ABSTRACT
In the last chapter, we demonstrated EA’s superior performance in attaining sustainable and equitable growth and made a strong case that macroeconomic stability was not the only factor. We showed that overall levels of government intervention were not responsible. Rather the data point to the importance of exports; treatment of FDI; the development of a state-dominated financial system; and specifically targeted government expenditures towards human capital were tied to the success. In this chapter, we can move beyond the regional comparison level to a more detailed level of analysis. By looking in more detail at the case of recent Chinese development, we can accomplish two important tasks in our argument. We can fully dispose of the false argument that EA development was solely the product of unique historical circumstances and a favorable US foreign policy at the time and therefore cannot be reproduced. While we can recognize that China has its own unique version of the model, and its own problems, this chapter shows that we can not just dismiss Chinese development strategy as unique, given the commonalities it has with the rest of the region. This argument simply does not hold water when we consider that the EA model continues to provide solid results in South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, and Thailand, as we have demonstrated. In this country study, we can expose in much more detail the EA IP blueprint which LA should follow through bringing out the commonalities of the cases.
