Four Asian Tigers | |||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A map showing the Four Asian Tigers Hong Kong Singapore South Korea Taiwan |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chinese name | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Traditional Chinese | 亞洲四小龍 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Simplified Chinese | 亚洲四小龙 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Literal meaning | Asia's Four Little Dragons | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Korean name | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Hangul | 아시아의 네 마리 용 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Literal meaning | Asia's four dragons | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Four Asian Tigers or Asian Dragons is a term used in reference to the highly developed economies of Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan. These nations and areas were notable for maintaining exceptionally high growth rates (in excess of 7 percent a year) and rapid industrialisation between the early 1960s and 1990s. By the 21st century, all four have developed into advanced and high-income economies, specializing in areas of competitive advantage. For example, Hong Kong and Singapore have become world-leading international financial centres, whereas South Korea and Taiwan are world leaders in manufacturing information technology. Their economic success stories have served as role models for many developing countries,[1][2][3] especially the Tiger Cub Economies.
The tigers experienced decades of supercharged growth based largely on industrial policies supporting exports to rich, industrialized nations. A world bank report generally credited neo-liberal policies with the responsibility of the boom, including manintinence of export-led trade regimes though it acknowledged some benefits from policies of ‘financial repression’, such as state-imposed below-market interest rates for loans to specific exporting industries. Various institutionalist analysts criticized the bank for overlooking a range of other state policies that facilitated growth, but that do not fit the tenets of neo-liberalism.[4] All the same, these economies enjoyed extremely high growth rates sustained over decades. Other common characteristics of the tigers included heavy government investment in education, non-democratic and relatively authoritarian political systems during the early years of development, high levels of U.S. bond holdings, and high public and private savings rates.[5]
The first major setback experienced by the tiger economies was the 1997 Asian financial crisis. While Singapore and Taiwan were relatively unscathed, South Korea underwent a major stock market crash brought on by high levels of non-performing corporate loans, while Hong Kong came under intense speculative attacks against its stock market and currency necessitating unprecedented market interventions by the Hong Kong Monetary Authority. In the years after the crisis, all four economies rebounded strongly. South Korea, the worst-hit of the tigers, has managed to triple its per capita GDP in dollar terms since 1997.
Contents |
Country or territory |
Area km² | Population | Population density per km² |
Human Development Index (2011) |
Capital |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Hong Kong | 1,104 | 7,108,100 | 6,348 | 0.898 (13th) | Hong Kong |
Singapore | 710 | 5,183,700 | 7,301 | 0.866 (26th) | Singapore |
South Korea | 100,210 | 48,580,000 | 485 | 0.897 (15th) | Seoul |
Taiwan | 36,191[6] | 23,214,620 | 641 | 0.868 (24th)[7] | Taipei |
Country or territory |
GDP nominal millions of USD (2010) |
GDP PPP millions of USD (2010) |
GDP nominal per capita USD (2010) |
GDP PPP per capita USD (2010) |
Trade millions of USD (2010) |
Exports millions of USD (2010) |
Imports millions of USD (2010) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Hong Kong | 224,459 | 327,232 | 31,514 | 45,944 | 825,600 | 388,600 | 437,000 |
Singapore | 222,699 | 292,829 | 43,117 | 56,694 | 668,800 | 358,400 | 310,400 |
South Korea | 1,014,482 | 1,466,125 | 20,756 | 29,997 | 886,700 | 464,300 | 422,400 |
Taiwan | 429,845 | 824,671 | 18,558 | 35,604 | 525,800 | 274,400 | 251,400 |
Country or territory |
Democracy Index (2011) |
Property rights index (2008) |
Press Freedom Index (2010) |
Corruption Perceptions Index (2011) |
Political Status |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Hong Kong | 5.92 | 7.7 | 10.75 | 8.4 | Partially Democratic SAR |
Singapore | 5.89 | 7.9 | 47.50 | 9.2 | Parliamentary Republic |
South Korea | 8.06 | 6.2 | 13.33 | 5.4 | Presidential Republic |
Taiwan | 7.46 | 6.5 | 14.50 | 6.1 | Semi-Presidential Republic |
Country or territory |
G20 | OECD | APEC | EAS | ASEAN |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Hong Kong | × | × | ○ | × | × |
Singapore | × | × | ○ | ○ | ○ |
South Korea | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ (APT) |
Taiwan | × | × | ○ | × | × |
|
|
|
|
|