Comments 3

Asiens Wachstum schützen

Aug 21, 2012 Lee Jong-Wha

SEOUL – Die asiatischen Schwellenländer sollten auf ihre ökonomische Robustheit stolz sein. Obwohl die Weltwirtschaft von schwachem Wachstum, anhaltend hoher Arbeitslosigkeit und großen Schuldenbergen geplagt wird, wuchsen die Schwellen- und Entwicklungsländer von 2000 bis 2010 mit einer jährlichen Durchschnittsquote von 6,8 %, womit sie zum Stützpfeiler der globalen Produktion wurden und die Bemühungen um eine Erholung stärken.

Der Erfolg der Region wurde durch das dynamische Wachstum in China und Indien untermauert; auf die beiden Länder entfallen unter Berücksichtigung der Kaufkraftparität nahezu 60 % des gesamten BIP des Kontinents. Außerdem haben wirtschaftspolitische Änderungen und Strukturreformen, die nach der Asienkrise 1997-1998 verabschiedet wurden, die Anfälligkeit der Region für Finanzschocks in den letzten zehn Jahren bedeutend verringert.

Doch darf sich Asien nicht auf seinen Lorbeeren ausruhen: Die Finanzsysteme sind nach wie vor fragil; die Volkswirtschaften sind mit hohen Haushalts- und Leistungsbilanzdefiziten belastet, und Asien bleibt zu stark von den nordamerikanischen und europäischen Exportmärkten abhängig, was seine Anfälligkeit für externe Schocks steigert.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To read this article from our archive, please log in or register now. After entering your email, you'll have access to two free articles every month. For unlimited access to Project Syndicate, subscribe now.

Featured

The Sino-American Cold War’s Collateral Damage

Oct 19, 2018 Minxin Pei
The End of Scandinavian Non-Alignment

Oct 17, 2018 Carl Bildt
Will Italy Sink Europe?

Oct 17, 2018 Jim O'Neill
The Martyrdom of Jamal Khashoggi

Oct 15, 2018 Daoud Kuttab
The Brexit Endgame

Oct 16, 2018 Robert Skidelsky

Lee Jong-Wha

Writing for PS since 2012
34 Commentaries

Lee Jong-Wha, Professor of Economics and Director of the Asiatic Research Institute at Korea University, served as Chief Economist and Head of the Office of Regional Economic Integration at the Asian Development Bank and was a senior adviser for international economic affairs to former President Lee Myung-bak of South Korea. His most recent book, co-authored with Harvard’s Robert J. Barro, is Education Matters: Global Schooling Gains from the 19th to the 21st Century.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 2 in all 2 Comments on this article

Jonathan Lam Aug 29, 2012

Gamesmith94134: How to Compete in Europe

What is the difference between a Clydesdale and a Hinny? One is a horse and the other is a mule.

Each excels its competition over the other under the effectiveness and efficiency through their performances. The giant horse carries the heavy load over the opened road; and the miniature mule bring his load passing through the tunnels of a mine. If we set aside the price and value in evaluation of profits and resources, the gain from competitiveness would show that these effectiveness and efficiency are more like the intangible capitals. R&D through history gave the distinctions on the winnings; that how we understand what the capacity and agility of the animal can do or how the route or environment makes it difference. Such advantage or gain resulted when two are confronted with conditions in similar or differences are accounted for what we called intangible capital. For sake of transportation of goods, Clydesdale and Hinny won over the other by its conditions. So, we must understand the elements of tools and conditions as well through competitions; conditions could be created or innovated to the intangible capitals that beat its competition.

In term of import and export, merchandize is shipped does not mean a sale is done till consumed or sold. So, it is how the importer or exporter must find its match and not the producer. Producer makes the distinction and quality of the product to beat the similar product on its market; but it is how the importer or exporter sees what is marketable. In the earlier China/US trade, Chinese found its customers in US in quantity since they found the masses of the middle class and the poor who favored cheaper Chinese products or “made in China” over the quality US made products. Marketwise, China gained its surplus just because Americans were poorer in the 90’s and today. Personally, I prefer German kitchen knives over Chinese ones, even though it is twice as much; and I buy Chinese ones only when my dilemma is overblown by affordability and sustainability that my income lost to growth.
When I studied Tourism, I always wanted to travel Spain and Greece. I dreamed to live in a castle or hostel and travel Europe till I realize they were replaced by Hyatt or Marriot and the cost of my meal went doubled. It was streamlined in American standard. Why would I travel afar than watching TV on the screen? I went China every year since China tolerated those with lower budget spending and cheaper flight tickets.

During the tour in China, I saw Chinese who put eight people to water the pots of plants and flower at the sides and center of the roads during the exhibition, and they made $22 a day; but China was low in employment in the region and it was an effective application of human resources. And then, I cry over US for its effectiveness using the half million dollars water truck to clean the sidewalk with its $35/per hour driver, afterward the street was not cleaned when the city budget cut the street cleaning and the half million dollars truck went idle. Why doesn’t the city hire eight workers to clean the street like Chinese? It was another success for technology over human resources; the half million dollars water truck was sold. Then, we are at the doors of sustainability and affordability; perhaps, it is not really how or why they are being compared but to understand what really makes the wheel turns and what the EU politicians focused on----employment or capital goods and how they market EU in the globalization of trade.

For much we come back to the supply and demand or how we market the product in competition, I see the polarization of the North and the South that Euro the currency set their pre-conditions in ways to compete that social instability and inadequate exchange rate make it worse to complete. Clydesdale may cause more for ones to dig in the tunnel, and Hinny may work overtime to carry in capacity. In navigating the tunnel or opened road to prosperity is not easy, but the EU politicians must understand both the pre-conditions and capacity to market the integration of its Union. In the end, I still prefer the bi-system currency method to keep the EU integrated till it really becomes a Union.

May the Buddha bless you?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
P. Kamath Aug 23, 2012

It is so annoying to read everywhere that growth rate in a percentage notation is the only indicator of "growth" of a nation. What about things like good governance, peace, high standards in justice system, no-corruption etc etc.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.