!"#$!$%$&'()'*&+&,(-!".'&/("(0!&#'

!*&'*123422156'-789:2'7:9'8:9;1<167:='<7>9:17;2'31:34;7>9?''

>5'2>1<4;7>9'?1234221562'76?'3:1>137;'35<<96>2

' ' ' ' '

'

Keywords: Flying Geese Model, East Asia

JEL classification: O10, F19, N75

* Researcher, Economic Integration Studies Group, Inter-disciplinary Studies Center,

IDE (kumagai@ide.go.jp)

!*&'*!#/%##!("'-@-&A'"5B'CDE

A Journey Through the Secret History of

the Flying Geese Model

Satoru KUMAGAI*

June 2008

Abstract

Economic development in East Asia is characterized by the sequential “take-off” of member

countries. This multi-tiered economic development in East Asia is often termed the “Flying

Geese” pattern of economic development. However, some authors argue that the traditional

Flying Geese pattern is not applicable to some industries such as electronics. Here, Japan

may no longer be the sole “leading goose”, with “followers” such as China (now producing

cutting-edge products) having “caught-up”. Does this mean that the Flying Geese Model has

become “obsolete” in the 21st century? The main objective of this paper is to clarify the two

concepts of Flying Geese which now seem confused: (1) application of the pattern of

economic development in one specific country, and (2) application of the pattern of

economic development to multiple countries in sequence. This paper provides validity

checks of Flying Geese Models after differentiating these two concepts more clearly.

The Institute of Developing Economies (IDE) is a semigovernmental,

nonpartisan, nonprofit research institute, founded in 1958. The Institute

merged with the Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO) on July 1, 1998.''

The Institute conducts basic and comprehensive studies on economic and

related affairs in all developing countries and regions, including Asia, the

Middle East, Africa, Latin America, Oceania, and Eastern Europe.

The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s). Publication does

not imply endorsement by the Institute of Developing Economies of any of the views

expressed within.

INSTITUTE OF DEVELOPING ECONOMIES (IDE), JETRO

3-2-2, WAKABA, MIHAMA-KU, CHIBA-SHI

CHIBA 261-8545, JAPAN

©2008 by Institute of Developing Economies, JETRO

No part of this publication may be reproduced without the prior permission of the

IDE-JETRO.

A Journey Through the Secret History of the Flying Geese Model

Satoru KUMAGAI*

Abstract

Economic development in East Asia is characterized by the sequential “take-off”

of member countries. This multi-tiered economic development in East Asia is often

termed the “Flying Geese” pattern of economic development. However, some authors

argue that the traditional Flying Geese pattern is not applicable to some industries such

as electronics. Here, Japan may no longer be the sole “leading goose”, with “followers”

such as China (now producing cutting-edge products) having “caught-up”. Does this

mean that the Flying Geese Model has become “obsolete” in the 21st century? The main

objective of this paper is to clarify the two concepts of Flying Geese which now seem

confused: (1) application of the pattern of economic development in one specific

country, and (2) application of the pattern of economic development to multiple

countries in sequence. This paper provides validity checks of Flying Geese Models after

differentiating these two concepts more clearly.

!"Researcher, Economic Integration Studies Group, Inter-disciplinary Studies Center, IDE

(kumagai@ide.go.jp)"

1 Introduction

Economic development in East Asia is characterized by the sequential “take-off”

of member countries. First, Japan succeeded in modernizing its economy after the Meiji

Restoration during the latter half of the 19th century. Japan continued to develop its

economy for a century, despite the interruption by World War II, and became virtually

the sole developed country in Asia in the 1960’s.

The second wave of industrialization in East Asia started in the Asian NIE’s or

the “four tigers” (Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong, and Singapore) during the 1960’s,

and leading ASEAN countries (Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines, and Indonesia) then

followed.

The third wave of industrialization in East Asia in the 1990’s was led by China

after the Economic Opening of 1994. India and some late arriving ASEAN countries

such as Vietnam then followed.

This multi-tiered economic development in East Asia is often termed the Flying

Geese pattern of economic development. Akamatsu (1935, 1937, 1962) originally

developed the concept of Flying Geese. Most notably, Kojima (1960, 1970, 1995) then

elaborated on the concept and expanded it further.

Some authors argue that the traditional Flying Geese pattern is not applicable to

some industries such as electronics. In this industry, Japan is no longer the sole “leading

goose”, but some followers like China (now producing cutting-edge products) have

caught up. Does this mean that the Flying Geese Model has become obsolete in the 21st

century?

In this paper, the historical development of the Flying Geese Model and its

variants are re-introduced and assessed relative to empirical quantitative data to

determine whether or not the model and variants are still valid. This paper thus has two

objectives: One is to clarify two concepts of the Flying Geese that seem now to be

confused. One concept involves the application of the pattern of economic development

in one specific country, and the other involves application of the pattern of economic

development in multiple countries in sequence. Because of the confusion of these two

concepts, the debate on the validity of the Flying Geese Model is also quite confused.

Thus, the second objective of the paper is to provide validity checks of Flying Geese

Models after differentiating the two concepts more clearly.

The paper is structured as follows: The original Akamatsu Flying Geese Model

and its variant are introduced in Chapter 2. Empirical evidence is then presented in

Chapter 3 to check the validity of these models. Chapter 4 concludes the paper by

revisiting the original Akamatsu Flying Geese model and interpreted in the context of

East Asia in the 21st century

2 The Flying Geese Model

Kojima (2000, p. 385) explains the Flying Geese Model by citing the famous

speech of Sabro Okita, an economist and a former foreign minister of Japan:

The division of labor in the Pacific region has aptly been called the FG1

pattern of development. (. . .) Traditionally, there have been two patterns or

types of international division of labor: the vertical division of labor such as

prevailed in the 19th century to define relations between the industrialized

country and the resource-supplying country or between the suzerain and the

colony; and the horizontal division of labor typified by the EEC with its trade

in manufactures among industrialized countries, often among countries at the

same stage of development and sharing a common culture. By contrast with

both of these types, the FG pattern represents a special kind of dynamism. In

the Pacific region, for example, the United States developed first as the lead

country. Beginning in the late 19th century, Japan began to play catch-up

development in the non-durable consumer goods, durable consumer goods,

and capital goods sectors in that order. Now the Asian NICs and the ASEAN

countries are following in Japan’s footsteps. (. . .) Because there is such great

variety in the Asian nations stages of development, natural resource

endowments, and cultural, religious, and historical heritages, economic

integration on the EEC model is clearly out of the question. Yet it is precisely

this diversity that works to facilitate the FG pattern of shared development as

each is able to take advantage of its distinctiveness to develop with a

supportive division of labor (Okita, 1985, p. 21).

# FG stands for Flying Geese.

Okita’s speech triggered much interest in the Flying Geese Model and it seems

East Asia had actually developed as Okita described (at least before the Asian Currency

Crisis in 1997-1998). The Flying Geese pattern of economic development, as described

by Okita, may be seen in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Famous Flying Geese Pattern of Economic Development in East Asia

Okita’s description was based on Akamatsu (1962) and applied to the actual

economic situation in East Asia around the middle 1980’s. On the other hand, the

original Flying Geese Model in Akamatsu (1935, 1937) is significantly different from

this version. There are actually two significantly different concepts of the Flying Geese

Model. One is applied to the pattern of economic development in one specific country,

and the other is applied to the pattern of economic development of multiple countries in

sequence.2

2Aside from the original Akamatsu (1935, 1937, 1962) articles, Kojima (2000) provides the most

comprehensive review of the variants of the Flying Geese Model. This chapter is primarily based on the

literature of these two scholars.

2.1 One-Country Model

The basic pattern of Flying Geese appeared in Akamatsu (1935, 1937) and is

named here as the "one-country" model. There are two versions of the one-country

model. One is the “one-country - one-product” model and the other is the “one-country

- multi-product” model.

2.1.1. One-country one-product model

The “One-country - one-product” model explains a historical pattern of the

development of an industry in a country from the viewpoint of import, export, and

production of one specific product. Akamatsu explained this basic pattern as follows:

Wild geese fly in orderly ranks forming an inverse V, just as airplanes fly in

formation. This flying pattern of wild geese is metaphorically applied to the

below figured three time-series curves each denoting import, domestic

production, and export of the manufactured goods in less-advanced countries

(Akamatsu 1962, p. 11).

The figure that Akamatsu mentioned above is just like Figure 2. It differs from the

“flying geese” described by Okita (Figure 1), but this is the origin of the Flying Geese

pattern of economic development3. Akamatsu (1962, p. 12) called this the “fundamental

wild-geese-flying pattern.”

3It is quite confusing to refer to both the original one-country version and the famous multi-country

version as “Flying Geese.”

Figure 2: Akamatsu’s “Fundamental” Flying Geese Pattern of Economic

Development

Akamatsu (ibid) explained the “fundamental pattern” of the Flying Geese Model in

the following four stages:

Stage 1: Import of manufactured consumer goods begins.

Stage 2: Domestic industry begins production of previously imported manufactured

consumer goods while importing capital goods to manufacture those

consumer goods.

Stage 3: Domestic industry begins exporting manufactured consumer goods.

Stage 4: The consumer goods industry catches up with similar industries in

developed countries. Export of the consumer goods begins to decline, and

capital goods used in production of the consumer goods are exported.4

4Akamatsu mentions “multi-industry” ingredients in the fourth stage, but this concept is dealt with

separately in the next subsection for simplicity.

Akamatsu’s “fundamental” model is based on the case of Japan’s industrial

development, specifically industries involving cotton yarn and wool. He provides

statistical evidence to support the Flying Geese pattern and completes a picture of

import, production, and export in Japan’s cotton yarn and wool industries from the

1860’s to the 1930’s (Akamatsu 1935, 1937).

2.1.2. One-country multi-product model

Akamatsu expanded the one-country - one-product model to the one-country -

multi-product model in his first paper on the Flying Geese Model (Akamatsu 1935). He

compared the above one-country - one-product pattern of industrial development

between the cotton yarn industry and the wool industry relative to final goods,

intermediate goods, and capital goods within each industry. He found that there are

sequential patterns in economic development both between and within industries.

Later, he generalized this pattern indicating that “the time for the curves of

domestic production and export to go beyond that of import will come earlier in crude

goods and later in refined goods, and similarly, earlier in consumer goods and later in

capital goods” (Akamatsu 1962, p. 11).

Figure 3 is based on the above description5. The vertical axis is the “net export

ratio” of goods instead of the three lines of import, production, and export found in

Figure 2. This may be called the “Flying Fish” diagram of industrial development; the

inverse-V shape crosses the horizontal axis twice, metaphorically just like flying fish

jumping from the surface of the sea and then sinking below again.

$"Kosai and Tran (1994) also explain the Flying Geese Model based on similar figures to those in Figure

3. They set the vertical axis as the “production/consumption ratio.” Kwan (2002) sets it as

“competitiveness.”

Figure 3: Flying Fish Diagram of Industrial Development for a Country

2.1.3 Mechanism behind the one-country - multi-product model

One problem of the Flying Geese Model relates to the fact that Akamatsu did

not explain the mechanism behind the pattern using terminology of neo-classical

economics. He referred to his model as “a historical theory” (Akamatsu 1962, p. 11)."

Kojima (1960) offered the explanation that the accumulation of capital (the

Heckscher-Ohlin factor) is the fundamental driving force of the Flying Geese Model.

Kojima (2000) further mentioned the Ricardian advantage by learning-by-doing and

economies of scale as a driving force.

2.2 Multi-Country Model

2.2.1. Multi-country - multi-product model

While the Akamatsu model focused on the industrial development of a country,

the theory was fundamentally structured around the existence of countries that are in

different development stages. Thus, the Flying Geese Model can naturally be extended

to a multi-country model. He explicitly proposed a multi-country model as

“Development of Advanced and Less-Advanced Countries in a Wild-Geese-Flying

Pattern” (1962, p. 17). This multi-country model, as in Figure 1, is now well known as

“The Flying Geese Model” as though it were the ultimate such model.

2.2.2. Mechanism behind multi-country - multi-product model

Actually, Akamatsu’s Flying Geese model was a building block for his larger

theory of the historical development of the world economy, driven by country based

iterant “heteronization” and “homogenization.” The theory is meticulous but descriptive

(see Akamatsu 1962) and not integreted into the theories of mainstream international

economics. Later, Fujita and Mori (1999) tried to reproduce the multi-country -

multi-product Flying Geese pattern of economic development using a simulation model

of spatial economics (new economic geography).

3 Empirical Evidence

Empirical studies have been conducted to verify the Flying Geese Model.

Kojima (2000) provides a comprehensive review of these studies. Kwan (2002) checked

the relationship between Japan and China to determine whether or not it is still one of

“flying-geese” or has changed to a metaphorical “leaping-frog” by U.S. trade statistics.

He concludes that exports of Japan are still more “high-tech” than those of China in

2000.

3.1 One-Country Model

The one-country multi-product model may be checked relative to the Flying

Fish diagram. Below, diagrams for Thailand, Korea, and Japan from the 1960’s to 2005

have been drawn using the COMTRADE database by UNCTAD. Development of the

clothing industry (SITC rev.1: 841), textile, yarn, and thread industry (651), passenger

car industry (7321) and iron and steel industry (674) may be seen. These four industries

are selected based on the typology described in Table 1.

Table 1: Types of Selected Industries

Light Industry Heavy Industry

Up Stream Textile Iron and Steel

Down Stream Clothing Passenger Car

Interpretations of Akamatsu predictions on the order of industrial development

are that light industries develop first followed by heavy industries. Downstream

industries come first, and then upstream industries follow. Unfortunately, it is not

possible to check these predictions for a single country; coverage of the COMTRADE

database, about fifty years, is too short to check the Flying Geese pattern of economic

development6. To overcome this problem, the diagram for Thailand may be assumed to

be similar to that of Japan in its “take-off” stage of economic development. That for

Korea may be assumed to be similar to that of Japan a few decades ago. Thus, figures

for Thailand-Korea-Japan may be assumed to be figures for the sequential development

stage of a hypothetical single country.

Figure 4 includes the Flying Fish diagram for Thailand. It shows that: (1) the

clothing industriy developed first followed by the textile industry, (2) the passenger car

industry came first, and then the iron and steel industries followed, and (3) clothing and

textile industries developed earlier than passenger car, ,iron, and steel industries. This

diagram closely matches hypotheses (a) and (b) of Akamatsu.

% Akamatsu used 80 to 100 years of trade data for Japan in order to depict the Flying Geese pattern.

Figure 4: Flying Fish Diagram for Thailand

Figure 5 shows the Flying Fish diagram for Korea. It indicates that: (1) the

clothing industry had already developed in the 1960’s and declined during the 1990’s,

(2) the textile industry followed the clothing industry but started declining before the

clothing industry, and (3) iron and steel industries developed before the passenger car

industry but soon caught-up.

The Korean case diverges from Akamatsu predictions in an interesting way.

Upstream industries do not always follow dowstream industries in a steady manner.

Sometimes upstream industries are not fully-developed and decline before downstream

industries.

Figure 5: Flying Fish Diagram for Korea

Figure 6 contains the Flying Fish diagram for Japan. It shows that: (1) the

clothing industry declined ealier than the textile industry and (2) iron and steel

industries developed earlier than the passenger car industry.

Japan’s case also differs from Akamatsu’s predictions in an interesting way.

Upstream heavy industries of iron and/or steel developed earlier, and dowstream

industries (passenger cars) followed.

Figure 6: Flying Fish Diagram for Japan

Because Figures 4, 5, and 6 are for three countries, not one country, the analysis

is not an exact check of the validity of Akamatsu’s “one-country - multi-product” model.

However, findings of this quasi-one-country analysis show pros and cons for his

“one-country” Flying Geese Model quite clearly.

First, light industries seem to dvelop earlier than heavy industries. This fact

follows an Akamatsu prediction that development occurs “earlier in crude goods and

later in refined goods.” Akamatsu does not explicitly explain what the driving-force for

a country is to upgrade its product from crude to refined. Later, Kojima (1960)

explained this using H-O theory with some Ricardian ingredients. It is reasonable to

think that less-developed countries begin industrialization from labour intensitve goods

and then move into more capital intensive industries with the accumulation of capital in

the country.

Second, upstream industries do not always follow downstream industries. In

some countries, upstream industries do not develop sufficiently, and in other countries,

upstream industries develop earlier than those downstream. This tendency is especially

obvious in heavy industries. This fact is contrary to another Akamatsu prediction, that

development occurs “earlier in consumer goods and later in capital goods.” Akamatsu’s

“fundamental” Flying Geese Model is that industrialization is driven by domestic

demand, or driven by backword linkage. In the case of Japan’s cotton and wool industry,

a large market ensured the development of the consumer industry first, and the demand

from that consumer industry fostered the intemediate or capital industry later. However,

there are less-developed countries which do not have enough large markets to foster

upward industries. In addition, industrialization driven by domestic supply, or that

driven by forward industry, is also a reasonable route for economic development. The

industrial revolution in England is a typical case. Invention of the steam engine

enhanced various industries that used the engine as a capital good. Japan’s iron and

steel industry is another example.

All in all, industrial development from crude to more elaborate goods is quite

robust. Industrilization driven by backword linkage is also valid, but it is not “the” way

but “a” way of industrial development.

3.2 Multi-Country model

Next, the multi-country - multi-product model was checked using the correlation

of export structures between Japan and other countries. Japan may be assumed to be the

leading goose. Countries that have an export structure similar to Japan are more

advanced as “flying geese”. Correlations of the export structure of 8 countries (ASEAN

5 + China, Korea, and Taiwan) with Japan in 1985, 1990, 1995, and 2000 were

compared using the 24-sector Asian International IO Table.

In 1985, the order of the flying geese was clear. Japan was the leading goose,

and Taiwan and Korea followed. Then the ASEAN 5 and China came. However,

following geese had caught-up by 2000, and the slope of the flying geese became flatter.

It seems that the Flying Geese pattern of economic development in East Asia changed

dramatically from 1985 to 2000, and Japan is not now the sole leading goose in the

region.

Figure 8 shows the same picture except for the machinery sector, mainly

consisting of the electronics industry. This picture is quite different from Figure 7. The

order and slope of the Flying Geese pattern in East Asia has changed little in the last

two decades. This result is understandable. The development of the electronics industry

in East Asia is quite different from the pattern assumed in the 70-year-old Akamatsu

Flying Geese Model. The development of the electronics industry in East Asia,

especially after the 1970’s, was based on “off-shore” transactions through Free Trade

Zones (FTZ’s). This is fundamentally different from the market-driven industrial

development in Japan which was the base of the Akamatsu model.

Figure 7: Correlation of Export Structure with Japan

Figure 8: Correlation of Export Structure with Japan (Excluding the Machinery

Sector)

4. Conclusions

More than 70 years ago, Akamatsu discerned a general pattern of industrial

development and international trade based on the case of Japan and called it the Flying

Geese Model. This phrase is now generally used to depict the sequential development of

a group of countries, and the concept is sometimes thought to be “obsolete.” However,

Akamatsu clearly stated that “these countries, advanced and less advanced, do not

necessarily go forward at the same speed in their development of a wild-geese-flying

pattern, nor do they always make gradual progress, but they are at times dormant and at

other times make leaping advances (Akamatsu 1962, p. 18).”

In some ways, it is regrettable that Akamatsu used only the one term “Flying

Geese” to refer to various models in his grand theory of the history of world economic

development. However, since the phrase “Flying Geese” seems to fit the model depicted

in Figure 1 so well, and since such nomenclature is now so popular, it is virtually

impossible to rename. On the on the other hand, model versions of the concept seen in

Figures 2 and 3 have not drawn much attention, although the “fundamental” Flying

Geese Model contains many research questions yet answered. For example:

• Why do traces of the development of so many industries follow the

“fundamental” Flying Geese pattern? What is the mechanism behind it?

• Why do some products seem to follow a “fundamental” Flying Geese pattern for

a very short period, while other take much longer?

• What affects the shape of the “fundamental” Flying Geese pattern? Is it trade

policy, market size, or technological attributes?

For the last two decades, the Flying Geese Model may have drawn too much

attention relative to the “order” and “slope” of the depicted Flying Geese. Now, in the

era of economic integration in East Asia, interest in the “fundamental” Flying Geese

pattern of industrial development must be renewed. However, for such a revival to

occur, nomenclature other than the “fundamental” Flying Geese model may need to be

developed.

References

Akamatsu, Kaname. 1935. “Waga kuni yomo kogyohin no boueki susei.” Shogyo

Keizai Ronso 13: 129-212.

________________. 1937. “Waga kuni keizai hatten no sougou bensyoho.” Shogyo

Keizai Ronso 15: 179-210.

________________. 1962. “Historical pattern of economic growth in developing

countries.” The Developing Economies 1: 3-25.

Kojima, Kiyoshi. 1960. “Capital accumulation and the course of industrialisation, with

special reference to Japan.” The Economic Journal LXX: 757-768

______________. 1970. “Towards a theory of agreed specialization: the economics of

integration.” In Induction, growth and trade, essays in honours of Sir Roy Harrod,

eds. W. A. Eltis, M. FG. Scott and J. N. Wolfe, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

______________. 1995. “Dynamics of Japanese investment in East Asia.” Hitotsubashi

Journal of Economics 36: 93-124.

______________. 2000. “The “flying geese” model of Asian economic development:

origin, theoretical extensions, and regional policy implications.” Journal of Asian

Economics 11: 375-401.

Okita, Saburo. 1985. "Special presentation: prospect of Pacific economies." the Fourth

Pacific Economic Cooperation Conference, April 29 through May 1: 18-29.

Korea Development Institute: Seoul, Korea.

Kosai, Yutaka and Tho. V. Tran. 1994. “Japan and Industialization in Asia-An Essay in

Memory of Dr. Saburo Okita-.“ Journal of Asian Economics 5 No. 2: 1155-176.

Kwan Chi Hung. 2002. “The Rise of China and Asia’s Flying-Geese Pattern of

Economic Development: An Empirical Analysis Based on US Import Statistics.”

NRI Papers 52 August 1 2002.

Fujita Masahisa and Tomoya Mori. 1999. “A Flying Geese Model of Economic

Development and Integration: Evolution of International Economy a la East

Asia.” Discussion Paper 493.

No. Author(s) Title

157 Satoru KUMAGAI A Mathematical Representation of "Excitement" in Games: AContribution to the Theory of Game Systems 2008

156 Kazunobu HAYAKAWA,Fukunari KIMURA

The Effect of Exchange Rate Volatility on International Trade:The Implication for Production Networks in East Asia 2008

155 Kazunobu HAYAKAWA The Choice of Transport Mode: Evidence from JapaneseExports to East Asia 2008

154 Jose Luis CORDEIRO Monetary Systems in Developing Countries: An UnorthodoxView 2008

153 Takao TSUNEISHI Development of Border Economic Zones in Thailand:Expansion of Border Trade and Formation of Border 2008

152 Nguyen Binh Giang Improving the Foreign Direct Investment Capacity of theMountainous Provinces in Viet Nam 2008

151 Syviengxay Oraboune Infrastructure (Rural Road) Development and PovertyAlleviation in Lao PDR 2008

150 Chap Moly Infrastructure Development of Railway in Cambodia: A LongTerm Strategy 2008

149 Thandar Khine Foreign Direct Investment Relations between Myanmar andASEAN 2008

148 Aung Kyaw Financing Small and Midium Enterprises in Myanmar 2008

147 Toshihiro KUDO Myanmar Sugar SMEs: History, Technology, Location andGovernment Policy 2008

146 Momoko KAWAKAMI Exploiting the Modularity of Value Chains: Inter-firmDynamics of the Taiwanese Notebook PC Industry 2008

145 Toshikazu YAMADA Sustainable Development and Poverty Reduction underMubarak’s Program 2008

144 Miki HAMADA Bank Borrowing and Financing Medium-sized Firms inIndonesia 2008

143 Yoko IWASAKI Methodological Application of Modeｒｎ Historical Science to‘Qualitative Research’ 2008

142 Masahiro KODAMA Monetary Policy Effects in Developing Countries withMinimum Wages 2008

141 Yasushi HAZAMA The Political Economy of Growth: A Review 2008

140 Kumiko MAKINO The Changing Nature of Employment and the Reform of Laborand Social Security Legislation in Post-Apartheid South Africa 2008

139 Hisao YOSHINO Technology Choice, Change of Trade Structure, and A Case ofHungarian Economy 2008

138 Shigeki HIGASHI The Policy Making Process in FTA Negotiations: A CaseStudy of Japanese Bilateral EPAs 2008

137 Arup MITRA andMayumi MURAYAMA Rural to Urban Migration: A District Level Analysis for India 2008

136 Nicolaus Herman SHOMBE Causality relationship between Total　Export and AgriculturalGDP and Manufacturing GDP case of Tanzania 2008

135 Ikuko OKAMOTO The Shrimp Export Boom and Small-Scale Fishermen inMyanmar 2008

134 Chibwe CHISALAUnlocking the Potential of Zambian Micro, Small and MediumEnterprises "learning from the international best practices - theSoutheast Asian Experience"

2008

133 Miwa YAMADA Evolution in the Concept of Development: How has the WorldBank's Legal Assistance Extended its Reach? 2008

132 Maki AOKI-OKABELooking Toward the “New Era”:Features and Background of the Japan-Thailand EconomicPartnership Agreement

2008

～Previous IDE Discussion Papers ～

No. Author(s) Title

131 Masanaga KUMAKURA andMasato KUROKO

China’s Impact on the Exports of Other AsianCountries: A Note 2007

130 Koichiro KIMURAGrowth of the Firm and Economic Backwardness:A Case Study and Analysis of China's Mobile HandsetIndustry

2007

129 Takahiro FUKUNISHI Has Low Productivity Constrained Competitiveness of AfricanFirrms?: Comparison of Firm Performances with Asian Firms 2007

128 Akifumi KUCHIKI Industrial Policy in Asia 2007

127 Teiji SAKURAI JETRO and Japan’s Postwar Export Promotion System:Messages forLatin American Export Promotion Agencies 2007

126 Takeshi KAWANAKA Who Eats the Most? Quantitative Analysis of Pork BarrelDistributions in the Philippines 2007

125 Ken IMAI and SHIU Jingming A Divergent Path of Industrial Upgrading: Emergence andEvolution of the Mobile Handset Industry in China 2007

124 Tsutomu TAKANE Diversities and Disparities among Female-Headed Householdsin Rural Malawi 2007

123 Masami ISHIDAEvaluating the Effectiveness of GMS Economic Corridors:Why is There More Focus on the Bangkok-Hanoi Road thanthe East-West Corridor

2007

122 Toshihiro KUDO Border Industry in Myanmar: Turning the Periphery into theCenter of Growth 2007

121 Satoru KUMAGAI A Mathematical Representation of "Excitement" in Gamesfrom the Viewpoint of a Neutral Audience 2007

120 Akifumi KUCHIKI A Flowchart Approach to Malaysia'sAutomobile Industry Cluster Policy 2007

119 Mitsuhiro KAGAMI The Sandinista Revolution and Post-ConflictDevelopment - Key Issues 2007

118 Toshihiro KUDO Myanmar and Japan: How Close Friends Become Estranged 2007

117 Tsutomu TAKANE Gambling with Liberalization: Smallholder Livelihoods inContemporary Rural Malawi 2007

116 Toshihiro KUDO and FumiharuMIENO

Trade, Foreign Investment and Myanmar's EconomicDevelopment during the Transition to an Open Economy 2007

115 Takao TSUNEISHI Thailand's Economic Cooperation with Neighboring Countriesand Its Effects on Economic Development within Thailand 2007

114Jan OOSTERHAVEN,Dirk STELDER andSatoshi INOMATA

Evaluation of Non-Survey International IO ConstructionMethods with the Asian-Pacific Input-Output Table 2007

113 Satoru KUMAGAI Comparing the Networks of Ethnic Japanese and EthnicChinese in International Trade 2007

112 Rika NAKAGAWA Institutional Development of Capital Markets in Nine AsianEconomies 2007

111 Hiroko UCHIMURA andJohannes JÜTTING

Fiscal Decentralization, Chinese Style: Good for HealthOutcomes? 2007

110 Hiroshi KUWAMORI andNobuhiro OKAMOTO

Industrial Networks between China and the Countries of theAsia-Pacific Region 2007

109 Yasushi UEKI Industrial Development and the Innovation System of theEthanol Sector in Brazil 2007

108 Shinichi SHIGETOMI Publicness and Taken-for-granted Knowledge:A Case Study of Communal Land Formation in Rural Thailand 2007

107 Yasushi HAZAMA Public Support for Enlargement: Economic, Cultural, orNormative? 2007

106 Seiro ITO Bounding ATE with ITT 2007

105 Tatsufumi YAMAGATA Securing Medical Personnel: Case Studies of Two SourceCountries and Two Destination Countries 2007

104 Tsutomu TAKANE Customary Land Tenure, Inheritance Rules, and SmallholderFarmers in Malawi 2007

No. Author(s) Title

103 Aya OKADA and N. S.SIDDHARTHAN

Industrial Clusters in India: Evidence from AutomobileClusters in Chennai and the National Capital Region 2007

102 Bo MENG and Chao QU Application of the Input-Output Decomposition Technique toChina's Regional Economies 2007

101 Tatsufumi YAMAGATAProspects for Development of the Garment Industry inDeveloping Countries: What Has Happened since the MFAPhase-Out?

2007

100 Akifumi KUCHIKI The Flowchart Model of Cluster Policy:The Automobile Industry Cluster in China 2007

99Seiro ITOH, MarikoWATANABE, and NoriyukiYANAGAWA

Financial Aspects of Transactions with FDI: Trade CreditProvision by SMEs in China 2007

98 Norio KONDO Election Studies in India 2007

97 Mai FUJITA Local Firms in Latecomer Developing Countries amidstChina's Rise - The case of Vietnam's motorcycle industry 2007

96 Kazushi TAKAHASHI andKeijiro OTSUKA

Human Capital Investment and Poverty Reduction overGenerations: A Case from the Rural Philippines, 1979-2003 2007

95 Kazushi TAKAHASHI Sources of Regional Disparity in Rural Vietnam: Oaxaca-Blinder Decomposition 2007

94 Hideki HIRAIZUMI Changes in the Foreign Trade Structure of the Russian Far Eastunder the Process of Transition toward a Market Economy 2007

93 Junko MIZUNO Differences in Technology Transfers to China amongEuropean and Japanese Elevator Companies 2007

92 Kazuhiko OYAMADA Is It Worthwhile for Indonesia to Rush into a Free Trade Dealwith Japan? 2007

91 Haruka I. MATSUMOTO The Evolution of the "One China" Concept in the Process ofTaiwan's Democratization 2007

90 Koji KUBO Natural Gas and Seeming Dutch Disease 2007

89 Akifumi KUCHIKI Clusters and Innovation: Beijing's Hi-technology IndustryCluster and Guangzhou's Automobile Industry Cluster 2007

88 DING Ke Domestic Market-based Industrial Cluster Development inModern China 2007

87 Koji KUBODo Foreign Currency Deposits Promote or DeterFinancial Development in Low-income Countries?:An Empirical Analysis of Cross-section Data

2007

86 G. BALATCHANDIRANE IT Offshoring and India: Some Implications 200785 G. BALATCHANDIRANE IT Clusters in India 2007

84 Tomohiro MACHIKITA Are Job Networks Localized in a Developing Economy?Search Methods for Displaced Workers in Thailand 2006

83 Tomohiro MACHIKITA Career Crisis? Impacts of Financial Shock on the Entry-LevelLabor Market: Evidence from Thailand 2006

82 Tomohiro MACHIKITA Is Learning by Migrating to a Megalopolis Really Important?Evidence from Thailand 2006

81 Asao ANDO and Bo MENG Transport Sector and Regional Price Differentials:A SCGE Model for Chinese Provinces 2006

80 Yuka KODAMA Poverty Analysis of Ethiopian Females in the Amhara Region:Utilizing BMI as an Indicator of Poverty 2006

79 So UMEZAKI Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy in Malaysia before theAsian Crisis 2006

78 Ikuo KUROIWA Rules of Origin and Local Content in East Asia 2006

77 Daisuke HIRATSUKA Outward FDI from and Intraregional FDI in ASEAN:Trends and Drivers 2006

76 Masahisa FUJITA Economic Development Capitalizing on Brand Agriculture:Turning Development Strategy on Its Head 2006

No. Author(s) Title

75 DING Ke Distribution System of China’s Industrial Clusters:Case Study of Yiwu China Commodity City 2006

74 Emad M. A. ABDULLATIFAlani

Crowding-Out and Crowding-In Effects of Government BondsMarket on Private Sector Investment (Japanese Case Study) 2006

73 Tatsuya SHIMIZU Expansion of Asparagus Production and Exports in Peru 2006

72 Hitoshi SUZUKI The Nature of the State in Afghanistan and Its Relations withNeighboring Countries 2006

71 Akifumi KUCHIKI An Asian Triangle of Growth and Cluster-to-Cluster Linkages 2006

70 Takayuki TAKEUCHI Integration under ‘One Country, Two Systems’ - The Case ofMainland China and Hong Kong- 2006

69 Shinichi SHIGETOMI Bringing Non-governmental Actors into the PolicymakingProcess: The Case of Local Development Policy in Thailand 2006

68 Kozo KUNIMUNE Financial Cooperation in East Asia 2006

67 Yasushi UEKI Export-Led Growth and Geographic Distribution of the PoultryMeat Industry in Brazil 2006

66 Toshihiro KUDO Myanmar's Economic Relations with China: Can ChinaSupport the Myanmar Economy? 2006

65 Akifumi KUCHIKI Negative Bubbles and Unpredictability of Financial Markets:The Asian Currency Crisis in 1997 2006

64 Ken IMAI Explaining the Persistence of State-Ownership in China 2006

63 Koichi FUJITA and IkukoOKAMOTO

Agricultural Policies and Development of MyanmarAgriculture: An Overview 2006

62 Tatsufumi YAMAGATA The Garment Industry in Cambodia: Its Role in PovertyReduction through Export-Oriented Development 2006

61 Hisaki KONOIs Group Lending A Good Enforcement Scheme for AchievingHigh Repayment Rates?Evidence from Field Experiments inVietnam

2006

60 Hiroshi KUWAMORI The Role of Distance in Determining International TransportCosts: Evidence from Philippine Import Data 2006

59 Tatsuya SHIMIZU Executive Managers in Peru's Family Businesses 2006

58 Noriyuki YANAGAWA, SeiroITO, and Mariko WATANABE

Trade Credits under Imperfect Enforcement: A Theory with aTest on Chinese Experience 2006

57 Reiko AOKI, Kensuke KUBO,and Hiroko YAMANE

Indian Patent Policy and Public Health: Implications from theJapanese Experience 2006

56 Koji KUBO The Degree of Competition in the Thai Banking Industrybefore and after the East Asian Crisis 2006

55 Jiro OKAMOTO Australia's Foreign Economic Policy: A 'State-SocietyCoalition' Approach and a Historical Overview 2006

54 Yusuke OKAMOTO Integration versus Outsourcing in Stable Industry Equilibriumwith Communication Networks 2006

53 Hikari ISHIDO andYusuke OKAMOTO

Winner-Take-All Contention of Innovation underGlobalization: A Simulation Analysis and East Asia’s Empirics 2006

52 Masahiro KODAMA Business Cycles of Non-mono-cultural Developing Economies 2006

51 Arup MITRA and YukoTSUJITA

Migration and Wellbeing at the Lower Echelons of theEconomy: A Study of Delhi Slums 2006

50

Bo MENG, Hajime SATO, JunNAKAMURA,　NobuhiroOKAMOTO, HiroshiKUWAMORI, and SatoshiINOMATA

Interindustrial Structure in the Asia-Pacific Region: Growthand Integration, by Using 2000 AIO Table 2006

49Maki AOKI-OKABE, YokoKAWAMURA, and ToichiMAKITA

International Cultural Relations of Postwar Japan 2006

48 Arup MITRA and Hajime SATO Agglomeration Economies in Japan: Technical Efficiency,Growth and Unemployment 2006

No. Author(s) Title

47 Shinichi SHIGETOMIOrganization Capability of Local Societies in RuralDevelopment: A Comparative Study of MicrofinanceOrganizations in Thailand and the Philippines

2006

46 Yasushi HAZAMA Retrospective Voting in Turkey: Macro and Micro Perspectives 2006

45 Kentaro YOHIDA and MachikoNAKANISHI

Factors Underlying the Formation of Industrial Clusters inJapan and Industrial Cluster Policy: A Quantitative Survey 2005

44 Masanaga KUMAKURA Trade and Business Cycle Correlations in Asia-Pacific 2005

43 Ikuko OKAMOTO Transformation of the Rice Marketing System and Myanmar'sTransition to a Market Economy 2005

42 Toshihiro KUDO The Impact of United States Sanctions on the MyanmarGarment Industry 2005

41 Yukihito SATO President Chain Store Corporation's Hsu Chong-Jen: A CaseStudy of a Salaried Manager in Taiwan 2005

40 Taeko HOSHINO Executive Managers in Large Mexican Family Businesses 2005

39 Chang Soo CHOE Key Factors to Successful Community Development: TheKorean Experience 2005

38 Toshihiro KUDO Stunted and Distorted Industrialization in Myanmar 2005

37 Etsuyo MICHIDA and KojiNISHIKIMI North-South Trade and Industly-Specific Pollutants 2005

36 Akifumi KUCHIKI Theory of a Flowchart Approach to Industrial Cluster Policy 2005

35 Masami ISHIDA Effectiveness and Challenges of Three Economic Corridors ofthe Greater Mekong Sub-region 2005

34 Masanaga KUMAKURA Trade, Exchange Rates, and Macroeconomic Dynamics in EastAsia: Why the Electronics Cycle Matters 2005

33 Akifumi KUCHIKI Theoretical Models Based on a Flowchart Approach toIndustrial Cluster Policy 2005

32 Takao TSUNEISHI The Regional Development Policy of Thailand and ItsEconomic Cooperation with Neighboring Countries 2005

31 Yuko TSUJITA Economic Reform and Social Setor Expenditures: A Study ofFifteen Indian States 1980/81-1999/2000 2005

30 Satoshi INOMATATowards the Compilation of the Consistent Asian InternationalI-O Table: The Report of the General Survey on National I-OTables

2005

29 Bo MENG and Asao ANDO An Economic Derivation of Trade Coefficients under theFramework of Multi-regional I-O Analysis 2005

28 Nobuhiro OKAMOTO, TakaoSANO, and Satoshi INOMATA

Estimation Technique of International Input-Output Model byNon-survey Method 2005

27 Masahisa FUJITA and TomoyaMORI Frontiers of the New Economic Geography 2005

26 Hiroko UCHIMURA Influence of Social Institutions on Inequality in China 2005

25 Shinichiro OKUSHIMA andHiroko UCHIMURA Economic Reforms and Income Inequality in Urban China 2005

24 Banri ITO and TatsufumiYAMAGATA

Who Develops Innovations in Medicine for the Poor? Trendsin Patent Applications Related to Medicines for HIV/AIDS,Tuberculosis, Malaria and Neglected Diseases

2005

23 Etsuyo MICHIDA Management for a Variety of Environmental Pollution andNorth-South Trade 2005

22 Daisuke HIRATSUKA The "Catching Up" Process of Manufacturing in East Asia 2005

21 Masahisa FUJITA and TomoyaMORI

Transport Development and the Evolution of EconomicGeography 2005

20 Graciana B. FEMENTIRACase Study of Applied LIP Approach/Activities in thePhilippines: The Training Services Enhancement Project forRural Life Improvement (TSEP-RLI) Experience

2005

19 Hitoshi SUZUKI Structural Changes and Formation of Rūstā-shahr in Post-revolutionary Rural Society in Iran 2004

No. Author(s) Title

18Tomokazu ARITA, MasahisaFUJITA, and YoshihiroKAMEYAMA

Regional Cooperation of Small & Medium Firms in JapaneseIndustrial Clusters 2004

17 Karma URA Peasantry and Bureaucracy in Decentralization in Bhutan 2004

16 Masahisa FUJITA and ToshitakaGOKAN

On the Evolution of the Spatial Economy with Multi-unit・Multi-plant Firms: The Impact of IT Development 2004

15 Koji KUBO Imperfect Competition and Costly Screening in the CreditMarket under Conditions of Asymmetric Information 2004

14 Marcus BERLIANT andMasahisa FUJITA Knowledge Creation as a Square Dance on the Hilbert Cube 2004

13 Gamini KEERAWELLA Formless as Water, Flaming as a Fire – Some observations onthe Theory and Practice of Self-Determination 2004

12 Taeko HOSHINO Family Business in Mexico: Responses to Human ResourceLimitations and Management Succession 2004

11 Hikari ISHIDO East Asia’s Economic Development cum Trade “Divergence” 2004

10 Akifumi KUCHIKI Prioritization of Policies: A Prototype Model of a FlowchartMethod 2004

9 Sanae SUZUKI Chairmanship in ASEAN+3: A Shared Rule of Behaviors 2004

8 Masahisa FUJITA and ShlomoWEBER

On Labor Complementarity, Cultural Frictions and StrategicImmigration Policies 2004

7 Tatsuya SHIMIZU Family Business in Peru: Survival and Expansion under theLiberalization 2004

6 Katsumi HIRANO Mass Unemployment in South Africa: A Comparative Studywith East Asia 2004

5 Masahisa FUJITA and Jacques-Francois THISSE

Globalization and the Evolution of the Supply Chain: WhoGains and Who Loses? 2004

4 Karma URA The First Universal Suffrage Election, at County (Gewog)Level, in Bhutan 2004

3 Gamini KEERAWELLA The LTTE Proposals for an Interim Self-Governing Authorityand Future of the Peace Process in Sri Lanka 2004

2 Takahiro FUKUNISHI International Competitiveness of Manufacturing Firms in Sub-Saharan Africa 2004

1 Pk. Md. Motiur RAHMAN andTatsufumi YAMAGATA Business Cycles and Seasonal Cycles in Bangladesh 2004