東南アジアの経済発展メカニズム : なにが分かっているのか

Abstract

This paper tries to summarize what we have come to know about the development mechanism of Southeast Asia since the mid 1960s (when I first became involved in development studies). We now know the following: The country's economic growth is correlated with 1) the investment ratio, 2) export growth, and 3) monetary (as well as exchange) stability. The first two factors are known to be also relevant for Northeast Asia, though the third is not necessary so. One bottleneck in raising the explanatory power of quantitative development economics is the difficulty in measuring human capital formation. Even in the case of physical capital formation (which comprises the numerator of the investment ratio), what is really needed is the rate of increase of physical capital stock. But physical capital is rarely measured because many theoretical and practical difficulties are involved. To measure human capital is theoretically even more difficult, which in turn makes the measurement of human capital formation problematic. As a result, we do not know its quantitative significance as a factor of economic growth. Even if economic growth is explained in terms of capital formation (or export performance), why it has differed is left unexplained. The quantitative economists might say that it can be explained by difference in other economic variables, but to explain one variable in terms of another has limits, for the way in which economic variables are related, or the way in which parameters determine the relations, has to be explained as well. The factors which affect the parameters are institutions and culture. As to institutions in Southeast Asia, what we now know is that: 1) the better the protection of private property, and 2) the freer the economic activity, the higher the rate of capital formation (and thus the rate of economic growth). The second factor seems to be less valid in Northeast Asia where government intervention was effective up to a certain point in time, but in Southeast Asia, where the level of government corruption has been higher, the tendency has been that the higher the level of government intervention, the poorer the economic performance. Why then have nations differed in institutional development? By way of explanation, neo-institutionalists may invoke such concepts as the path dependency, but these concepts are not very useful unless they are contextualized. But this is difficult for neo-institutionalists because they are generalists and do not want to get involved in a particular context. This is where area specialists can come in. In fact, they are in a better position to understand the national context of institutional change.