The paper 'The Flying Geese Model in the Development of the Economies of the North East of Asia" is an outstanding example of a macro and microeconomics case study. More often, it is claimed that the "flying geese paradigm" with dynamic comparative goodness has truly depicted the take-off of the North-East Asian region. The critical study of this paradigm is presented better in this paper, together with its application to the situation in North-East Asia, economic hierarchy. This paper first and foremost it presents the various versions of the model, and discusses differences and similarities among them.
Then it critically examines the application of the paradigm to the North-East Asian regional whole development context by pinpointing major conceptual, theoretical and empirical problems which come with it. It is my hope that the arguments presented here will contribute much to the further enrichment and development of future discussions and research on the North-East Asian, development experience. Introduction The economic development of the North-East Asia is characterized by different member countries developing in separate times. For instance, Japan ‘ take-over’ succeeded after Meiji revolution. The Japans’ economic modernization was during the last half of the 19th century.
The development in this country continued for a century even with the destruction of the world war two, becoming the only country in Asia which has developed. This was then followed by the four Asian tigers namely, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong. Malaysia, Philippines, Indonesia and Thailand followed later. China leads the third wave of industrialization after the opening of the economy in 1994. This kind of economic development is the one termed as the ‘ flying geese’ (Akamatsu, K.
(1961). This paper will check the validity of the paradigm flying Geese the third flying geese model explains the transfer of division of labour, it talks about the division of labour horizontally and vertically. Former is the movement of division of labour in countries that are economically same and vertical transfer is between countries that are deferent in their economic development, for example between colony and its colonial power. Development The ‘ flying geese’ paradigm has several stages i. e. it had its original concept, the modern product-cycle theory then lastly the modern multi-sequentiality version (Burkett & Hart-Landsberg, 1998).
This paradigm has very much been applied in the development of the East Asian countries, first and foremost it is in-country capacity-building and the ability of the nation catching up. Like the Korean experience in the industrialization process is seen in its trade relations with the western countries, on specifically imported manufactured goods (Ramburuth & Welch, 2005). The model is presenting Japan as the central giant and it is suppose to hold the responsibility of having demand and supply sides. Japan is expected to be the provident of both physical and investment capital to its surrounding countries.
This is when you look at the supply side of view. This had the aim of structuring and facilitating the manufacturing sector of japans’ neighbor (Arase, 1995). On the side of demand, Japan and its allies NIM are to be a labor-intensive outlet in the region, and facilitate technology transfer to third world countries and deepen their trade relationship with these less developed countries.
Akamatsu, K. (1961), "A theory of unbalanced growth in the world economy," Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv – Review of World Economics. No. 86, pp. 3-25.
Akamatsu, K. (1962), "A historical pattern of economic growth in developing countries," Journal of Developing Economies. No. 1, Vol. 1, (March-August), pp. 3-25.
Arase, D. (1995), Buying Power: The Political Economy of Japan's Foreign Aid. (Boulder and London: Lynn Rienner Publisher).
Bernard, M. and Ravenhill, J. (1994), "Beyond product cycle and flying geese: regionalization, hierarchy, and the industrialization of East Asia," World Politics, Vol. 47, (January), pp. 171-209.
Burkett, P. and Hart-Landsberg, M. (1998), “East Asia and the crisis of development theory,” Journal of Contemporary Asia. Vol. 28. No. 4. pp. 435-456.
Clark, N. (1975), "The multi-national corporation: the transfer of technology and development," Development and Change. Vol. 6. No. 1. (January) pp. 5-21.
Cronin, R.P. (1992), Japan, the United States, and Prospects for the Asia-Pacific Century: Three scenarios for the future. (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies).
Evans, Peter (1997), "The eclipse of the state? Reflections on the stateness in an era of globalization," World Politics. Vol. 50, No. 1, (October), pp. 62-87.
Gore, C. (1996), Methodological Nationalism and the Misunderstanding of East Asian Industrialization. UNCTAD Discussion Paper, No. 111, (Geneva: UNCTAD).
Chen, Min (1995), Asian Management Systems: Chinese, Japanise and Kerean Styles Of Business, International, Thompson Business Press.
Gianea, John (2005) International Trade & Investment, An Asia Pacific Perspective, 2e, Mcgraw-Hill
Haley Usha C.V. (2000), Strategic Management in the Asia Pacific: Harnessing Regional and Organizational Change For Competitive Advantage, Oxford, Butterworth-Heinmann.
Ramburuth, P. & Welch, C. (2005), Casebook in International Business: Australian and Asia Pacific Perspectives, Person Education Australia.
Sonia El Kahal, (2004), Business in Asia Pacific: Text and Cases, Oxford University Press.