Page 418 - The ISA Handbook in Contemporary Sociology
P. 418

9781412934633-Chap-26  1/10/09  8:57 AM  Page 389





                                            SINGAPORE’S DEVELOPMENT POLICIES                 389


                    ‘developmental state’ (see Castells, 1992;  strategies were either progressing too slowly,
                    Huff, 1995; Perry et al., 1997) – was able to  or had failed altogether (see Booth, 2004).
                    introduce these policies because of its political  These governments had observed the rapid
                    dominance within Singapore society. For many  growth of countries that had adopted FDI-
                    years, the People’s Action Party held total con-  oriented strategies. The exemplars were not
                    trol over Parliament (see Rodan, 1997).  only Singapore and Hong Kong, but also
                      Although Singapore lacked industrial  Ireland, Malta and Mexico (see World Bank,
                    experience, and did not have a sizable con-  1994). At the same time, there was an expo-
                    sumer market, many industrial transnational  nential growth in the volume of capital seek-
                    corporations set up production sites on the  ing to go ‘transnational’ (see Dicken, 1998).
                    island, particularly those that wanted to relo-  The electronics sector was the most domi-
                    cate lower value added production away  nant player in the global economy. Driven
                    from high wage areas such as the USA,   by intense competition between firms, corpo-
                    Western Europe and Japan.  Although the  rations began a global search for the most
                    state’s strategies were responsible for this  cost effective locations for production (see
                    relatively high inflow of FDI, it was also  Henderson, 1994). Even industrial enter-
                    important to note that Singapore was one of  prises from newly industrializing countries
                    the very few countries within Southeast Asia  such as South Korea and Taiwan were seek-
                    where American, European or Japanese com-  ing to relocate in cheaper production sites,
                    panies could locate production during that  adding to the growing volume of global FDI.
                    period (1970–1980) (Pereira, 2000). Countries  As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter,
                    such as Malaysia, Indonesia and  Thailand  there was also an ideology of ‘neo-liberalism’
                    were pursuing domestic import substitution  emerging from the USA and  Western
                    industrialization (ISI) strategies, which  Europe, where the political belief in ‘free
                    meant that national economic policies were  markets’ and ‘less statism’ became more
                    intent on protecting domestic firms from for-  significant (Sachs, 1999). This led some gov-
                    eign producers. Communist countries such as  ernments to lower economic barriers, not just
                    China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and North  for trading purposes but also to attract
                    Korea, and heavily pro-socialist countries  foreign investment.
                    such as India almost completely shut out  In the late 1970s, many governments of
                    FDI. Thus, during that period, Hong Kong –  developing economies began experimenting
                    not fully an independent country – and cer-  with FDI-oriented development strategies,
                    tain enclaves in  Taiwan and South Korea  usually through the establishment of Export-
                    were probably Singapore’s only serious com-  Processing Zones, Special Economic Zones,
                    petitors for FDI. The Philippines was gener-  or the Free  Trade Zones (see  World Bank,
                    ally open to FDI, but remained mainly an  1994).  These zones were specially desig-
                    agricultural economy (Booth, 2004).     nated areas or estates, where foreign capital
                    Singapore’s ability to attract FDI was aided,  would be permitted. Such zones were a strat-
                    therefore, by a relative lack of direct compe-  egy to take advantage of global production
                    tition in the region (Pereira, 2000: 430).  needs but still insulate the rest of the country
                                                            from foreign capital. Goods produced from
                                                            these zones could not be sold in the rest of
                                                            the country, thus still protecting domestic
                    Intense competition
                                                            industrial enterprises.  The main benefits of
                    By the 1980s, the political economy of Asia  these zones were that employment was
                    had changed dramatically. Many Asian gov-  generated (because industrial multinational
                    ernments had conceded that their domestically  corporations required labour), and that foreign
                    oriented import substitution industrialization  income was generated (based on the wages
   413   414   415   416   417   418   419   420   421   422   423