those changes in a shorter span of time.

Or they can even skip stages. For example the west (and to be fair also Japan) went through the stages of computers, telephony, all the way up to internet connected smartphones. But a lot of African and Asian countries skipped the middle steps because a basic smartphone that can connect to a national network is much much cheaper and more accessible than a computer and wired broadband connection has ever been.

There is some really interesting stuff about global economics in the book Factfulness.

I know it sounds like a conspiracy but I really think the NHS has been purposefully strangled by lack of funds. It is surely not just ageing population as many Western countries are dealing with this. They do spend more per capita on healthcare.

Speaking as someone who grew up in Singapore (limited natural resources unlike other countries in the region).

I think political stability with less turnover in the ruling government has a big part to play - it’s easier for the government to make policies for the longer term if it doesn’t have to worry about whether it will be in power in a few years’ time. I remember being taught about the importance of a knowledge-based economy way before I even understood what it actually meant. Obviously there are downsides to an authoritarian government…

There’s no welfare state so people have to sink or swim - strong motivation to work hard. A strong work ethic and the importance of a good education is drilled into children from an early age. This hyper focus on exam results can sometimes lead to tragic consequences.

It’s also cheap to hire domestic workers from overseas, freeing up both parents to work full-time and put in long hours. Also common for extended family to help with childcare, again enabling parents to focus on work.

Additionally their governments do not spend gazillions on welfare.
Citizens have a high value on being employed productive members of society.
Families provide for and take care of the elderly and disabled.
Percentages of single mums on benefits are very low.

We don’t have the population to do the 37hrs a week jobs. It’s not to do with unemployment, we have very low unemployment and high number of vacancies. Even if there was zero unemployment we’d still have high vacancies.

the high vacancies is why the government are looking abroad for workers and giving visa for 68hrs. I doubt this person has the rights to any type of benefits and therefore 68 hrs has to be given as 40 hrs on minimum wage is low for uk

@watersprites its not the goal it was an example of how some people will work vs British not working as well hence the recruitment drive abroad
This sounds a bit Britannia Unchained in the assumption that British people are lazy for wanting reasonable terms and conditions in the workplace.

We shouldn't be viewing people working 68 hours a week because their own situation is precarious as proof that they're harder working. It shows what people do when they're desperate.

I don't want to live in a country where there's a rush to the bottom on lower paid jobs where people are considered lazy if they're not willing to work 60 hours a week. It feels close to workhouse mentality and dangerously close to some of the Rees-Mogg style attitudes that if we force more people into poverty, remove access to public services, slash benefits (which are topping up low wages!) then people will be too exhausted and on edge to fight for decent conditions and will gladly work endless hours for pennies.

Germany (and Korea) after WWII is an interesting case study as both nations were split into a communist and a capitalist part. The capitalist economies did much better.
Though it’s not the system alone - I don’t know much detail about Korea but in the case of Germany as PP mentioned the west received enormous amounts of investment aid from the US under the Marshall plan, and also didn’t have to pay much for its defence (a side effect of restrictions imposed to prevent a resurgence of German military power).
On the other hand East Germany was bled dry by the Soviets.

I mention the examples of Germany and Korea as they counteract a simplistic narrative of “national character”.

It’s perhaps also interesting to look at the different trajectories of Russia vs China after the fall of communism. However I realise I digress from the OP’s very interesting question!

Honestly speaking, I don't know, but I lived in Japan for quite a few years, and I was very struck by a few very noticeable features of their society.

1. Their teamwork was incredible. I'm not sure if this is because they (like other East Asian cultures?) tend to be a more collectivist culture whereas Western societies tend to be quite individualistic, but it was certainly impressive to see how effectively they worked together.
2. There was a very strong culture of people taking pride in what they do... from the managers right down to the cleaners! Not sure if this was down to management practices impacting on work culture or what, but it was very consistent whereas in the UK, I feel it's quite hit and miss, and depends mainly on the individual.
3. They were obsessed with learning from other countries - constantly looking for things that work well overseas, then taking that model and tweaking/improving it.

With the exception of China, I don't think any of those countries have done it in a single generation. They've done it over about 100-150 years. For example, HK was (for its size) an economic powerhouse in the 80s. Similar for Singapore. I don't know much about South Korea but I assume they began to develop relatively late (post Korean war). Even then it's not one generation, it's at least three depending on how you count.

I'm not denying the pace of growth has been impressive but these countries haven't been overnight successes - it's not the same position as the Gulf countries, many of which have down it in about a generation (because of natural resources as you point out).

China is the exception but they have the national resources and it's also important to remember that there is massive inequality. Your average person in China is not buying designer handbags.

Work ethic. They take their work personally, they see it as a reflection of their character, and they come from a long history of taking responsibility for failure. Remember the Japanese soldier who didn't know WW2 had ended and stayed "on duty" until the 70s.?

But here we are just basically lazy, we don't want to work, let alone take pride in what we do.

Mazda has a "kodo" design philosophy, that everything must have a purpose and the what is made must be made with purpose.

Contrast that with British Leyland and Rover and Mini, if they weren't on strike they were making the cheapest chap they could, no care, no pride, no attention to detail.

"The customer can just fuck off, I don't even want to do the job"

If you have an entire country who believe in "purpose" as opposed to "fuck this shit", then you will progress rapidly.

I visited Malaysia about ten years ago and happened to pick up an English language newspaper while I was in KL. It was a free-sheet, perhaps the equivalent of the Metro.

The focus on achievement was really noticeable, not just for the individual but explicitly framed around everyone contributing to the success of the country. There was a branded national development goal, called something like ‘Malaysia 2020’. Every other article or interview seemed to talk about personal and collective ambition. Advertising was along the lines of: ‘Take these vitamins for top personal performance and for Malaysia 2020’.

There is a strong seam of diffidence and understatement in British culture (look at our disdain for ‘showing off’) and, as a society, I think we could probably benefit from being a bit more goal-oriented.