Talk:Economy of East Asia

Ok
OK, I'll give this one a shot. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Definition
Various organizations and disciplines define "East Asia" in different ways. The United Nations classifys South-east Asia (the 10 ASEAN members plus East Timor) as a distinct region, but other sources add North-east and South-east Asia together, which is the practice in this article.

The economic entities of East Asia are thus Japan; the Democratic People's Republic of (North) Korea; the Republic of (South) Korea; the People's Republic of China and its special administrative regions Hong Kong and Macau; Taiwan; and the 10 ASEAN members: the  Philippines, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Burma, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, and Indonesia. The lack of useful statistical data makes including East Timor problematic, and so unless otherwise indicated, it will be omitted. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Theory
A 1997 Asian Development Bank (ADB) study Emerging Asia: Changes and Challenges, ADB 1997 ISBN 971-561-105-2. identifies three conventional theories as to how and why Asia developed so much faster than other regions. The classical theory identifies outward orientation and relatively strong property rights protection as key ingredients, as well as access to good ports and major markets. The neoclassical theory emphasizes rapid capital accumulation and the opportunity for high returns on investment that shortages presented. The third, endogenous growth theory credits superior economic institutions such as lifetime employment and consensus building as the superior attributes of the Asian culture. The study then notes that none of these theories attaches sufficient importance to demography, particularly changes in age structure, dependency ratios and overall population growth rates. This, according to the authors, is where much of the explanation lies. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Policy
Among the major policy choices commonly adopted in East Asia, and noticeably less so elsewhere in the developing world are openness to foreign trade, significant levels of government savings and an emphasis on education for both boys and girls. While these attributes were far from universally applied, they are conspicuously present in the region to a much larger degree than is the case elsewhere. Emerging Asia: Changes and Challenges, pp. 68-69. ADB 1997 ISBN 971-561-105-2. < /ref> DOR (HK) (talk) 07:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Population
UN World Population Prospects 2008, http://esa.un.org/unpp/< /ref > In 2005, East Asia had more than one-third of the world’s population, an estimated 2,075 million people. Growth during the decade is expected to 0.79% per annum, pushing the total to 2,154 million by 2010. South-east Asia is expected to grow more than twice as fast (1.32% p.a.) as North-east Asia (0.60% p.a.). 65.5% of the population is working age (15-59), slightly higher than the global average 61.4%.

The North-east / South-east divide holds for other demographic indicators, too. The average age in the North-east was 33.1 years in 2005, and 26 years in South-east Asia. Life expectancy (74.1 years vs. 70) is not as distinctly different, although infant mortality rates differ by nearly a third: 21.8 per 1,000 in North-east Asia vs. 28.3 in South-east Asia.DOR (HK) (talk) 07:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Possible tables
UN World Population Prospects 2008, http://esa.un.org/unpp/< /ref >

Infant mortality ratio (per 1,000 live births)
 * Africa 82.6
 * South-Central Asia 56.3
 * South-east Asia 28.3
 * Western Asia 29.9
 * South America 21.4
 * Latin America and the Caribbean 21.8
 * Eastern Asia 21.8
 * Europe 7.2
 * North America 5.8

Median Age (2005)
 * Africa 19.1
 * South-Central Asia 23.1
 * Western Asia 23.8
 * South-east Asia 26.0
 * South America 26.0
 * Latin America and the Caribbean 26.0
 * Eastern Asia 33.1
 * North America 36.2
 * Europe 38.9

Life Expectancy (2005)
 * Africa 54.1
 * South-Central Asia 64.0
 * South-east Asia 70.0
 * Western Asia 71.1
 * South America 73.0
 * Latin America and the Caribbean 73.4
 * Eastern Asia 74.1
 * Europe 75.1
 * North America 79.3

DOR (HK) (talk) 07:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Savings Rates, 1970-92 (%) Emerging Asia: Changes and Challenges, ADB 1997, p. 108 ISBN 971-561-105-2.
 * Private National
 * OECD 22.5 23.0
 * East and South-east Asia 20.9 24.9
 * AVERAGE 14.9 16.9
 * Latin America 14.9 16.0
 * South Asia 14.5 12.8
 * Sub-Saharan Africa 7.5 9.9

DOR (HK) (talk) 06:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Thorbecke's comment on this article
Dr. Thorbecke has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

"There should be a discussion of regional value chains. These are one of the most significant developments in East Asia recently. Firms have sliced up the value chain and allocated production blocks across the region differences in factor endowments in the fragmented production blocks"

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Thorbecke has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:


 * Reference : Thorbecke, Willem & Salike, Nimesh, 2011. "Understanding Foreign Direct Investment in East Asia," ADBI Working Papers 290, Asian Development Bank Institute.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 15:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Economy of East Asia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070213192705/http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/schenk.HongKong to http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/schenk.HongKong

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of Economy of Singapore to the "see also" section
Let's just stick to the disputed page which is Economy of East Asia without starting a war because that's not exactly helpful. So why do you think Singapore should be included on the page? I don't think ethnicity is an appropriate reason for its inclusion because this is about the economy which has nothing to do with one's ethnicity. Is there a specific reason why it should be included? The only reason I can think of is because Singapore developed in a similar way to other East Asian economies, namely Taiwan, Hong Kong and South Korea. If that is the reason we should then add Four Asian Tigers to the "See also" section. I'm willing to start a discussion here without any anger, so let's get a consensus so we can solve it. We can compare and contrast our thoughts so we can achieve a consensus that pleases both parties. What do you think? (121.220.60.18 (talk) 00:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC))
 * I pinged you because I think we can all agree on the fact that we want a consensus on the issue. What are your reasons on including "Economy of Singapore" to the "see also" section of Economy of East Asia? I have stated a possible reason for its inclusion and a reason why it should not be included above, but we need to compare and contrast our reasons so we can achieve a consensus that is accepted by all parties. (121.220.60.18 (talk) 00:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC))


 * I took off Economy of Singapore as you requested since it is geographically in Southeast Asia. The entire Economy of East Asia article is a complete mess and needs to be rewritten. Backendgaming (talk) 01:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing that and I removed the reference to Burmese Indians from the Chinese people in Myanmar page per your comment at my talk page. Thanks for cooperating. (121.220.60.18 (talk) 03:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC))


 * I'm currently in the process of looking to rewrite this entire article. It's a compete mess and needs to be revamped. Backendgaming (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

It is very difficult to discuss editing with someone who won’t register. How is one to know if the person on the keyboard is the same one that previously used it or not? As a rule, those who do not register, in my opinion, are casual editors who don’t think the standards many of us try to maintain are worth upholding.

I spent most of my life in East Asia, and can confidently say that I have never heard the phrase used in a way that excluded South-East Asia. The Philippines is further east than China, so simple geography doesn’t define the region. Singapore has more in common with Hong Kong than it does with Indonesia, so race, religion and culture have no real value in defining the area.

Which leaves us with history, more specifically recent history since the more common term prior to the 19th century was East Indies, East Asia, the Orient or the Far East. The colonial and post-war history binds the region together more than almost any other characteristic save proximity.

Set that aside. What is your reason, 121.220.60.18, for excluding Economy of Singapore from a list of references for further reading? What pressing reason is there for denying readers easy access to another article that might provide deeper or broader understanding of the subject? And, why in the world do you feel so strongly that no one should be able to tap a link and quickly go to a page about Singapore's economy? DOR (HK) (talk) 10:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have any reliable sources that state that Singapore is part of East Asia? I have lived my entire life in Singapore and have never heard anyone refer to us as part of East Asia. Regardless, our personal anecdotes don't matter, what matters is WP:V. So please provide reliable sources verifying this classification if you want to include Singapore in East Asia. Otherwise, per Wikipedia policy, this IP is within his right to challenge and exclude unsourced material. And if South-East Asia is part of East Asia, why not include all SEA countries and not just Singapore? Bennv3771 (talk) 09:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I looked into this subject more, and did find a World Bank source that does include SEA in East Asia! I still agree with the IP though, the current scope of this article does not include SEA in East Asia (opening sentence: "The Economy of East Asia comprises more than 1.6 billion people (22% of the world population) living in 6 different countries"). If SEA is to be included, even just to the see also list, then the entire SEA should be included (don't see why Singapore should be singled out), as per the World Bank source. And consensus should certainly be determined before adding SEA to this article as it is sure to be challenged. Bennv3771 (talk) 10:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Insufficiently paraphrased text removed
Insufficiently paraphrased text removed per WP:C and WP:CLOP. A list of the removed text is shown here.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   22:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Singapore
Singapore is not located in East Asia. So any mention of Singapore in this article is gravely misplaced. 49.146.59.197 (talk) 10:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Look at the discussions above, this isn't the first time this topic has been talked about. I'm sure you can find your answers there. Honestly, this article needs a a major restructuring anyway. Telsho (talk) 16:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the previous times it was talked about consensus was not to include SEA and specifically not to include Singapore in the main section of the article. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There was never a consensus per se, the previous discussion above had an ambiguous conclusion. My reasons for re-inclusion was due to their common history and the high amounts of economic inter-connectivity these countries had in regards to the Four Asian Tigers and the 1997 Asian financial crisis. It doesn't necessarily strictly have to be geographical term, that's arbitrary and purely conventional especially in regards to economic regions anyway. Tagging for opinions. Telsho (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thats a hard no there partner, I don’t know whether this is a reading comprehension issue or whether or not you’re jerking my chain but there havent been any ambiguous conclusions here. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

2022
Wow. First day of the year and we already have full-year statistics. Just, wow. DOR (HK) (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC)