The Economist: Emerging Economies

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Asia was historically dominant in population and thus in total output. Europe and USA overtook in output with the industrial revolution. However, dominance in total output may be going back to East Asia. That's all the article is trying to say.

and thats what I agree with. Colon, on the other hand disagreed, then three other guys jumped on me, smelling fresh blood, trying to get me to admit I was wrong, when it was them who was wrong all along.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
plus, you are forgetting the other age of unquestioned middl eastern dominance - from the first cities and language and farms (which is what, 4000 BC?) through the Babylonians and the Egyptians and Sumerians etc, which runs all the way to the roman empire (which really began dominating after the Punic Wars in the 3rd century BC)

Um... hello Alexander?

And you still are wrong. Colon was correct, Eurasia was the traditional power and you can't simply confine it to Asia.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Um... hello Alexander?

And you still are wrong. Colon was correct, Eurasia was the traditional power and you can't simply confine it to Asia.

Alexander is Asian. where was his empire? ASIA.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Actually, no. The entire Asian rim developed their economies by massive state interference in the economy combined with strong tarifs. Every economy that has followed the Washington consensus has become a basket case. Every country that has turned their back on economic liberalism has grown.

Japan and South Korea had significant state interference, but were commited to open, trade oriented economies. MITI attempted to manage Japanese exporters, and pick winners. It did NOT attempt to establish a closed economy, as did pre 1990 India. Hong Kong had very little state interference, and a very open economy, and did quite well. Japanese companies that were successful included Honda, which entered the auto export market in defiance of MITI.

State interference is a mixed bag - it DOESNT necessarily spell failure, when its done as well it was in Japan and South Korea - but most LDCs dont have as sophisticated or as uncorrupt a bureaucracy as Japan had. But its not at all clear that it plays a large role in success. What IS clear is that trade plays a large role in success, and attempting via EITHER free markets or via state planning to focus on areas of real competitive advantage is important, and that attempting to create a closed economy is a formula for failure.

Similarly, several european economies like Portugal and Ireland, achieved significant economic growth through their membership in the EU which effectively opened their economies to their leading trade partners.

Its also clear that establishing a healthy export economy requires a certain degree of political stability, and that ethnic homogeneity, often combined with nationalism or a sense of foreign threat, can be useful in establishing that stability.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia


Alexander is Asian. where was his empire? ASIA.

In that sense Queen Victoria was Asian.

[Krill]

And American, and Oceanian, and...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
Alexander is Asian. where was his empire? ASIA.

You can't let it go, no matter how deep a hole you dig for yourself!

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
State interference is a mixed bag - it DOESNT necessarily spell failure, when its done as well it was in Japan and South Korea - but most LDCs dont have as sophisticated or as uncorrupt a bureaucracy as Japan had. But its not at all clear that it plays a large role in success. What IS clear is that trade plays a large role in success

Yes, this is a very controversial field. There are debates whether East Asian economies developed because of government interference in free markets and free trade or despite it. The fact is - those governments intervened.

Not only them, USA also had relatively high tariffs during its pre-GATT history, as did a number of now developed countries. Few countries developed in conditions of completely free trade, maybe Singapore and Hong Kong being exceptions (I'm not sure).

This field is very interesting to me, if you have read any books about Japanese development or anything related go ahead and recommend.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
What IS clear is that trade plays a large role in success, and attempting via EITHER free markets or via state planning to focus on areas of real competitive advantage is important, and that attempting to create a closed economy is a formula for failure.

You have to have a manufacturing base though, except with a couple of exceptions, and that requires state planning.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

You can't let it go, no matter how deep a hole you dig for yourself!

if thats all you got, you prolly should let it go.

[Az]

perhaps Carthage...

Carthage was a eurasian power. It was started by Phoenicians, and was phoenician during all of it's history.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I think that only works if you consider the Byzantine Empire to be Asian, which I don't consider to be the case. The Byzantine Empire was fabulous rich and fairly powerful to rival Asian empires (though not all, admittedly), in its earlier years.

The Byzentine Empire was Asian. Its richest lands, the lands that made it a power were Anatolia (the original Asia), the Levant, and Egypt. The lands in Italy and the Balkans were of secondary or tertiary importance. Hell, the Ottoman capitol was furhter west than Constantinople at first- that did not make the Ottomans a European power. Besides, the Byzentines were pre-dominent only until the 9th century. The loss of Egypt and the Levant made them far weaker and by 1070, the loss of Anatolia to the Turks meant their days as a world power as opposed to regional power were over.

If you take that into account, the age of unquestioned Asian superiority (well, aside from Moorish Spain) was from 1100-1600. About the same amount of time of unquestioned European superiority after 1600 (aside from the US).

Moorish Spain had no power projection- I am mystified why you think them a power at all. The muslim rulers in Egypt and Baghdad had far more power.

And Asia predominated long before. Alexander's empire was short lived. Since 35000 BC, you can point only to about 100 years of widespread Hellenistic rule outside of Greece, then 500 Years of Roman rule in the Mediterranean basis, when you could point to that power as the greatest in the world (surpassing China's empire), then maybe 200 years of Byzantine power, and then the last 400 of European assencendency. That means someone "European" was the greastest Eurasian power for about 1200 of 5500 years. Even then, the Byzantines were even at their apex not as rich or powerful as Tang China, their contemporaries. So say 900 years of European dominance in Eurasia (and from there, the world).

Not a very good track record. That leave 4600 years of Asian (or briefly African thanks to Egypt) rule.

[chequita guevara]

The Ottomans were definately a European power. The position of the capital isn't what made them a European power, or the Romans not one. The fact that European foreign policy, even in the Britsh Isles, considered the Ottomans as major players in European politics did that.