[PEN-L:4637] Re: East Asia Paradigm Shifts?

["Anthony D'Costa" <dcosta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I did not use "capitalism" and "export of capital" to explain the rise of
East Asia.  What I did was to respond to Carl's position that neither
capitalism nor imperialism was "good".  I would however use an
institutional explanation to explain the rise, namely the state.  I would
also agree that there are non-market and and non-state institutions.
These include business associations, family ties, the Chinese diaspora in
general that conduct economic transactions not on the basis of price or
contractual agreements but internalize them on the basis of non-economic
(trust-based) reasons.

I would be extremely wary of using the long wave theory to explain East
Asia.  That would be teleological and remove the actors from the East
Asian growth paradigm.  As for whether 1.5 billion can be accomodated, I
assume Mark Selden has not included the Indian population that are also
expected to part of this bourgeois development.

Anthony D'Costa