East Asia Model vs South Asia Model, which one is better?

Discussion in 'Economy & Infrastructure' started by rockdog, Nov 7, 2009.

  1. rockdog

    rockdog Guest

    I think it will be very funny to make a comparison between East Asia and South Asia development model; and determining the facts behind data.

    Start point:
    East Asia:
    Most nations are deadly damaged before 1955:
    China (8 years in WWII, 4 years civil war, 3 years Korea war)
    Japan (8 years in WWII)
    Korea (3 years Korea war)
    Taiwan (light damage during WWII)

    South Asia:
    Any damage in Sub-continent before 1950?
    The split of India-Pakistan?

    --------------------------------------------------------

    Political system:
    East Asia:
    China: dictatorship
    Japan: dictatorship (US occupation) - democratic
    S.Korea: dictatorship (Military regime) - democratic
    Taiwan: dictatorship (Military regime) - democratic


    South Asia:
    India: democratic for sure
    Pakistan: sometimes democratic, sometimes military regime?
    Bangladesh: democratic?
    Sri Lanka: democratic?


    --------------------------------------------------------------

    GDP, and Per GDP comparison; with similar demography regions:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population


    India vs China mainland + Hong Kong:
    Population:
    1.1b vs 1.3b;
    GDP:
    $1.2T:$4.5T [1: 3.75]

    Pakistan vs Japan:
    Population:
    0.167b vs 0.13b;
    GDP:
    $0.16T:$4.9T [1: 30.6]

    Bangladesh vs S.Korea + N.Korea:
    Population:
    0.167b vs 0.07b;
    GDP:
    $0.0079T:$0.093T [1: 11.8]

    Sri Lanka vs Taiwan:
    Population:
    20m vs 23m;
    GDP:
    $0.04T:$0.4T [1:10]

    --------------------------------------------------------------

    Welcome guys from both E.Asia and S.Asia background contribute with following questions:

    1. What's the main reasons for creating such GDP gap between two?

    2. Is democratic really an important factor for development?

    3. Most E.Asia nations had experience of Dictatorship during the economy take off, is Dictatorship a good thing at this stage?

    4. Is E.Asia type of Export-driver economy better than S.Asia's?
     
  2.  
  3. badguy2000

    badguy2000 Respected Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    4,957
    Likes Received:
    613
    the biggest problem in south Asia is that south Asia has not experienced through land reform and has not broken down the premodern land distribution system.

    it is the biggest barrier to the industrialization in South Asia

    one hand, it stops industry acquire enough land.
    On the other hand, it stops cheap agricultural rural area convert to industry labour.
     
  4. Koji

    Koji New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    758
    Likes Received:
    1
    Hands down the model for success in Asia has been demonstrated by the East Asian nations. There is no argument against the fact that 3/3 success stories (Japan, SK, Taiwan) tell you that the transition to democracy should occur after economic growth.
     
  5. redragon

    redragon Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2009
    Messages:
    928
    Likes Received:
    36
    argument, debating and discussion are useless here, only facts count. and the facts and datas must be positive for certain countries and negative for some other countries, otherwise the data must be faked.
    I guess only time can tell
     
  6. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    20,546
    Likes Received:
    6,549
    In East Asian model -Japan a nation with 10% of the population of China has a bigger economy than China, no such disparity in South Asian model, why such a huge gap in wealth of a smaller nation being larger than a nation 10 times it's size in population and 20 times in land mass?
     
  7. mehwish92

    mehwish92 Founding Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    Messages:
    362
    Likes Received:
    61
    ^^ japan is developed; china is not still a developing 3rd world country.

    i think what the east asians above are trying to say is dictatorships help countries grow and become developed. Only after that must countries become democratic.

    Is that necessarily a good model?

    Going by this, Pakistan has been a dictatorship for majority of its existence. Shouldn't it be better off than India by now? Dictatorship may have worked for east asia, but will never work for south asia.

    That being said, I think comparing east asian model with south asian model is useless.
     
  8. redragon

    redragon Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2009
    Messages:
    928
    Likes Received:
    36
    very simple, if india has the same size of economy like that of sri-lanka, most of indian will be starved to death, so it is impossible to have that sinario in south asia, end of story.

    besides, we are talking about comparsion between south asia and east asia
    lethalforce, please don't change the topic, if you want to have a comparison between China and Japan, you can open a new thread, thank you
     
  9. Koji

    Koji New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    758
    Likes Received:
    1
    Hasn't Pakistan been a democratic country for most of its history?
     
  10. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    20,546
    Likes Received:
    6,549
    You are the one that if going off topic, But in the East Asian model China is the poor man in the bunch if you look at GDP by per capita China would have the lowest, which shows that China is the only third world developing country in the East Asian model. While comparisions cannot be made from East Asia to South Asia because all the nations in South Asia are developing while the East Asian all nations are developed except for China which is still releatively a third world country comapared to others in the group.
     
  11. redragon

    redragon Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2009
    Messages:
    928
    Likes Received:
    36
    How can the greatest democracy: USA
    to have a dictator like pakistan as it's close ally?
    please don't spread lies about democracy.
     
  12. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    20,546
    Likes Received:
    6,549
    USA is trying to help the best ALLY it ever had become democratic, it is trying to bring Iraq style democracy to Pakistan.
     
  13. mattster

    mattster Respected Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    Messages:
    1,048
    Likes Received:
    518
    Location:
    California
    You guys are all missing some key points about the success of smaller East Asian countries like Taiwan, Japan and S. Korea.

    The key difference between these countries is that they are almost 100% homogeneous societies where everyone speaks the same language and dividing factors such as ethnicity, religion, language, customs, cultural heritage, etc are almost non-existent in these countries.

    Thats a big, big, deal when it comes to development.

    If you think this is not a big deal - then imagine what India would be like if all 800 million people were the same colour, spoke the same language, and had only one major religion, and no caste system had ever existed. India would probably look very different than the country we have today.

    When you have a society like that, then you have a very disciplined society with very few internal fissures to side-track the country's development.

    Now when you compare these smaller homogeneous societies with a extremely plural multiracial, multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, multi-religious societies like India and to a much lesser extent China - its simply a no comparison.

    China and India had huge populations and huge problems before they even started their growth track. China is a lot less multi-cultural than India and it is still much more homogeneous than India in terms of population percentage.
    That certainly helps China in terms of unity and social problems. The fact that China chose Communism helped them move ahead very fast initally from India in terms of development but India has just started getting on track in the last 20 years. China has also paid a huge price in terms of environmental damage to their country for the rapid break neck development.

    But, that's not to say that the Japanese, Koreans and Taiwanese did not work their ass off to get where they are. Anyone who has worked with the japanese know that they have a tremendous work ethic. South Asian work ethic is no match for the Japanese and the Koreans. Some of this stuff is cultural too.

    If you want to compare societies like japan, Korea and Taiwan, etc to other countries - then a suitable comparison would be to compare these countries to the Scandinavian countries to see how well they fared.
     
  14. Singh

    Singh Phat Cat Administrator

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    Messages:
    20,305
    Likes Received:
    8,270
    Location:
    011
    Good thread,

    Rockdog

    The problems faced in India were tremendous, in fact none of the scholars of the time believed India would survive.

    Pakistan in 1960s was considered amongst the more developed Asian nations in league with Japan etc. (correct me if I am wrong)

    ------

    The main factor is when were the reforms started and the quality of the reforms.

    For economic development of a country ? No
    For development of citizens ? Yes.

    The only requirement for economic development is having a strong visionary powerful leader/regime, who/which is future oriented and pro-reforms.
    An extreme example - Hitler.

    Both strategies are supremely successful.
     
  15. Singh

    Singh Phat Cat Administrator

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    Messages:
    20,305
    Likes Received:
    8,270
    Location:
    011
    ?
    In Indian context land reforms means enforcing a ceiling limit to the amount of land an individual can own. In this sense land reforms have been successful in India.

    However India being a federal govt and esp post decentralization it is upto the State govts to setup SEZs and give preferential land rates for Industrialization.
    This is the reason why there is such a lopsided growth amongst Indian states.
     
  16. Singh

    Singh Phat Cat Administrator

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    Messages:
    20,305
    Likes Received:
    8,270
    Location:
    011
    Google Zia ul Haq, Pervez Musharraf, Yahya Khan, Ayub Khan
     
  17. shotgunner

    shotgunner Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2009
    Messages:
    173
    Likes Received:
    2
    GDP per capita of China higher/lower than that of India? By how much %?

    If the % difference is big, then right, comparison is meaningless, cos one belongs to 3rd world, the other belongs to 4th or 5th world?

    ...
     
  18. shotgunner

    shotgunner Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2009
    Messages:
    173
    Likes Received:
    2
    Question: Would you include Singapore into the comparison? (Also, you may use Hong Kong, Macau, as independent economic entities in E Asian block, for more detailed comparison)

    Question: Referring to Hong Kong, Singapre, Macau, are they export-driven economies?

    Question: Is the fact that China being a big exporter (I guess either China or Germany will be 2009 world biggest exporter) necessarily defines this country as a export-driven economy? The other fact is that this country is building historic scale of infrastructure every year (half of world's concrete produced, and gazillions of steel, and electricity, and ...), does it mean China is a also a domestic-driven economy?

    Question: When we buy rice here in China, the price is only 1/6 that of international price. Does this in some how underestimate size of domestic economy?

    Question: In some part of China (e.g. rural areas, less developed mid-west, ethnic minority dominated, black market, unofficial financing, ...), businesses are done by cash, no bank record, no tax record. Will it also underestimate size of domestic economy?

    As a railway engineer from Shanghai, after working in numerous remote regions for years, I won't say China is a export-driven economy like other E Asia neighbours who are:
    1) much smaller in population & land mass
    2) 2nd/3rd-tier-industry-dominated
    3) complete dependence on import of energy & raw materials
     
  19. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    20,546
    Likes Received:
    6,549
    India is at about 2,900 so china is double India's GDP . That number is for Chinese reforms that are 20 years + in the making,India reforms are still fairly recent and still have a long way to go.
     
  20. redragon

    redragon Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2009
    Messages:
    928
    Likes Received:
    36
    where did you get 2900 for india? don't tell me it's PPP, because almost all Chinese don't believe it, maybe badguy is the only exception.
    1978, in which China started the "reform", China was better than India in education, life span, electricity/steel consumption.........almost all the major aspects of living standards and R&D, kindly explain why.
    plus, how can a totalism regime figured out how to develop economy faster(or "reform") than a democratic country? Democracy supposed to be invincible, how can a democratic country be so slow about "reform"?
    India declared independence at 1947, China @ 1949..., at that time, India was ahead of China on almost all fields.
    Even after India started the "reform", the average % of increase is still lower than that of China, but we all know when the basis is poorer, it should be easier to go faster, how can we explain this?
     
  21. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    20,546
    Likes Received:
    6,549
    If Chinese don't believe something than it's not true? Numbers don't lie. A totalism regime can develop 10 times faster than a democracry simply because people are not part of any equation.
     

Share This Page