Analysis of government strategies to achieve industrial competitiveness: A comparative case study of Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and China

The desire to understand the reasons behind high economic growth and increased manufacturing exports in East Asian countries has generated considerable debate and study of the strategies employed by East Asian governments. This study explores a general claim that there exists an Asian Model, typified by the Japanese government's strategy since the end of WWII to 1980, which has been followed by other East Asian governments to achieve remarkable economic performance. The Asian Model is characterized by strategies to promote high savings, high investment, education, industrial targeting, exports, and protection of home markets and industries. This dissertation compares and contrasts government strategies adopted by Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and China. The Wheel-Spokes Model, developed by the author, is used as an analytical framework to conduct the comparative case study. It comprises six dimensions: industrial structure, investment, human resources, technology, market, and timing. This study reveals that there are similarities but significant differences in strategies adopted by these four governments to pursue national industrial competitiveness. The study also finds that there is no single Asian Model followed by the case-study governments. Each government's strategies were unique to select industries and support a certain industry structure, open or close markets to foreign capital, target the level of technology, prepare human resources, set up market protection, and choose strategic timing to build its industrial competitiveness. These differences reflect public policy preferences by the case governments, and they lead to a different industrial strength and level of competitiveness for each case country. The study recognizes the need for balance and consistency among the six major strategy areas represented by each dimension of the Wheel-Spokes Model in government strategy making. It makes recommendations for public policy initiatives and highlights the value of comparative studies in public policy and administration.