<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>[KS] KSR 2004-13: _The Foreign Economic Policies of
Si</title></head><body>
<div><font color="#000000">_The Foreign Economic Policies of
Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan_, by Christopher M. Dent, 2002.
Cheltenham and Northampton: Edward Elgar. 330 pp. (ISBN
1-84376-271-4).<br>
<br>
reviewed by Ruediger Frank<br>
Univesity of Vienna</font></div>
<div><font color="#000000">rfrank@koreanstudies.de</font><br>
<font color="#000000"></font></div>
<div><font color="#000000"><br></font></div>
<div><font color="#000000"><br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>Singapore,
South Korea and Taiwan have attracted significant attention because of
their remarkable economic success, and, more recently, the democratic
transition in their political landscapes. In all three cases, external
economic relations have played a key role in successful
development.<br>
<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>Christopher Dent, in<i> The
Foreign Economic Policies of Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan</i>,
wants to understand how these have engaged in the international
economic system, and to what extent their success can be attributed to
their respective foreign economic policies (FEP). The book develops
its analytical framework in the first two chapters, continues with
three chapters on the single country cases, and ends with a section
that offers a comparative summary. As the author notes, the book is
the product of three years of work, during which over two hundred
people from 147 agencies were interviewed.<br>
<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>Research on the economic
development of Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan is anything but an
academic niche; numerous studies have been written on each case, as
well as from a comparative perspective. Dent concentrates on the role
of FEP within the developmental paradigm and claims to have developed
a new analytical framework whose relevance extends beyond the three
countries under discussion.<br>
<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>The author follows standard academic
procedure in first critically examining the existing literature on FEP
analysis, which, according to his assessment, is mostly descriptive
and lacks a consistent methodology. He does not, however, elaborate on
the possible application of new institutional economics - which is
much more than just transaction cost theory - to FEP analysis,
although "network dynamics" are briefly mentioned (p. 36).
Such an application might have been helpful in refining the
methodological framework.<br>
<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>Dent distinguishes
between FEP protagonists (actors), powers (nation-states), formation
(structure) and stake-holding constituencies. He points at the
difficulties in defining a proper empirical domain for an analysis of
FEP, and criticizes the indeed overwhelming dominance of U.S. case
studies in both the specific field of FEP analysis as well as in
international political economy more generally. He concludes that
despite useful first steps, no comprehensive macro-framework of FEP
analysis has yet been developed.<br>
<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>Dent's conclusion leads him to present his own
framework, in which FEP analysis "is viewed from the perspective
of its various interactive functions that co-exist dynamically within
wider 'environment' and 'development' contexts." (p. 7). This
co-existence is shaped by environmental factors (e.g. market
conditions, contesting norms and ideas, international economic
structures) and developmental factors (economic paradigms, position in
the inter-national economic structure). Dent's interactive functions
consist of (1) technical policy realms (e.g. trade, FDI, international
finance, development assistance, human resource development,
infrastructure, fiscal and monetary policy), (2) cognitive-ideological
approaches (various "-isms", value-system traditions, etc.),
(3) generic 'economic security' objectives (e.g. socio-economic
paradigms), (4) contesting 'actor-based' influences (domestic
politics, bureaucratic power, economic nationalism, etc.), and (5)
economic diplomacy. Dent's analytical framework seeks to highlight and
explain the interactions between these five functions. Although such
analysis is by its very nature highly complex, and could easily
occasion a separate volume, Dent's twenty-three pages on this matter
(pp. 7-29) provide a helpful introduction to this important
topic.</font></div>
<div><font color="#000000"><br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>The second
chapter sets out to specify how this general theory operates with
regard to Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan. Dent identifies five
major commonalities between Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan: all
adhere to developmental statism, possess a semi-peripheral status,
qualify as NIEs, favor export-oriented industrialization, and contain
key elements of contemporary East Asian dynamism (p. 34). In
emphasizing "the central role of the state as the key determining
factor of East Asia's economic miracle" (p. 36), Dent reflects
the most commonly held perspective on East Asian economic development.
He then turns to neo-liberalism's challenge to this paradigm, and asks
whether this challenge means an end to the central role of the state
in these economies or simply represents a factor that will cause the
state to adapt. By characterizing the three countries as part of the
"semi-periphery" (p. 52), Dent assigns them a structural
position within the global economic system that highlights their
historical progress inward from the periphery toward the center. He
acknowledges that neither developmental statism nor the
"semi-periphery" is a new or uncontested concept. His
determination to utilize them nevertheless, instead of following the
most recent academic fashion, deserves to be encouraged, particularly
so since, as the following chapters show, this approach produces
valuable results.<br>
<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>The following three chapters concentrate on each
individual country case. They are more extensive than the preceding
parts and provide a comprehensive summary of each country's FEP. In
particular, those readers whose familiarity is with only one of the
case studies under question will benefit from the book's comparative
perspective. Dent's application of a unitary methodology in analysing
each case gives it an advantage over many edited volumes on similar
topics. Chapters Three through Five help the reader isolate which FEP
characteristics are shared by all three countries, which are shared by
two, and which are country-specific. The earlier specification of the
macro-model proves very helpful in guiding the reader through this
process.<br>
<br>
In the final chapter, Dent summarizes the results of his comparative
analysis. Given the complexity of his research subject, the twelve
pages he devotes here are too few for this important chapter, in
particular since the study was conceptualized and executed as
analytical, not descriptive. For the sake of consistency, it would
have been helpful if the single sections in the conclusions followed
the sequence developed in Chapter One (technical policy realms, for
example, appear first in the introductory chapter, but fourth in the
conclusion).<br>
<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>Academics who well know the difficulty of
acquiring a fair understanding of even one country, given the need to
master language, culture and a multi-faceted societal reality, will
greet attempts by a single researcher to provide a comparative
perspective of three countries with caution. Furthermore, ambitious,
comprehensive macro-economic theoretical models and methods are only
rarely accepted when developed by area specialists. Dent's attempt to
en-gage in both tasks in one book represents a very courageous
undertaking. Time will tell whether the academic community will accept
his case study analyses here and whether his theoretical model can be
fruitfully applied to other cases. The result notwithstanding, Dent
has highlighted a number of desiderata in international political
economy: the delineation of universal, regional and country-specific
characteristics, the application of a coherent analytical framework in
a comparative approach, and the need to test hypotheses based on
Western experience on other economies, including those of East Asia.
Throughout the book, and particularly in the first two chapters, Dent
profitably draws on decades of extensive research by well-established
scholars.<br>
<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>This attractively produced volume is
to be recommended primarily for readers with at least basic knowledge
of East Asian political economy<b>.</b> Given its focus on FEP, the
book would make good supplementary reading in classes on East Asian
economic policy, or as a case study in international political economy
courses. A combination with similar works on Japan would prove
fruitful in the classroom, as Dent repeatedly refers to Japan
throughout.</font></div>
<div><font color="#000000"><br>
<x-tab>
</x-tab> <br
>
Citation:<br>
Frank, Ruediger 2004</font></div>
<div><font color="#000000">_The Foreign Economic Policies of
Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan_, by Christopher M. Dent
(2002)</font></div>
<div><font color="#000000">_Korean Studies Review_ 2004, no. 13<br>
Electronic file: http://koreaweb.ws/ks/ksr/ksr04-13.htm</font></div>
</body>
</html>