Thanks for all the comments and responses. I am tempted but cannot respond to all of them. Just some comments on Singapore: the strength of Singapore is the leadership's udnerstanding of its vulnerability. Second, it believes in good governance and economic management. It has met the basic needs very well and here's interesting part (which the former Eastern Europe/Sov Union could not do) the government has provided housing to virtually everyone. 85% of Singaporeans have their own apt/house. By making housing available (I get subsidized housing from the univ which is a public univ. I could not afford market-based housing) the government essentially makes it possible for most Singaporeans to have a decent standard of living, even if real estate is otherwise very expensive. The MNCs pay market price. The govt spends a lot of money on education and public transporation which the US has a very difficult time putting together. I travel seamlesslessly to virtually any part of the island on the metro and bus. taxis are cheap. The entire city is landscaped. There are more trees in the city than I have seen in many, many mid-western towns in the US. It is basically a planned city/country. There's good public education, although often bordering on the excessive. So here's a quick lesson for vulnerable economies: open the economy for growth, get foreign talent, provide solid institutional foundations, and allow people to participate in that growth by having strong public intervention: capitalist development with a socialistic bent. One other element: corruption is virtually zero and the legal system is very well defined. And when the govt says they will do something they do it. There's no dithering. There are of course problems. I hate the cell phones going off for example during my lectures. Almost everyone (16 years and older) carry pagers and cell phones! But it is remarkable how in 32 years this tiny island nation has tranformed itself from a seedy, entrepot centre to a dynamic, technologically driven society. Good economic governance has something to do with it and without a collective vision this would not have been possible. But there is no counterpart to Singapore's experience in the region or for that matter in the world. The lesson S'pore offers is organizational expertise and economic coordination, flouting all NC theory. On another note: I do not think SE Asian growth is seen as "miracle" economies. the term was exclusively reserved for the four dragons or tigers if you will:) Anthony P. D'Costa Associate Professor Senior Fellow Comparative International Development Department of Economics University of Washington National University of Singapore 1900 Commerce Street 10 Kent Ridge Crescent Tacoma, WA 98402-3100 USA Singapore 119260 Ph: (253) 692-4462 Fax: (253) 692-4414 On Mon, 29 Sep 1997, michael perelman wrote: > The early Asian "miracles" differ from other export economies in that they > had a relatively egalitarian distribution of income and relatively high > levels of education for the populace, together with, in the case of Korea, > a bundle of U.S. $. > > Singapore seems to be more of a genuine bootstrap case. Maybe Anthony will > throw a bit more light on it. > ------ > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > Chico, CA 95929 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 916-898-5321 > 916-898-5901 fax > >
