Suchergebnisse

1. Developmental State and Economic Liberalism -- 2. Economic Freedom, Institutional Arrangements, and Local Context -- 3. State Capitalism vs. Entrepreneurial Capitalism -- 4. Development Requires Freedom -- 5. Hong Kong and Singapore as an Anglo-Chinese Success Story -- 6. Reassessing Relative Economic Performance -- 7. State and the Creative Class -- 8. Conclusion: Reconsidering Developmental State Exceptionalism.

This book provides a fresh perspective on the debate over the role of the state in East Asias development history. Comparing the post-war development policies of Singapore and Hong Kong, it argues that their strong economic performances preceded and persisted despite, not because of, developmental state policies. While both nations are not pure free markets, the Hong Kong economy comes closer to that ideal and exhibited clear advantages over state-driven Singapore, in terms of greater levels of Indigenous entrepreneurship, productivity and innovation. The book highlights the complex ways in which states penetrate markets, which are often neglected in liberal accounts of Hong Kong and Singapore as free-market success stories. At the same time, it also stands as a cautionary tale on the use of non-comprehensive development planning in the twenty-first century, where an unprecedented degree of complexity complicates economic policy and industrial upgrading. The book renews the case for economic liberalism in development policy through a unique Asian cultural lens. Bryan Cheang is Assistant Director of the Center for the Study of Governance and Society, Kings College London, UK. His research interests are in the political economy of development and applied economic policy, with a specific focus on the institutional arrangements of the entrepreneurial state and the efficacy of industrial policy interventions.

AbstractDevelopmental state scholars argue that through "embedded autonomy", state activism can steer society towards positive outcomes without capture by private interests. This paper questions this claim through a case study of such activism in Singapore. It argues that not only may rent-seeking have been encouraged by Singapore's use of industrial policy but that such a policy goes hand in hand with attempts by state actors to create an economic culture that legitimises such behaviour. The wider implication drawn is that mission-oriented state activism may require extensive cultural engineering to foster consensus over the relevant "missions", but this level of social penetration also increases the risk of private interests capturing the state in less visible ways.

Asian values : an epistemic liberalism perspective -- State-centric meritocracy in Singapore -- Beyond technocratic paternalism -- Free media as a nexus of knowledge transmission -- Political economy of inequality and distribution -- What does economic mobility look like? -- Classical liberalism and environmental policy -- Conclusion : Why Singaporeans should engage in (classical liberal) political philosophy.

AbstractWhy have Singapore's unique developmental state arrangements persisted in a region which has experienced democratic change? This paper argues that this is due to the PAP state's successful legitimation of its unique brand of meritocracy, one which has both competitive and interventionist elements. During the colonial era, a culture of economic meritocracy evolved in a bottom-up process through social and commercial interactions between the British class and Chinese community. This was then transmuted by the PAP's top-down imposition of the institutions and discourses of political meritocracy. This cultural hybrid allows the state to sustain its hegemony in the face of progressive social change. Accordingly, our emphasis on the wider institutional environment within which merit is conceived helps to better illuminate Singapore's challenges of encouraging organic innovation, alleviating social stratification, and opening up its political arena. This paper suggests that the problems in these areas stem not from meritocracy per se, but from the PAP's "monocentric meritocracy" where merit is narrowly defined and singularly imposed in the post-colonial era.

This book is a survey of the field of development studies from a political economy perspective. It first reviews the academic literature on development and highlights the fundamental importance of institutions and social values, over and above other alternative theories, as determinants in long-run development. In this context, the book draws from the works of Nobel Laureates Douglass North, F.A. Hayek and Elinor Ostrom, and argues that the ingredients of property rights, the rule of law, and market freedoms are essential in generating socio-economic progress. Successful reforms however are not simply a function of constructing formal institutions, but must cohere with the social values, norms, and cultural commitments of local communities. It is in this spirit that the book theorises on the oft-neglected role that political entrepreneurs play in driving endogenous institutional change. Specifically, this book integrates the theoretical discussion on market-driven development with a range of case studies from around the world, featuring the bottom-up efforts of local change agents to pursue institutional reforms and changes in social opinion. This marvellous handbook displays an impressive grasp of the vast literature on economic development, highlighting the crucial role of liberal ideas of freedom for economic success. The handbook masterfully summarizes debates on free markets, institutions, and culture as causes of development. This is the best textbook treatment of liberalism and development that I have ever seen. William Easterly, Professor of Economics at New York University (NYU) and Co-Director, NYU Development Research Institute.