View Article |
Comparing the applicability of the Japanese and Chinese models to Malaysia
Poh, Ping Lee1.
An intriguing question arises as to why the Chinese model did not catch on
in Malaysia and the rest of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) 5 (i.e.,
Indonesia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand) as compared to the Japanese
model when China’s post-1980 growth rate exceeded Japan’s growth rate in the 1970s
and 1980s. China’s performance is even more impressive due to its scale (China has a
population of 1.3 billion compared to Japan’s 120 million). This article attempts to answer
this by first considering the timing. The Japanese model was adopted in the early 1980s
when Malaysia then was looking for a model, but not now. The nature of both models
will be discussed. The Chinese model is not original and is a derivative of the Japanese
model. It too was successful in alleviating poverty, and attracting foreign investment.
These achievements hold no allure for Malaysia, which also has a good record in both
endeavours. Finally, that Japan is an industrialised country and for a long time had a one
party dominant system appealed to Malaysia.
Affiliation:
- University of Malaya, Malaysia
Download this article (This article has been downloaded 295 time(s))
|
|
Indexation |
Indexed by |
MyJurnal (2019) |
H-Index
|
0 |
Immediacy Index
|
0.000 |
Rank |
0 |
Indexed by |
Scopus (SCImago Journal Rankings 2016) |
Impact Factor
|
- |
Rank |
Q3 (Economics, Econometrics and Finance (miscellaneous)) |
Additional Information |
0.203 (SJR) |
|
|
|