More Tiger Economies

We all know that Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and Hong Kong are the countries who succeeded to raise their standard of living in par with western countries in just one generation.

My challenge is that with POD between 1945 to 1975, transform these following countries into a Tiger Economy (if possible, some countries on my lists will reach their standard of living in par with western countries):

Argentina
Brazil
Burma
Chile
China (pre-1978)
Costa Rica
Egypt
India
Indonesia
Malaysia
Mexico
Panama
Peru
Philippines
South Africa
Thailand
Venezuela
 
Argentina, Malaysia and Panama don't seem like it would be to hard to get them that extra distance. Also if Mexico were more stable it would probably be good (according to Wiki it has a higher HDI than Russia, though that is probably from the millionaires :rolleyes:)
 
Argentina, Malaysia and Panama don't seem like it would be to hard to get them that extra distance. Also if Mexico were more stable it would probably be good (according to Wiki it has a higher HDI than Russia, though that is probably from the millionaires :rolleyes:)
The countries that you have mentioned could have been a developed economically if not for political instabilities, or wrong economic policies.

For Argentina's case - it was Peronism, series of military coups and inconsistent economic policies caused Argentina lose its place among the wealthiest countries in the world. For Argentina (in my opinion), the latest POD to recover Argentina from instabilities of Peronism or to save Argentina's tremendous wealth is to have 1962 coup averted and Arturo Frondizi continues to transform Argentina into a fully industrialized nation and retain its place among the developed countries then once the coup fails and Frondizi reaches an accord with the Peronists, the military will hesitate to stage coup again and Frondizi's subsequent successors (I think Illa, Balbin, Luder, Cafiero and Alfonsin) will continue his economic policies with some modifications such as switching from import-substitution to export-oriented economic growth (by 1980s) and by 2010 Argentina is the tenth largest economy in the world with per capita in par with Spain or Italy.

For Mexico's case - it was unchecked population growth, massive corruption in the iron-fist one-party government, and oil glut of 1980s caused Mexico lose its opportunity to join among the developed nations. For Mexico's case (in my opinion), the better POD is to have President Miguel Aleman initiates population control and that way, Mexico's economic growth will be felt by everyone because of a reduced population growth and more labor force contribution to economy. In that way, with earlier population control, by 2010, Mexico should have a population of 70 million instead of 110 million in OTL. With reduced population, Mexico's wealth will be more equally distributed and the benefits of economic growth will be felt by every Mexicans. Also, with reduced population, Mexico's per capita should in par with Portugal or even Greece by 2010.
 
Last edited:
The East Asian economies that did well during the post-war period are often described as following the "Japanese model". That is to say, they featured high investment, (relatively) low domestic consumption, export-oriented growth, and political stability--even if political leaders changed, the long-term economic growth model did not.

One thing I believe is often overlooked, however, is the role of the US as an export market. During the early 1950's, some American leaders worried that the loss of what was traditionally one of Japan's greatest export markets, China, to communism would lead Japan (and, to a smaller extent, South Korea and Taiwan) into some sort of accommodation with the Soviet Bloc. That's why the efforts to close off the US market to Japanese exports seen in the 1930's, for example, did not repeat themselves during the 1960's and 1970's, even though you had some US industries (textiles, for one) loudly campaigning for it. American national leaders were willing to pay the price--domestic political unpopularity--to keep the East Asian "tiger" economies on board as allies.

I think, then, to have other countries join the ranks of the "tigers", you need three things. First, the countries have to abandon the then-current economic ideas of import substitution, and move towards an export model. Second, you need these countries to have enough political stability to allow for high levels of long-term investment and long-term economic planning. Third, you need to somehow have the US encourage exports from these countries, through the use of export credits and such. That last one seems the hardest to me. You need to somehow convince both the US and local leadership that the way to fight communism in Latin America, say, is through economic growth and not right-wing autocracy.
Unfortunately, I don't know enough history to offer specific PoDs for the countries in question.
 
I don't think the western markets are big enough to accommodate all those countries simultaneously in 60 years, not if they're all going to develop using the Asian Tiger export-led growth model. I think you need some kind of alternative development paradigm, that doesn't depend on Americans as the consumers of first and last resort.
 
The countries that you have mentioned could have been a developed economically if not for political instabilities, or wrong economic policies.
My thought was basically taking China, and getting rid of the Cultural Revolution, get rid of the Great Leap Forward, get rid of the stupid policies done purely for ideology. China has a lot of natural resources, and the population to effectively utilize it. If the Communist Party had made more intelligent economic choices, China could have an economy today easily on par with first world nations (even accounting for population). I imagine there would be a lot of disparity in wealth between the cities and the countryside (Xinjiang isn't going to have the same sort of money as the coastal cities), but there was a lot of squandered potential in the first few decades of Communist rule.
 
Well one thing (And by far the most important) that all those tigers had that the first-world for some reason seems reluctant to adopt is a massive national education plan with long-term objectives (whereas here it seems like something politicians pay lip service to, teachers and students aren't large voting cohorts).

Also on a side note a trade surplus means that the exporter has not been paid in full, that the exporter will create more employment at the cost of a lower standard of living (not an ideal position but causes stability and growth).

And while the tigers saved more in general it must be noted that they invested what they saved, saving by itself is actually counterproductive to the economy as one is essentially withdrawing future resources from the economy. Most of the time the abnormal savings are due to the lack of social welfare necessitating large savings, this is an area that could be improved.
 
Last edited:
In India's case, it would have become a strong economy if the License Raj had either been scrapped after some years or averted altogether. This would mean more private sector investment. This would be more beneficial as the Industry would get a boost and the market would become more export oriented.

Also the financial policy of the government needs to be changed. Taxes like 60% Income Tax and 80% Corporate Tax and Red Tapeism with heavily corrupt bureaucracy meant that new concerns could not be started easily.

This meant reliance on an ineffective government or few private sector concerns which were restricted and heavily regulated by the Government. This along with vote bank cmmunal politics caused massive socio-economic problems and economic stagnation.

Exchange the death days of Jawahar Lal Nehru and Sardar Vallab Bhai Patel who is then followed by Morarji Desai and later Atal Bihari Vajpayee with Dr. Manmohan Singh and you get an economically stronger India.
 
Burma had a lot of potential, but political instability in border regions set up the situation for the 1962 coup which lead to the devastating 'Burmese Way to Socialism".

If the military and government were able to overcome the KMT and ethnic insurgencies in the early 1950s, then Burma would stand a good chance at becoming a wealthy, modernized state.

I guess one POD that would work would be if the communists in China were defeated, which would mean that there would be no KMT in Northern Burma. Additional to that, perhaps a non-communist could provide a market for exports and later investment to the 'developing' nations on your list.
 

Cook

Banned
If the military and government were able to overcome the KMT and ethnic insurgencies in the early 1950s, then Burma would stand a good chance at becoming a wealthy, modernized state.

I guess one POD that would work would be if the communists in China were defeated, which would mean that there would be no KMT in Northern Burma. Additional to that, perhaps a non-communist could provide a market for exports and later investment to the 'developing' nations on your list.
Are you referring to the Kuomintang or is this something to do with the Karen?
 
Are you referring to the Kuomintang or is this something to do with the Karen?
The Kuomingtang, who used Northern Burma as a base for operations into Yunnan. International support for the KMT soured relations with the United States, and the KMT's use of drug money to fund its insurgency also helped develop South East Asia's narcotics trade.
 
I don't think the western markets are big enough to accommodate all those countries simultaneously in 60 years, not if they're all going to develop using the Asian Tiger export-led growth model. I think you need some kind of alternative development paradigm, that doesn't depend on Americans as the consumers of first and last resort.
They could develop or utilize their respective domestic markets without too much reliance on exports as long as their political stability is secured. For Argentina's case, if not for Peronism or military coups, Argentina will be a developed nation without too much reliance on exports (agricultural exports). Or Argentina could shift into an export-led growth without compromising the domestic market or the political stability.

Asian Tiger export-led growth model only works if the population of that specific country are educated enough, have enough infrastructure, and of course political stability--even if political leaders changed.
 
Top