Neoliberalism

Abstract

Why have East Asian tigers -South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, and Hong Kong-succeeded in their economic development while Latin American countries have failed? Why can't Latin American countries emulate East Asians and reproduce their success? Two recent works examine these questions, comparing and contrasting East Asian and Latin American development experiences, sketching different historical-structural features of two regions, and detailing different development strategies employed by states. On basis of these differences, both cast doubt upon simplistic notion that Latin Americans can or should emulate East Asian development strategies. Further, both suggest that conventional wisdom that Latin America has failed because of its statist policies and East Asia succeeded because of its free-market model is not sustained by facts. Ziya Oni? argues in Logic of Developmental State that the East Asian model of developmental state is product of unique historical circumstances with logical corollary that there exist major constraints on its transferability to or replicability in alternative national contexts (1991: 120). Various contributors to Gereffi and Wyman's Manufacturing Miracles point out that in Latin America penetration of transnational corporations has been more significant (leaving a narrower range of choice for states) and both class structures and geopolitical interests and policies of U.S. government have differed. The substantial evidence presented seems to strengthen some aspects of dependency perspective and call neoliberal model into question. For example, whereas East Asian states have made their own decisions regarding company export policies, Latin American countries have often had to struggle with transnationals entrenched in region and making corporate decisions on basis of global market strategies rather than national development -to direct their economic development. While some criticisms of dependency