The paper "The Failure of Flying Geese Economic Development Model" is a good example of a macro and microeconomics case study. The flying geese model was first established during the late 1930s by Akamatsu Kaname who was an economist in Japan. Akamatsu’ s aim was to try and explain the process of industrialization in East Asia. He proposed that economic development in North-East Asia could only be understood if the background of the fundamental integrity and harmony of the regional struggle which started with Japanese colonialism is taken into consideration (Kasahara 2004). Since then, many other Japanese economists, such as Vernon and Cumming as well as Western political scientists and economist including Petri, Chan and Clark, have come up with the varying application of the flying geese analogy (Schroppel and Nakajima, 2002).
The flying geese model suggests that developing nations follow the path taken by the developed nations. These economists claim that other countries and sectors will replicate Japan’ s development experience. This model perceives the economic development of nations as a process which is strongly associated with the rise, evolution and failure of specific industrial sectors.
This paper will evaluate the claim that while the Flying Geese model of development might explain the early post World War II experience of the economies of North East Asia it is no longer relevant for the region in the era of globalization that characterizes the early part of this century. The fact postulated by the flying geese model that a regional view is critical to understanding the form of industrialization in modern North-East Asia cannot be disputed. However, this model does not capture the intricacy of the area political economy that is gradually controlled by the regionalization of industrial production.
This paper will propel the argument that the economic integration in North-East Asia is driven by three forces: the globalization of manufacturing networks; the high rate of technological change and the heightened intergovernmental disagreements over bilateral economic relations (Hayashi 2010). The friction between the territorially established regional network and the globalized systems of manufacturing and exchange has created a dynamic interaction between politics and economics that has a great impact on the political economy’ s structure of the region as tensions increase over imbalances in regional trade.
Moreover, the intricate and rapid characterization of the industrial revolution has fragmented product market, regionalized the locus of production activity and done away with the organizational setting whereby manufacturing takes place in the organization to the network (Park 2009). The diffusion of production in North-East Asia has not replicated the experience of Japan development in the nation after nation all over the region as suggested by the flying geese analogy. Rather, it has progressively been marked by fluctuating hierarchical systems of manufacturing connected backwards to Japanese revolution and onward to American marketplaces for exchange of processed products.
These systems give access to some organizations and activities and reduce the prospects for others. Structurally and spatially the systems are not static or closed. Hence, it is an exaggeration to assert that these systems can be the cornerstone for the formation of a newfangled Co-Prosperity Sphere in this region. Elites in this region are increasingly worried about the level of technological reliance on Japanese organizations and are keen to expand the sources of technology in the region.
Thus, the creation of a yen partnership is stalled by these concerns, worsened by the sustained reliance on American markets for industrial exports and rising tension over entry into the Japanese market (Beeson 2007).
Beeson M (2007). Regional and globalization in East Asia: Politics, security and economic development. New York, Palgrave MacMillan.
Burkett P and Hart-Landsberg M (2000). Alternative perspective on late industrialization in East Asia: A of critical Survey. Review of Radical Political Economics, 32 (2): 222-264.
Hatch W (2010). Asian’s Flying Geese: How regionalization shapes Japan. Ithaca and London, Cornel University Press.
Hayashi S (2010). The Developmental State in the Era of Globalization: Beyond the Northeast Asian model of political economy. The Pacific Review, 23 (1): 45-69.
Kasahara S (2004). The Flying Geese Paradigm: A critical study of its application Discussion paper 169.
Ozawa T (2008). The rise of Asia: The flying-geese theory of tandem growth and regional Agglomeration. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA, Edward Elgar.
Park PH (2009). The collapse of the Flying Geese Development Model: Advert of new order in East Asia and a foreign policy alternative for the Republic of Korea. The review of Korean studies, 12(4): 155-180.
Routley L. (2012).Development State: A review of the literature. ESID working paper No.03.
Schroppel C and Nakajima M (2002). The changing interpretation of the flying geese model of economic development. German Institute of Japaneses Studies yearbook 2002: 203-236.
Weiss J (2011). Industrial Policy in the Twenty-first century. UNU-WIDER working paper No. 2011/55
Yoshimatsu H (2003). Japan and East Asia in Transition: Trade policy, crisis and evolution and regionalism. New York, Palgrave macmillan.
Yun C (2005). Japan and East Asia Integration, Myth of flying geese production networks and regionalism. New Brunswick, United States and London, Transaction Publishers.