東亞發展模式：經驗的探索

An East Asian Development Model:Empirical Explorations

本文的主旨在於探尋若干戰後東亞發展模式的經驗性解釋。整理並分析近年來相關的研究及論點之後，本文作者認為到目前為止，有關的個別論著似乎忽略下述兩個經驗性的問題：一是存於世界經濟體系動態與國內政府政策取向之間的聯接性，二是文化制約下的社會行為模式與鉅視國家層次的經濟動態之間的聯接性。簡言之，過去探討的重點都有專著一方的偏頗，而無法用較整體性的觀點來關照東亞發展經驗的問題。因此，本文認為要探索東亞在戰後發展的模式，必須從三個相互關連的脈絡（context）去著手，並分析它們彼此的關係如何影響並塑造東亞發展的特有模式。這三個重要的脈絡分別為：一、戰後世界政治經濟體系的運作；二、國家的結構及國家與社會的關係；以及三、文化因素。在分別探討上述脈絡對於東亞發展的經驗有著程度不等的影響之後，本文在結論中指出，這三個脈絡似乎也分別說明了‘天時’、‘地利’、‘人和’三大因素在製造東亞發展經驗的歷史過程中，所佔有的特殊作用。

This paper attempts to provide an empirical overview of the major issues brought about by recent studies of the East Asian development. Three main concerns are addressed. The first is the wider political economic context in which East Asia has progressed in the post-war era. The world economic system and its structural change, particularly the timing of its change at which East Asia was incorporated into the postwar America-dominated world system has been analyzed. It is assessed that the world economy's timing was indeed unique and the ways American hegemony has practiced after the war was also quite unique. The geopolitical considerations that provided some room of manoeuvre of dependence was even considerable in shaping the relationships between East Asia and the world political economy. Under the above world constraints provided by such timing and the unique nature of the role of the U. S. in the region, the state structure and state-society relationships were also quite different from one might have observed in other part of the developing world. Therefore, the strategic shift of state policy on economic development from one phase to another has been rather smooth. Capitalist development via industrialization was then much more successful. Those state development strategies that were put forward by the relatively autonomous and 'hard' states in East Asia have not been confronted by much severe oppositions from the local dominant classes. The most praised 'right' development policies were made possible largely by effective mobilization of local and foreign resources. The states in East Asia might have been also greatly blessed with certain cultural factors that served as 'comparative advantages' available for the economy to take off at the right moment. The 'trigger' function of the major cultural factors in the East Asian development process also has to be appreciated. As to what extent the three listed ingredients might have been combined together and in what order of importance should be a serious task lies before any serious social scientist to undertake.