American, Japanese, and Australian Economic Assistance to Southern Asia; a Comparison of Objectives
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
This dissertation has been 63—4695 microfilmed exactly as received RAGATZ, Janet Evans, 1924- AMERICAN, JAPANESE, AND AUSTRALIAN ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE TO SOUTHERN ASIA; A COMPARISON OF OBJECTIVES. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1962 Political Science, international law and relations University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan AI'-ÏERIGAH, JAPÀÏ'IESE, AND AUSTRALIAN ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE TO, SOUTHERN ASIA: A COMPAI'flSON OF OBJECTIVES DISSERTATION Presented In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements foi the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University by Janet Evans Ragatz, A.B., A.M. The Ohio^ State University 1962 Approved hy '-A Adviser S Department of Political Science PREFACE The world Is presently divided not only politically between East and Test but econoraically between developed an.d underdeveloped areas. Ultimate development of the latter is a foregone conclusion -- they will be industrialized, modernized; to the leaders of these lands, at least, there is no dispute on the point. The extent to which these countries develop., is another matter. Will development be thorough or superficial; will it reach ground level or con sist only of the conspicuous aspects of modernization? How they will develop is one of the major problems facing the world inasmuch as their people number nearly two billion and their homelands contain largo percentages of important and even strategic raw materials. Will these newly independent states take, along with the West European economic system and industrial skills, the personal freedom and individual dignity concepts on which it was based; or follow the commu nist industrial path and sacrifice all else to the develop ment of state power? The answer to these questions depends in part on the extent and effectiveness of the foreign aid received. Although underdeveloped countries extend the world around, conditions vary not only between continents and re gions but within regions as well. Within Asia, for instance, the requirements and the drive are different in over- and under-populated areas. The problems of China and India, ii lii including how to feed the many mi’’lion extra mouths appear ing each year, vary markedly, therefore, from those of other underdeveloped Asian states which do not share the same demo graphic problem to the same extent. The question of develop ment can also be examined by geographic region within a larger area. Thus southern Asia, encompassing both the southeastern section and the subcontinent of India, has characteristics dis- tinguishing it from the region to the north and east.' The area considered here, southern Asia, has been selected be cause it was the focal point for several aid programs, not only those of Australia, Japan, and the United States con sidered herein, but of the United ITations, the British Common wealth, and communist countries as well. One reason for this concentration of outside help there stems from a competition for influence; another from the fact that within this region are found countries which were the first-born states of the post-imperialistic period. Consequently they have received aid over a longer period than other new states and the ex cesses of independence zeal, the trial and error-processes of development, and the problems of aid have fallen into better perspective here than elsewhere. 2 Southeast Asia has been the stepchild of the world. ^Cf. G. Etzel Pearcy, "Geographic Regions of AsL a: South and East ” in Department of State Bulletin, February 1, I 9 6 0 , pp. 148-1 2 7. 2 Burma, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaya, and Singapore (with the three British-dominated areas of Borneo: Brunei, Iv Before the period of European domination, it was little known to the West, and after that period began, its compo nents, with the exception of independent Thailand, were never considered as separate entities, but as parts of the metropolitan power to which they belonged. Consequently it has only been since the end of World War II that individual consideration of the countries of the area has been exten sively undertaken. In some cases, little was known about them historically, economically, or socially. South Asia,"' however, was a little better Imown. The aim of this paper was to examine and compare the objectives inspiring Australian, Japanese, and United States assistance to southern Asia in the light of the reception their aid has encountered and of economic doctrine about the Worth Borneo, and Sarawak), the Philippines, Thailand, and the two Vietnams. North Vietnam is not included in this study as it is outside the scope of aid considered. It should be noted that the Japanese use the expression "South east Asia" to include the Indian subcontinent and conse quently the. term has been written here as "southern Asia", which includes both Southeast And South Asia. ^Includes Ceylon, India (with its Himalayan protectoratesi Nepal, and Pakistan. The' term "Southwest Asia" covers the Middle East from Afghanistan to Palestine but omits the North ern African Muslim countries which are often included in the "Middle East" designation. "East Asia", of course, refers to China, Japan, Korea, the Mongolian People's Republic, Taiwan, and the British colony of Hong Kong. V development process. This raises questions, such as are the objectives humanitar’ia.n, or economic, or political, or a combination of one or more of these? IIow extensive were the several programs? Are the objectives in conflict? How well do the Australian or Japanese aims correlate with sxij of the American concepts? VJhat comparisons can be made from the evidence reviewed? What are the future prospects for tripartite aid to this area? The broader objective is a better and clearer under standing of aid motivation and problems and of the resultant efforts and accomplishments of the young Asian states. This ■should improve the appreciation of the scope and urgency of economic development in this region, and so contribute to the clarification of American foreign policy. ACm^CV/LEDGMEUÏS First and foremost, .grateful thanks are due Dr, Kazuo Ka-wal, Professor of Political Science at The Ohio State University, for having introduced me to the subject of Asian affairs and for having painstakingly guided me in my doctoral studies. I am also grateful for the inspiration afforded by association with Lord Lindsay of Birker, Director of International Relations students, C. P. Fitzgerald, Professor of Far Eastern History, and L. C. Webb, Professor of Political Science, all at the Australian Nation al University. Hy year there was made possible by a Fulbright grant. Finally I wish to express thanks to the late Professor Harold Zini:, a long-time mentor and member of my graduate committee. Dr, Alvin Coons of the Department of Economics and Dr. E. Allen Helms of Political Science for service on my reading committee and to Professor Harvey Mansfield who substituted for an ill chairman at a late stage. VI c OITTEITTS Page PREPACE .......................................... il ACraiOWLEDCTl-rEI'ITS....................................... vi LIST OP TABLES ......................................... vili Chapter ‘I ' CHARACTERISTICS OP UHDERDEVELOPIiEHT .... 1 II THEORETICAL ASPECTS OP LEVELOPI-IEI'IT........ I| 7 III SOUTHERN ASIAN ATTITUDES TOWARD DEVELOPi-ISHT AND A I D ................................. 101 ! IV irOTIVATIONS UNDERLYING AMERICAN ECONOI-ilC ASSISTANCE........ '......................1^3 V JAPAN'S INTEREST III ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN SOUTHERN A S I A ......................... 227 VI OBJECTIVES UNDERLYING AUSTRALIA’S ASSISTANCE PROGRAM .................................282 VII A COMPARISON OP OBJECTIVES............... 320 APPEI'DIX.......................................... 314-0 BIBLIOGRAPHY...................................... 3# AUTOBIOGRAPHY .................................... 359 Vll LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Estimated Per Capita National Income of Southern Asia, 195I-1960 ...................... 3 2 Daily Per Capita Calorie and Protein Content of Food S u p p l i e s .............................. S 3 Medical Personnel and Average Life Span .... 11 4- Illiteracy.......................................... 19 5 Crude Birth Rates, Death Rates, and Annual Rate of Population Increase ............... 30 6 Index Numbers of Food Production ................ 36 7 Index Numbers of General Industrial Production , ^3 S Gross Domestic Capital Formation and Private Consumption Expenditure .... ^5 9 Average Annual Rates of Growth in Southern Asian Production and Transportation, 1950-195 9 ...................................... 104 10 Comparative Average Annual Rates of Production Growth, 1 9 5 0 - 1 9 5 9 .............................1 2 2 11 United States Non-Military Aid to Asia Compared to Total Asian and Total Global Assistance, 1951-195 7 ............................................ 1^4- 12 I95&-I959 U.S. Development Loan Fund Commit ments ...........................................193 13 Country Proposals, Obligations, and Percent ages of Southern Asia Area Totals for American Economic Assistance, the Fiscal Years 1952 through I 9 5 6 .......... I99 l4- Japan’s Dependence on Imports .................. 235 15 The Import-Export Trade of Japan Proper with Asia, 1 9 3 6 ...................................... 24-5 viii LIST OP TABLES (Continued) Table Page 16 American-Asian Percentages of Postwar Japanese Imports .............. 2^5 17 Japanese Exports to Southern Asia, 19^8-1960 . 2p7 18 Japanese Imports from Southern Asia, 191-18-1960