Economists attempting to understand the sources of East Asia’s growth tend to fall in 2 camps: Fundamentalists and Assimilationists.
Fundamentalists (e.g. Paul Krugman): Growth was mainly input driven. The efficient allocation of resources played a big part in the success story. Input driven growth is not sustainable because there are limits to efficient resource allocation and because incremental growth in inputs is subject to diminishing returns. What model can we use to explain this?
Assimilationists (e.g. Paul Romer): Growth was mainly driven by the acquisition and mastery of technology and the capacity to put ideas into practice. What model can we use to explain this?