DBWI: Could East Asia have pulled a South America?

The economic growth in South America over the past few decades has been astounding. They started out mainly exporting agriculture to Europe, but thanks to generous growth subsidies (and a wide-open US market), they quickly moved on to consumer goods. Now, Brasil and Argentina have nearly the same GDP per capita as do the US, Japan, or Western Europe. Chile is not too far behind.

Now, consider the situation in East Asia. Korea is a neo-Stalinist hellhole. Mongolia and the People's Republic of Manchuria (or whatever the hell that formerr SSR calls itself these days) are poor nations lead by tinpot dictators. China maintains the world's largest army, all the better to guard itself against the unsavory regimes on its borders. However, the quality of that army leaves much to be desired. Meanwhile, the nation has to import food every year to feed its massive 1.5 billion population, leaving it in perpetual debt. It's hard to see this changing anytime soon, either, given that China still has something like a 30% illiteracy rate--not exactly the bedrock for strong economic growth.

To be sure, there are some bright spots in the region. The Empire of Japan is the world's second largest economy, and a vibrant democracy as well. Hong Kong's average per capita income is higher than that of the US. (This explains why the HKers were so adamant not to be handed over to the Chinese government. IIRC, the British had to forgive all of the Chinese debt they held to get China to accept HK independence.) Overall, however, this populous corner of the Earth is not exactly the center of the world economy.

So what do you think, AH.commers? Did it have to be this way? Could East Asia have experienced the same growth that South America did? If so, how?
 
I think the problem is China. No matter what, it's going to have a massive population that is simply counterproductive to maintaining good economic standing. Add to that that the leadership has been since WW2 concerned more with staying in power at the expense of development (which is understandable, given the Warlord Era and all that) and you'll see only very gradual growth in that nation. It's hard to imagine when even the better part of the rural hinterland will be modernized, if ever.

The nicer cities of China like Shanghai or Nanjing are the best they have to offer, and still pale in comparison to Hong Kong and Tokyo. Beijing/Tianjin, Guangzhou, and Chongqing, on the other hand, are literally just overcrowded monster villages which aside from their impressive numbers are hardly worth mentioning. A lot of this has directly to do with the fact that China has too many people. Even if they bring five hundred million of them out of poverty, there are still another billion or even more of those who are still poor as hell. The National Party pretty much sees them as a lost cause; their only obligation to them is basically to make sure most of them aren't starving or in revolt. Since they seem to have been pretty good at doing that for the last forty years, I don't see why it shouldn't continue that way for the foreseeable future.

Korea could certainly have gone somewhat better, had the USA not buckled under Soviet threats and actually done something about Kim il-Sung's armies, but chances are it'd just be a corrupt dictatorship, with the same expensive concerns regarding Soviet and Manchurian military strength (OOC: I'm positing a complete UN victory, not what happened IOTL) that China has. At least they wouldn't have death camps, which is a good thing.

OOC: I'm assuming, since you just mentioned a China that has to deal with bad neighbors, that the CCP never took power.
 
Last edited:
I think the problem is China. No matter what, it's going to have a massive population that is simply counterproductive to maintaining good economic standing. Add to that that the leadership has been since WW2 concerned more with staying in power at the expense of development (which is understandable, given the Warlord Era and all that) and you'll see only very gradual growth in that nation. It's hard to imagine when even the better part of the rural hinterland will be modernized, if ever.
Aye, the population is a problem. China as it is can't really afford to educate or even feed them, and a large population of rural poor is always a drag on the economy. Can you imagine if they did have economic growth, though? Potentially billions of new consumers. Of course, people have been predicting that China will awaken since Napoleon's day, and it has yet to actually happen...
Korea could certainly have gone somewhat better, had the USA not buckled under Soviet threats and actually done something about Kim il-Sung's armies,
Indeed. I don't know what the US could have done in hindsight, however. When the Soviets finished pushing Japan off the Asian mainland in 1939, the West was afraid they would use their Manchurian and Korean base to push into China, just as the Japanese had done. That the Soviet Union did not do so is probably more a result of the Nazi invasion intervening that any Soviet decision. (I'm sure the Soviets were glad the Japanese had been foolish enough to attack then. The Japanese-built Manchurian industry was a godsend for the Soviet war effort.:))

After the war, the US could have pushed harder for the Soviets to allow true elections in Korea, Poland, and elsewhere. But there was only so much the West could do. They didn't have any real leverage. In the end, the US was lucky enough to extract a Soviet promise not to openly arm the Chinese Communists.
 
China also blew a lot of money on that whole "Han Chauvinist" thing. Trying to retake Turkestan, Outer Mongolia and Tibet lost them all three regions, along with Gansu and Qinghai, to the Soviets. It was only the threat of US involvement (and the death of Stalin in 1961) that stopped further conquests.

Vietnam was a massive, massive sinkhole, and after the Vietcong took Laos, they became a regional economic superpower. Invading Vietnam was terrible for China.

The DPRK is a dystopian hellhole, especially after the Politburo cut off aid in the late 80s.
 

Rush Tarquin

Gone Fishin'
While a lot of the problems are due to the nature of the regimes in the region, policy also had a lot to do with it. South America pursued export-oriented industrialisation while Asia was held back by import substitution policies which naturally follow from the nationalist and socialist nature of the regimes in the region. Just look at Burma and Sukarnoist Indonesia, let alone the communist countries of course. Weber's characterisations of Asia being too bound by Confucianism to prosper economically were also prescient. Plus there's the whole Asiatic mode of production thing.

Whereas South America's land reform, which followed Mexico's example with the Hacendados following the Mexican Civil War, forced the latifundia elites to transform themselves into urban industrialists and the small landowners produced the cheap food needed for an industrial labour force and generally joined it once they found they couldn't turn a profit.

OOC: Not my views, just being in character.
 

Rush Tarquin

Gone Fishin'
Something that might help is the avoidance of an 'Australian paradox'. Australia once had a higher GDP than Argentina, but, from the 30s, its attempts at creating an industrial sector and import substitution policies shackled the growth that would have flowed from the agricultural sector. When import substitution finally ended for good in the 70s, other problems Australia had developed took over, leading to the whole sad story of the financial crisis. Had Australia seen Argentina's success, it might have helped lift its Southeast Asian neighbours up as a consumer market and source of financial investment like Argentina did for its.
 
Top