Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:19:55.511Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Progress Through Setback or Mired in Mediocrity? Crisis and Institutional Change in Southeast Asia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 March 2016

Bryan K. Ritchie
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A well-developed thesis in political economy claims that crises create opportunities for change. Yet despite creating similar preferences for change, the Asian financial crisis led to reform of policies and institutions in some issue areas and in some countries of Southeast Asia, but not in others. In this essay I find that policies and institutions associated with technological upgrading of the economy, and particularly the manufacturing sector, are often immune to reform efforts, for two reasons. First, reform demands that policymakers know what to do; and second, they must know how to do it. Whether countries can discover and adopt new “templates” for reforming technology policies and institutions depends on the capacity of preexisting institutions to foster participative rather than simply consultative public-private collaboration. Such collaboration is most likely when decentralized yet coordinated bureaucracies facilitate meaningful participation from private actors, including business, labor, and academia, in forming, implementing, monitoring, and enforcing development policies.

Keywords

technologyupgradingskills trainingbureaucracySoutheast Asiacrisiscollaborationinstitutional changepath dependencypolicy reform
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of East Asian Studies , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , August 2005 , pp. 273 - 313
Copyright
Copyright © East Asia Institute 

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

Notes

Research for this paper was funded in part by a grant from the Fulbright-Hays Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad Program, with funds provided by the U.S. Department of Education and by a grant from the Social Science Research Council's International Dissertation Field Research Fellowship Program, with funds provided by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation

I would like to thank Rick Doner, Greg Felker, Stephan Haggard, Allen Hicken, Jomo K.S., Linda Lim, and the participants of the Southeast Asian Business Conference at the University of Michigan and one anonymous reviewer for comments on this and earlier drafts. I am responsible for the errors that remain.

1. As Richard Nelson and Nathan Rosenberg note, innovation is not necessarily creating something totally new, but rather mastering anything that is new to that particular society. Once local firms can assimilate and adopt technologies new to them, they can then focus on creating technologies new to others. See Nelson, Richard R. and Rosenberg, Nathan, “Technical Innovation and National Systems.” In Nelson, Richard R., ed., National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993).Google Scholar

2. See Felker, G., “Southeast Asian Industrialization and the Changing Global Production System,” Third World Quarterly 24, no. 2 (2003): 255–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. See Olson, M., The Rise and Decline of Nations (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982); Pierson, P., “Increasing Returns, Path Dependence and the Study of Politics,” American Political Science Review 94, no. 2 (June 2000): 251–268; Ritchie, B. K., “Political Preferences and Increasing Returns: The Boon and Bane of Technological Development in Southeast Asia,” IKMAS Working Paper Series, Bangi Institute of Malaysian and International Studies, National University of Malaysia (2001); and Thelen, Kathleen and Steinmo, Sven, “Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics.” In Steinmo, Sven, Thelen, Kathleen, and Longstreth, Frank, eds., Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992): pp. 1–32.Google Scholar

4. Gourevitch, P. A., Politics in Hard Times: Comparative Responses to International Economic Crises (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1986); Olson, , The Rise and Decline of Nations. Google Scholar

5. See Hamilton-Hart, N. and Jomo, K.S., “Financial Capital and Governance in Southeast Asia,” in Jomo, K.S., ed., Southeast Asian Paper Tigers: From Miracle to Debacle and Beyond (London: RoutledgeCurzon Press, 2003); Felker, G. and Jomo, K.S., “New Approaches to Investment Policy in the ASEAN 4,” in Jomo, , Southeast Asian Paper Tigers; and Jomo, K.S., “East Asian Comparisons.” In Jomo, K.S., ed., Malaysian Eclipse: Economic Crisis and Recovery (London: Zed Books, 2001).Google Scholar

6. I am not arguing that reforms in all these other areas were similar across Southeast Asia. Certainly the amount and kind of reform varied significantly across the region. Nor am I arguing that all of these reforms were easy. My argument is that reforms in many of these areas occurred in almost every relevant country and, although some were harder than others, reform in science and technology policy is more difficult than all of them.Google Scholar

7. Certainly developing countries have access to a variety of examples from both developed and developing countries (primarily the East Asian NICs) of how to upgrade technologically. But there is growing skepticism about whether the policies that worked there and then will work in Southeast Asia's here and now. The result has been much debate and little agreement over how to improve technological capacity.Google Scholar

8. See Noble, Gregory W., Collective Action in East Asia: How Ruling Parties Shape Industrial Policy (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998); Doner, Rick, Ritchie, Bryan K., and Slater, Dan, “Systemic Vulnerability and the Origins of Developmental States: Northeast and Southeast Asia in Comparative Perspective,” International Organization 59, no. 2 (Spring 2005); and Doner, R. F. and Ramsay, A., “Growing into Trouble: Institutions and Politics in the Thai Sugar Industry,” Journal of East Asian Studies 4, no. 1 (2004): 97–138.Google Scholar

9. For more on the importance of understanding the mechanisms that perpetuate institutions as the primary driver behind path dependency, see Thelen, Kathleen, “Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics,” Annual Reviews of Political Science 2, no. 1 (1999): 369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10. For more on the complexities of balancing collaboration and rent seeking, see Schneider, B. R. and Maxfield, S., “Business, the State, and Economic Performance in Developing Countries.” In Maxfield, S. and Schneider, B. R., eds., Business and the State in Developing Countries (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997); Evans, P. B., Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995); Weiss, L., “Governed Interdependence: Rethinking the Government-Business Relationships in East Asia,” Pacific Review 8, no. 4 (1995): 589–616; Weiss, L., The Myth of the Powerless State (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998); and Ritchie, B. K., “Innovation Systems, Collective Dilemmas, and the Formation of Technical Intellectual Capital in Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand,” International Journal of Business and Society 2, no. 2 (2001): 21–48.Google Scholar

11. See Hicken, A. and Ritchie, B. K., “The Origin of Credibility Enhancing Institutions in Southeast Asia,” paper delivered at the American Political Science annual meeting, Boston, 2002; North, D. C. and Weingast, B. R., “Constitution and Commitment: The Evaluation of Institutions Governing Public Choice in Seventeenth-Century England,” Journal of Economic History 49 (December 1989); Cowhey, P. F., “Domestic Institutions and the Credibility of International Commitments: Japan and the United States,” International Organization 47, no. 2 (Spring 1993); Fearon, J. D., “Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International Disputes,” American Political Science Review 88, no. 3 (September 1994); Martin, L., Democratic Commitments (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000); and Henisz, W. J., Politics and International Investment: Measuring Risk and Protecting Profits (London: Edward Elgar Publishers, 2002).Google Scholar

12. It is true that the research design does not control directly for whether the crisis impacted the countries of the region differently. Nevertheless, theory would suggest that reform should have been easiest in the worst-hit country, Thailand, and most difficult in the least affected country, Singapore. That these outcomes were reversed suggests different causes.Google Scholar

13. Doner, R. F. and Ritchie, B. K., “Economic Crisis and Technological Trajectories: Hard Disk Drive Production in Southeast Asia.” In Keller, William W. and Samuels, Richard J., eds., Crisis and Innovation in Asian Technology (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003).Google Scholar

14. Deyo, F. C., Beneath the Miracle: Labor Subordination in the New Asian Industrialism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989).Google Scholar

15. Lee Kuan Yew called educational reform the most challenging hurdle for developing countries. See Schein, E. H., Strategic Pragmatism: The Culture of Singapore's Economic Development Board (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1996).Google Scholar

16. Low, L., “The Role of Government in Singapore's Industrialization.” In Jomo, K.S., ed., Southeast Asia's Industrialization: Industrial Policy, Capabilities, and Sustainability (New York: Palgrave, 2001), p. 115; see also Wong, P. K., “The Role of the State in Singapore's Industrial Development.” In Kam, W. P. and Chee-Yuen, N., eds., Industrial Policy, Innovation and Economic Growth (Singapore: Singapore University Press, 2001).Google Scholar

17. Ritchie, , “Innovation Systems,” pp. 21–48.Google Scholar

18. The National Computer Board set up a similar program in 1996 to encourage MNCs to share electronics technology with local firms (see Felker, , “Southeast Asian Industrialization,” pp. 255–282).Google Scholar

19. In one case, a large hard disk drive firm located one of its four primary R&D centers in Singapore. In 1998 the company released what would turn out to be its best-selling drive, which was completely designed and produced in Singapore.Google Scholar

20. Narayanan, S., “Fiscal Reform in Malaysia: Behind a Successful Experience,” Asian Survey 36, no. 9 (1996): 869–881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21. Jomo, K.S., A Question of Class: Capital, the State, and Uneven Development in Malaya (Singapore: Oxford University Press, 1986).Google Scholar

22. See Felker, and Jomo, , Southeast Asian Paper Tigers. Google Scholar

23. Narayanan, , “Fiscal Reform in Malaysia,” pp. 869–881.Google Scholar

24. Felker, and Jomo, , Southeast Asian Paper Tigers, pp. 97–98.Google Scholar

25. See Amsden, A., Asia's Next Giant: South Korea and Late Industrialization (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989).Google Scholar

26. Jomo, K.S., “Prospects for Malaysian Industrialzation in Light of East Asian NIC Experiences.” In Jomo, K.S., ed., Industrialising Malaysia (London: Routledge, 1993), p. 11.Google Scholar

27. Lucas, R. E. B. and Verry, D., Restructuring the Malaysian Economy: Development and Human Resources (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1999). In 1991 job vacancies outstripped the number of unemployed for the first time.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

28. Bank Negara reports that labor productivity rose 6.6 percent from 1982 to 1990, but dropped 1.6 percent in 1990. Between 1987 and 1991 wages in the electronics industry rose 12 percent for unskilled labor and 20 percent for skilled labor. Goh, P. C., “The Semiconductor Industry in Malaysia.” In Jomo, K.S., Felker, G., and Rasiah, R., eds., Industrial Technology Development in Malaysia: Industry and Firm Studies (London: Routledge, 1999). Within the manufacturing sector as a whole, wages rose 6 percent in 1991, 9.6 percent in 1992, and 15.1 percent in 1993. Ismail, M. N., “Foreign Firms and National Technological Upgrading: The Electronics Industry in Malaysia.” In Jomo, , Felker, , and Rasiah, , Industrial Technology Development in Malaysia. Google Scholar

29. Mohammad, Mahathir, Malaysia: The Way Forward (Vision 2020) (Kuala Lumpur: Institute of Strategic and International Studies, 1991), p. 16.Google Scholar

30. Malaysian Human Resource Development Fund Annual Report (Kuala Lumpur: Human Resource Development Corporation, 1999).Google Scholar

31. Author interviews with officials of the Malaysian Human Resource Development Fund, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 1999, 2000.Google Scholar

32. Leutert, H.-G. and Sudhoff, R., “Technology Capacity Building in the Malaysian Automotive Industry,” in Jomo, , Felker, , and Rasiah, , Industrial Technology Development in Malaysia; and Abdulsomad, K., “Promoting Industrial and Technological Development Under Contrasting Industrial Policies: The Automobile Industries in Malaysia and Thailand.” In Jomo, , Felker, , and Rasiah, , Industrial Technology Development in Malaysia. Google Scholar

33. Author interviews with officials of the NECTEC and NSTDA, Bangkok, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001.Google Scholar

34. Rangngan, Krom Phattana Fi Mur, Phrarachabanyat Song Serm Kanfug Aachiib (Department of workplace skills development, Royal Decree to improve career skills) (Bangkok: Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare, 1994), p. 48.Google Scholar

35. For a detailed discussion of why, see Hicken, and Ritchie, , “The Origin of Credibility Enhancing Institutions in Southeast Asia.” Google Scholar

36. Ritchie, , “Innovation Systems,” pp. 21–48; see also Felker, , “Southeast Asian Industrialization,” pp. 255–282.Google Scholar

37. The combined average GNP growth of these countries over this period was 5.7 percent, including the period of the downturn, 1996–1999.Google Scholar

38. Rasiah, R., Foreign Capital and Industrialization in Malaysia (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1995). Sapura, for example, has had some success in telecommunications equipment and services. Proton, which recently bought Lotus, has successfully introduced a new engine for a new line of cars.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

39. Rasiah, R., “Government-Business Co-ordination and the Development of Eng Hardware.” In Jomo, , Felker, , and Rasiah, , Industrial Technology Development in Malaysia. Google Scholar

40. Ibid. Also see McKendrick, D., Doner, R. F., et al., From Silicon Valley to Singapore: Location and Competitive Advantage in the Hard Disk Drive Industry (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000); Hobday, M., Innovation in East Asia: The Challenge to Japan (Aldershot, U.K.: Edward Elgar, 1995); and Jomo, K.S. and Felker, G., eds. Technology, Competitiveness and the State: Malaysia's Industrial Technology Policy (London: Routledge, 1999).Google Scholar

41. Lall, S., “Technology Policy and Competitiveness in Malaysia,” in Jomo, and Felker, , Technology, Competitiveness, and the State. Google Scholar

42. Salleh, I. M., “Foreign Direct Investment and Technology Transfer in the Malaysian Electronics Industry.” In Nomura Sogo Kenkyujo and Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, The New Wave of Foreign Direct Investment in Asia (Singapore: NRI, ISEAS, 1995), pp. 111–130.Google Scholar

43. To illustrate, only one MNC firm in Salleh's study (p. 150) actually has a formal R&D department, and those that indicated they performed R&D limit their focus to process engineering. The bulk of technology is supplied by the parent company, making only local adaptation of both process and product necessary. The fact that most R&D is done outside Malaysia lessens the need for local technological capacity. But, in a vicious cycle, since most regions of Malaysia have poor stocks of intellectual capital, there is little capacity to increase R&D activities even if the demand were present.Google Scholar

44. Wisarn and Bunluasak argue that the number of Thai firms in their study to achieve a midlevel understanding of MNC technologies was much more limited, and they report that no firms achieved a high level of proficiency. Wisarn, P. and Bunluasak, P., “Foreign Direct Investment and Industrial Restructuring in Thailand.” In Kenkyujo and Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, The New Wave of Foreign Direct Investment in Asia, pp. 111–130.Google Scholar

45. Arnold, E., Bell, M., et al., Enhancing Policy and Institutional Support for Industrial Technology Development in Thailand (Brighton, U.K.: SPRU, University of Sussex, 2000).Google Scholar

46. See IMD competitiveness rankings at http://www01.imd.ch/wcy/ranking.Google Scholar

47. Author interviews with officials from the Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare, Thailand, 1998, 1999, 2000. See the 1999 education reform act for details of the actual legislation.Google Scholar

48. “Laboring Under a Misapprehension,” Bangkok Post, June 17, 1998.Google Scholar

49. Doner, and Ritchie, , “Economic Crisis and Technological Trajectories.” Google Scholar

50. One senior-ranking official in the Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare responsible for shepherding the revised vocational education bill through the cabinet complained that Thaksin has been unwilling to propose any additional corporate contributions to education and training beyond the 7 percent combined social security worker's compensation payment. His proposal was to tap the worker's compensation fund to pay for training. However, these funds could only be used by unemployed workers.Google Scholar

51. See Tan, H. W. and Batra, G., “Enterprise Training in Developing Countries: Overview of Incidence, Determinants, and Productivity Outcomes,” World Bank Occasional Paper Series (Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 1995).Google Scholar

52. See also Crispin, Shawn W., “Heard in Asia: Industrial Relations: Japan Burnishes Thailand's Image,” Asian Wall Street Journal, June 3, 2003.Google Scholar

53. World Bank, Thailand Economic Monitor (Bangkok: World Bank, 2003), p. 43.Google Scholar

54. HRDF Annual Report 1999.Google Scholar

55. From 60 to 70 per 10,000 and 1.4 to 1.8, respectively, in Singapore; 5.8 to 5.1 per 10,000 and .34 to .22, respectively, in Malaysia; and 2.09 to 1.33 per 10,000 and .13 to .1, respectively, in Thailand (UNESCO and World Bank development indicators).Google Scholar

56. I am well aware of criticisms directed at the IMD rankings, and, given the proximity of those making the criticisms to the actual processes of data collection and analysis, the criticisms have some validity. But while one might argue that Thailand, for instance, was better (or perhaps worse?!) than the fortieth through thirty-fourth rankings it received, the scale does do a fairly good job at capturing the overall competitive position of the economy.Google Scholar

57. Between 1997 and 2000, Seagate shut down two plants in Malaysia and one in Thailand. Over this period, it reduced its Malaysian workforce from a high of 24,000 to just 5,500; its Singaporean workforce from a high of 20,000 to just over 9,000; and its Thai workforce from over 40,000 to around 18,000. Concurrently, the size of its Chinese workforce ballooned to more than 20,000.Google Scholar

58. Author interviews with human resource management officials, Seagate Corporation, Malaysia and Singapore, 1999, 2000. See also “The Tide Turns for Seagate Technology,” Far Eastern Economic Review, May 2, 2002.Google Scholar

59. On the power and influence of big business in Thailand, see Hewison, Kevin, Pathways to Recovery: Bankers, Business and Nationalism in Thailand, Working Paper Series, No. 1, City University of Hong Kong, 2001.Google Scholar

60. Author interviews 1999, 2000, 2001.Google Scholar

61. These functions used to be carried out by the Productivity and Standards Board before its responsibilities were divided among a number of ministries.Google Scholar

62. Author interview with corporate R&D manager, Seagate Corporation, Singapore, 2000.Google Scholar

63. Slater, Dan, “Iron Cage in an Iron Fist: Authoritarian Institutions and the Personalization of Power in Malaysia,” Comparative Politics 36, no. 1 (October 2003).Google Scholar

64. See Felker, G. and Jomo, K.S., “Introduction,” in Jomo, and Felker, , Technology, Competitiveness, and the State. Google Scholar

65. World Bank, Thailand Economic Monitor, p. 43.Google Scholar

66. See the Singapore Ministry of Manpower's Manpower 21 plan as an example.Google Scholar

67. Author interviews with officials from the Ministry of Manpower and Productivity and Standards Board, Singapore 1999, 2000.Google Scholar

68. Evans, , Embedded Autonomy. Google Scholar

69. Biddle, J. and Milor, V., Malaysia: Consultative Mechanisms and Economic Governance Case Study (Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 2000).Google Scholar

70. Hicken, and Ritchie, , “The Origin of Credibility Enhancing Institutions in Southeast Asia.” Google Scholar

71. Personal conversation with two CEOs—one from an American firm and one from a Japanese firm—at the MDC's Advisory Panel meetings in Cyberjaya, 2000.Google Scholar

72. Hard Disk Drive Association Conference, Bangkok, 1999.Google Scholar

73. See the Manpower 21 plan from the Ministry of Manpower, among others.Google Scholar

74. Author interviews with officials from the Ministry of Manpower and Productivity and Standards Board, Singapore 1999, 2000.Google Scholar

75. Author interview with corporate officers from Seagate Corporation, Singapore, 2000.Google Scholar

76. I am not arguing that Singapore is without the possibility of institutional dead ends. For example, much is being made of the negative influence repressive political institutions might be having on entrepreneurial capacities, which dramatically lag behind the OECD countries. Moreover, others, like Natasha Hamilton-Hart, are arguing that relationships between large government-linked corporations and favored politicians and businesspeople are not as transparent or arm's-length as most imagine. See Hamilton-Hart, N., “The Singapore State Revisited,” Pacific Review 13, no. 2 (2000): 195–216.Google Scholar

77. Arnold, Bell, et al., Enhancing Policy and Institutional Support. Google Scholar

78. Evans, P., “Beyond Institutional Monocropping: Institutions, Capabilities, and Deliberative Development,” manuscript, University of California, Berkeley, 2002.Google Scholar

79. Haggard, S., “Institutions and Growth in East Asia,” manuscript, University of California, San Diego, 2003.Google Scholar