COVID-19 Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong: they have a lot to teach us

These countries have achieved impressive results in managing the COVID-19 crisis because they are industrialized nations. Their absolutely remarkable story can be a source of inspiration to others.

On various fronts, these countries have a similar story to tell. With the onset of COVID-19, they were all able to control the epidemic with an entirely appropriate response.  The media – western in particular – were quick to explain that what helped these countries was the fact that they had adopted masks, that mask-wearing was part of the culture, that these countries are authoritarian in nature, etc. These explanations are mostly stereotypes. The reality is quite different.

These four countries (the Special Administrative Region of China since 1997, in the case of Hong Kong) made history in the 1960s because they were the first to industrialize following what was called the industrial revolution in Europe at the end of the 18th century. This is also why they were designated Newly Industrialized Countries.

First and foremost, these countries were able to respond effectively to COVID-19 precisely because they are industrialized, meaning they have the necessary industrial, and by extension health-care infrastructure to take the necessary actions. They also adopted appropriate strategies to control the epidemic: containment, testing, tracing, masking, etc.

The question that remains is how these countries were able to rise to the level of industrialized nations, a status until then monopolized by Europe and its extensions in North America (United States and Canada) and Oceania (Australia and New Zealand).

To answer this question, we must again call upon history and go back 60 years. In the 1960s, these countries were considered underdeveloped. How did they manage to accomplish this feat in just half a century, a flash in historical terms? To properly measure the scale of what happened, let's take just a few examples.

Korea: At the end of the 1960s, Korea emerged ravaged and divided from the Second Inter-Imperial War - aka "Second World War" and which involved Germany, Italy, Japan, Turkey, Great Britain, France, United States, Soviet Union - and was considered to be a poor country, with a per-capita GDP of $158. In 2018, GDP per capita rose to $39,700, a 250 percent increase! It became the world's 8th economic power in terms of GNP in 1996 and the 12th economic power in 2019, with a GDP of $44,740 per capita (estimate, in terms of purchasing power parity-PPP), which is higher than that of many countries following the first wave of industrialization.

Taiwan: This country's GDP per capita rose from $900 in 1950 to $52,000 in 2018 (an increase by a factor of more than 51), placing it 19th in the world in terms of GDP per capita measured by PPP. Taiwan is the most advanced country in the world in microchip technology.

Singapore: In 1965, when it achieved forced independence (leaving Malaysia), Singapore's per capita GDP was around $500. It rose to $98,800 in 2018 in terms of PPP, an almost 200-fold increase!

Hong Kong: GDP per capita went from $420 in 1960 to $48,000 in 2018, a 114-fold increase.

The GDP per capita of these countries was multiplied by a factor of up to 250! There is no known equivalent example in economic history.

How was this made possible?  These countries pursued different policies over time that would be lengthy to review. Here is a short list for the record: agriculture for export, light industries, import substitution industries, export industries, textiles, electronics, steel, petrochemicals, trade, finance, etc.

What about the political and institutional environment in these countries? Their political regimes were anything but democratic. In South Korea, coups allowed the military to remain in power for several decades, essentially until 1987. Taiwan was under military-imposed martial law from 1949 to 1987. Singapore and Hong  Kong had civilian governments but were well known for their authoritarianism.

In my view, a number of conclusions can be drawn:

1. Who should be in charge of economic development?  These countries have learnt that this process cannot be left to the whim of events and the actors of the day, as happened in Europe to a certain degree. It took more than two centuries for economic development to show tangible results in Europe, in terms of improved living conditions. These four countries or territories realized they could not wait two centuries; they had to act quickly. The only option was and remains to be proactive in economic development. If the currently "underdeveloped" countries wish to achieve similar results, this process must be deliberate and planned and time is of the essence.

2. Which economic policy should be implemented?  These countries understood early on that industrialization was the only way forward, to enable solid structures and the means to control their future. Apart from that, each sector must be considered in terms of its contribution to economic development based on specific existing conditions.

3. With regard to the institutional environment, democracy is not a precondition. History has shown that democracy is a consequence of economic development: the better the standard of living of the population, the more the call for political democratization will rise. What really matters is a sufficiently strong and stable regime capable of leading the country down the path of economic development.

4. But the most important lesson, to my mind, is about Vision and How to Make it Happen. The leaders of these countries had a clear vision of the objectives they were seeking and harnessed all means at their disposal to realize the desired results. They demonstrated remarkable autonomy, although to varying degrees. Vision and Autonomy are key factors that sum up the experience of these nations, referred to as newly industrialized countries. This experience can be an inspiration for other countries in similar situations.

 Benyounès