Since Peter the Great began to open a window to Europe - in the sense of enriching it with achievements rather than access to the sea - the methods and methods of "catching up" with the economic and social development of countries that are equal to the advanced Western models, as well as the results of this "race for the leader", have repeatedly changed.

After the Second World War, the most successful model of "catch-up" development is generally recognized as the Japanese "industrial policy", which turned a defeated and ruined country into the second economic power in the world in a quarter of a century.

This model has become a model for the whole of East Asia-from South Korea and Singapore to Thailand, China and Vietnam. The long-term stable high rates of economic growth and improvement of living standards achieved by newly industrialized countries have become a record for the entire history of "catching up" developing countries.

In 1993, a World Bank study called this phenomenon the "East Asian miracle", which attracted a lot of interest. According to the bank's experts, the economic "miracle" is based on such components as stable macroeconomics (moderate inflation rates, budget surplus or moderate deficit), a high level of domestic savings and investment, human capital with sufficient education to train qualified labor, relative independence and efficiency of the administrative apparatus of the state, and a relatively small gap in the number of employees in the country. high income and rapid poverty eradication, export orientation, accelerated industrialization, attraction of foreign direct investment and foreign technology and management.

The model of" catch-up "development of East Asian countries was figuratively called "flying geese". Unlike the Soviet Union, which threw all its forces into heavy industry, the first "goose" that paved the East Asian way "flew" along almost the entire historical route of classical industrialization that began at the end of the XVIII century. This was Japan, which, focusing primarily on exports, first intensively developed light industry, especially textiles, then-ship and automobile construction and other branches of heavy engineering, as well as petrochemicals, at the next stage - instrument making and electronics, and, finally, high-tech products-computers, boards, etc. (problems arose only in the early 90s, when the country began to lag behind the United States and the European Union in the development and production of the most advanced high technologies). Four Asian "tigers" - South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and Hong Kong - have passed through the same stages of industrialization, followed by the "dragons" - Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines-and finally China and Vietnam, which is joining the goose wedge.

The second feature of this model is that Japan, which is at the head of the wedge, moving on to the next stage of modernization, freed up an export niche for four "tigers", and they - for "dragons" and so on.

The more than ten-year stagnation of the Japanese economy and the Asian financial crisis of 1997-1998, which shook the economic, social and political foundations of the newly industrialized countries, made significant adjustments to the assessment of the results and prospects of their development.

In 2001, a new World Bank study, "Rethinking the East Asian Miracle," highlighted major weaknesses in the economic systems of East Asian countries, which made many of them unable to withstand such globalization processes as the emergence of huge flows of fast-moving speculative "hot money" in global financial markets and increased competition in foreign markets. in particular, due to the massive access of China to them with its cheap labor. Among the main structural shortcomings of the new industrial countries of the region are primarily the prevalence of corruption-riddled "thug capitalism", including outdated corporate governance based on family and personal ties, poorly developed and poorly regulated by the state financial and banking system, the secondary role of stock exchanges and corporate stocks and bonds, lack of sufficient experience in assessing risks associated with the development of the the growing number of non-repayable loans, ill-conceived currency liberalization, and the inflated exchange rate of local currencies, which are actually tightly pegged to the dollar. Nor does it deny the fallacy of a number of International Monetary Fund recommendations, especially those imposed on East Asian countries at the height of the financial crisis.

The speed with which most East Asian countries, with the exception of Indonesia, have overcome the worst effects of the crisis and resumed strong economic growth has negated the most pessimistic scenarios about the complete failure of their model of "catch-up" development. Thus, South Korea, which is most successful in overcoming the shortcomings of this model and deep structural reforms, achieved 10.2 percent in 1999, 4.8 percent in 2000 and in 2001 -

page 26

3.5 percent growth in gross domestic product. However, it should be taken into account that the temporary factor of significant devaluation of local currencies played a major role.

The main question remains on the agenda: are the countries of the "East Asian miracle" zone able to fit into the new high-tech globalized economy?

At the same time, highlighting the weaknesses of the East Asian model of "catch-up" development, the crisis pushed the new industrial economies to more sober assessment of their capabilities, to urgent deep structural reforms and to actively search for ways to adapt to the processes of globalization and even influence them in the right way not only for the" golden billion " inhabitants of developed countries, but also for for the rest of the world direction. Malaysia's Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad is actively fighting for the search for new forms and mechanisms of globalization, and his proposals are described below. It seems that the experience of accelerated industrialization and improved living standards in East Asian newly industrialized countries, especially if we learn from their mistakes, has not lost its value for most developing countries. In this regard, the comparative analysis of the development of new industrial countries in East Asia and Latin America, published in our journal, is significant.

Permanent link to this publication: