DOCSLIB.ORG

THE NEO-CLASSICAL ASCENDANCY: the AUSTRALIAN ECONOMIC POLICY COMMUNITY and NORTHEAST ASIAN ECONOMIC GROWTH Trevor Matthews and John Ravenhill

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
THE NEO-CLASSICAL ASCENDANCY: the AUSTRALIAN ECONOMIC POLICY COMMUNITY and NORTHEAST ASIAN ECONOMIC GROWTH Trevor Matthews and John Ravenhill Working Paper No.1995/4 THE NEO-CLASSICAL ASCENDANCY: THE AUSTRALIAN ECONOMIC POLICY COMMUNITY AND NORTHEAST ASIAN ECONOMIC GROWTH Trevor Matthews and John Ravenhill Canberra June 1995 National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication Entry Matthews, Trevor. The neo-classical ascendancy: the Australian economic policy community and northeast Asian economic growth. ISBN 0 7315 2167 6. 1. Australia – Foreign economic relations – East Asia. 2. Japan – Foreign economic relations – Australia. 3. Taiwan – Foreign economic relations – Australia. 4. Korea (South) – Foreign economic relations – Australia. 5. East Asia – Economic conditions. I. Ravenhill, John. II. Australian National University. Department of International Relations. II. Title. (Series: Working paper (Australian National University. Dept. of International Relations); 1995/4.) 337.9405 © Trevor Matthews and John Ravenhill DEPARTMENT OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS WORKING PAPERS The Department’s Working Paper series seeks to provide readers with access to current research on international relations. Reflecting the wide range of interest in the Department, it will include topics on global international politics and the international political economy, the Asian–Pacific region and issues of concern to Australian foreign policy. Publication as a ‘Working Paper’ does not preclude subsequent publication in scholarly journals or books, indeed it may facilitate publication by providing feedback from readers to authors. Unless otherwise stated, publications of the Department of International Relations are presented without endorsement as contributions to the public record and debate. Authors are responsible for their own analysis and conclusions. Department of International Relations Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies Australian National University Canberra ACT Australia ABSTRACT The Australian economic policy community has vigorously championed an interpretation of Northeast Asia’s economic success that sees that success through the prism of conventional neo-classical economics. The leading voices in that policy community have argued that selective governmental assistance to targeted industries has been neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for the economic success of the Northeast Asian market economies (Japan, South Korea and Taiwan); that in cases where targeting could be considered to have been successful, the targeting was ‘market conforming’; and that where governments have attempted to promote and assist particular industries the results have been as harmful as they have been beneficial. This paper critically examines these claims. It questions the evidence used by the policy community, particularly its excessive reliance on a small number of studies based on econometric modelling and its marked reluctance to acknowledge and confront empirical evidence that challenges a neo-classical interpretation. It also highlights the inadequate treatment of externalities and technology in the neo- classical approach. The paper presents evidence, much of it from industrial case studies, to show that none of the Northeast Asian governments has been content to trust the course of economic development exclusively to the market. Intervention to facilitate the acquisition, adaptation and diffusion of technology has been pervasive. All three countries have consciously targeted industries that were perceived to be strategic for the economy’s future growth—industries that were skill- and capital-intensive, industries that were expected to generate technological spillovers and other externalities, and industries whose products were identified as having high elasticities of demand. This evidence fits better the interventionist rationales of strategic trade theory and new growth theories than it does the so-called market- conforming rationale of neo-classical economic theory. Northeast Asian governments have used trade and industrial policies to achieve two ends: (i) to assist domestic firms to become internationally competitively enabling them to realise scale and learning economies; and (ii) to generate externalities that benefit a wide range of leading-edge industries. THE NEO-CLASSICAL ASCENDANCY: THE AUSTRALIAN ECONOMIC POLICY COMMUNITY AND NORTHEAST ASIAN ECONOMIC GROWTH Trevor Matthews and John Ravenhill The shift in the world’s centre of gravity towards East Asia has brought with it large changes in the international economic and geo-political systems, as well as in the analytical and ideological prisms through which people all over the world view reality. Ross Garnaut, Australia and the Northeast Asian Ascendancy, p. 5 The Australian economic policy community’s interpretation of industrial policy in the Northeast Asian economies has been inextricably caught up in the debate over domestic economic policies. Advocates of the level playing field have been determined to ensure that their simple policy prescription should not be complicated by an acknowledgement that industrial policies have worked elsewhere. This is seen in a number of official reports. Take Ross Garnaut’s Australia and the Northeast Asian Ascendancy.1 This report firmly placed on the political agenda the importance to Australia of the phenomenally rapid and sustained rates of economic growth in Northeast Asia. By viewing the Northeast Asian success through a conventional neo-classical economic prism, the Garnaut Report is tellingly silent on the issue of state assistance to targeted industries. This interpretation—viewing Northeast Asian success through the prism of neo-classical economics—is one that has been vigorously championed by the economic policy community in Australia. In official reports, academic papers, speeches, interviews, and newspaper articles, the leading voices in that policy community have argued that the Northeast Asian economies demonstrate: • that selective governmental assistance to targeted industries has been neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for the economic success of those economies; • that in cases where targeting could be considered to have been successful, the targeting was ‘market-conforming’; and that attempts by government to promote and assist particular industries are as likely to be harmful as beneficial. 1 Ross Garnaut, Australia and the Northeast Asian Ascendancy, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 1989. 2 The policy community has also been at pains to refute claims being made by Australian advocates of selective industrial intervention that the Northeast Asian economies demonstrated that new developments in international trade theory (‘strategic trade theory’) could work in practice. The policy community has argued that strategic trade theory rests on fragile assumptions unlikely to hold in practice and too intimidating to be a practical guide to action. The most influential statement of these claims is the Industry Commission’s study Strategic Trade Policy: The East Asian Experience,2 and it is that study which we will use to exemplify the economic policy community’s interpretation of Northeast Asian economic growth. It is an appropriate text to use for that purpose. The Industry Commission published the study to refute claims being made by Australian advocates of selective industrial intervention that strategic trade theory offered an intellectual justification for such intervention and that the Northeast Asian economies constituted evidence that the new theory could actually work in practice. Even though the Industry Commission’s study was entirely derivative and contained no new empirical work, economists and economic commentators in Australia have frequently cited the study as an authority to support their arguments that strategic industrial assistance contributed little (or nothing) to the strong economic (and export) performance of the Northeast Asian economies.3 The study has also attracted attention outside of Australia.4 We first examine each of the above four claims. (i) that selective assistance to targeted industries has been neither a necessary or a sufficient condition for the economic success of those economies. The IC study draws on the experience of five economies in the region—Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong. It claims that strategic targeting cannot be taken as a common factor in East Asia’s economic success since it was not 2 Industry Commission, Strategic Trade Theory: The East Asian Experience, Information Paper, Industry Commission, Canberra, 1990. 3 See for example Kym Anderson, ‘International Trade and Australian Protectionism’, in Stephen King and Peter Lloyd (eds), Economic Rationalism: Dead End or Way Forward?, Allen and Unwin, St. Leonards, 1993, pp. 108–26; Kym Anderson and Christopher Findlay, ‘The End of Tariff Protection’, Current Affairs Bulletin, vol. 70, no. 3 (August), 1993, pp. 12–8; Richard Blandy, ‘A Panel of Views: Economic Rationalists and Anti-Economic Rationalists’, in King and Lloyd (eds), Economic Rationalism, pp. 28–36; P.P. McGuiness, ‘Counting the Cost of Export Subsidies’, Australian, 23 November 1990; P.P. McGuiness, ‘Industry Policy Won’t Protect Us’, Australian, 1 November 1991. 4 Jonathan Ostry, ‘Are Growth Strategies in East Asia Relevant for New Zealand?’, Finance and Development: A Publication of the IMF and the World Bank, vol. 31, no. 1, 1994, pp. 13–15. 3 present at all in Hong Kong, ‘the most outstanding and robust example of the benefits of free markets’. Hong Kong provides ‘the most convincing evidence’ that exceptional economic performance
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Australian Trade and Investment Commission Annual Report 2018–19 Australian Trade and Investment Commission Annual Report 2018–19
    ANNUAL REPORT 2018–19 Austrade at a glance WHO ARE WE? OUR STAFF We are the Australian Trade and Investment Commission—or Austrade Austrade—and we’re responsible for promoting Australian trade, staff at investment and education to the world. We help Australian 1,073 30 June 2019, businesses grow by linking them to global export opportunities; 65 per cent of whom were we attract international investment to help Australia reach its employed in client-focused economic potential; we help startups innovate and go global and operations in Australia and we promote Australia’s leading-edge education services to the overseas. Staff turnover was world to help drive growth in this sector. Our tourism policy and 11.9 per cent and the gender programs also help to build a thriving tourism industry. balance was 58 per cent female and 42 per cent male. We also help Australian citizens by providing consular and passport services in designated overseas locations. WHERE WE WORK locations at OUR MISSION 117 30 June 2019, Our mission is to promote Australian exports and international including 79 overseas locations education, strengthen Australia’s tourism sector, and attract in 48 markets, with 14 of investment into Australia. We do this by providing quality advice those locations also providing and services to exporters, education institutions and investors, consular services on behalf including generating market information and insights, promoting of the Australian Government. Australian capabilities, making connections through an extensive Within Australia, Austrade had global network of contacts, leveraging the ‘badge of government’ 10 offices, complemented by a offshore, and working collaboratively with partner organisations.
    [Show full text]
  • THE COMMISSION’ © Commonwealth of Australia 2003 ISBN 1 74037 139 9 This Work Is Subject to Copyright
    FROM INDUSTRY ASSISTANCE TO PRODUCTIVITY: 30 YEARS OF ‘THE COMMISSION’ © Commonwealth of Australia 2003 ISBN 1 74037 139 9 This work is subject to copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, the work may be reproduced in whole or in part for study or training purposes, subject to the inclusion of an acknowledg- ment of the source. Reproduction for commercial use or sale requires prior written permission from the Department of Communications, IT and the Arts. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the Commonwealth Copyright Administration, Intellectual Property Branch, Department of Communications, IT and the Arts, GPO Box 2154, Canberra ACT 2601. This publication is available in hard copy or PDF format from the Productivity Commission website at www.pc.gov.au. If you require part or all of this publica- tion in a different format, please contact Media and Publications (see below). Publications Inquiries: Media and Publications Productivity Commission Locked Bag 2 Collins Street East Melbourne VIC 8003 Tel: (03) 9653 2244 Fax: (03) 9653 2303 Email: [email protected] General Inquiries: Tel: (03) 9653 2100 or (02) 6240 3200 An appropriate citation for this paper is: Productivity Commission 2003, From industry assistance to productivity: 30 years of ‘the Commission’, Productivity Commission, Canberra. Cover Design: Imagine Graphics Bert Kelly: Photo by Jennie Niccol courtesy The Centre for Independent Studies. Alf Rattigan: Photo courtesy of the Rattigan family. Foreword It is 30 years since the Industries Assistance Commission, the first predecessor of the Productivity Commission, was created by Act of Parliament.
    [Show full text]
  • Are the Current Account Imbalances on a Sustainable Path?
    Journal of Risk and Financial Management Article Are the Current Account Imbalances on a Sustainable Path? Seema Narayan * and Sivagowry Sriananthakumar School of Economics, Finance and Marketing, RMIT University, Melbourne, Victoria 3000, Australia; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 13 August 2020; Accepted: 3 September 2020; Published: 4 September 2020 Abstract: This paper examines the current accounts of 16 developed and developing countries over the period 1970 to 2018. We test whether these nations satisfy their intertemporal solvency condition for external imbalances. The solvency condition in the strong form entails: (1) a cointegration, or a long run equilibrium, relationship between exports and imports of goods and services; and (2) an increase in imports leading to a proportional increase in exports. Our findings imply that the external imbalances are a cause of vulnerability for several nations. Bangladesh satisfies the abovementioned solvency condition—in other words, its current account is sustainable in the strong form. Australia, Ecuador, Honduras, Mexico, New Zealand, and Venezuela show weak forms of sustainability. For these six nations, the presence of a cointegration relationship between exports and imports coincides with less than proportional increases in exports with increases in imports. The current accounts of Chile and Paraguay are unsustainable—while their exports and imports are cointegrated, a growth in imports leads to a more than proportional increase in exports. For a few nations that failed the full sample (1970–2018) cointegration test, we developed sub-samples by anchoring the start date at 1970 and increasing the sample by every five years from 1999 to 2014.
    [Show full text]
  • The Lucky Country Syndrome in Australia: Resources, Social Democracy, and Regimes of Development in Historical Political Economy Perspective 1
    The Lucky Country Syndrome in Australia: Resources, Social Democracy, and Regimes of Development in Historical Political Economy Perspective 1 Christopher Lloyd School of Business, Economics and Public Policy University of New England, Australia and Nordic Centre of Excellence on the Nordic Welfare State (Nordwel) Helsinki University, Finland Email: [email protected] Paper presented to Asia Pacific Economic and Business History Conference Canberra, 16-18 February, 2012. SECOND (INCOMPLETE) DRAFT, February 2011. 1 This evolving paper, still an incomplete work-in-progress, is in the spirit (but needing additional work) of the critical realist socio-political-economy tradition of historical research into past and present of Karl Polanyi, Albert Hirschman, and Barrington Moore, a tradition that was eclipsed some decades ago by rational choice, ahistorical, political economy, but which still has much to offer. Polanyi‟s rejection of economic abstractionism and his conceptualization of the formal/substantive distinction seems to me to be essential to the study of long-run socio-economic history. Attempts to understand the present crisis of the world economy could do worse than adopt the interdisciplinary outlook of Polanyi and of Hirschman, neither of whom could ever have been pigeon-holed into a single box such as economic development theorist or political theorist or economic historian. Hirschman‟s attempts to understand the complexities of macro-social processes over time showed an exemplary skepticism about simplistic models and spurious quantification of over-aggregate variables, and a constant concern to study the local specifics of cases within a theoretical framework that rejected the abstraction of the economy from culture, society, and politics.
    [Show full text]
  • South Australia Wine Cluster
    HARVARD UNIVERSITY The South Australian Wine Cluster Microeconomics of Competitiveness Andrew Nipe Anna York Dennis Hogan Jonathan Faull Yasser Baki 7 May 2010 Prof. Michael E. Porter, Microeconomics of Competitiveness, Harvard Business School 1 Executive Summary Australia has historically benefitted from economic growth premised on its rich natural endowments, despite its relative isolation from Old World markets. While service-related sectors have emerged as growing portions of the economy, commodities continue to comprise a disproportionate fraction of the economy relative to OECD averages. A series of economic reforms enacted between 1983-96 opened a comparatively protected economy to international competition, with significant gains to labour productivity and international trade. Despite attempts to revive structural reforms, political impasse and continued economic growth premised on endowments, have thwarted further reform. It is argued that Australia must address its consistently inflexible labour markets, declining labour productivity, comparatively low rates of innovation, and an increasing skills misalignment relative to demand to lift the country onto higher development path. South Australia is Australia’s fifth largest economy, correlated with its fifth largest population. Through the course of the twentieth century, the state’s economy transitioned from one premised on agriculture and extraction, to manufacturing. While the state remains the national breadbasket, this report argues that the state must address labour productivity rates below that of the national average, a skills misalignment, the lack of collaboration across the value chain, and the potentially devastating effects on agriculture on the part of climate change, to mitigate weaknesses and improve regional competitiveness. The South Australian wine cluster constitutes the largest producer and exporter of wines in Australia.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to the Australian Economy
    AN INTRODUCTION TO THE AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY by Saul Eslake Chief Economist Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd 4th edition: January 2007 (Note: this paper was originally prepared in August 2000 for Encyclopedia Americana, at the request of the editors, as ‘a general introduction to the economy of Australia’. This is an updated and slightly extended version of the original paper) Structure of Australia’s economy Australia is the world’s 17th largest economy, with output – as measured by gross domestic product (at purchasing power parity exchange rates) – in 2005 of US$630bn, approximately equivalent to that of Illinois or Florida, one-twentieth of that of the United States as a whole or a little over one-third of that of the United Kingdom. In 2005 Australia’s per capita GDP (at purchasing power parity exchange rates) of US$30,900 placed it 14th (between Finland and the Netherlands), about 75% of the figure for the United States, but slightly above that of Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom and France. Australia is often regarded as primarily a producer of agricultural commodities, minerals and energy. Historically, these products have played an enormously important role in Australia’s economic development, particularly in the first 100 or so years after European settlement began in 1788. However, their relative importance declined throughout the twentieth century. In 1900, farming, forestry and fishing accounted for 20% of Australia’s gross domestic product, and mining for a further 10%. At this time, the agricultural and mining sectors provided 95% of Australia’s exports and jobs for about 30% of Australia’s workforce.
    [Show full text]
  • Report Overview (Updated As of January 20Th, 2021) This Is an Overview of the Economy of Australia As of January of 2021
    Report Overview (updated as of January 20th, 2021) This is an overview of the economy of Australia as of January of 2021. This report will summarize the economic state of Australia and changes resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. Fast Facts/Statistics1 ➢ Population: 25.36 million ➢ GDP (PPP): $1.3 trillion ➢ GDP per capita: $55,060 (2019) ➢ GDP growth rate: 2.2% ➢ Projected GDP growth rate: 2.95% (2021) ➢ Inflation (CPI): 0.7% Australia Overview and Economic Summary Australia ranks as one of the best places to live in the world by all indices of income, human development, healthcare, and civil rights. As the sixth-largest country in the world by land mass, its comparatively small population lies concentrated in the highly urbanized east portion of the Australian continent. Australia's politicians at first looked to Europe and the US in foreign policy, but in the past 20 years or so they have made East Asia the priority, especially Indonesia and China. Australia's growing orientation towards its Asian neighbors is reflected in its economic policy. It is a key member of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum and aims to forge free trade deals with China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations23 1https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/country-statistical-profile-australia-2019-2_g2g9e41a-en;jsessionid=y19fAWkvIv 1zebzfJIIWoowu.ip-10-240-5-102 2 https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/australia/ 3 https://www.business.gov.au/ COVID-19 Impact As with most nations, the Australian economy has taken a substantial hit from COVID-19.
    [Show full text]
  • THE VALUE of TOURISM June 2021 Foreword
    THE VALUE OF TOURISM June 2021 foreWORD Tourism is a vital industry and crucial to Australia’s economic prosperity. As a country with world-class offerings in nature, wildlife, produce and cultural experiences, it should be of no surprise that the tourism industry was one of the fastest-growing sectors of the Australian economy prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Supporting 1 in 12 jobs in Australia, the industry is the lifeblood for many communities – particularly those in regional areas – Koalas, driving economic activity across the country through Queensland almost 300,000 tourism-related businesses. However, since the COVID-19 pandemic, economies around the world have suffered enormously, and more competitive as countries look to reinvigorate in Australia, the tourism sector has been hit their tourism industries as part of their economic particularly hard. Domestic and international recovery strategies following COVID-19. Australia’s travel restrictions, together with health concerns, tourism sector could be in a vulnerable position if have caused a loss of confidence in travel. This travel restrictions remain in place after competitor loss of confidence has resulted in severe impacts nations have re-opened for tourism, resulting in to Australian tourism including an estimated loss travellers who would otherwise consider travel to VALUE OF TOURISM WHITEPAPER OF TOURISM VALUE of $10 billion a month to the Australian economy. Australia opting to travel to another country with WHITEPAPER OF TOURISM VALUE 3 2 There remains a relatively high degree of uncertainty similar attributes instead. around international and domestic borders which Yet, there are encouraging signs in Australia’s will continue to affect the industry’s recovery.
    [Show full text]
  • WT/TPR/M/396 27 May 2020 (20-3829) Page
    WT/TPR/M/396 27 May 2020 (20-3829) Page: 1/53 Trade Policy Review Body 11 and 13 March 2020 TRADE POLICY REVIEW AUSTRALIA MINUTES OF THE MEETING Chairperson: H.E. Mr Manuel A.J. Teehankee (Philippines) CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS BY THE CHAIRPERSON ........................................................ 2 2 OPENING STATEMENT BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF AUSTRALIA ................................. 4 3 STATEMENT BY THE DISCUSSANT ................................................................................. 7 4 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS .......................................................................................... 10 5 REPLIES BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF AUSTRALIA AND ADDITIONAL COMMENTS .... 46 6 CONCLUDING REMARKS BY THE CHAIRPERSON .......................................................... 51 7 ELECTION OF THE NEW CHAIRPERSON OF THE TPRB .................................................. 53 Note: Advance written questions and additional questions by WTO Members, and the replies provided by Australia are reproduced in document WT/TPR/M/396/Add.1 and will be available online at http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tpr_e/tp_rep_e.htm. WT/TPR/M/396 • Australia - 2 - 1 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS BY THE CHAIRPERSON 1.1. The eighth Trade Policy Review of Australia was held on 11 and 13 March 2020. The Chairperson, H.E. Mr. Manuel Teehankee (Philippines), welcomed the delegation of Australia, headed by Mr. George Mina, First Assistant Secretary, Office of Trade Negotiations at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade; H.E. Ambassador Frances Lisson, Permanent Representative of Australia to the WTO; the rest of the delegation from Canberra and to other colleagues from the Mission in Geneva; and the discussant, H.E. Mr. Julian Braithwaite (United Kingdom). 1.2. As indicated in document WTO/AIR/TPR/94/Add.1, TPRB Members were invited to elect the new Chairperson, H.E. Mr. Harald Aspelund (Iceland), on the second day of the meeting.
    [Show full text]
  • Housing Policy Retrenchment: Australia and Canada Compared
    Housing policy retrenchment: Australia and Canada compared Tony Dalton Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute Centre School of Social Science and Planning RMIT University Melbourne Victoria Australia e-mail: [email protected] Introduction Housing policy has declined as a policy priority relative to other areas of policy making in many western countries. This housing policy retrenchment has happened at the same time as the need for affordable urban housing has grown because of increasing house prices and rents and greater income inequality. This retrenchment has been pronounced in the mass home ownership Anglo Saxon societies. It is important to ask, ‘Why has housing policy retrenchment occurred at the same time as accepted measures show increased housing need?’ This is a question about housing politics, or the making of housing policy. This paper seeks to understand policy retrenchment in Australia and Canada based on the idea that comparative analyses can deepen explanations of complex social and economic processes. The paper begins with a presentation of key features of the Canadian and Australian systems of housing provision. Both countries can be described as suburban home ownership societies. They also have large private rental sectors that provide the setting for much new household formation. Many households become owners after renting and saving. However, this pathway into ownership from renting is changing. In both countries there has been growth in the number and proportion of households who cannot purchase and who experience poverty and insecurity, sometimes described as ‘increasing housing stress’, in the private rental market. Against this background of growing disadvantage housing policy has provided less support for these most disadvantaged households.
    [Show full text]
  • Manufacturing, Market Policy and Exports in Australia: Emulating the East Asian Economic Miracle
    Munich Personal RePEc Archive Manufacturing, Market Policy and Exports in Australia: Emulating the East Asian Economic Miracle Bayari, Celal Nagoya City University Graduate School of Economics 1 January 2011 Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/103868/ MPRA Paper No. 103868, posted 02 Nov 2020 15:42 UTC 1 MANUFACTURING, MARKET POLICY AND EXPORTS IN AUS- TRALIA: EMULATING THE EAST ASIAN ECONOMIC MIRACLE? Celal Bayari Nagoya City University Graduate School of Economics CITATION Bayari, Celal (2011) Manufacturing, Market Policy and Exports in Australia: Emulating the East Asian Economic Miracle? East Asia: Comparative Perspective. 10(1): 7-32. ISSN 1975 6135. 2 MANUFACTURING, MARKET POLICY AND EXPORTS IN AUSTRALIA: EMULATING THE EAST ASIAN ECONOMIC MIRACLE? Celal Bayari Nagoya City University Graduate School of Economics Abstract This paper considers industry policy and Manufacturing in Australia by discussing the levels of tariffs and assistance by the Australian state. Australian policymakers have long been fascinated by the rise of East Asia and attempted to emulate a similar high-tech Manufacturing industry via neo-liberal de- regulation. Such a deregulation was of course was never part of the origin of the East Asian Miracle until the 1980s. When it did occur however its effects soon becaMe acutely visible in 1997-1998 across Asian economies. The paper does not discuss whether a singular East Asian economic Model exists. Nor does it debate the validity of the project apparently contained in the governMent policy since the 1980s. More to the point, this paper raises the Market policy Movement that took inspiration froM fixed perceptions of the East Asian economic Miracle which was frequently (but not necessarily correctly) identified with neo-liberal deregulation.
    [Show full text]
  • APEBH 2009 Asia-Pacific Economic and Business History Conference
    Return to home page APEBH 2009 Asia-Pacific Economic and Business History Conference 主催：オーストラリア＆ニュージーランド経済史学会 開催地：学習院大学 開催日：２００９年２月１８－２０日 テーマ：『国際経済＆ビジネスにおけるアジア太平洋』 Home Call for Papers Registration Programme Prizes and Awards Keynote Lecture Accommodation Functions Venue Contacts Return to home page 2009 Conference The 2009 Conference will be hosted by Gakushuin University When: 18-20 February 2009 Where: Gakushuin University, Tokyo (Japan) “Asia-Pacific in International Economy and Business” Return to home page Call for Papers English Version PDF Copy - Japanese Translation Return to home page Registration APEBH 2009 Registration Form APEBH 2009 Credit Card Payment Form Please complete the above forms, photocopy for your records, and post, fax or e-mail to: Shinobu Majima Faculty of Economics, Gakushuin University 1-5-1 Mejiro, Toshima-ku, Tokyo 171-8588, JAPAN Fax: +81-3-5992-1007 E-mail: [email protected] 上記の用紙をご記入後、控えのコピーをお取りになった上、郵送、ファックス、または、電子メールにて、登録手続き をお願い致します。 支払いに関しましては、上記クレジットカード支払用紙をご利用いただくか、または下記の口座へ振込みをお願いいた します。 三菱東京UFJ銀行 目白駅前支店 普通口座 店番 １７４ 口座番号 ０４８１３３５ 171-8588 東京都豊島区目白１－５－１ 学習院大学 経済学部 准教授 眞嶋史叙 Fax: +813 5992 1007 E-mail: [email protected] Return to home page Programme Please Note: The permission of the author is required to use any material from the papers presented at this conference. All sessions will be held in West 1 Building Wednesday 18th February Registration, 10.00-11.00 Block One, 11-12.30 1. Historiographical Reflections Wednesday 11:00 - 12:30 Chair - Chris Lloyd Yuzawa, Takeshi Gakushuin University, Japan Recent trends of business history in Japan Ohnuki, Mari and Masanori Takashima, Bank of Japan Recent trends in researches in Japanese economic history: from the viewpoint of archival materials in the Bank of Japan Archive Lunch, 12.30-13.30 Block Two, 13.30-15.00 2.
    [Show full text]