skip to content
A Critical Evaluation of the Flying Geese Paradigm: the evolving framework of the model and its application to East Asian regional development and beyond: Een kritische evaluatie van het model van de vliegende ganzen: de ontwikkeling van het model en de toepassing op regionale ontwikkeling in Oost-Azië en daarbuiten Preview this item
ClosePreview this item
Checking...

A Critical Evaluation of the Flying Geese Paradigm: the evolving framework of the model and its application to East Asian regional development and beyond: Een kritische evaluatie van het model van de vliegende ganzen: de ontwikkeling van het model en de toepassing op regionale ontwikkeling in Oost-Azië en daarbuiten

Author: Shigehisa Kasahara
Publisher: Erasmus University Rotterdam 2019-12-19
Edition/Format: Book Book : English
Summary:
markdownabstractThe Flying Geese (FG) began with the original model in the 1930s delineating the catch-up process of a singular late industrializer, namely Japan, from the late 19th century, and has since evolved into a prototype development framework of collective catch-up process of national economies as a regional group (such as East Asia). It has also evolved as an intellectual guideline that early  Read more...
Rating:

(not yet rated) 0 with reviews - Be the first.

Find a copy online

Links to this item

Find a copy in the library

We were unable to get information about libraries that hold this item.

Details

Document Type: Book
All Authors / Contributors: Shigehisa Kasahara
ISBN: 978-90-6490-112-6
Language Note: English
Unique Identifier: 8514253571
Awards:

Abstract:

markdownabstractThe Flying Geese (FG) began with the original model in the 1930s delineating the catch-up process of a singular late industrializer, namely Japan, from the late 19th century, and has since evolved into a prototype development framework of collective catch-up process of national economies as a regional group (such as East Asia). It has also evolved as an intellectual guideline that early industrializers may deploy in their diplomatic discourse with late industrializers. This Asian model underlines the generally positive nature of Centre-Periphery interplay, which is in clear contrast with critical perspectives of the Latin American structuralist school. This dissertation addresses the FG paradigm by reconstructing its intellectual lineage by undertaking some primary archival research (in Japanese) from the prewar period, together with an extensive literature review of major scholastic works in the postwar period, particularly after the 1960s on the East Asian development performance. The thesis highlights how the evolutionary process has transformed many parts of the model, and critically discusses various conceptual problems associated with different versions of the model. The rise (and fall) of the model’s appeal, particularly as a regional development model for East Asia (and beyond), has been attributable to the varying degrees of intensity and zeal with which its proponents have advocated the model. The model has gone through a “subsided period” twice, first, after Japan’s defeat in World War II (WWII) (until the early 1960s), and second, after the burst of the country’s financial bubble in the early 1990s (until the 2000s). After each hiatus, nonetheless, the model has revived. The first revival (from the 1960s to the early 1990s) may be attributed to Japanese researchers and policy-makers dealing with Japan’s industrial reforms in the context of East Asian development, and the second revival (from the 2000s to the present) to new researchers on China’s industrialization and development diplomacy. The change of the FG proponents has also affected some aspects of the model, while keeping some of its core elements intact. The analysis in this thesis compares and contrasts the Japan-centric model and the China-centric model. It argues that whereas the Japan-centric model dealt with the national (domestic) and regional (East Asian) development processes in a sequential fashion, the China-centric model now deals with two processes in a very compressed fashion. In fact, the contemporary model admits the simultaneous occurrence of the “internal” industrial diffusion within China and the conventional “external” (cross-border) industrial diffusion. Furthermore, China’s overall development trajectory encompasses a much wider area than East Asia, as its need for large external resources and markets for its own development has obliged this emerging economy to widen the scope of its foreign economic policy. The geographical sphere to which the FG paradigm applies under China’s initiative is fluid, and certainly much greater than East Asia. As far as the functional validity of the FG paradigm for East Asia is concerned, the emergence of China in the dynamic context of the region (and beyond) is a mixed blessing. This is because the sustained function of the model depends, most importantly, on the existence of a hierarchy of development achievement – or technology gap – among constituent regional economies. Here, a major fear is “flattening” of the regional hierarchy, either due to the very slow pace of industrial upgradi

Reviews

User-contributed reviews
Retrieving GoodReads reviews...
Retrieving DOGObooks reviews...

Tags

Be the first.
Confirm this request

You may have already requested this item. Please select Ok if you would like to proceed with this request anyway.

Linked Data


\n\n

Primary Entity<\/h3>\n
<http:\/\/www.worldcat.org\/oclc\/8514253571<\/a>> # A Critical Evaluation of the Flying Geese Paradigm: the evolving framework of the model and its application to East Asian regional development and beyond: Een kritische evaluatie van het model van de vliegende ganzen: de ontwikkeling van het model en de toepassing op regionale ontwikkeling in Oost-Azi\u00EB en daarbuiten<\/span>\n\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0a \nschema:CreativeWork<\/a>, schema:Book<\/a> ;\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\nlibrary:oclcnum<\/a> \"8514253571<\/span>\" ;\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\nrdfs:comment<\/a> \"949 $l doctoralthesis<\/span>\" ;\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\nschema:about<\/a> <http:\/\/experiment.worldcat.org\/entity\/work\/data\/9939347045#Thing\/the_flying_geese_paradigm<\/a>> ; # the Flying Geese Paradigm<\/span>\n\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\nschema:creator<\/a> <http:\/\/experiment.worldcat.org\/entity\/work\/data\/9939347045#Person\/kasahara_shigehisa<\/a>> ; # Shigehisa Kasahara<\/span>\n\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\nschema:datePublished<\/a> \"2019\/12\/19<\/span>\" ;\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\nschema:description<\/a> \"markdownabstractThe Flying Geese (FG) began with the original model in the 1930s delineating the catch-up process of a singular late industrializer, namely Japan, from the late 19th century, and has since evolved into a prototype development framework of collective catch-up process of national economies as a regional group (such as East Asia). It has also evolved as an intellectual guideline that early industrializers may deploy in their diplomatic discourse with late industrializers. This Asian model underlines the generally positive nature of Centre-Periphery interplay, which is in clear contrast with critical perspectives of the Latin American structuralist school. This dissertation addresses the FG paradigm by reconstructing its intellectual lineage by undertaking some primary archival research (in Japanese) from the prewar period, together with an extensive literature review of major scholastic works in the postwar period, particularly after the 1960s on the East Asian development performance. The thesis highlights how the evolutionary process has transformed many parts of the model, and critically discusses various conceptual problems associated with different versions of the model. The rise (and fall) of the model\u2019s appeal, particularly as a regional development model for East Asia (and beyond), has been attributable to the varying degrees of intensity and zeal with which its proponents have advocated the model. The model has gone through a \u201Csubsided period\u201D twice, first, after Japan\u2019s defeat in World War II (WWII) (until the early 1960s), and second, after the burst of the country\u2019s financial bubble in the early 1990s (until the 2000s). After each hiatus, nonetheless, the model has revived. The first revival (from the 1960s to the early 1990s) may be attributed to Japanese researchers and policy-makers dealing with Japan\u2019s industrial reforms in the context of East Asian development, and the second revival (from the 2000s to the present) to new researchers on China\u2019s industrialization and development diplomacy. The change of the FG proponents has also affected some aspects of the model, while keeping some of its core elements intact. The analysis in this thesis compares and contrasts the Japan-centric model and the China-centric model. It argues that whereas the Japan-centric model dealt with the national (domestic) and regional (East Asian) development processes in a sequential fashion, the China-centric model now deals with two processes in a very compressed fashion. In fact, the contemporary model admits the simultaneous occurrence of the \u201Cinternal\u201D industrial diffusion within China and the conventional \u201Cexternal\u201D (cross-border) industrial diffusion. Furthermore, China\u2019s overall development trajectory encompasses a much wider area than East Asia, as its need for large external resources and markets for its own development has obliged this emerging economy to widen the scope of its foreign economic policy. The geographical sphere to which the FG paradigm applies under China\u2019s initiative is fluid, and certainly much greater than East Asia. As far as the functional validity of the FG paradigm for East Asia is concerned, the emergence of China in the dynamic context of the region (and beyond) is a mixed blessing. This is because the sustained function of the model depends, most importantly, on the existence of a hierarchy of development achievement \u2013 or technology gap \u2013 among constituent regional economies. Here, a major fear is \u201Cflattening\u201D of the regional hierarchy, either due to the very slow pace of industrial upgradi<\/span>\" ;\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\nschema:exampleOfWork<\/a> <http:\/\/worldcat.org\/entity\/work\/id\/9939347045<\/a>> ;\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\nschema:name<\/a> \"A Critical Evaluation of the Flying Geese Paradigm: the evolving framework of the model and its application to East Asian regional development and beyond: Een kritische evaluatie van het model van de vliegende ganzen: de ontwikkeling van het model en de toepassing op regionale ontwikkeling in Oost-Azi\u00EB en daarbuiten<\/span>\" ;\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\nschema:productID<\/a> \"8514253571<\/span>\" ;\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\nschema:publication<\/a> <http:\/\/www.worldcat.org\/title\/-\/oclc\/#PublicationEvent\/erasmus_university_rotterdam2019_12_19<\/a>> ;\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\nschema:publisher<\/a> <http:\/\/experiment.worldcat.org\/entity\/work\/data\/9939347045#Agent\/erasmus_university_rotterdam<\/a>> ; # Erasmus University Rotterdam<\/span>\n\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\nschema:url<\/a> <http:\/\/hdl.handle.net\/1765\/123636<\/a>> ;\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\nschema:workExample<\/a> <http:\/\/worldcat.org\/isbn\/978-90-6490-112-6<\/a>> ;\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\nwdrs:describedby<\/a> <http:\/\/www.worldcat.org\/title\/-\/oclc\/8514253571<\/a>> ;\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0.\n\n\n<\/div>\n\n

Related Entities<\/h3>\n
<http:\/\/experiment.worldcat.org\/entity\/work\/data\/9939347045#Agent\/erasmus_university_rotterdam<\/a>> # Erasmus University Rotterdam<\/span>\n\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0a \nbgn:Agent<\/a> ;\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\nschema:name<\/a> \"Erasmus University Rotterdam<\/span>\" ;\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0.\n\n\n<\/div>\n
<http:\/\/experiment.worldcat.org\/entity\/work\/data\/9939347045#Person\/kasahara_shigehisa<\/a>> # Shigehisa Kasahara<\/span>\n\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0a \nschema:Person<\/a> ;\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\nschema:name<\/a> \"Shigehisa Kasahara<\/span>\" ;\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0.\n\n\n<\/div>\n
<http:\/\/experiment.worldcat.org\/entity\/work\/data\/9939347045#Thing\/the_flying_geese_paradigm<\/a>> # the Flying Geese Paradigm<\/span>\n\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0a \nschema:Thing<\/a> ;\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\nschema:name<\/a> \"the Flying Geese Paradigm<\/span>\" ;\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0.\n\n\n<\/div>\n
<http:\/\/hdl.handle.net\/1765\/123636<\/a>>\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\nrdfs:comment<\/a> \"NARCIS<\/span>\" ;\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0.\n\n\n<\/div>\n
<http:\/\/worldcat.org\/isbn\/978-90-6490-112-6<\/a>>\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0a \nschema:ProductModel<\/a> ;\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\nschema:isbn<\/a> \"978-90-6490-112-6<\/span>\" ;\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0.\n\n\n<\/div>\n
<http:\/\/www.worldcat.org\/title\/-\/oclc\/#PublicationEvent\/erasmus_university_rotterdam2019_12_19<\/a>>\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0a \nschema:PublicationEvent<\/a> ;\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\nschema:organizer<\/a> <http:\/\/experiment.worldcat.org\/entity\/work\/data\/9939347045#Agent\/erasmus_university_rotterdam<\/a>> ; # Erasmus University Rotterdam<\/span>\n\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\nschema:startDate<\/a> \"2019-12-19<\/span>\" ;\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0.\n\n\n<\/div>\n
<http:\/\/www.worldcat.org\/title\/-\/oclc\/8514253571<\/a>>\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0a \ngenont:InformationResource<\/a>, genont:ContentTypeGenericResource<\/a> ;\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\nschema:about<\/a> <http:\/\/www.worldcat.org\/oclc\/8514253571<\/a>> ; # A Critical Evaluation of the Flying Geese Paradigm: the evolving framework of the model and its application to East Asian regional development and beyond: Een kritische evaluatie van het model van de vliegende ganzen: de ontwikkeling van het model en de toepassing op regionale ontwikkeling in Oost-Azi\u00EB en daarbuiten<\/span>\n\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\nschema:dateModified<\/a> \"2020-04-04<\/span>\" ;\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\nvoid:inDataset<\/a> <http:\/\/purl.oclc.org\/dataset\/narcis<\/a>> ;\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0.\n\n\n<\/div>\n\n

Content-negotiable representations<\/p>\n