The Asian Miracle and Crisis
Rival Theories, the IMF Bailout and Policy Lessons
The high growth performance of a number of South-East Asian countries led to their being baptized 'miracle growth economies' by the World Bank. The following paper reviews the theories and stylised facts relating to the sudden
reversal in this miraculous growth saga. The reasons for the failure of the first phase of the IMF rescue package are examined and the need for the establishment of a new global financing architecture outlined.
The growth miracle of the Asia-5 economies (Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, South Korea and Thailand) was panegyrised and their policies were hailed as' a blueprint for emulation by developing economies in quest of rapid sustainable growth. 1
The
Asian economic crisis and the accompanying social
and economic turmoil has irreparably tarnished the
gloss of the Asian economic miracle, and triggered a
lively debate about the proximate causes of the crisis.
It has also highlighted the need to reform the IMF by
making it part of a more effective global financial
architecture that can respond to crises in a more
effective manner. The currency and economic crisis
that engulfed the Asia-5 economies in mid-1997
suddenly reversed the foreign capital inflows that had
fuelled the Asian growth miracle for nearly three
decades, causing the dramatic collapse of the growth
miracle and plunging the Asian economies into
recession.
This paper reviews the controversies as to whether
the Asian economic growth miracle was fuelled by
factor accumulation or total factor productivity
respectively, based on growth accounting and crosssection
productivity empirics. From the standpoint of
predicting the eruption of a financial crisis that would
cause a sudden collapse of the growth miracle, these
growth accounting empirics were deafening in their
silence.
We therefore seek analytical insights into the
emergence of the. crisis from rival currency crisis
models. These canonical currency crisis models focus
on weak macro-economic fundamentals or timeinconsistent
policy measures which undermine policy
credibility and therefore investor confidence as the