The crisis of postwar East Asian capitalism: American power, democracy and the vicissitudes of globalization

Review of International Studies

Volumn 26, Issue 3, 2000, Pages 381-403

  Gills, Barry K ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0034415882     PISSN: 02602105     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0260210500003818     Document Type: Article

References (75)

1. See Janet L. Abu-Lughod, Before European Hegemony: The World System AD1250-1350 (Oxford University Press, 1900); Jack Goody, The East in the West (Cambridge University Press, 1996); K.N. Chaudhuri, Asia Before Europe: Economy and Civilization of the Indian Ocean from the Rise of Islam to 1750 (Cambridge University Press, 1990); and Andre Gunder Frank, ReOrient: Global Economy in the Asian Age (University of California Press, 1998). These works stand in sharp contrast to the traditional Eurocentric narrative emphasizing the superiority and originality of Western capitalist civilization, e.g. E.L. Jones, The European Miracle: Environments, Economies and Geopolitics in the History of Europe and Asia (Cambridge University Press, 1981); J.M. Roberts, The Triumph of the West (BBC, 1985); and most recently David S. Landes, The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some Are So Rich and Some So Poor (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 1998) which returns to traditional Eurocentric explanation via culturalist arguments for Western superiority.
2. See Janet L. Abu-Lughod, Before European Hegemony: The World System AD1250-1350 (Oxford University Press, 1900); Jack Goody, The East in the West (Cambridge University Press, 1996); K.N. Chaudhuri, Asia Before Europe: Economy and Civilization of the Indian Ocean from the Rise of Islam to 1750 (Cambridge University Press, 1990); and Andre Gunder Frank, ReOrient: Global Economy in the Asian Age (University of California Press, 1998). These works stand in sharp contrast to the traditional Eurocentric narrative emphasizing the superiority and originality of Western capitalist civilization, e.g. E.L. Jones, The European Miracle: Environments, Economies and Geopolitics in the History of Europe and Asia (Cambridge University Press, 1981); J.M. Roberts, The Triumph of the West (BBC, 1985); and most recently David S. Landes, The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some Are So Rich and Some So Poor (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 1998) which returns to traditional Eurocentric explanation via culturalist arguments for Western superiority.
3. See Janet L. Abu-Lughod, Before European Hegemony: The World System AD1250-1350 (Oxford University Press, 1900); Jack Goody, The East in the West (Cambridge University Press, 1996); K.N. Chaudhuri, Asia Before Europe: Economy and Civilization of the Indian Ocean from the Rise of Islam to 1750 (Cambridge University Press, 1990); and Andre Gunder Frank, ReOrient: Global Economy in the Asian Age (University of California Press, 1998). These works stand in sharp contrast to the traditional Eurocentric narrative emphasizing the superiority and originality of Western capitalist civilization, e.g. E.L. Jones, The European Miracle: Environments, Economies and Geopolitics in the History of Europe and Asia (Cambridge University Press, 1981); J.M. Roberts, The Triumph of the West (BBC, 1985); and most recently David S. Landes, The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some Are So Rich and Some So Poor (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 1998) which returns to traditional Eurocentric explanation via culturalist arguments for Western superiority.
4. See Janet L. Abu-Lughod, Before European Hegemony: The World System AD1250-1350 (Oxford University Press, 1900); Jack Goody, The East in the West (Cambridge University Press, 1996); K.N. Chaudhuri, Asia Before Europe: Economy and Civilization of the Indian Ocean from the Rise of Islam to 1750 (Cambridge University Press, 1990); and Andre Gunder Frank, ReOrient: Global Economy in the Asian Age (University of California Press, 1998). These works stand in sharp contrast to the traditional Eurocentric narrative emphasizing the superiority and originality of Western capitalist civilization, e.g. E.L. Jones, The European Miracle: Environments, Economies and Geopolitics in the History of Europe and Asia (Cambridge University Press, 1981); J.M. Roberts, The Triumph of the West (BBC, 1985); and most recently David S. Landes, The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some Are So Rich and Some So Poor (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 1998) which returns to traditional Eurocentric explanation via culturalist arguments for Western superiority.
5. See Janet L. Abu-Lughod, Before European Hegemony: The World System AD1250-1350 (Oxford University Press, 1900); Jack Goody, The East in the West (Cambridge University Press, 1996); K.N. Chaudhuri, Asia Before Europe: Economy and Civilization of the Indian Ocean from the Rise of Islam to 1750 (Cambridge University Press, 1990); and Andre Gunder Frank, ReOrient: Global Economy in the Asian Age (University of California Press, 1998). These works stand in sharp contrast to the traditional Eurocentric narrative emphasizing the superiority and originality of Western capitalist civilization, e.g. E.L. Jones, The European Miracle: Environments, Economies and Geopolitics in the History of Europe and Asia (Cambridge University Press, 1981); J.M. Roberts, The Triumph of the West (BBC, 1985); and most recently David S. Landes, The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some Are So Rich and Some So Poor (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 1998) which returns to traditional Eurocentric explanation via culturalist arguments for Western superiority.
6. See Janet L. Abu-Lughod, Before European Hegemony: The World System AD1250-1350 (Oxford University Press, 1900); Jack Goody, The East in the West (Cambridge University Press, 1996); K.N. Chaudhuri, Asia Before Europe: Economy and Civilization of the Indian Ocean from the Rise of Islam to 1750 (Cambridge University Press, 1990); and Andre Gunder Frank, ReOrient: Global Economy in the Asian Age (University of California Press, 1998). These works stand in sharp contrast to the traditional Eurocentric narrative emphasizing the superiority and originality of Western capitalist civilization, e.g. E.L. Jones, The European Miracle: Environments, Economies and Geopolitics in the History of Europe and Asia (Cambridge University Press, 1981); J.M. Roberts, The Triumph of the West (BBC, 1985); and most recently David S. Landes, The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some Are So Rich and Some So Poor (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 1998) which returns to traditional Eurocentric explanation via culturalist arguments for Western superiority.
7. See Janet L. Abu-Lughod, Before European Hegemony: The World System AD1250-1350 (Oxford University Press, 1900); Jack Goody, The East in the West (Cambridge University Press, 1996); K.N. Chaudhuri, Asia Before Europe: Economy and Civilization of the Indian Ocean from the Rise of Islam to 1750 (Cambridge University Press, 1990); and Andre Gunder Frank, ReOrient: Global Economy in the Asian Age (University of California Press, 1998). These works stand in sharp contrast to the traditional Eurocentric narrative emphasizing the superiority and originality of Western capitalist civilization, e.g. E.L. Jones, The European Miracle: Environments, Economies and Geopolitics in the History of Europe and Asia (Cambridge University Press, 1981); J.M. Roberts, The Triumph of the West (BBC, 1985); and most recently David S. Landes, The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some Are So Rich and Some So Poor (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 1998) which returns to traditional Eurocentric explanation via culturalist arguments for Western superiority.
8. See: Paul Krugman, 'The Myth of East Asia's Miracle', Foreign Affairs, 73:6 (Nov.-Dec. 1994), pp. 62-78. Krugman argues that there was no 'miracle' at all, only ordinary growth to be expected from increased inputs of new technologies, infrastructure, and education, whereas East Asia's record in productivity growth was unimpressive. He therefore denied the importance of the state's developmental role. The World Bank's landmark study The East Asian Miracle (Oxford University Press, 1993) acknowledged that the reigning orthodox liberal interpretation of East Asia's rapid economic growth was not entirely satisfactory, and that contrary to textbook economic theory, the role of the state in East Asia had not been necessarily an inefficient or distorting one that created obstacles to development. The 'statist' theorists tended to celebrate the role of the developmental state (e.g. 'getting relative prices wrong', and the case for 'efficient' use of subsidies) in their attacks on liberal explanations, e.g. See Alice H. Amsden, Asia's Next Giant: South Korea and Late Industrialization (Oxford University Press, 1989).
9. See: Paul Krugman, 'The Myth of East Asia's Miracle', Foreign Affairs, 73:6 (Nov.-Dec. 1994), pp. 62-78. Krugman argues that there was no 'miracle' at all, only ordinary growth to be expected from increased inputs of new technologies, infrastructure, and education, whereas East Asia's record in productivity growth was unimpressive. He therefore denied the importance of the state's developmental role. The World Bank's landmark study The East Asian Miracle (Oxford University Press, 1993) acknowledged that the reigning orthodox liberal interpretation of East Asia's rapid economic growth was not entirely satisfactory, and that contrary to textbook economic theory, the role of the state in East Asia had not been necessarily an inefficient or distorting one that created obstacles to development. The 'statist' theorists tended to celebrate the role of the developmental state (e.g. 'getting relative prices wrong', and the case for 'efficient' use of subsidies) in their attacks on liberal explanations, e.g. See Alice H. Amsden, Asia's Next Giant: South Korea and Late Industrialization (Oxford University Press, 1989).
10. See: Paul Krugman, 'The Myth of East Asia's Miracle', Foreign Affairs, 73:6 (Nov.-Dec. 1994), pp. 62-78. Krugman argues that there was no 'miracle' at all, only ordinary growth to be expected from increased inputs of new technologies, infrastructure, and education, whereas East Asia's record in productivity growth was unimpressive. He therefore denied the importance of the state's developmental role. The World Bank's landmark study The East Asian Miracle (Oxford University Press, 1993) acknowledged that the reigning orthodox liberal interpretation of East Asia's rapid economic growth was not entirely satisfactory, and that contrary to textbook economic theory, the role of the state in East Asia had not been necessarily an inefficient or distorting one that created obstacles to development. The 'statist' theorists tended to celebrate the role of the developmental state (e.g. 'getting relative prices wrong', and the case for 'efficient' use of subsidies) in their attacks on liberal explanations, e.g. See Alice H. Amsden, Asia's Next Giant: South Korea and Late Industrialization (Oxford University Press, 1989).
11. However, critics in the West remain concerned that 'Part II' of the crisis may result from the failure to implement reforms, International Herald Tribune, 15 October 1999. 'Asian Economies Could be Drifting Into Part II of Crisis', Reginald Dale. thinkahead@iht.com
12. The debate over the causes of the East Asian crisis (or sometimes just narrowed to the so-called 'financial crisis') was widely engaged. The many participants differed significantly in their , interpretations. The debate can be summarized in two broad categories: those who viewed the key 'failure' to be that of inherently unstable or 'destabilizing' international financial markets, such as George Soros The Crisis of Global Capitalism (1998); and 'Capitalism's Last Chance', Foreign Policy, 113 (1998), pp. 55-66; and Radelet and Sachs, 'The East Asian Financial Crisis: Diagnosis, Remedies, Prospects', Brookings Papers on Economic Activity (1998) pp. 1-89; (though some combined this with domestic financial weakness to explain the financial turbulence, e.g. M. Goldstein, The Asian Financial Crisis: Causes, Cures, and Systemic Implications (Institute for International Economics) (1998); versus those who emphasized intrinsic 'flaws' in East Asian capitalist institutions, such as regime failure, elite interests, or 'crony capitalism', e.g. Stephan Haggard and Andrew MacIntrye, 'The Political Economy of the Asian Economic Crisis', Review of International Political Economy, 5:3 (Autumn 1998), pp. 381-92; Mitchell Bernard, 'East Asia's Tumbling Dominoes: Financial Crisis and the Myth of the Regional Model', Socialist Register, (1999), pp. 178-208. The combined failures of domestic regimes and the pivotal role of international actors such as the US and IMF was stressed in the interpretation, widely cited, made by Wade and Veneroso, 'The Asian Crisis' The High Debt Model versus the Wall Street-Treasury-IMF Complex', New Left Review, 228 (1998), pp. 3-21;, and Walden Bello, 'The Asian Economic Implosion: Causes, Dynamics and Prospects', Race and Class, 40:2/3 (1998), pp. 133-143. In particular. Wade and Veneroso identified the key problem as the destabilizing effects on domestic institutional arrangements that resulted from liberalization, rendering the economies much more vulnerable to external shocks. Some, such as Henderson (1998) in his Asia Falling: Making Sense of the Asian Crisis and its Aftermath, Business Week Books, pointed to a flaw of the regional strategy of over-dependence on external linkages, whether in production for export or finance. A Marxist analysis, such as that by McNally, ' Globalization on Trial: Crisis and Class Struggle in East Asia', Monthly Review, 50:4 (1998), pp. 1-13, stresses the internal contradiction of capitalist development and accumulation, particularly between overproduction and underconsumption and the important role of class struggles in the process. The best overall treatment of the crisis in one volume was the Special Issue on the Asian Crisis of Cambridge Journal of Economics, 22:6 (November 1998), edited by Ha-Joon Chang, Gabriel Palma, and D. Hugh Whittaker, which includes Robert Wade 'From "Miracle" to "Cronyism": Explaining the Great Asian Slump'; Chalmers Johnson, 'Economic Crisis in East Asia: The Clash of Capitalisms', and Ronald Dore, 'Asian Crisis and the Future of the Japanese Model'.
13. The debate over the causes of the East Asian crisis (or sometimes just narrowed to the so-called 'financial crisis') was widely engaged. The many participants differed significantly in their , interpretations. The debate can be summarized in two broad categories: those who viewed the key 'failure' to be that of inherently unstable or 'destabilizing' international financial markets, such as George Soros The Crisis of Global Capitalism (1998); and 'Capitalism's Last Chance', Foreign Policy, 113 (1998), pp. 55-66; and Radelet and Sachs, 'The East Asian Financial Crisis: Diagnosis, Remedies, Prospects', Brookings Papers on Economic Activity (1998) pp. 1-89; (though some combined this with domestic financial weakness to explain the financial turbulence, e.g. M. Goldstein, The Asian Financial Crisis: Causes, Cures, and Systemic Implications (Institute for International Economics) (1998); versus those who emphasized intrinsic 'flaws' in East Asian capitalist institutions, such as regime failure, elite interests, or 'crony capitalism', e.g. Stephan Haggard and Andrew MacIntrye, 'The Political Economy of the Asian Economic Crisis', Review of International Political Economy, 5:3 (Autumn 1998), pp. 381-92; Mitchell Bernard, 'East Asia's Tumbling Dominoes: Financial Crisis and the Myth of the Regional Model', Socialist Register, (1999), pp. 178-208. The combined failures of domestic regimes and the pivotal role of international actors such as the US and IMF was stressed in the interpretation, widely cited, made by Wade and Veneroso, 'The Asian Crisis' The High Debt Model versus the Wall Street-Treasury-IMF Complex', New Left Review, 228 (1998), pp. 3-21;, and Walden Bello, 'The Asian Economic Implosion: Causes, Dynamics and Prospects', Race and Class, 40:2/3 (1998), pp. 133-143. In particular. Wade and Veneroso identified the key problem as the destabilizing effects on domestic institutional arrangements that resulted from liberalization, rendering the economies much more vulnerable to external shocks. Some, such as Henderson (1998) in his Asia Falling: Making Sense of the Asian Crisis and its Aftermath, Business Week Books, pointed to a flaw of the regional strategy of over-dependence on external linkages, whether in production for export or finance. A Marxist analysis, such as that by McNally, ' Globalization on Trial: Crisis and Class Struggle in East Asia', Monthly Review, 50:4 (1998), pp. 1-13, stresses the internal contradiction of capitalist development and accumulation, particularly between overproduction and underconsumption and the important role of class struggles in the process. The best overall treatment of the crisis in one volume was the Special Issue on the Asian Crisis of Cambridge Journal of Economics, 22:6 (November 1998), edited by Ha-Joon Chang, Gabriel Palma, and D. Hugh Whittaker, which includes Robert Wade 'From "Miracle" to "Cronyism": Explaining the Great Asian Slump'; Chalmers Johnson, 'Economic Crisis in East Asia: The Clash of Capitalisms', and Ronald Dore, 'Asian Crisis and the Future of the Japanese Model'.
14. The debate over the causes of the East Asian crisis (or sometimes just narrowed to the so-called 'financial crisis') was widely engaged. The many participants differed significantly in their , interpretations. The debate can be summarized in two broad categories: those who viewed the key 'failure' to be that of inherently unstable or 'destabilizing' international financial markets, such as George Soros The Crisis of Global Capitalism (1998); and 'Capitalism's Last Chance', Foreign Policy, 113 (1998), pp. 55-66; and Radelet and Sachs, 'The East Asian Financial Crisis: Diagnosis, Remedies, Prospects', Brookings Papers on Economic Activity (1998) pp. 1-89; (though some combined this with domestic financial weakness to explain the financial turbulence, e.g. M. Goldstein, The Asian Financial Crisis: Causes, Cures, and Systemic Implications (Institute for International Economics) (1998); versus those who emphasized intrinsic 'flaws' in East Asian capitalist institutions, such as regime failure, elite interests, or 'crony capitalism', e.g. Stephan Haggard and Andrew MacIntrye, 'The Political Economy of the Asian Economic Crisis', Review of International Political Economy, 5:3 (Autumn 1998), pp. 381-92; Mitchell Bernard, 'East Asia's Tumbling Dominoes: Financial Crisis and the Myth of the Regional Model', Socialist Register, (1999), pp. 178-208. The combined failures of domestic regimes and the pivotal role of international actors such as the US and IMF was stressed in the interpretation, widely cited, made by Wade and Veneroso, 'The Asian Crisis' The High Debt Model versus the Wall Street-Treasury-IMF Complex', New Left Review, 228 (1998), pp. 3-21;, and Walden Bello, 'The Asian Economic Implosion: Causes, Dynamics and Prospects', Race and Class, 40:2/3 (1998), pp. 133-143. In particular. Wade and Veneroso identified the key problem as the destabilizing effects on domestic institutional arrangements that resulted from liberalization, rendering the economies much more vulnerable to external shocks. Some, such as Henderson (1998) in his Asia Falling: Making Sense of the Asian Crisis and its Aftermath, Business Week Books, pointed to a flaw of the regional strategy of over-dependence on external linkages, whether in production for export or finance. A Marxist analysis, such as that by McNally, ' Globalization on Trial: Crisis and Class Struggle in East Asia', Monthly Review, 50:4 (1998), pp. 1-13, stresses the internal contradiction of capitalist development and accumulation, particularly between overproduction and underconsumption and the important role of class struggles in the process. The best overall treatment of the crisis in one volume was the Special Issue on the Asian Crisis of Cambridge Journal of Economics, 22:6 (November 1998), edited by Ha-Joon Chang, Gabriel Palma, and D. Hugh Whittaker, which includes Robert Wade 'From "Miracle" to "Cronyism": Explaining the Great Asian Slump'; Chalmers Johnson, 'Economic Crisis in East Asia: The Clash of Capitalisms', and Ronald Dore, 'Asian Crisis and the Future of the Japanese Model'.
15. The debate over the causes of the East Asian crisis (or sometimes just narrowed to the so-called 'financial crisis') was widely engaged. The many participants differed significantly in their , interpretations. The debate can be summarized in two broad categories: those who viewed the key 'failure' to be that of inherently unstable or 'destabilizing' international financial markets, such as George Soros The Crisis of Global Capitalism (1998); and 'Capitalism's Last Chance', Foreign Policy, 113 (1998), pp. 55-66; and Radelet and Sachs, 'The East Asian Financial Crisis: Diagnosis, Remedies, Prospects', Brookings Papers on Economic Activity (1998) pp. 1-89; (though some combined this with domestic financial weakness to explain the financial turbulence, e.g. M. Goldstein, The Asian Financial Crisis: Causes, Cures, and Systemic Implications (Institute for International Economics) (1998); versus those who emphasized intrinsic 'flaws' in East Asian capitalist institutions, such as regime failure, elite interests, or 'crony capitalism', e.g. Stephan Haggard and Andrew MacIntrye, 'The Political Economy of the Asian Economic Crisis', Review of International Political Economy, 5:3 (Autumn 1998), pp. 381-92; Mitchell Bernard, 'East Asia's Tumbling Dominoes: Financial Crisis and the Myth of the Regional Model', Socialist Register, (1999), pp. 178-208. The combined failures of domestic regimes and the pivotal role of international actors such as the US and IMF was stressed in the interpretation, widely cited, made by Wade and Veneroso, 'The Asian Crisis' The High Debt Model versus the Wall Street-Treasury-IMF Complex', New Left Review, 228 (1998), pp. 3-21;, and Walden Bello, 'The Asian Economic Implosion: Causes, Dynamics and Prospects', Race and Class, 40:2/3 (1998), pp. 133-143. In particular. Wade and Veneroso identified the key problem as the destabilizing effects on domestic institutional arrangements that resulted from liberalization, rendering the economies much more vulnerable to external shocks. Some, such as Henderson (1998) in his Asia Falling: Making Sense of the Asian Crisis and its Aftermath, Business Week Books, pointed to a flaw of the regional strategy of over-dependence on external linkages, whether in production for export or finance. A Marxist analysis, such as that by McNally, ' Globalization on Trial: Crisis and Class Struggle in East Asia', Monthly Review, 50:4 (1998), pp. 1-13, stresses the internal contradiction of capitalist development and accumulation, particularly between overproduction and underconsumption and the important role of class struggles in the process. The best overall treatment of the crisis in one volume was the Special Issue on the Asian Crisis of Cambridge Journal of Economics, 22:6 (November 1998), edited by Ha-Joon Chang, Gabriel Palma, and D. Hugh Whittaker, which includes Robert Wade 'From "Miracle" to "Cronyism": Explaining the Great Asian Slump'; Chalmers Johnson, 'Economic Crisis in East Asia: The Clash of Capitalisms', and Ronald Dore, 'Asian Crisis and the Future of the Japanese Model'.
16. The debate over the causes of the East Asian crisis (or sometimes just narrowed to the so-called 'financial crisis') was widely engaged. The many participants differed significantly in their , interpretations. The debate can be summarized in two broad categories: those who viewed the key 'failure' to be that of inherently unstable or 'destabilizing' international financial markets, such as George Soros The Crisis of Global Capitalism (1998); and 'Capitalism's Last Chance', Foreign Policy, 113 (1998), pp. 55-66; and Radelet and Sachs, 'The East Asian Financial Crisis: Diagnosis, Remedies, Prospects', Brookings Papers on Economic Activity (1998) pp. 1-89; (though some combined this with domestic financial weakness to explain the financial turbulence, e.g. M. Goldstein, The Asian Financial Crisis: Causes, Cures, and Systemic Implications (Institute for International Economics) (1998); versus those who emphasized intrinsic 'flaws' in East Asian capitalist institutions, such as regime failure, elite interests, or 'crony capitalism', e.g. Stephan Haggard and Andrew MacIntrye, 'The Political Economy of the Asian Economic Crisis', Review of International Political Economy, 5:3 (Autumn 1998), pp. 381-92; Mitchell Bernard, 'East Asia's Tumbling Dominoes: Financial Crisis and the Myth of the Regional Model', Socialist Register, (1999), pp. 178-208. The combined failures of domestic regimes and the pivotal role of international actors such as the US and IMF was stressed in the interpretation, widely cited, made by Wade and Veneroso, 'The Asian Crisis' The High Debt Model versus the Wall Street-Treasury-IMF Complex', New Left Review, 228 (1998), pp. 3-21;, and Walden Bello, 'The Asian Economic Implosion: Causes, Dynamics and Prospects', Race and Class, 40:2/3 (1998), pp. 133-143. In particular. Wade and Veneroso identified the key problem as the destabilizing effects on domestic institutional arrangements that resulted from liberalization, rendering the economies much more vulnerable to external shocks. Some, such as Henderson (1998) in his Asia Falling: Making Sense of the Asian Crisis and its Aftermath, Business Week Books, pointed to a flaw of the regional strategy of over-dependence on external linkages, whether in production for export or finance. A Marxist analysis, such as that by McNally, ' Globalization on Trial: Crisis and Class Struggle in East Asia', Monthly Review, 50:4 (1998), pp. 1-13, stresses the internal contradiction of capitalist development and accumulation, particularly between overproduction and underconsumption and the important role of class struggles in the process. The best overall treatment of the crisis in one volume was the Special Issue on the Asian Crisis of Cambridge Journal of Economics, 22:6 (November 1998), edited by Ha-Joon Chang, Gabriel Palma, and D. Hugh Whittaker, which includes Robert Wade 'From "Miracle" to "Cronyism": Explaining the Great Asian Slump'; Chalmers Johnson, 'Economic Crisis in East Asia: The Clash of Capitalisms', and Ronald Dore, 'Asian Crisis and the Future of the Japanese Model'.
17. The debate over the causes of the East Asian crisis (or sometimes just narrowed to the so-called 'financial crisis') was widely engaged. The many participants differed significantly in their , interpretations. The debate can be summarized in two broad categories: those who viewed the key 'failure' to be that of inherently unstable or 'destabilizing' international financial markets, such as George Soros The Crisis of Global Capitalism (1998); and 'Capitalism's Last Chance', Foreign Policy, 113 (1998), pp. 55-66; and Radelet and Sachs, 'The East Asian Financial Crisis: Diagnosis, Remedies, Prospects', Brookings Papers on Economic Activity (1998) pp. 1-89; (though some combined this with domestic financial weakness to explain the financial turbulence, e.g. M. Goldstein, The Asian Financial Crisis: Causes, Cures, and Systemic Implications (Institute for International Economics) (1998); versus those who emphasized intrinsic 'flaws' in East Asian capitalist institutions, such as regime failure, elite interests, or 'crony capitalism', e.g. Stephan Haggard and Andrew MacIntrye, 'The Political Economy of the Asian Economic Crisis', Review of International Political Economy, 5:3 (Autumn 1998), pp. 381-92; Mitchell Bernard, 'East Asia's Tumbling Dominoes: Financial Crisis and the Myth of the Regional Model', Socialist Register, (1999), pp. 178-208. The combined failures of domestic regimes and the pivotal role of international actors such as the US and IMF was stressed in the interpretation, widely cited, made by Wade and Veneroso, 'The Asian Crisis' The High Debt Model versus the Wall Street-Treasury-IMF Complex', New Left Review, 228 (1998), pp. 3-21;, and Walden Bello, 'The Asian Economic Implosion: Causes, Dynamics and Prospects', Race and Class, 40:2/3 (1998), pp. 133-143. In particular. Wade and Veneroso identified the key problem as the destabilizing effects on domestic institutional arrangements that resulted from liberalization, rendering the economies much more vulnerable to external shocks. Some, such as Henderson (1998) in his Asia Falling: Making Sense of the Asian Crisis and its Aftermath, Business Week Books, pointed to a flaw of the regional strategy of over-dependence on external linkages, whether in production for export or finance. A Marxist analysis, such as that by McNally, ' Globalization on Trial: Crisis and Class Struggle in East Asia', Monthly Review, 50:4 (1998), pp. 1-13, stresses the internal contradiction of capitalist development and accumulation, particularly between overproduction and underconsumption and the important role of class struggles in the process. The best overall treatment of the crisis in one volume was the Special Issue on the Asian Crisis of Cambridge Journal of Economics, 22:6 (November 1998), edited by Ha-Joon Chang, Gabriel Palma, and D. Hugh Whittaker, which includes Robert Wade 'From "Miracle" to "Cronyism": Explaining the Great Asian Slump'; Chalmers Johnson, 'Economic Crisis in East Asia: The Clash of Capitalisms', and Ronald Dore, 'Asian Crisis and the Future of the Japanese Model'.
18. The debate over the causes of the East Asian crisis (or sometimes just narrowed to the so-called 'financial crisis') was widely engaged. The many participants differed significantly in their , interpretations. The debate can be summarized in two broad categories: those who viewed the key 'failure' to be that of inherently unstable or 'destabilizing' international financial markets, such as George Soros The Crisis of Global Capitalism (1998); and 'Capitalism's Last Chance', Foreign Policy, 113 (1998), pp. 55-66; and Radelet and Sachs, 'The East Asian Financial Crisis: Diagnosis, Remedies, Prospects', Brookings Papers on Economic Activity (1998) pp. 1-89; (though some combined this with domestic financial weakness to explain the financial turbulence, e.g. M. Goldstein, The Asian Financial Crisis: Causes, Cures, and Systemic Implications (Institute for International Economics) (1998); versus those who emphasized intrinsic 'flaws' in East Asian capitalist institutions, such as regime failure, elite interests, or 'crony capitalism', e.g. Stephan Haggard and Andrew MacIntrye, 'The Political Economy of the Asian Economic Crisis', Review of International Political Economy, 5:3 (Autumn 1998), pp. 381-92; Mitchell Bernard, 'East Asia's Tumbling Dominoes: Financial Crisis and the Myth of the Regional Model', Socialist Register, (1999), pp. 178-208. The combined failures of domestic regimes and the pivotal role of international actors such as the US and IMF was stressed in the interpretation, widely cited, made by Wade and Veneroso, 'The Asian Crisis' The High Debt Model versus the Wall Street-Treasury-IMF Complex', New Left Review, 228 (1998), pp. 3-21;, and Walden Bello, 'The Asian Economic Implosion: Causes, Dynamics and Prospects', Race and Class, 40:2/3 (1998), pp. 133-143. In particular. Wade and Veneroso identified the key problem as the destabilizing effects on domestic institutional arrangements that resulted from liberalization, rendering the economies much more vulnerable to external shocks. Some, such as Henderson (1998) in his Asia Falling: Making Sense of the Asian Crisis and its Aftermath, Business Week Books, pointed to a flaw of the regional strategy of over-dependence on external linkages, whether in production for export or finance. A Marxist analysis, such as that by McNally, ' Globalization on Trial: Crisis and Class Struggle in East Asia', Monthly Review, 50:4 (1998), pp. 1-13, stresses the internal contradiction of capitalist development and accumulation, particularly between overproduction and underconsumption and the important role of class struggles in the process. The best overall treatment of the crisis in one volume was the Special Issue on the Asian Crisis of Cambridge Journal of Economics, 22:6 (November 1998), edited by Ha-Joon Chang, Gabriel Palma, and D. Hugh Whittaker, which includes Robert Wade 'From "Miracle" to "Cronyism": Explaining the Great Asian Slump'; Chalmers Johnson, 'Economic Crisis in East Asia: The Clash of Capitalisms', and Ronald Dore, 'Asian Crisis and the Future of the Japanese Model'.
19. The debate over the causes of the East Asian crisis (or sometimes just narrowed to the so-called 'financial crisis') was widely engaged. The many participants differed significantly in their , interpretations. The debate can be summarized in two broad categories: those who viewed the key 'failure' to be that of inherently unstable or 'destabilizing' international financial markets, such as George Soros The Crisis of Global Capitalism (1998); and 'Capitalism's Last Chance', Foreign Policy, 113 (1998), pp. 55-66; and Radelet and Sachs, 'The East Asian Financial Crisis: Diagnosis, Remedies, Prospects', Brookings Papers on Economic Activity (1998) pp. 1-89; (though some combined this with domestic financial weakness to explain the financial turbulence, e.g. M. Goldstein, The Asian Financial Crisis: Causes, Cures, and Systemic Implications (Institute for International Economics) (1998); versus those who emphasized intrinsic 'flaws' in East Asian capitalist institutions, such as regime failure, elite interests, or 'crony capitalism', e.g. Stephan Haggard and Andrew MacIntrye, 'The Political Economy of the Asian Economic Crisis', Review of International Political Economy, 5:3 (Autumn 1998), pp. 381-92; Mitchell Bernard, 'East Asia's Tumbling Dominoes: Financial Crisis and the Myth of the Regional Model', Socialist Register, (1999), pp. 178-208. The combined failures of domestic regimes and the pivotal role of international actors such as the US and IMF was stressed in the interpretation, widely cited, made by Wade and Veneroso, 'The Asian Crisis' The High Debt Model versus the Wall Street-Treasury-IMF Complex', New Left Review, 228 (1998), pp. 3-21;, and Walden Bello, 'The Asian Economic Implosion: Causes, Dynamics and Prospects', Race and Class, 40:2/3 (1998), pp. 133-143. In particular. Wade and Veneroso identified the key problem as the destabilizing effects on domestic institutional arrangements that resulted from liberalization, rendering the economies much more vulnerable to external shocks. Some, such as Henderson (1998) in his Asia Falling: Making Sense of the Asian Crisis and its Aftermath, Business Week Books, pointed to a flaw of the regional strategy of over-dependence on external linkages, whether in production for export or finance. A Marxist analysis, such as that by McNally, ' Globalization on Trial: Crisis and Class Struggle in East Asia', Monthly Review, 50:4 (1998), pp. 1-13, stresses the internal contradiction of capitalist development and accumulation, particularly between overproduction and underconsumption and the important role of class struggles in the process. The best overall treatment of the crisis in one volume was the Special Issue on the Asian Crisis of Cambridge Journal of Economics, 22:6 (November 1998), edited by Ha-Joon Chang, Gabriel Palma, and D. Hugh Whittaker, which includes Robert Wade 'From "Miracle" to "Cronyism": Explaining the Great Asian Slump'; Chalmers Johnson, 'Economic Crisis in East Asia: The Clash of Capitalisms', and Ronald Dore, 'Asian Crisis and the Future of the Japanese Model'.
20. The debate over the causes of the East Asian crisis (or sometimes just narrowed to the so-called 'financial crisis') was widely engaged. The many participants differed significantly in their , interpretations. The debate can be summarized in two broad categories: those who viewed the key 'failure' to be that of inherently unstable or 'destabilizing' international financial markets, such as George Soros The Crisis of Global Capitalism (1998); and 'Capitalism's Last Chance', Foreign Policy, 113 (1998), pp. 55-66; and Radelet and Sachs, 'The East Asian Financial Crisis: Diagnosis, Remedies, Prospects', Brookings Papers on Economic Activity (1998) pp. 1-89; (though some combined this with domestic financial weakness to explain the financial turbulence, e.g. M. Goldstein, The Asian Financial Crisis: Causes, Cures, and Systemic Implications (Institute for International Economics) (1998); versus those who emphasized intrinsic 'flaws' in East Asian capitalist institutions, such as regime failure, elite interests, or 'crony capitalism', e.g. Stephan Haggard and Andrew MacIntrye, 'The Political Economy of the Asian Economic Crisis', Review of International Political Economy, 5:3 (Autumn 1998), pp. 381-92; Mitchell Bernard, 'East Asia's Tumbling Dominoes: Financial Crisis and the Myth of the Regional Model', Socialist Register, (1999), pp. 178-208. The combined failures of domestic regimes and the pivotal role of international actors such as the US and IMF was stressed in the interpretation, widely cited, made by Wade and Veneroso, 'The Asian Crisis' The High Debt Model versus the Wall Street-Treasury-IMF Complex', New Left Review, 228 (1998), pp. 3-21;, and Walden Bello, 'The Asian Economic Implosion: Causes, Dynamics and Prospects', Race and Class, 40:2/3 (1998), pp. 133-143. In particular. Wade and Veneroso identified the key problem as the destabilizing effects on domestic institutional arrangements that resulted from liberalization, rendering the economies much more vulnerable to external shocks. Some, such as Henderson (1998) in his Asia Falling: Making Sense of the Asian Crisis and its Aftermath, Business Week Books, pointed to a flaw of the regional strategy of over-dependence on external linkages, whether in production for export or finance. A Marxist analysis, such as that by McNally, ' Globalization on Trial: Crisis and Class Struggle in East Asia', Monthly Review, 50:4 (1998), pp. 1-13, stresses the internal contradiction of capitalist development and accumulation, particularly between overproduction and underconsumption and the important role of class struggles in the process. The best overall treatment of the crisis in one volume was the Special Issue on the Asian Crisis of Cambridge Journal of Economics, 22:6 (November 1998), edited by Ha-Joon Chang, Gabriel Palma, and D. Hugh Whittaker, which includes Robert Wade 'From "Miracle" to "Cronyism": Explaining the Great Asian Slump'; Chalmers Johnson, 'Economic Crisis in East Asia: The Clash of Capitalisms', and Ronald Dore, 'Asian Crisis and the Future of the Japanese Model'.
21. The debate over the causes of the East Asian crisis (or sometimes just narrowed to the so-called 'financial crisis') was widely engaged. The many participants differed significantly in their , interpretations. The debate can be summarized in two broad categories: those who viewed the key 'failure' to be that of inherently unstable or 'destabilizing' international financial markets, such as George Soros The Crisis of Global Capitalism (1998); and 'Capitalism's Last Chance', Foreign Policy, 113 (1998), pp. 55-66; and Radelet and Sachs, 'The East Asian Financial Crisis: Diagnosis, Remedies, Prospects', Brookings Papers on Economic Activity (1998) pp. 1-89; (though some combined this with domestic financial weakness to explain the financial turbulence, e.g. M. Goldstein, The Asian Financial Crisis: Causes, Cures, and Systemic Implications (Institute for International Economics) (1998); versus those who emphasized intrinsic 'flaws' in East Asian capitalist institutions, such as regime failure, elite interests, or 'crony capitalism', e.g. Stephan Haggard and Andrew MacIntrye, 'The Political Economy of the Asian Economic Crisis', Review of International Political Economy, 5:3 (Autumn 1998), pp. 381-92; Mitchell Bernard, 'East Asia's Tumbling Dominoes: Financial Crisis and the Myth of the Regional Model', Socialist Register, (1999), pp. 178-208. The combined failures of domestic regimes and the pivotal role of international actors such as the US and IMF was stressed in the interpretation, widely cited, made by Wade and Veneroso, 'The Asian Crisis' The High Debt Model versus the Wall Street-Treasury-IMF Complex', New Left Review, 228 (1998), pp. 3-21;, and Walden Bello, 'The Asian Economic Implosion: Causes, Dynamics and Prospects', Race and Class, 40:2/3 (1998), pp. 133-143. In particular. Wade and Veneroso identified the key problem as the destabilizing effects on domestic institutional arrangements that resulted from liberalization, rendering the economies much more vulnerable to external shocks. Some, such as Henderson (1998) in his Asia Falling: Making Sense of the Asian Crisis and its Aftermath, Business Week Books, pointed to a flaw of the regional strategy of over-dependence on external linkages, whether in production for export or finance. A Marxist analysis, such as that by McNally, ' Globalization on Trial: Crisis and Class Struggle in East Asia', Monthly Review, 50:4 (1998), pp. 1-13, stresses the internal contradiction of capitalist development and accumulation, particularly between overproduction and underconsumption and the important role of class struggles in the process. The best overall treatment of the crisis in one volume was the Special Issue on the Asian Crisis of Cambridge Journal of Economics, 22:6 (November 1998), edited by Ha-Joon Chang, Gabriel Palma, and D. Hugh Whittaker, which includes Robert Wade 'From "Miracle" to "Cronyism": Explaining the Great Asian Slump'; Chalmers Johnson, 'Economic Crisis in East Asia: The Clash of Capitalisms', and Ronald Dore, 'Asian Crisis and the Future of the Japanese Model'.
22. The debate over the causes of the East Asian crisis (or sometimes just narrowed to the so-called 'financial crisis') was widely engaged. The many participants differed significantly in their , interpretations. The debate can be summarized in two broad categories: those who viewed the key 'failure' to be that of inherently unstable or 'destabilizing' international financial markets, such as George Soros The Crisis of Global Capitalism (1998); and 'Capitalism's Last Chance', Foreign Policy, 113 (1998), pp. 55-66; and Radelet and Sachs, 'The East Asian Financial Crisis: Diagnosis, Remedies, Prospects', Brookings Papers on Economic Activity (1998) pp. 1-89; (though some combined this with domestic financial weakness to explain the financial turbulence, e.g. M. Goldstein, The Asian Financial Crisis: Causes, Cures, and Systemic Implications (Institute for International Economics) (1998); versus those who emphasized intrinsic 'flaws' in East Asian capitalist institutions, such as regime failure, elite interests, or 'crony capitalism', e.g. Stephan Haggard and Andrew MacIntrye, 'The Political Economy of the Asian Economic Crisis', Review of International Political Economy, 5:3 (Autumn 1998), pp. 381-92; Mitchell Bernard, 'East Asia's Tumbling Dominoes: Financial Crisis and the Myth of the Regional Model', Socialist Register, (1999), pp. 178-208. The combined failures of domestic regimes and the pivotal role of international actors such as the US and IMF was stressed in the interpretation, widely cited, made by Wade and Veneroso, 'The Asian Crisis' The High Debt Model versus the Wall Street-Treasury-IMF Complex', New Left Review, 228 (1998), pp. 3-21;, and Walden Bello, 'The Asian Economic Implosion: Causes, Dynamics and Prospects', Race and Class, 40:2/3 (1998), pp. 133-143. In particular. Wade and Veneroso identified the key problem as the destabilizing effects on domestic institutional arrangements that resulted from liberalization, rendering the economies much more vulnerable to external shocks. Some, such as Henderson (1998) in his Asia Falling: Making Sense of the Asian Crisis and its Aftermath, Business Week Books, pointed to a flaw of the regional strategy of over-dependence on external linkages, whether in production for export or finance. A Marxist analysis, such as that by McNally, ' Globalization on Trial: Crisis and Class Struggle in East Asia', Monthly Review, 50:4 (1998), pp. 1-13, stresses the internal contradiction of capitalist development and accumulation, particularly between overproduction and underconsumption and the important role of class struggles in the process. The best overall treatment of the crisis in one volume was the Special Issue on the Asian Crisis of Cambridge Journal of Economics, 22:6 (November 1998), edited by Ha-Joon Chang, Gabriel Palma, and D. Hugh Whittaker, which includes Robert Wade 'From "Miracle" to "Cronyism": Explaining the Great Asian Slump'; Chalmers Johnson, 'Economic Crisis in East Asia: The Clash of Capitalisms', and Ronald Dore, 'Asian Crisis and the Future of the Japanese Model'.
23. The debate over the causes of the East Asian crisis (or sometimes just narrowed to the so-called 'financial crisis') was widely engaged. The many participants differed significantly in their , interpretations. The debate can be summarized in two broad categories: those who viewed the key 'failure' to be that of inherently unstable or 'destabilizing' international financial markets, such as George Soros The Crisis of Global Capitalism (1998); and 'Capitalism's Last Chance', Foreign Policy, 113 (1998), pp. 55-66; and Radelet and Sachs, 'The East Asian Financial Crisis: Diagnosis, Remedies, Prospects', Brookings Papers on Economic Activity (1998) pp. 1-89; (though some combined this with domestic financial weakness to explain the financial turbulence, e.g. M. Goldstein, The Asian Financial Crisis: Causes, Cures, and Systemic Implications (Institute for International Economics) (1998); versus those who emphasized intrinsic 'flaws' in East Asian capitalist institutions, such as regime failure, elite interests, or 'crony capitalism', e.g. Stephan Haggard and Andrew MacIntrye, 'The Political Economy of the Asian Economic Crisis', Review of International Political Economy, 5:3 (Autumn 1998), pp. 381-92; Mitchell Bernard, 'East Asia's Tumbling Dominoes: Financial Crisis and the Myth of the Regional Model', Socialist Register, (1999), pp. 178-208. The combined failures of domestic regimes and the pivotal role of international actors such as the US and IMF was stressed in the interpretation, widely cited, made by Wade and Veneroso, 'The Asian Crisis' The High Debt Model versus the Wall Street-Treasury-IMF Complex', New Left Review, 228 (1998), pp. 3-21;, and Walden Bello, 'The Asian Economic Implosion: Causes, Dynamics and Prospects', Race and Class, 40:2/3 (1998), pp. 133-143. In particular. Wade and Veneroso identified the key problem as the destabilizing effects on domestic institutional arrangements that resulted from liberalization, rendering the economies much more vulnerable to external shocks. Some, such as Henderson (1998) in his Asia Falling: Making Sense of the Asian Crisis and its Aftermath, Business Week Books, pointed to a flaw of the regional strategy of over-dependence on external linkages, whether in production for export or finance. A Marxist analysis, such as that by McNally, ' Globalization on Trial: Crisis and Class Struggle in East Asia', Monthly Review, 50:4 (1998), pp. 1-13, stresses the internal contradiction of capitalist development and accumulation, particularly between overproduction and underconsumption and the important role of class struggles in the process. The best overall treatment of the crisis in one volume was the Special Issue on the Asian Crisis of Cambridge Journal of Economics, 22:6 (November 1998), edited by Ha-Joon Chang, Gabriel Palma, and D. Hugh Whittaker, which includes Robert Wade 'From "Miracle" to "Cronyism": Explaining the Great Asian Slump'; Chalmers Johnson, 'Economic Crisis in East Asia: The Clash of Capitalisms', and Ronald Dore, 'Asian Crisis and the Future of the Japanese Model'.
24. The debate over the causes of the East Asian crisis (or sometimes just narrowed to the so-called 'financial crisis') was widely engaged. The many participants differed significantly in their , interpretations. The debate can be summarized in two broad categories: those who viewed the key 'failure' to be that of inherently unstable or 'destabilizing' international financial markets, such as George Soros The Crisis of Global Capitalism (1998); and 'Capitalism's Last Chance', Foreign Policy, 113 (1998), pp. 55-66; and Radelet and Sachs, 'The East Asian Financial Crisis: Diagnosis, Remedies, Prospects', Brookings Papers on Economic Activity (1998) pp. 1-89; (though some combined this with domestic financial weakness to explain the financial turbulence, e.g. M. Goldstein, The Asian Financial Crisis: Causes, Cures, and Systemic Implications (Institute for International Economics) (1998); versus those who emphasized intrinsic 'flaws' in East Asian capitalist institutions, such as regime failure, elite interests, or 'crony capitalism', e.g. Stephan Haggard and Andrew MacIntrye, 'The Political Economy of the Asian Economic Crisis', Review of International Political Economy, 5:3 (Autumn 1998), pp. 381-92; Mitchell Bernard, 'East Asia's Tumbling Dominoes: Financial Crisis and the Myth of the Regional Model', Socialist Register, (1999), pp. 178-208. The combined failures of domestic regimes and the pivotal role of international actors such as the US and IMF was stressed in the interpretation, widely cited, made by Wade and Veneroso, 'The Asian Crisis' The High Debt Model versus the Wall Street-Treasury-IMF Complex', New Left Review, 228 (1998), pp. 3-21;, and Walden Bello, 'The Asian Economic Implosion: Causes, Dynamics and Prospects', Race and Class, 40:2/3 (1998), pp. 133-143. In particular. Wade and Veneroso identified the key problem as the destabilizing effects on domestic institutional arrangements that resulted from liberalization, rendering the economies much more vulnerable to external shocks. Some, such as Henderson (1998) in his Asia Falling: Making Sense of the Asian Crisis and its Aftermath, Business Week Books, pointed to a flaw of the regional strategy of over-dependence on external linkages, whether in production for export or finance. A Marxist analysis, such as that by McNally, ' Globalization on Trial: Crisis and Class Struggle in East Asia', Monthly Review, 50:4 (1998), pp. 1-13, stresses the internal contradiction of capitalist development and accumulation, particularly between overproduction and underconsumption and the important role of class struggles in the process. The best overall treatment of the crisis in one volume was the Special Issue on the Asian Crisis of Cambridge Journal of Economics, 22:6 (November 1998), edited by Ha-Joon Chang, Gabriel Palma, and D. Hugh Whittaker, which includes Robert Wade 'From "Miracle" to "Cronyism": Explaining the Great Asian Slump'; Chalmers Johnson, 'Economic Crisis in East Asia: The Clash of Capitalisms', and Ronald Dore, 'Asian Crisis and the Future of the Japanese Model'.
25. The debate over the causes of the East Asian crisis (or sometimes just narrowed to the so-called 'financial crisis') was widely engaged. The many participants differed significantly in their , interpretations. The debate can be summarized in two broad categories: those who viewed the key 'failure' to be that of inherently unstable or 'destabilizing' international financial markets, such as George Soros The Crisis of Global Capitalism (1998); and 'Capitalism's Last Chance', Foreign Policy, 113 (1998), pp. 55-66; and Radelet and Sachs, 'The East Asian Financial Crisis: Diagnosis, Remedies, Prospects', Brookings Papers on Economic Activity (1998) pp. 1-89; (though some combined this with domestic financial weakness to explain the financial turbulence, e.g. M. Goldstein, The Asian Financial Crisis: Causes, Cures, and Systemic Implications (Institute for International Economics) (1998); versus those who emphasized intrinsic 'flaws' in East Asian capitalist institutions, such as regime failure, elite interests, or 'crony capitalism', e.g. Stephan Haggard and Andrew MacIntrye, 'The Political Economy of the Asian Economic Crisis', Review of International Political Economy, 5:3 (Autumn 1998), pp. 381-92; Mitchell Bernard, 'East Asia's Tumbling Dominoes: Financial Crisis and the Myth of the Regional Model', Socialist Register, (1999), pp. 178-208. The combined failures of domestic regimes and the pivotal role of international actors such as the US and IMF was stressed in the interpretation, widely cited, made by Wade and Veneroso, 'The Asian Crisis' The High Debt Model versus the Wall Street-Treasury-IMF Complex', New Left Review, 228 (1998), pp. 3-21;, and Walden Bello, 'The Asian Economic Implosion: Causes, Dynamics and Prospects', Race and Class, 40:2/3 (1998), pp. 133-143. In particular. Wade and Veneroso identified the key problem as the destabilizing effects on domestic institutional arrangements that resulted from liberalization, rendering the economies much more vulnerable to external shocks. Some, such as Henderson (1998) in his Asia Falling: Making Sense of the Asian Crisis and its Aftermath, Business Week Books, pointed to a flaw of the regional strategy of over-dependence on external linkages, whether in production for export or finance. A Marxist analysis, such as that by McNally, ' Globalization on Trial: Crisis and Class Struggle in East Asia', Monthly Review, 50:4 (1998), pp. 1-13, stresses the internal contradiction of capitalist development and accumulation, particularly between overproduction and underconsumption and the important role of class struggles in the process. The best overall treatment of the crisis in one volume was the Special Issue on the Asian Crisis of Cambridge Journal of Economics, 22:6 (November 1998), edited by Ha-Joon Chang, Gabriel Palma, and D. Hugh Whittaker, which includes Robert Wade 'From "Miracle" to "Cronyism": Explaining the Great Asian Slump'; Chalmers Johnson, 'Economic Crisis in East Asia: The Clash of Capitalisms', and Ronald Dore, 'Asian Crisis and the Future of the Japanese Model'.
26. Alan Beattle, 'Wolfensohn Pledges Development Reform', Financial Times, 29 Sept. 1999. At the IMF/World Bank annual meetings in Washington DC, Wolfensohn reiterated the World Bank's commitment to a 'comprehensive development framework which aims to combine social and macroeconomic aspects of development policy'. The former Managing Director of the IMF, Michel Camdessus, while also endorsing this approach and closer coordination between the Bank and the Fund in the future in their poverty reduction and crisis management approach, insisted that 'integration of a social dimension into the Fund's policies was not new.' Nevertheless, he took the unprecedented step of suggesting that member governments consider altering the IMF's articles, to allow Fund statutes to hold off lawsuits by creditors, and to allow controls on capital movements, both of which are opposed by the United States. Stephen Fidler, Financial Times, 29 Sept. 1999, 'Camdessus Plea for Change to Statutes: IMF Proposals to Ease Debt Crises may Founder'. Camdessus was cautious over how far the IMF's role should be extended beyond surveillance of macroeconomic stability into the realms of domestic banking reform, good governance, and social policy. His post-crisis line on liberalization of capital movement remained that it was beneficial to development in the long term, but each country must determine its own careful and orderly sequence of reform.
27. Alan Beattle, 'Wolfensohn Pledges Development Reform', Financial Times, 29 Sept. 1999. At the IMF/World Bank annual meetings in Washington DC, Wolfensohn reiterated the World Bank's commitment to a 'comprehensive development framework which aims to combine social and macroeconomic aspects of development policy'. The former Managing Director of the IMF, Michel Camdessus, while also endorsing this approach and closer coordination between the Bank and the Fund in the future in their poverty reduction and crisis management approach, insisted that 'integration of a social dimension into the Fund's policies was not new.' Nevertheless, he took the unprecedented step of suggesting that member governments consider altering the IMF's articles, to allow Fund statutes to hold off lawsuits by creditors, and to allow controls on capital movements, both of which are opposed by the United States. Stephen Fidler, Financial Times, 29 Sept. 1999, 'Camdessus Plea for Change to Statutes: IMF Proposals to Ease Debt Crises may Founder'. Camdessus was cautious over how far the IMF's role should be extended beyond surveillance of macroeconomic stability into the realms of domestic banking reform, good governance, and social policy. His post-crisis line on liberalization of capital movement remained that it was beneficial to development in the long term, but each country must determine its own careful and orderly sequence of reform.
28. See John Gray, False Dawn: The Delusions of Global Capitalism (London: Granta, 1998). Gray argues that the inferior or less efficient Anglo-American variant of capitalism is destroying the superior or more efficient Japanese and European variants. In moral terms, the 'bad' capitalism is driving out the 'good' in a global application of Gresham's Law.
29. See Colin Crouch and Wolfgang Streeck (eds.), Political Economy of Modern Capitalism: Mapping Convergence and Diversity (London and Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1997).
30. See John Naisbitt, Megatrends in Asia, Nicolas Brealey, 1995. Naisbitt singles out three attributes ('pillars') of the Asian model: the transnational network-economic; the authoritarian political systems and their 'strong policies'; and the avoidance of the heavy costs of the Western-style welfare state. In my view the latter two attributes are clearly anti-progressive and if universalized would represent historic retrogression in social and political development in the West.
31. For a discussion of this paradox see 'Introduction', Barry Gills (ed.) Globalization and the Politics of Resistance (Macmillan: St. Martin's Press, 2000).
32. See Barry Gills, Joel Rocamora and Richard Wilson (eds.), Low Intensity Democracy: Political Power in the New World Order (London: Pluto Press, 1993).
33. The phrase is borrowed from the work of Immanuel Wallerstein, who has predicted that the reappearance of such 'dangerous classes' will bring about renewed impetus for radical change and break the mould of complacency and consensus.
34. See Richard Falk, 'Resisting "globalization-from-above" through "globalization-from-below" ', in New Political Economy, 2:1 (March 1997) and in Barry Gills (ed.), Globalization and the Politics of Resistance (Macmillan: St. Martin's Press, 2000).
35. See Richard Falk, 'Resisting "globalization-from-above" through "globalization-from-below" ', in New Political Economy, 2:1 (March 1997) and in Barry Gills (ed.), Globalization and the Politics of Resistance (Macmillan: St. Martin's Press, 2000).
36. According to the National Geographic magazine's story 'Indonesia's Plague of Fire' by Lewis M. Simons, 'The Indonesian government issued more forest-clearing concessions in 1997 than ever before, mainly to companies owned by wealthy entrepreneurs with connections to then President Suharto ... Large, influential companies were torching vast parcels of forest to create plantations for pulpwood, oil palms and rice.' The drive to create the world's largest palm oil industry led to a conflagration that engulfed an area larger than Europe and directly affected some 75 million people. (August 1998), p. 109.
37. See Barry Gills and Dong Sook Shin Gills, 'Globalization as Strategic Choice', in Samuel S. Kim (ed.), South Korea's Globalization (Cambridge University Press: forthcoming 2000).
38. Cited in Michael Cox, US Foreign Policy after the Cold War Superpower Without a Mission? (Royal Institute of International Affairs [and Pinter], 1995), p. 84.
39. The strong CDS was most characteristic of the 'second tier' NIC economies such as South Korea and Taiwan, though in many respects modelled on the original East Asian NIC, i.e. Japan itself. The CDS was and remains less characteristic of the third tier economies of South East Asia, such as Thailand, Indonesia, or Malaysia, which have been far more influenced by FDI than the original set of East Asian NICs such as Korea and Taiwan, and are therefore more subordinate to foreign capital. Nevertheless, Malaysia has attempted to pursue developmentalist policies, e.g. in the automobile sector, relying on a 'national champion' approach, in contrast to Thailand, where the sector is totally dominated by foreign firms.
40. For the pattern set by the US occupation in Japan, see Jon Halliday, A Political History of Japanese Imperialism; and for a good analysis of the general pattern of labour exclusion in the political economy of East Asia, see Fred Deyo, Beneath the Miracle.
41. For the pattern set by the US occupation in Japan, see Jon Halliday, A Political History of Japanese Imperialism; and for a good analysis of the general pattern of labour exclusion in the political economy of East Asia, see Fred Deyo, Beneath the Miracle.
42. For more discussion of this conjunctural transition, see Barry Gills, 'The International Origins of South Korea's Export Orientation', in R. Palan and Barry Gills (eds.), Transcending the State/Global Divide: A Neostructuralist Agenda in International Relations (Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner, 1994.
43. See Alice Amsden, 'Third World Industrialization: "Global Fordism" or a New Model?', New Left Review, July/August 1990.
44. For the external realization of the circuit of the expansion of capital and the relation between production and distribution in the capitalist economy (of South Korea) see Dong Sook Shin Gills, Rural Women and Triple Exploitation in Korean Development (London: Macmillan/St. Martin's Press, 1999), pp. 12-13.
45. For contending versions of the Japanese centrality in the regional political economy construct see Bruce Cumings, 'The Origins and Development of the Northeast Asian Political Economy: Industrial Sectors, Product Cycles and Political Consequences', International Organization, 38:1, Winter 1984; also in F. Deyo (ed.), The Political Economy of the New Asian Industrialism (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1987); and Mitchell Bernard and John Ravenhill, 'Beyond Product Cycles and Flying Geese: Regionalization, Hierarchy and the Industrialization of East Asia', World Politics, Jan/Feb 1995. Certainly a country by country approach is inadequate and both agree that a regional construct exists that integrates the tiers in the production structure. The disagreement is over the expectation of replication of the Northeast Asian CDS (Japan, ROK, ROC) in Southeast Asia, which Bernard and Ravenhill rightly question due to the region's dependence on FDI and its role as raw material supplier.
46. For contending versions of the Japanese centrality in the regional political economy construct see Bruce Cumings, 'The Origins and Development of the Northeast Asian Political Economy: Industrial Sectors, Product Cycles and Political Consequences', International Organization, 38:1, Winter 1984; also in F. Deyo (ed.), The Political Economy of the New Asian Industrialism (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1987); and Mitchell Bernard and John Ravenhill, 'Beyond Product Cycles and Flying Geese: Regionalization, Hierarchy and the Industrialization of East Asia', World Politics, Jan/Feb 1995. Certainly a country by country approach is inadequate and both agree that a regional construct exists that integrates the tiers in the production structure. The disagreement is over the expectation of replication of the Northeast Asian CDS (Japan, ROK, ROC) in Southeast Asia, which Bernard and Ravenhill rightly question due to the region's dependence on FDI and its role as raw material supplier.
47. For contending versions of the Japanese centrality in the regional political economy construct see Bruce Cumings, 'The Origins and Development of the Northeast Asian Political Economy: Industrial Sectors, Product Cycles and Political Consequences', International Organization, 38:1, Winter 1984; also in F. Deyo (ed.), The Political Economy of the New Asian Industrialism (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1987); and Mitchell Bernard and John Ravenhill, 'Beyond Product Cycles and Flying Geese: Regionalization, Hierarchy and the Industrialization of East Asia', World Politics, Jan/Feb 1995. Certainly a country by country approach is inadequate and both agree that a regional construct exists that integrates the tiers in the production structure. The disagreement is over the expectation of replication of the Northeast Asian CDS (Japan, ROK, ROC) in Southeast Asia, which Bernard and Ravenhill rightly question due to the region's dependence on FDI and its role as raw material supplier.
48. See Barry K. Gills, 'Economic Liberalization and Reform in South Korea in the 1990s: A "Coming of Age" or A Case of "Graduation Blues"?' Third World Quarterly, 17:4 (1996), pp. 667-88, and B. K. and D. S. Gills, 'Globalization as Strategic Choice', in Samuel S. Kim (ed.), South Korea's Globalization (Cambridge University Press, forthcoming).
49. See Barry K. Gills, 'Economic Liberalization and Reform in South Korea in the 1990s: A "Coming of Age" or A Case of "Graduation Blues"?' Third World Quarterly, 17:4 (1996), pp. 667-88, and B. K. and D. S. Gills, 'Globalization as Strategic Choice', in Samuel S. Kim (ed.), South Korea's Globalization (Cambridge University Press, forthcoming).
50. See Walden Bello, Dark Victory (London: Pluto Press, 1994); and Walden Bello and Shea Cunningham, 'Trade Warfare and Regional Integration in the Pacific: the USA, Japan and the Asian NICs', Third World Quarterly, 15:3 (1994); and S. Haggard and T. Cheng, 'The New Bilateralism: East Asian NICs in American Foreign Economic Policy', in Pacific Dynamics: The International Politics of Industrial Change, Stephan Haggard and Chung In Moon (eds.), (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1989).
51. See Walden Bello, Dark Victory (London: Pluto Press, 1994); and Walden Bello and Shea Cunningham, 'Trade Warfare and Regional Integration in the Pacific: the USA, Japan and the Asian NICs', Third World Quarterly, 15:3 (1994); and S. Haggard and T. Cheng, 'The New Bilateralism: East Asian NICs in American Foreign Economic Policy', in Pacific Dynamics: The International Politics of Industrial Change, Stephan Haggard and Chung In Moon (eds.), (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1989).
52. See Walden Bello, Dark Victory (London: Pluto Press, 1994); and Walden Bello and Shea Cunningham, 'Trade Warfare and Regional Integration in the Pacific: the USA, Japan and the Asian NICs', Third World Quarterly, 15:3 (1994); and S. Haggard and T. Cheng, 'The New Bilateralism: East Asian NICs in American Foreign Economic Policy', in Pacific Dynamics: The International Politics of Industrial Change, Stephan Haggard and Chung In Moon (eds.), (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1989).
53. For a discussion of the post-Cold War era as a period of 'interregnum', see Michael Cox, Ken Booth and Tim Dunne (eds.), The Interregnum: Controversies In World Politics - 1989-1999 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).
54. See Rosemary Foot and Andrew Walter, 'Whatever happened to the Pacific Century?', in Michael Cox, Ken Booth and Tim Dunne, The Interregnum, pp. 245-69.
55. Thomas Paine, 'The Rights of Man' (Part the First), p. 210 (Harmondsworth: Meridian, 1984).
56. William Pfaff, 'Good Economics, Maybe, but Villainous Policy for Real People', International Herald Tribune, 26 August 1999, p. 6, citing new UNDP report on the former USSR and Eastern Europe over the past decade.
57. See Barry Gills, 'American Power, Neo-Liberal Globalization and Low Intensity Democracy: An Unstable Trinity', in Michael Cox, G. John Ikenberry and Takashi Inouguchi (eds.), American Democracy Promotion: Impulses, Strategies and Impacts, forthcoming (Oxford University Press, 2000).
58. Barry Gills (ed.), Globalization and the Politics of Resistance (London: Macmillan, Jan. 2000); and L. Amoore, R. Dodgson, B. Gills, P. Langley, D. Marshall and I. Watson, 'Overturning "Globalization": Resisting the Teleological, Reclaiming the "Political", New Political Economy, 2:1 (1997), pp. 179-95, in the Special Issue on 'Globalization and the Politics of Resistance', edited by Barry Gills (also in Barry Gills (ed.), Globalization and the Politics of Resistance).
59. Barry Gills (ed.), Globalization and the Politics of Resistance (London: Macmillan, Jan. 2000); and L. Amoore, R. Dodgson, B. Gills, P. Langley, D. Marshall and I. Watson, 'Overturning "Globalization": Resisting the Teleological, Reclaiming the "Political", New Political Economy, 2:1 (1997), pp. 179-95, in the Special Issue on 'Globalization and the Politics of Resistance', edited by Barry Gills (also in Barry Gills (ed.), Globalization and the Politics of Resistance).
60. Barry Gills (ed.), Globalization and the Politics of Resistance (London: Macmillan, Jan. 2000); and L. Amoore, R. Dodgson, B. Gills, P. Langley, D. Marshall and I. Watson, 'Overturning "Globalization": Resisting the Teleological, Reclaiming the "Political", New Political Economy, 2:1 (1997), pp. 179-95, in the Special Issue on 'Globalization and the Politics of Resistance', edited by Barry Gills (also in Barry Gills (ed.), Globalization and the Politics of Resistance).
61. George Soros, The Crisis of Global Capitalism.
62. 'Clinton Pledges an Open Market: But Asia-Pacific Nations Must Act Too, He Says', International Herald Tribune, Sept. 13, 1999, p. 13.
63. This era dates from the mid-late 1980s to the present. The concept of an interregnum implies (amongst other things) a transitional period between structures that have more solidity and permanence. See Michael Cox, Ken Booth and Tim Dunne, 'Introduction: The Interregnum: Controversies in World Polititics, 1989-1999', in their The Interregnum, pp. 3-19.
64. The argument that the increase in US power and centrality is at the root of the present global crisis situation goes considerably beyond the simpler but plausible case for the inescapable fact of US centrality in the present world order. See Bruce Cumings, 'Still the American Century', in Michael Cox, Ken Booth and Tim Dunne (eds.), The Interregnum, pp. 271-99.
65. Stephen E. Ambrose and Douglas G. Brinkley, Rise to Globalism: American Foreign Policy Since 1938, 8th edn. (London: Penguin, 1997), p. 398.
66. See Michael Cox, US Foreign Policy After the Cold War, pp. 21-37; I am indebted to my PhD student Thanh Duong for the concept 'hegemonic globalization' and its relation to US centrality.
67. See Walden Bello et al., 'Taming the Tigers' .... Third World Quarterly, for an affirmative argument.
68. See Ha-Joon Chang, Hong-Jae Park and Chul Gyue Yoo, 'Interpreting the Korean Crisis: Financial Liberalization, Industrial Policy and Corporate Governance', Cambridge Journal of Economics, 22 (1998), pp. 735-46, who suggest that the flaws of Korean capitalism were not as great as alleged, and particularly that the supposed pathological corporate governance system was not a main cause of the crisis, nor did it require radical neoliberal restructuring before growth could resume.
69. IHT 21-22 August 1999, 'Index Changes Blamed for Asia's Wild Bourses'. Morgan Stanley Capital International decided on 12 August to reinstate Malaysia in its index as of February 2000, after having dropped it in Sept. 1998 following PM Mahathir's imposition of capital controls. Foreign investors have spurned Malaysia over the past year. Morgan Stanley also doubled the weighting given to Taiwan in the index, in recognition of its limited but encouraging measures on market opening.
70. For example Business Week (first week of) August 1999; and International Herald Tribune, 15 October 1999, 'Asian Economies Could Be Drifting into Part II of Crisis'. According to the IHT article, some in the West fear that the return of growth and macroeconomic stability means that 'the countries hit by the crisis will feel less pressure to implement the reforms they agreed to undertake'. These same critics acknowledge that there is still 'a great deal of continuing hardship including widespread poverty and unemployment stemming from the crisis' but tend to decry the 'witches brew' of recovery policies across the region which have emphasized massive public spending, the printing of money to lower interest rates, and maximum exports to the US. In the view of critics like Clyde Prestowitz of the DC based Economic Strategy Institute, 'Asia's long-term economic health remains endangered by "excess capacity, excess regulation, excessive debt-to-equity ratios, too many cartels and excessively cozy business relationships" '.
71. For example Business Week (first week of) August 1999; and International Herald Tribune, 15 October 1999, 'Asian Economies Could Be Drifting into Part II of Crisis'. According to the IHT article, some in the West fear that the return of growth and macroeconomic stability means that 'the countries hit by the crisis will feel less pressure to implement the reforms they agreed to undertake'. These same critics acknowledge that there is still 'a great deal of continuing hardship including widespread poverty and unemployment stemming from the crisis' but tend to decry the 'witches brew' of recovery policies across the region which have emphasized massive public spending, the printing of money to lower interest rates, and maximum exports to the US. In the view of critics like Clyde Prestowitz of the DC based Economic Strategy Institute, 'Asia's long-term economic health remains endangered by "excess capacity, excess regulation, excessive debt-to-equity ratios, too many cartels and excessively cozy business relationships" '.
72. For the on-going debate on this key issue see for example the Special Issue of The Cato Journal, 18:3 (Winter 1999) on 'The Global Financial Architecture'.
73. International Herald Tribune, 18 October 1999, 'As Jakarta Simmers, Habibie Pleads His Case', p. 4.
74. For example, see Linda Weiss, The Myth of the Powerless State and Alice Amsden, Asia's Next Giant (Oxford University Press).
75. A recent article in The Lancet, 353 (June 19th, 1999, p. 2137) reviews a World Bank report concerning the Asian crisis and poverty. The WB blames the crisis for a serious increase in poverty in Asia, including once prosperous states like South Korea and Thailand. According to Giovanni Prennushi, the author of the WB report, 'The East Asian crisis had a direct impact on poverty in the countries hit by the crisis. Not only did the income of the poor decline, but their health status deteriorated, and education indicators worsened as well'. Michael Walton, Director of the Poverty Reduction and Economic Management programme at the WB, concluded that the global picture that emerges at the end of the 1990s is one of stalled progress, as a result of the East Asian crisis'.