英语论文网

under the iron rule of the leaders, such as Mahatir and Marcos. Thus, already in 1970, the employment rates of agriculture in Malaysia and the Philippines were slightly over 50%. And although the Philippines show slow changes regarding the employment rate in the agriculture, Malaysia ran ahead of the other countries. Following Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines and finally Thailand stepped on the track of industrialization.

As can be imagined by the Table 4.7, this happened in the 1970s and especially in between 1980s and 1990s, which gave the title of “flying geese” to the developing countries in Asia. And the employment rates in industrial sphere and service sector rose up rapidly. Surely it seemed to be a miracle. These countries were also given other names such as “Confucian capitalism”, “Asian tigers”, “little dragons behind the dragon head”, etc. And some cultural sociologists took notice on what they called the “Asian values”. But after the financial crisis of 1997, such notions have been disappeared.

But while leading groups in Asia were enjoying the poisonous taste of industrialization and miraculous economic growth, the tides of globalization and the new waves of so-called computerization process rushed in East Asia. And at last in 1997, the bubble suddenly burst in Southeast Asia. In retrospect, growing amounts of foreign capital were directed towards emerging Asia. At 33 billion dollars in 1994, the four ASEAN emerging economies (Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand) still received no more foreign capital under various forms (direct investment, loans, bonds and equity) than China took in foreign direct investment alone for the same year (Godement, 49). To be sure, there was too much head on the beer. Although East and Southeast Asian countries like the sausage factory, in which all the material factors were put into the chitterlings, made every efforts to rise up in the world economy, the chitterlings, all of a sudden, burst out. Certainly, East Asian economies were fragile and vulnerable to changing environment, as indicated by Paul Krugman and others. According to Krugman, there was productivity stagnation in East and Southeast Asia. It means that only the factor inputs without productivity can explain the frustration of those countries.

While East Asian countries were at a loss in front of the flag of neo-liberalism, short-term loans borrowed were withdrawn all together to the hands of western financial capitalists. And as a result of financial attack of casino capitalism, some of the leading groups in East Asia fell down to the ground from heaven, and should remain under the frustrated situations. The pains were so strong that all the Asians should shrink their bodies. Since then, East Asian countries temporarily lost their economic sovereignties. Due to the shortage of US Dollars, “the so-called sausage factories” should shut down and lock their door handles. Table 4.11 shows the disaster result of economic stagnations. Regarding the average rate of employment, South Korea should experience 6% reduction in their total employment, and in case of Thailand, 2% reduction was recorded just one year after the 1997 crisis. Of course, Indonesia seemed to be taken any damages from the crisis, regarding at least the total amount of employment. But it simply reflects the fact that the level of industrialization in Indonesia was somewhat inferior to those in South Korea an