The document discusses the economic growth of four East Asian countries known as the "Four Asian Tigers": Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore. It analyzes the reasons for their phenomenal growth rates after World War II using four parameters: regression analysis, the role of public policy, investment rates and export orientation, and decomposing growth into factor accumulation and productivity gains. There were three main views on the sources of growth: fundamentalists argued it was driven mainly by capital accumulation; assimilationists stressed how well these countries adopted foreign technologies; and nihilists saw issues with the methodology of the growth debate.

2. East Asian miracle
 The four East Asian "tigers"
:
Hong Kong, South
Korea, Taiwan, Singapore
having experienced
phenomennal high growth
rates in per capita income
during the post war era.

3. What are reasons for such phenomenal
growth?
Four parameters can be used to analyse the
reasons:
1. Regression analysis
2. Role of public policy
3. Role of investment rates and export
orientation
4. Decompose growth into factor
accumulation and productivity gains

4. 1. Fundamentalists
2. Assimilationists
3. Nilhistic view

5.  Fundamentalists said that growth was input
driven. Mainly capital,& the productivity
increase were negligible if not zero krugman
have different interpretation of East Asian
miracle. He said that there was no miracle
behind East Asia's growth but simple capital
accumulation so that these countries will not
be able to sustain their economic growth &
may end up like soviet union according to
him, output level & growth are function of a
country's resource endowment& TFP.

6.  Sustainable growth not possible due to
diminishing returns to capital accumulation -
solow model without technology. We must
include technology for sustainable growth.

7. THE FUNDAMENTALISTS CONTENTION ABOUT
THE EAST ASIAN MIRACLE-RAPID GROWTH
RATE IN PER CAPITA INCOME ATTRIBUTED TO
THE HIGH RATES OF TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE(
POSSIBLE THROUGH ECONOMIC INTEGRATION).
Here, young argued that
technological progress
measured by TFP, was
virtually zero for
Singapore.

8.  Assimilationists stress tha what made
the East Asian countries' performance
special & different was how well they
mastered foreign technology( their
capacity to generate & put ideas into
practice).

9. Nilhistic View
The whole debate about sources of
growth is misplaced due to a serious
methodlogical problem

10.  Lucas says that youngs demonstrates
that output growth in Singapore since
the 1960s can be accounted for entirely
by growth in conventionally measured
capital and labour inputs, with nothing
left over to be attributed to
technological change
(Lucas 1993, 257; italics original).

11. Why the TFP growth is virtually zero in Singapore?
 The centralized
Singaporean economy had compelled its citizens to save too much
and had always
pushed itself too fast into new technologies, emphasizing
movement up the technological ladder, without fully realizing the
benefits of learning by doing at each stage, thus incurring
increasing costs of production. The tone of the paper implies that
industrial policy in Singapore was a total failure, and that
Singapore has been a victim of its own targeting policies.

12. Hong Kong, China with its
laissez-faire and hands-off policies, has spent the
right time at each stage.
The main source of growth in Singapore has been
capital accumulation, and virtually nothing was
due to productivity growth.

13. Brahmshree
 University Of Delhi