> > 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.
Nevertheless, to posit an "Asian development" model, or explain it in terms of "Asian values" or something --- à la rightist/capitalist ideologues like Mahathir --- is as ahistorical as positing a "western development model", when there are really many.
> Agrarian reform was what jumpstarted the Chinese and Vietnamese booms:
rising
> output spawned rural industrialization which spawned urbanization which
spawned
> export-platform investment, etc.
Maybe true, and agriculture was also a means to keep the relative surplus population "off the streets", in several senses of the term. But peasants worldwide have been and are famously resistant to "reforms". And the ex-communists are now faced with the same dilemma that the Bolsheviks faced in the mid-1920s: they would like these vast majorities of their populations (i.e. those now involved in agriculture) to become manufacturing and service workers, or employees of capitalist farms, at a much faster rate than is occurring at present. But the leadership also lacks the political will and/or ability to make this happen qucikly and painlessly.
> 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.
Well, yeah....I mean is there a developed society which does not have some form of public housing? Where else would they put all those wage slaves, who have no hope of buying some of the most expensive real estate on earth? I don't understand your point about Shanghai.
regards,
Grant.