> The ASEAN and north east Asian economies,
> including those cited by you, fall into several broad political-economic
> types. They have very different cultures, histories and economic resources
> and are as disparate from each other as the US is from France, France from
> Sweden, and Sweden from Russia.
These cultures and histories didn't prevent the formation of the EU or a common EU-Russian economic space.
> For example, mainland China and Vietnam are ex-Soviet-style-communist
> societies where egalitarian ideals have gone out the window, although the
> state nominally owns a significant proportion of enterprises. As aspiring
> capitalist economies, both have big "problems" in agriculture, which employs
> the vast majority of the population and is resistant to "reform".
Agrarian reform was what jumpstarted the Chinese and Vietnamese booms: rising output spawned rural industrialization which spawned urbanization which spawned export-platform investment, etc.
> At the other extreme, Hong Kong -- whether or not we consider it to be
> "independent" -- remains a paragon of laissez faire, perhaps the most
> successful entrepot in world history.
Not quite. The British administration ran a huge public housing program, and Hong Kong's business class was largely the creation of expatriate Shanghai capital/ists/ism.
> In Taiwan and South Korea -- both ex-Japanese colonies -- the key to their
> success was the communist menace,
That's just one of the factors involved. Access to US markets, the nearby presence of Japan, the chaebol/Taiwanese business groups, the rise of the computer industry, US military Keynesianism, and much else was involved.
-- DRR