Search

Economic growth of a country shall be measured with the help of several macroeconomic aggregate. The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) gains at most significance while estimating the economic growth of any country. Liberalisation of trade practices and globalisation are considered to be a key component contributing to the economic growth in several economies. Several literatures also prove the same. This paper attempts to study the causal link between FDI inflows, imports, exports, trade openness and GDP in the selected developing economies. According to the World Investment Report 2019 published by UNCTAD China, Hong Kong, Singapore, Brazil and India rank among the top 10 developing economies in terms of attracting high FDI inflows. For the purpose of the study the South Asian economies that is, China, Hong Kong, Singapore and India have been considered. The results reveal a long run association among the variables. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents the author's comments on the paper A Tale of Two Cities: Factor Accumulation and Technical Change in Hong Kong and Singapore, by Alwyn Young. The economies of Hong Kong, China and Singapore show similarities and differences. The economies of the two countries are highly open to international trade and have remarkably high ratios of exports and imports to gross domestic product (GDP). Both countries have been peaceful and politically stable for some time, although Singapore had difficulties in the 1960s and Hong Kong's prospects for 1997 are uncertain. They are nearly identical in age-adjusted fertility and mortality rates, although Hong Kong has somewhat higher average population growth because of great in-migration. Sharp contrasts show up for investment rates, the related behavior of consumption, the current-account balance, direct foreign investment and the role of government. Hong Kong's ratio of real gross investment to real GDP from 1960 to 1985 has been reasonably stable at around 21 percent. Singapore, in contrast, began at about 13 percent in the early 1960s, reached 21 percent between 1965 and 1969, and then soared to an average of 37 percent from 1970 to 1985.

This article presents the author's comments on the paper A Tale of Two Cities: Factor Accumulation and Technical Change in Hong Kong and Singapore, by Alwyn Young. As Young points out, there is a remarkable constancy of the capital-output ratio across countries; there is also a fairly stable capital-output ratio in advanced nations. The constancies have been well known for a long time and were in fact at the heart of the famous Solow conclusion that technological change, not capital accumulation its the source of most growth. Young finds that although the economies in Hong Kong, China and Singapore grew at similar rates, they accumulated capital at very different rates: Singapore invested much more heavily, in both physical and human capital. Singapore seems to have gained nothing at all from its high investment. A growth-accounting exercise produces the startling result that Singapore showed no technical progress at all. Both Singapore and Hong Kong are extremely open economies; Singapore in particular has an important share well over 100 percent, thanks to intermediate inputs. This means that measures of real output are essentially measures of real value added. Young suggests that Singapore has consistency pushed itself into technologies too far ahead of itself to benefit from learning by doing.

Since the end of the 1950s and the beginning of the 1960s, Asia has begun the race for economic supremacy at the global level. The so-called "Four Asian Tigers" are those countries which have continually experienced rapid and significant economic growth over the last half of century and comprise the high growth and income economies of Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea and Taiwan. These East Asian countries were largely considered as economic models since their growth rates of real per capita gross domestic product in the period 1960-1995 reached around 6% per year. As economic growth represents the outcome of specific issues, the paper aims to identify and present the main factors that contributed to the meteoric growth of the Asian Tigers by focusing on the economies of three of them, namely Singapore, Hong Kong, and South Korea. The methodological approach was based on a quantitative method. The paper argues that important lessons related to economic growth could be drawn from the valuable experience of these countries. Also, it identifies and presents some of the most important factors, such as the developmental state and the rapid industrialization, that highly contributed to their impressive economic growth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents author Alwyn Young's response to comments on his paper A Tale of Two Cities: Factor Accumulation and Technical Change in Hong Kong and Singapore. Responding to the Robert Barro, Young noted that all endogenous growth models are in a sense trivially linear in something. The AK model and other models of endogenous growth certainly do not yield the same predictions. Nouriel Roubini noted that because of the large volume of foreign investment, there is likely to be a substantial gap between gross domestic product and gross national product (GNP). Because much of the capital in Singapore is foreign owned, and, therefore, much of the income to factors of production flows abroad, the growth rate of GNP may better reflect the welfare of Singaporeans and may help to explain the relative low growth rate of consumption. Michael Bruno observed that subsidies to capital accumulation will cause the true elasticity of output with respect to capital to be less than its observed factor share. Because both implicit and explicit subsidies play such an important role in Singapore, Bruno wondered if one could estimate the true production elasticities. Young replied that he did not attempt to estimate the true elasticities.

This paper uses a case study of Hong Kong and Singapore, two of the fastest growing economies in the postwar world, to evaluate competing theories of economic growth. Although broadly similar in historical background and economic structure, the two economies are strikingly different along three dimensions of interest to growth theorists: (1) Hong Kong began the postwar era with a considerably better educated labor force; (2) the subsequent accumulation of human and physical capital in Singapore far exceeds that in Hong Kong; and (3) Singapore has experienced considerably more rapid structural change, as government targeting policies have propelled the economy into technologically advanced sectors. A total factor productivity growth analysis of the two economies reveals that while TFP growth in Hong Kong accounts for over two-thirds of the increase in GDP per capita during the 1970s and 1980s, total factor productivity growth in Singapore during the same period is next to nil. These results constitute strong evidence against linear models of growth that emphasize contemporaneous externalities in the accumulation of factors of production. The poor TFP performance of the Singaporean economy, when associated with its astounding rate of structural transformation, supports models that emphasize the constraints imposed by learning by doing on the evolution of comparative advantage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article conceptualizes the financial policy regimes of London, Hong Kong, Singapore and Shanghai, in the process of comparing and contrasting the sociopolitical relations that exist within the four cities. Based on the data collected from extensive field research, I identify four distinct financial policy regimes. First, a combination of low state intervention and influential industry actors in London reflects a financial policy regime that features dominant industry interest groups. While Hong Kong similarly features low state intervention, its industry actors are not influential. In contrast, financial sector development in Singapore features a ‘cocreation’ of financial policies by a close-knit network of state and industry actors. Lastly, Shanghai’s financial policy regime is largely dominated by state actors from both the central and local levels. By delineating and analyzing the policy regimes of the four international financial centers (IFCs), this article provides the first step toward a clearer and more critical understanding of how sociopolitical relations impact IFC development. In the process, it extends the analysis of IFCs beyond conventional neoliberal understandings of economic development. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The anti-corruption successes of Singapore and Hong Kong have encouraged the establishment of strong, centralized anti-corruption agencies across the globe. This study charts the emergence of anti-corruption agencies (ACAs), and then examines recent experiences with these bodies in developing countries. We propose a set of criteria for assessing and explaining their performance. The analysis applies within strict limits to those countries that have established the minimum political, legal, and socio-economic conditions for effective governance. Where these conditions are in place, success is possible. However, ACAs in poor and badly governed states are generally ineffective, if not actively harmful. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Biotechnology, the surging wave of economic development in the world, prompted Newly Industrialised Economies (NIEs) in Asia to emulate developed countries in biotechnology development. The stakes are however high and the uncertainty about return on investment has provoked a careful assessment of national scientific and technological strengths. With a focus on Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan, this paper reviews the current market conditions and key factors that may advantage the development of biotechnology industry in the NIEs. It is argued that co-evolution of scientific and technology capabilities are essential, and the NIEs will have to leverage their comparative advantages in technological capabilities and should focus on core competencies in the already locally established biotechnology areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hong Kong and Singapore are both typical administrative states with an efficient administration and a vibrant market, which had achieved rapid economic growth in the past decades. This article examines the trajectory of their state capacity, highlighting recent problems and challenges. Based on a conceptual framework that captures and links up four dimensions - namely polity, bureaucracy, economy and civil society - their commonalities and differences in response are discussed. Their experience should be of particular relevance to transitional authoritarian states in Asia such as China, which faces similar challenges to reform in the arenas of politics, administration, economics and society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents information on Hong Kong and Singapore. There are many similarities between Hong Kong and Singapore. They have both enjoyed high rates of economic growth over the past three decades, averaging six percent a year in real terms. The two have become known as "East Asian Tigers," having made the transition from poverty to newly industrialized economies in a relatively short time. Both started off as British colonies, with British legal and administrative systems, and made their living as trading ports serving their respective regions. Singapore has been an independent republic since 1965, Hong Kong was returned to China on July 1, 1997. Hong Kong and Singapore are both densely populated cities. Hong Kong and Singapore capture economic rent primarily by nationalizing land and leasing it out. In 1998, Hong Kong's land area of 1,095 square kilometers and her population of 6.6 million were both approximately twice those of Singapore. Owing to historical reasons, Hong Kong's land- tenure arrangements produce an effect comparable to that of straightforward land-value taxation.