Economic Development in China, India and East Asia
Show Less

Economic Development in China, India and East Asia

Managing Change in the Twenty First Century

Kartik Roy, Hans Blomqvist and Cal Clark

This is a thorough and comprehensive study – both in terms of country coverage and in-depth analysis – covering the economic development of all the major economies in the Asian continent, namely China, India, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia and Singapore.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details
You do not have access to this content

Chapter 7: Managing Development in the Asia States

Kartik Roy, Hans Blomqvist and Cal Clark


7. Managing development in the Asian states As discussed in detail in Chapters 1 and 2, the state almost inevitably plays a role, positive or negative, in a nation’s development efforts. In this chapter, we discuss how the Asian countries in our analysis managed their development programmes. It covers the historical background for these nations, their strategies for maintaining governmental legitimacy, the policies for promoting agricultural and industrial development that they adopted, and the necessity for focusing upon a broader conception of ‘human development’. Historical background As discussed in Chapters 2 and 3, the primary goal of development management in the Asian states since the early 1950s has been to maintain the legitimacy of governance regimes whose assumption of power involved considerable upheaval in all Asian societies. The promotion of development and industrialization came to be one of the central strategies for establishing and maintaining legitimacy in these countries. China and India In China, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and Mao Zedong led a communist revolution that threw the nationalist government out of power and installed a communist party-led government in 1949. The revolution contributed to the loss of human lives and enormous disruption to social and economic order. In 1949, the income inequality was modest in the rural areas in China (Myers, 1970; Brandt, 1997; Brandt and Sands, 1992). Thus, the revolution was a product of poverty and peasant nationalism rather than an outcome of income inequality (Bramall, 2009; Buck, 1937; Tawney, 1932). The breakup of India into three...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information

or login to access all content.