The Asian success story<\/p>\n
The following is a revised paper by Budiawan presented at a
\nrecent workshop on Contemporary Southeast Asia and its Studies,
\nheld by the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies & Southeast
\nAsian Studies Program, National University of Singapore.<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): Recently there has been a boom of publications
\non industrializing and newly industrialized Asia, such as
\nRobison's and Goodman's New Rich in Asia (1996), Rodan's
\nPolitical Oppositions in Industrializing Asia (1996), Robison's
\nPathways to Asia (1996), Hewison's, Robison's and Rodan's
\nSoutheast Asia in the 1990s (1993), Neher's and Marlay's
\nDemocracy and Development in Southeast Asia (1995) and Godement's
\nThe New Asian Renaissance (1997).<\/p>\n
It seems that Asia has come out of an exotic and mysterious
\notherness in amazement. This was due to the looming economic
\ndominance of newly industrialized countries (NICs) in Asia since
\nestablished industrialized nations lost their grip on global
\neconomic growth.<\/p>\n
Departing from such an amazement, it is not surprising that
\nthese studies have focused on "the success story" of newly
\nindustrialized Asia. In addition to unraveling "the secret keys"
\nof the success story, these studies have aimed to scrutinize the
\npossible transformation to a liberal democracy in the late
\nindustrializing\/newly industrialized Asia.<\/p>\n
It seems that the hidden agenda of such studies is to prove
\nwhether what has been happening in Asia is in line with the
\nstandardized narrative of the history of the industrialized West.
\nSuch studies do and will reaffirm the position of the West as the
\ncenter for looking at the world. This might be a form of
\ncontinuing the Western imperialism of knowledge.<\/p>\n
Under imperialism, the research agenda which should be the top
\npriority is often neglected. For the sake of corresponding with
\nthe history of the West, issues which may be crucial for the
\nmajority of Asians might go beyond the academic concern. In light
\nof crucial issues which have been ignored, is the emergence of
\nthe new poor or the newly marginalized, i.e. those who are
\ndislocated and displaced by the capitalist process of
\nindustrialization. This constitutes the other side of "the
\nsuccess story" of (late) industrializing Asia.<\/p>\n
The emergence of the new poor or the newly
\npauperized\/marginalized seem to be an inevitable phenomenon in
\nthe capitalist mode of industrialization, since capitalism is
\nalways competitive thereby creating winners and losers. In the
\nWest, an evolutionary process of capitalism means the
\nsustainability of those who are driven out from the arena is
\naccommodated by the state. This is what is called the "welfare
\nstate system".<\/p>\n
Such a system is absent in industrializing\/newly
\nindustrialized Asia. This has been perceived as a conducive
\nfactor of their economic success. In the West, this system has
\nbeen considered a serious obstacle for sustaining economic power.
\nWho then is responsible for the sustainability of the new poor in
\nindustrializing\/newly industrialized Asia? How do they sustain
\n(and even develop) themselves? What factors have enabled them to
\ndo so?<\/p>\n
There has been a phenomenon in industrializing Asia, which
\nmight not have happened in the capitalist West: the emergence of
\nthe large informal sector. Studies have proven that the informal
\nsector has a flexible capability in absorbing the number of the
\nun(der)employed so that in Third World countries this has been
\nregarded as "a saving float" of the new poor. Even in Peru, the
\ninformal sector has turned into "a shadow economy". The informal
\nsector has become a kind of subsystem within the macrosystem.<\/p>\n
There have been abundant studies on the flexible capability of
\nthe informal sector in the Third World. This has had some
\npolitical implications, including a strong recommendation to the
\nstate to tolerate the existence of the informal sector.<\/p>\n
But there is one part of the informal sector which has not
\nbeen studied in depth: the sociocultural factors which give it
\nflexible capability. How do sociocultural factors -- dealing with
\nsocial relations and networks -- organize themselves within those
\nabsorbed in the informal sector as well as cultural values
\nsocialized within this underclass? This concept was popularized
\nby William J. Wilson (Wright 1993) and refers to "a class without
\nmarketable skills and with very weak attachments to the labor
\nforce". As a result, "they are oppressed but not exploited within
\ncapitalist production".<\/p>\n
It is now clear that the focus of such research agenda is to
\nstudy the sustaining power of the newly marginalized\/pauperized,
\nparticularly in (late) industrializing Asia, through a case study
\nof the informal sector in some urban areas within the region.<\/p>\n
This study might have some "theoretical" implications such as
\nquestioning the dominant theory of the urban conflict in
\nindustrializing nations in which the underclass is considered a
\npotential threat to social order; questioning the conventional
\ntheory of social transformation to democracy which perceives the
\nmiddle-class as the agent of change and questioning the theory of
\nglobalization which assumes that economic globalization through
\nthe massive homogenization of production and consumption would
\ndrive away the idea of a people's economy.<\/p>\n
Through such a research agenda, it is expected that the recent
\nphenomena of (late) industrializing\/newly industrialized Asia
\nwill be studied from within with its own looking glass.<\/p>\n
The writer teaches Political Economy of Development at the
\nFaculty of Social and Political Sciences, Atma Jaya University,
\nYogyakarta.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/the-asian-success-story-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}