16 April 1995 For some time there is a very enlightening discussions on East Asian model(s) of development. The participants search for the root-causes of the economic progress in the region. I don't have answers to these questions, but I have some questions to clarify the issues. If we look at some countries in the region vis-a-vis the US, they all have significant improvement in their GDP per capita. China and Taiwan are excluded because of their membership status in UN and therefore lack of consistent data. GDP PER CAPITA ($) 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1992 United States 4,970 7,400 12,000 16,690 21,790 23,240 Japan 1,930 4,490 9,870 11,300 25,430 28,190 Hong Kong 900 2,160 5,210 6,230 11,490 15,360 Singapore 950 2,540 4,550 7,420 11,160 15,730 S. Korea 260 580 1,620 2,150 5,400 6,790 Malaysia 390 820 1,680 2,000 2,320 2,790 Percent of US Per Capita GDP 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1992 United States 100 100 100 100 100 100 Japan 38.8 60.7 82.3 67.7 116.7 121.3 Hong Kong 18.1 29.2 43.4 37.3 52.7 66.1 Singapore 19.1 34.3 37.9 44.5 51.2 67.7 S. Korea 5.2 7.8 13.5 12.9 24.8 29.2 Malaysia 7.8 11.1 14 12.0 10.6 12.0 Source: WORLD DEVELOPMENT REPORT, Various Years. Except Malaysia, all four countries have narrowed the income gap with the US. Is this what Mark Selden alludes: higher income, higher consumption, higher standard of living, higher life expectancy, etc.? Do we measure these characteristics from average figures, or do we also look at the distribution? Is economic development just per capita GDP growth? Or should we examine other variables, such as PQI (physical quality life index and its variations), HDI (human development index), access to sanitation, water, health care, books & newspapers, radio, TV, etc.? More or less every participant used the word "development" or "economic development" as synonymous to "economic growth" which is per capita GDP growth. Economic development is much broader concept, it has a socio-economic and political dimension. It is not just a higher standard of living for the few, but everybody's. Perhaps we should use John Gurley's "Maoist economic development" concept. Development means every one's rise to higher level, not only the elite's in the society. Is there evidence in these variables in China? Those who followed the accounts of William Hinton in MONTHLY REVIEW cannot agree with the conclusion that Mark asserted in his first posting. The evidence that Hinton has presented is increasing income gap among people, communes and regions in China. I am not a China (or East-Asia) "expert." I cannot empirically verify or refute the claims made in the discussions. But those discussions raise questions in my mind. 1. It seems that there is a confusion between "short-term" and "long-term" statistical results. Economic development is not only broader term but also it is a long term sustainable phenomenon. Some countries in the region sustained economic growth for several decades, but the evidence in China is not warranted at the moment. We should not rush to quick judgment as we have done for some countries elsewhere. Brazil was a case in point. After the junta toppled the Goulard government in the 1960s, Brazil was viewed as a "model" for less developed countries and viewed as a dynamic NIC. And look at it now. 2. I don't believe we now know what really triggers economic development. So, let us not put forward grandiose theories before we know more and understand the nature of economic development, not economic growth. Let me give an example by re-telling a story an Iranian colleague told me. When he was returning from a trip to Iran, at Teheran airport he was harassed and humiliated by a baggage checker and passport controller. Baggage checker told him that he had excess baggage and they cannot be checked in. He tried to reason and talk to the person, but no avail. He sweated in warm and crowded airport. This created another problem. So he left one baggage with books there to proceed to passport control, where the officer told him that his passport is damp (of course, it was wet from sweat, he could have wetted his pants too) and he cannot process it. The officer told my colleague that he looked "suspicious" and nervous. And he has to investigate his situation and until that time he has to wait. He was tormented there by this "small" man. And of course, he missed the plane. Next day he boarded airplane without any hassle and came to Istanbul. While he was waiting for his connection at the airport a woman security officer approached him and asked his identification and other documents, because she told him that he looked "suspicious". She checked his passport and wallet and found $2000. She began questioning from where he got the money. Do you want me to tell you more stories of "underdevelopment"? The arbitrary power that those individuals have is the invisible facets of underdevelopment. Their words are the rule of law over there and you cannot question the arbitrary power they have. You can multiply these incidences to show how they can cumulatively block economic development (even though there may be so much external capital infusion). (Mexico is a case in point. As soon as there is capital inflow, there is also outflow for equal amount.) There are many, many such things and stories. You see them by living. The intricacy of these incidences is obstacle to economic development. How do you eradicate them? How can you measure these intangibles, which are crucial for the assessment of economic development? How do we quantify them? Does GDP per capita growth or a rise in average life expectancy tell us about these intangible barriers? 3. I have also noticed for lack of class analysis in our discussions of East Asia. Economic development means a change in economic and political power. Do we see any evidence of empowered masses in the region? Does the working class majority control the means of production and distribution and their use for themselves? 4. I always thought that economic development cannot occur in Third World capitalist societies. Its occurrence is a negation to socialism. If economic development can occur in capitalism or if we can create economic development with capitalist class, then why do we struggle for socialism? If capitalism manages economic development without impoverishing the majority, then why do we fight against capitalism? Remember friends! I am not talking economic growth (per capita GDP growth) from Badlands in North Dakota. I am talking economic development. Economic development occurs when there is no impoverishment of the many. Development occurs when the powerless becomes powerful. Have we forgotten Marx's quote: "There must me something rotten in the very core of a social system which increases its wealth without diminishing its misery, and increases in crime even more rapidly than in numbers." That is what we fight for socialism: to diminish the misery of the majority as we increase the total wealth. P.S. For economic development to occur, the internal conditions conducive to development must be ready. One of these conditions is that there must not be very unequal property distribution, particularly land. The post-war progress that Japan, S. Korea and Taiwan have had in economic sphere is partly attributable to the limitation imposed on land ownership. In struggle for socialism, Fikret Ceyhun e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]