Author(s):  
Jim Glassman

Thailand presents a vexingly ‘hybrid’ image of both success and failure. A lay reader of journalistic and academic literature on Thai development could readily be excused for concurring with the opinion of renowned Thai scholar David Wilson, who long ago insisted ‘What damn good is this country—you can’t compare it to anything!’ (Anderson 1978: 193). Indeed, so contradictory are the varying images of the country and the events taking place within it that it often seems Thailand can’t even be compared to itself. This sense of identity crisis has only been heightened by the economic crisis that began in 1996. What had been one of Asia’s miracle economies led the region into bust, leaving many analysts gasping for air. Thus, as the twenty-first century begins, and we look back on the events of the past century, there is a sense of urgency and contentiousness surrounding a very basic question that one might have already expected to be answered: what exactly is this multifaceted and volatile phenomenon called ‘development’ in Thailand, and why does it generate such diverse evaluations? To be sure, some of the contention is due to non-negotiable differences in political perspectives. Yet even granting this, there seems to be less agreement about how to assess development in Thailand than development in many other places. For example, few South Korea scholars, of whatever persuasion, disagree that the country exhibited remarkable and sustained economic growth in recent decades, that this has at least laid the foundations for significant improvements in overall standards of living for most of the population, or that in spite of the crisis the Korean political economy still has substantial potential for further development. Nor, for that matter, do many people disagree that the development process in South Korea was driven forward by an authoritarian state and that issues such as social justice and environmental sustainability must still be addressed. In contrast, interpreters of Thailand’s development experience seem to disagree about such fundamental issues as the importance of state involvement in the process, the degree of well-being which it has bequeathed to the general population, and the future prospects of development.


1992 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 190-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Wilks

ECONOMIC HISTORY IS FAR REMOVED FROM PRECISE SCIENCE and cannot offer an unambiguous explanation of the initiation, pace and causes of rapid industrial growth. Nevertheless, few economic historians would disagree that the pattern of growth is not random; and that in evaluating it, technological innovation must be a central element.The landmarks of industrial development are conventionally thought of in terms of science and technology. From the adoption of the stirrup and the plough, which heralded the feudal age in Europe; to the spread of the silicon chip and the microprocessor, which lie at the core of the emergent IT economy, the development of society can be charted in terms of technological change. And just as the analysis of technological change has become one of the dominant tools of the economic historian, so ‘futurology’ is centred around trajectories of innovation. Over the next century changes are projected which are just as profound as those experienced since 1890. The world of 2090 will be different, and while the fundamental political differences may be unpredictable, there is a presumption that it will be technologically very different from the present. It is appropriate that popular speculation about future society is termed not ‘future fiction’ but ‘science fiction’.


10.1142/4706 ◽  
2001 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kwong Kai-Sun ◽  
Chau Leung-Chuen ◽  
Francis T Lui ◽  
Larry D Qiu

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 247-259
Author(s):  
Yong-Shik Lee

Abstract North Korea is currently one of the most impoverished countries with a history of famine, but the country has a significant potential for economic development that could lift its population from poverty. Neighbored by some of the largest and most advanced economies in the world (South Korea, Japan, and China) and endowed with abundant mineral resources, industrial experience, and a history of successful economic development in the past, North Korea can embark on the path to rapid economic development, as its southern counterpart (South Korea) did so successfully since the 1960s. Yet, the successful economic development of North Korea requires a comprehensive approach, including obtaining a fund for development; normalizing relations with the West and the neighboring countries; improving its human rights conditions; prioritizing key industrial development; and reforming its political-economic system. This note discusses the comprehensive approach necessary for the successful economic development of North Korea.


Economica ◽  
1970 ◽  
Vol 37 (146) ◽  
pp. 200
Author(s):  
Malcolm Falkus ◽  
D. S. Landes ◽  
S. B. Clough ◽  
T. Moodie ◽  
C. Moodie

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document