Aug. 31 marked the 50th anniversary of Malaysia's Merdeka: independence after more than 400 years of colonialism. Malaysia's peaceful, non-violent struggle may not have received the attention that Mahatma Gandhi's did in India, but what Malaysia has accomplished since then is impressive -- and has much to teach the world, both about economics, and about how to construct a vibrant multiracial, multiethnic, multicultural society.
The numbers themselves say a lot. At independence, Malaysia was one of the poorest countries in the world. Though reliable data are hard to come by, its GDP (in purchasing power parity terms) was comparable to that of Honduras, and Egypt, and some 5 percent below that of Ghana. Now, Malaysia's income is 7.8 times that of Ghana, more than five times that of Honduras, and more than 2.5 times that of Egypt. In the global growth league tables, Malaysia is in the top tier, along with China, Taiwan, South Korea, and Thailand.
Moreover, the benefits of the growth have been shared. Hard-core poverty is set to be eliminated by 2010, with the overall poverty rate falling to 2.8 percent. Malaysia has succeeded in reducing income divides that separated ethnic groups, not by bringing the top down, but by bringing the bottom up.
Part of the country's success in reducing poverty reflects strong job creation. While unemployment is a problem in most of the world, Malaysia has been importing labor. In the 50 years since independence, 7.24 million jobs have been created, an increase of 261 percent, which would be equivalent to the creation of 105 million jobs in the US.
There were many reasons not to have expected Malaysia to be a success. As Malaysia was gaining its independence, the Nobel Prize winning economist Gunnar Myrdal wrote an influential book called Asian Drama, in which he predicted a bleak future for the region.
Malaysia is rich in natural resources. But, with few exceptions, such countries are afflicted with the so-called "natural resource curse": countries with an abundance of resources not only do not do as well as expected, but actually do worse than countries without such benefits. While natural resource wealth should make it easier to create a more egalitarian society, countries with more resources, on average, are marked by greater inequality.
Moreover, Malaysia's multiracial, multi-cultural society made it more vulnerable to civil strife, which has occurred in many other resource-rich countries, as one group tried to seize the wealth for itself. In many cases, minorities work hard to garner the fruits of this wealth for themselves, at the expense of the majority -- Bolivia, a rich country with poor people, comes to mind.
At independence, Malaysia also faced a communist insurgency. The "hearts and minds" of those in the countryside had to be won, and that meant bringing economic benefits and minimizing "collateral" damage to civilians -- an important lesson for the administration of US President George W. Bush in Iraq, if it would only listen to someone outside its closed circle.
And Malaysia had a third strike against it: for all the talk of the "white man's burden," the European powers did little to improve living standards in the countries they ruled. The dramatic decline in India's share of global GDP under Britain's rule, as Britain passed trade laws designed to benefit its textile producers at the expense of those in its colony, is the most visible example.
The colonial powers' divide-and-rule tactics enabled small populations in Europe to rule large numbers outside of Europe, pillaging natural resources while investing little in the physical, human and social capital necessary for an economically successful, democratic self-governing society. It has taken many of the former colonies decades to overcome this legacy.
How, then, does an economist account for Malaysia's success? Economically, Malaysia learned from its neighbors. Too many of the ex-colonies, rejecting their colonial heritage, turned to Russia and communism. Malaysia took different course, looking instead to the highly successful countries of East Asia. It invested in education and technology, pushed a high savings rate, enacted a strong and effective affirmative action program, and adopted sound macroeconomic policies.
Malaysia also recognized that success required an active role for government. It eschewed ideology, following or rejecting outsiders' advice on a pragmatic basis. Most tellingly, during the financial crisis of 1997, it did not adopt IMF policies -- and as a result had the shortest and shallowest downturn of any of the afflicted countries. When it re-emerged, it was not burdened with debt and bankrupt firms like so many of its neighbors.
This success was not only a matter of economics: had Malaysia followed the policies recommended by the IMF, it would have torn apart the social fabric created over the preceding decades.
Malaysia's success should be studied both by those looking for economic prosperity and those seeking to understand how people live together, not just with tolerance, but with respect and working together.
Joseph Stiglitz is a Nobel laureate in economics.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS