Gunnar Myrdal and Asian Drama in Context

This paper attempts to understand Asian Drama in the context of the development debates of its time, and in terms of the sensibilities that Gunnar Myrdal-the brilliant economic theorist and philosopher of knowledge, and the Swedish politician-brought to the conceptualization of the problems and prospects of development. The paper covers: (i) what Gunnar Myrdal brought to the analysis of development from his long, varied and distinguished academic and practitioner career; (ii) the development terrain in the mid-twentieth century; and (iii) how Asian Drama lay on that terrain and in the remaining years of Gunnar Myrdal's continued eventful life. The two central questions posed in the paper are: (i) How did Gunnar Myrdal's broad experience and perspective influence Asian Drama? (ii) How did Asian Drama influence the development debate?

The title of this article is based on that of the monumental three‐volume study by the Swedish social scientist, Gunnar Myrdal, Asian Drama – An Inquiry into the Poverty of Nations. Published in 19...

Introduction During the past half century, Indonesia has experienced pronounced swings in its development policies, priorities, processes, and outcomes, on a scale matched by few other developing countries. For these reasons, economic historians tend to characterize its development as one of missed opportunities (Booth 1998, Dick et al. 2002). The key dates are March 1966, signaling the transition from Sukarno to Suharto, and May 1998, when Suharto stepped down in the face of widespread public protests and the country abruptly swung from authoritarian to democratic rule. Thus, from 1960 to 2010 there were three distinct periods. The first of these, the remaining years of the ”Guided Economy,” is not covered in any detail in this volume, but it is useful to be cognizant of them. They were characterized by economic stagnation, hyperinflation, and growing political instability. The country was increasingly isolated regionally and internationally. The government withdrew from most international organizations, vowed to crush the newly formed state of Malaysia, and saw its priorities increasingly aligned to the so-called “Beijing–Pyongyang–Ha Noi–Phnom Penh–Jakarta axis” and other “new emerging forces.” The leading economic development textbook of the period characterized the country as a “chronic economic dropout,” and saw little prospect for economic development (Higgins 1968). Gunnar Myrdal's (1968) Asian Drama off ered a similarly gloomy prognosis. The country's development plan for the period 1960–1968 had 1,945 paragraphs, 17 chapters, and 8 volumes to symbolize the country's independence date.

Inspired by Gunnar Myrdal's core concepts discussed in his seminal work, Asian Drama: An Inquiry into the Poverty of Nations, published in 1968, this paper analyses the opening-up experiences of three Asian countries (China, India, and Malaysia) by triangulating between the following: (i) the orientation of selected policy tools in trade, technology, investment, and finance in shaping a country's degree of economic openness; (ii) the rational coordination of operational controls of these policy tools to achieve stated objectives; and (iii) the overall development trends observed in the Asia region. The 'rational coordination of operational controls' is interpreted with reference to the strategic use of selected policy tools in the historically successful cases of earlier East Asian industrialization. Under this framework, the paper contends that divergence in Asian growth experiences can be understood by variations in institutional capabilities to address market and firm-level (and government) failures in the catch-up process, and the pragmatic experimentation by policymakers in search of more effective institutional mechanism - carrots, sticks, and competitive pressures - in pursuit of desired development outcomes.

-

For social scientists it is a sobering and useful exercise in self-understanding to attempt to see clearly how the direction of our scientific exertions, particularly in economics, is conditioned by the society in which we live, and most directly by the political climate (which, in turn, is related to all other changes in society)….Responding to that cue [from the sphere of politics], students turn to research on issues that have attained political importance….So it has always been. The major recastings of economic thought…were all responses to changing political conditions and opportunities.—Gunnar Myrdal in Asian Drama

The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it. —Karl Marx, Theses on Feurbach. The mark of an important contribution, whether in the hard or the social sciences, is not that it reveals some eternal truth. It is, rather, that existing knowledge and analysis are put together in new ways, raising questions and offering conclusions which allow and force friends and enemies alike to push their own research and analysis into different areas. —Doug Dowd, refering to C. Wright Mills. For social scientist it is a sobering and useful exercise in self-understanding to attempt to see clearly how the direction of our scientific exertions, particularly in economics, is conditioned by the society in which we live, and most directly by the political climate (which, in turn, is related to all other changes in society). Rarely if ever, has the development of economics by its own force blazed the way to new perspectives. The cue to the continual reorientation of our work has normally come from the sphere of politics. Responding to the cue, students turn to research on issues that have attained political importance … So it has always been. The major recasting of economic thought .... were all responses to changing political conditions and opportunities. —Gunnar Myrdal, in Asian Drama.

Dependence is dead, long live dependence and the class struggle: An answer to critics

This chapter examines the development experiences of six countries, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, Cambodia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, and Myanmar—collectively ‘the Six’—fifty years after Gunnar Myrdal’s Asian Drama. Myrdal took an unambiguously pessimistic view of Asian prospects for development on the basis of obstacles to raising agricultural productivity, and the low perceived level of capability of governments to intervene effectively in favour of industrial development—the latter being a handicap that included extensive corruption at all levels of government. The record of the Six mostly defied Myrdal’s prognosis, raising agricultural productivity faster than population growth and displaying sufficient state capability to direct change towards a respectable level of industrial development. By using a more socially grounded analytical approach à la Myrdal, it is possible to understand how unorthodox economic policies have been effective in overcoming developmental disadvantages. However, shortfalls in social development could make future progress difficult.

Gunnar Myrdal published his magnum opus, Asian Drama: An Inquiry into the Poverty of Nations, in 1968. He was deeply pessimistic about development prospects in Asia. The fifty years since then have witnessed a remarkable social and economic transformation in Asia – even if it has been uneven across countries and unequal between people – that would have been difficult to imagine, let alone predict at the time. This book analyses the fascinating story of economic development in Asia spanning half a century. The study is divided into three parts. The first part sets the stage by discussing the contribution of Gunnar Myrdal, the author, and Asian Drama, the book, to the debate on development then and now, and by providing a long-term historical perspective on Asia in the world. The second part comprises cross-country thematic studies on governments, economic openness, agricultural transformation, industrialization, macroeconomics, poverty and inequality, education and health, employment and unemployment, institutions and nationalisms, analysing processes of change while recognizing the diversity in paths and outcomes. The third part is constituted by country-studies on China, India, Indonesia and Vietnam, and sub-region studies on East Asia, Southeast Asia and South Asia, highlighting turning points in economic performance and analysing factors underlying success or failure. This book, with in-depth studies by eminent economists and social scientists, is the first to examine the phenomenal changes which are transforming economies in Asia and shifting the balance of economic power in the world, while reflecting on the future prospects in Asia over the next twenty-five years. It is a must-read.

Gunnar Myrdal published Asian Drama in 1968, which made important analytical contributions to our understanding of development but was deeply pessimistic about Asia’s future prospects. Since then, contrary to Myrdal’s expectations, Asia’s development has been remarkable, although transformations have been uneven across countries and unequal between people. This introductory chapter explains the conception and design of the study, which seeks to analyse the amazing story of economic development in Asia. It begins with reflections on Gunnar Myrdal, the author, and rethinking about Asian Drama, the book, in retrospect fifty years later. It then discusses some critical issues and lessons that emerge—diversity in development, history and context, economic growth and structural change, well-being of people, markets and governments, economic openness, and institutions and policies—to serve as a teaser. To conclude, it provides a brief narrative on the contents and scope of the book, meant as a road map for readers.

Myrdal, Gunnar (1898–1987)

Although the debate over’ socialism’ often overshadowed purely economic analysis, there was a good economic case for the pessimism expressed in the 1950s and 1960s regarding Asia’s prospects for development. Asia seemed desperately short of the factors which economists identify as contributing to economic growth — the physical resources of land, labour, and capital, and the intangible resources of technology and entrepreneurship. Gunnar Myrdal’s massive three-volume study, Asian Drama (1968), was a classic statement in its pessimistic, nearly despairing tone. Natural resources appeared inadequate, the labour force was overwhelmingly rural and uneducated, and capital seemed to be scarce. Modern technology seemed beyond the capacity of Asian societies, whether because of the shortage of capital, the insufficient supplies of skilled labour, or the inadequate knowledge of both government officials and private capitalists. Finally, Asian societies seemed traditional, unable to provide the supply of vigorous entrepreneurs required by a dynamic economy.

Asian Drama: An Inquiry into the Poverty of Nations Get access Asian Drama: An Inquiry into the Poverty of Nations. By Gunnar Myrdal. An Abridgement by Seth S. King of the Twentieth Century Fund Study. London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press. 1972. 388 pp. Index. £3.50. International Affairs, Volume 48, Issue 4, October 1972, Page 707, https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/48.4.707 Published: 01 October 1972

ONLY A FEW DECADES AGO RURAL INDIA was described in terms of poverty and stagnation, a society imprisoned in tradition. Gunnar Myrdal's well-known study published in 1968 provides a prominent illustration of this school of thought, which dominated Western debates on development around the middle of the twentieth century. While his Asian Drama had a wider setting, the author based his argument mainly on the southern part of this populous continent, more precisely on the incapacity for self-transformation that seemed to characterize former British India. Myrdal noted with concern that development efforts were largely nullified by the enormous population growth caused by a fall in the death rate and a continuing high birth rate. Major institutional reforms were urgently needed, in his opinion, to overcome the underutilization of labor, which hindered any increase of agrarian production. What he had in mind was a radical redistribution of agrarian resources, which would place land in the hands of the tillers. The objectives of such a basic reform were twofold: a political one, namely, reduction of the rigid inequalities in the social structure; and an economic one, namely, the optimal use that a much greater mass of owners would make of the means of production allotted to them. A closer and more realistic assessment of policies and politics, however, convinced Myrdal that government lacked the will and the capability needed for transforming the rural system in this way. In his opinion, the failure to introduce any fundamental change into traditional property relations and the ingrained attitudes of agrarian people who were perceived not to be development-oriented, was due to the soft character of the Asiatic state. That social dynamics were nevertheless not entirely lacking was shown by the concentration of landholdings among a comparatively small village elite, mostly members of upwardly mobile peasant castes who had in recent times gained political power. Myrdal was well aware of the growing weight of this class and the concomitant deterioration in the position of sharecroppers and agri