Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T17:11:13.512Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The nonsocialist NICs: East Asia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2009

Chalmers Johnson
Chalmers Johnson
Affiliation:
Walter and Elise Haas Professor of Asian Studies at the University of California, Berkeley.
Get access

Extract

Ellen Comisso and her colleagues are interested in the differences among all nations in their strategic economic responses to the petroleum price hikes of the 1970s—and, by extension, in why some states consistently outperform others in economic adjustment and growth. In particular, Comisso wants to know why the centrally planned economies (CPEs) of Eastern Europe reacted differently from one another to the shocks of the 1970s and yet, as a group, consistently performed less well than some reference groups, notably the East Asian NICs (newly industrialized countries). At the heart of Comisso's and the other authors' concerns are the notions of state “structure” and “process,” particularly as derived from Peter Katzenstein and the other contemporary comparative political economists, since on structural grounds the East European CPEs appear similar to the quasi-corporatist or “bureaucratic authoritarian” NICs elsewhere in the world. They differ primarily in terms of performance—or so it seems. Why? Are structure and process the right variables, and if they are, have they been correctly conceptualized?

Type
4. Responding to International Economic Change outside the CMEA
Information
International Organization , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , Spring 1986 , pp. 557 - 565
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Popper, Karl, The Poverty of Historicism (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1964), p. 66Google Scholar.

2. White, Gordon and Wade, Robert, “Developmental States in East Asia,” IDS Sussex Bulletin 15 (04 1984), p. 3Google Scholar.

3. See, inter alia, Johnson, Chalmers, “Political Institutions and Economic Performance: The Government-Business Relationship in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan” (Berkeley: Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California, 1985)Google Scholar; Johnson, Chalmers, “La Serenissima of the East,” Asian and African Studies (Journal of the Israel Oriental Society) 18 (03 1984), pp. 57–73Google Scholar; Pempel, T. J., Policy and Politics in Japan: Creative Conservatism (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1982)Google Scholar; and Abegglen, James C., The Strategy of Japanese Business (Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger, 1984)Google Scholar.

4. List, Friedrich, The National System of Political Economy (1885Google Scholar; reprint, New York: Augustus Kelley, 1966), p. 119.

5. White, and Wade, , “Developmental States,” p. 3Google Scholar.

6. See Johnson, Chalmers, “The Mousetrapping of Hong Kong: A Game in Which Nobody Wins,” Asian Survey 24 (09 1984), pp. 887–909CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7. See Johnson, Chalmers, MITI and the Japanese Miracle (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1982)Google Scholar; and Hsiung, James C., ed., The Taiwan Experience, 1950–1980 (New York: Praeger, 1981), pp. 9–18Google Scholar.