Talk:Four Asian Tigers/Archive 1

Untitled

 * The article needs to be cleaned up for style and grammar: "...were allowed to commerce..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bo Basil(talk • contribs) 22:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

"Because of the success of the initial Tigers, many nations have followed similar development models. In part, this led to the Asian Economic Crisis in the 1990s."

What? how is this true? can some explain or debunk.

Roadrunner:

While the Chinese prefer the Kuomintang to the current pro-independence President Chen, you?re way off mentioning a ?warming of relations? between the KMT and the CPC. Doesn?t KUOMINTANG President Lee Teng-hui come to mind? Warming of relations!?


 * Not following current events I see..... Lee Tenghui was expelled from the Kuomintang about a year ago and has been actively campaigning for DPP candidates and against KMT ones.  He and his pro-independence supporters have formed their own party.

(I knew that, you slanderous liar)


 * It's becoming apparent that the CCP's assessment of Lee Tenghui was correct and that he was always a closet independence supporter who could not be trusted.


 * When former generals of the KMT and the CCP are toasting each other at a Whampoa Academy reunion, I'd say that there is a warming of relations. Neither the KMT nor the CCP sees each other as the big enemy anymore.

The revert doesn?t remove any of your other points. They?re just reorganized a bit for a better flow.


 * I removed Mandarin because it was ambigiuous as to whether ir was referring to the language they spoke or to their social position.

172

--

There actually are two different arguments in the Mainland-Taiwan comparison. One is that the Mainland would have been better off with the KMT in power. The other (and the much stronger argument) is that Taiwan's experience and for that matter the DXP experience suggests that Mao's economic policies were sub-optimal.

Reworded land reform. There were a lot of factors which made land reform on Taiwan "easy" in comparison with Latin America or the mainland. Essentially the land reformers weren't the reformed.

Roadrunner:

Do you remember Lee Teng-hui's "state to state relations"? Brink of war comes to mind.

Anyhow, I knew about those "current events". Your accusation that I?m uninformed is slander and vandalism. He was still a Kuomitang leader at the time, however.

Otherwise, it is obvious that the Mainland prefers the Kuomintang today over the pro-independence President Chen and his Democratic Progressive Party.

I?m contesting your poor word-choice. The word "warming" is too strong.

Also, the word "Mandarian" was fine. Toddlers learn to understand words in context. Toddlers learn to differentiate between homophones and homonyms. I?m sure that Wikipedia readers can do the same.

I'm sure that we both agree that China toady probably would be better off had the Dengist reforms been enacted in 1958 instead of the Great Leap (ironic though, considering Deng's role then).

You?re trying to suggest that China would have been better off it the KMT had stayed in power, right?

Chinese influence
Regarding the Chinese influences in Korea, I'll like to make it clear that I'm only saying that Korean culture has heavy Chinese influences. It does NOT mean that they are the same. Korea was a tributary state to China for much of its history, so over the course of thousands of years, it absorbed many Chinese influences. Confucianism and Buddhism were brought in from China. The gwageo was largely modelled on the Chinese imperial examination. The board game of Go, known as baduk in Korean was definitely introduced from China, while janggi bears a distinct similarity to the Chinese xiangqi, though they are still different. And if you look carefully, traditional Korean architecture does somewhat resemble traditional Chinese architecture, while the Korean hanbok bears some similarities to the Chinese hanfu. Of course, I do acknowledge the key differences, in that Korean society maintained distinct class divisions with no social mobility, i.e. official posts were restricted only to aristocratic families, while in China, you could gain an official post as long as you passed the examinations, regardless of family background. And among other things, Koreans traditionally sit in a kneeling position on the floor while the Chinese have been using chairs since the Tang Dynasty, and the underfloor heating, ondol, is definitely a Korean invention. And to top it off, the Chinese and Korean languages are entirely distinct and unrelated. While these differences show that the Korean and Chinese cultures are distinct cultures, we still can't deny the historical influence China has had on Korea.

So, what does that do with the four asian tigers? You are talking about something that happened 100 years ago. This is the 21st century —Precedingunsigned comment added by 99.226.234.37 (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This sounds like the typical "Korea != China" rant, but nonetheless, the claim that the they're called "Asia's four little dragons" just because of past (perceived or real) Chinese influence in the four regions is unsubstantiated and should be removed. It is enough to inform the reader what they're called in Chinese.Leaf of Silver (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Even if this did happen "100" years ago, history is part of the present and the future. It has influenced and will continue to influence whatever's in the present or future. Saying-that it is negligible because this is the 21st century and that it happened "100" years ago-makes no sense and shows complete ignorance. -M0rphzone (talk) 05:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

East Asian Tigers - More?
I'm surprised there has been no discussion about the membership of this group. Mahathir refers to Malaysia as one of the tigers, and other articles refer to Malaysia, Thailand and perhaps Indonesia as some of the tigers. I believe Yergin in "Commanding Heights" does as well. Do these other countries merit discussion here? Fuzheado 07:58, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Southeast Asian Tigers? --Jiang
 * Could... but the problem is many folks don't use that term much, and instead wind up using anything east of Bangladesh as the east asian tigers. Fuzheado 10:03, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I can recall reading the term tiger cubs used for Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia. This may well have been in an article in the Far Eastern Economic Review or The Economist.  -- Alan Peakall 19:01, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't think Dr Mahathir can be considered a neutral source on whether Malaysia qualifies as a Little Dragon (a term not respected here, for some reason). There are numerous citations of "Tiger Cubs" to describle some of South-East Asia, and that deserves a mention. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

East Asian Tigers - More? -> Celtic Tiger
Another country that has earned a tiger badge is Ireland; Ireland has been called the "Celtic Tiger" for its high growth in the 90s, with a focus on select high-tech industries. - fueled somewhat by cheaper labor, relative to the EU.

This article should focus a bit more on what it means to be a "Tiger Economy" - there were mentions that there are several key differences in the tiger economies, but no examples were given; also, some space should be given to examine the specific traits of the tiger economies besides Taiwan.

Maybe there should also be some mention of how these economies leveraged cheap labor & education into wealth.

Another point that might be added somewhere about Tiger economies (relative to China and India) is that they are in relatively much smaller nations (easier to achieve high growth in smaller economies, but less so in larger ones like Indonesia (I'm not sure if Indonesia has ever been classified as a "Tiger").

In addition, there seems to be too much politically-motivated information here regarding China and Taiwan. A lot of that information is, imo, rather unnecesary in a discussion of "traditional" East Asian Tigers; maybe that can be moved to a "China vs. Tiger Economy" comparison page? - the information is interesting but not quite relevant

Also, I think it would be useful to mention how all of the tigers are/have run into trouble once the cost of labor reached relative equivalence with other developed nations, as a "limits" to the export-driven model and a need for a new paradigm

--Confuzion 07:58, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Comparison with India faulty
I stripped out the demographic argument about India. If you look at the top of the article, it is not part of what is common among the Tigers. The introduction is correct and demographic policy initiatives are not really considered the defining aspect of the Tigers. Furthermore, most demographers would say that population is a function of economic development, not the other way around.

I would suggest that anyone wishing to argue this should look at the pattern of global development as well. Though population planning has been carried out in numerous countries, the Tigers are the rare economic success not especially known for their population initiatives. 69.16.84.16 17:53, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

High tariff on import?
As far as I know, Hong Kong is a free-trade port, high tariff is only imposed on certain luxury goods such as automobiles and cigarettes. If this is true, would it be more appropriate to change the relevant item in the "Common characteristics of Tiger Economy" section?
 * You are correct, though it looks like the article no longer has that section. However, the wordIQ article linked as a citation does, so if someone wants to make that assertion they will have to discount it appropriately.71.89.0.187 (talk) 11:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Taiwan only, nothing else here
This article seems to solely focus on Taiwan, with a little on South Korea for a token, a slim one at that, of balance. Land reform is a common characteristic? Singapore and Hong Kong under land reform??? There's nothing in this article about HK or Singapore

I think this article should be renamed the Tawainese Tiger Economy, and appropriate parts excised for a new "East Asian Tigers" article. 132.205.15.43 20:04, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's because KMT people in Taiwan are bias and really gay all over themselves when Taiwanese did all the hard works! They (ROC) also love their bent over because KMT are so goddamn homo OEM strategy instead of the better OBM (Brand) strategy like Japan and South Korea are doing!

Iron_Jackal_TW —Preceding unsigned comment added by75.18.109.120 (talk •contribs) 2007-03-24 13:05:42

Views on article
It looks a lot better now with the pictures, and they are about as relevent as pictures can be for this article, so should be left that way.

In response to the section above, Taiwan is only used as a classic example of the development and growth which has taken place, from this article, people can also delve further into the stories of South Korea, Hong Kong and Singapore...

One thing to ask - earlier I edited the section of the introduction which refers to Chinese spellings of the term- to me it just looked out of place, as Korean and Malay spellings are not needed - is the term 'little dragons' somehow culturally important enough to spell specifically like this? Whatever the case, ive left Huaiwei's reversion as it is.

Good work everyone. Vastu


 * The reason why the Chinese characters are included, is because the reference is also relatively widely used in Chinese-speaking communities, particularly for the phrase "Four little dragons", the English phrase being a literal translation of the Chinese version. The association with dragons points to its Chinese cultural underpinnings, and they are "little" in relation to the "big" dragon...China. I would personally think this is detail worth including since they refer to the same four entities.--Huaiwei 11:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks for explaining :-) Vastu


 * No problem. ;) Do feel free to improve on it thou, as I am still writing from the "Chinese/Asian" perspective. I sometimes wonder how the non-Chinese would react to it.--Huaiwei 08:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It is very good right now - I live in the west, and am interested in economics - from my perspective it is very informative and directs me to further information such as land reform, etc. Vastu


 * Oh ok glad you find it ok. ;)--Huaiwei 09:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge into, or move out

 * Taiwan miracle should either be merged into this article (under the "Taiwan: A Case study" section), or the contents of the section should be merged into Taiwan miracle and removed/reduced from this article--Confuzion 04:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Etymology
Who coined the term? When and where did the term first appeared in publication (or broadcasting or whatever)?&mdash; Instantnood 22:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Reverting spelling mistakes
I don't really care whether Traditional is listed first or second, but it is assuming bad faith, not to mention being really destructive, to be mass reverting articles so that spelling several errors are reinserted. If you undo legitimate, uncontroversial edits, such as by deliberately and recklessly inserting spelling errors, you are committing simple vandalism. I have reverted Alanmak accordingly, not out of preference for Instantnood's version in the core of the dispute, but for reinserting spelling errors.

And remember that the edit summaries are for justifying your edits, not for communicating with the other person. If the two of you want to argue it out, please do so here. --Jiang 02:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yet the same is still happening: 01:50, April 21, 2006,03:32, April 22, 2006. Sigh~ &mdash; Instantnood 04:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Alanmak's edit
Re user:Alanmak's edit summary " Revert Instant's edit - If I overdo a revert, restore the things that I have overdo WITHOUT adding your POV gabbage, so that other people don't have to waste time reverting your rubbish every time.THX " -I've added nothing to the article in the last few edits which user:Alanmak keeps reverting. And.. as I recalled, two of the four participants mentioned about the infobox style style in thediscussion, but I don't think user:Huaiwei was suggesting to replace the inline style with infobox style. User:Yuje was the only person to have suggested that explicitly. That's hardly a consensus as user:Alanmak has claimed. &mdash;Instantnood 04:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Comparison to India
I have reduced that section to remove parts of remark that I think is non-relevant to the topic such as economic history (in the 10th century etc). But I kept the main point. Heilme 10:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Box format not needed
We should use the inline format instead of the box format because there are only three items on the list - t,s,p- so breaking it off to the side is unnecessary. Three items does not create clutter in the line, while the box is competing for the same space as the img (creating some whitespace on my browser).--Jiang 00:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

In the absence of any dissenting comments, so exists the consensus mentioned at Manual of Style (China-related articles) on whether to use a box.--Jiang 03:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Industrial Harmony
Economic success in Japan, followed by the baby east Asian Tigers, has been attributed to the existence of harmonious labor-management relations. “Industrial Harmony” is this unique “Culture of harmony” that was consciously invented and developed over the last century in Japan. A semi-bureaucratic organization called the “Kyochokai” (The Co-operation and Harmony Society) was established in 1819 to meet the needs of an emerging industrial society. The “Kyochokai” took the lead in trying to define the values which would be suitable for a new japanese-style  industrial society, at the time of great social troubles in industrial Europe. The resulting “invented” tradition has played an important role in the evolution and character of  Japanese economic values and behavior of social peace for economic development.

Takima 22:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________

Here is the book by Dean kinsley. http://books.google.ca/books?id=Q58OAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Industrial+harmony&hl=fr&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false

Takima (talk) 14:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Editing dispute
Please don't use revert + comments in editing summaries to replace talking in this page, solve disputes through talking, not just revert. ( & ) Discuss the changes here. --WinHunter(talk) 04:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate focus
While East Asian Tigers is about the economic success of Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan and Korea, large part of the article focuses on China and India. &mdash; HenryLi (Talk) 02:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The "four dragons" with one dragon pic missing
Is it me or did anyone else noticed that there are only 3 of the 4 "dragons" pics in the article.

here is a link to a very nice Singapore skyline

WikiSnake 11:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

removed bogus undervalued currencies claims
I have removed the bogus claims on common characteristics, as Hong Kong Dollar was floating freely (subject to no intervention from Central Bank of England) prior to 1983, and Hong Kong had already begun its transformation to service industry driven economy by 1980. Kommodorekerz 06:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * the currencies of the tigers wasn't devalue much by the government. if you would compared them to china, japan and malaysia... it is really a bucket vs a mountain! need to clean up the article and keep the content specify to the tigers and not what was also experience in other asian countries ;) Akinkhoo 14:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Name change
The title of this article was changed from East Asian Tigers to Four Asian Tigers. While it's true they are more commonly known in in Chinese as "亞洲四小龍" (literally Asian four little dragons), in English  East Asian Tigers is more common. &mdash; Instantnood15:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * how about just call them 'asian tigers'? Akinkhoo 15:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been redirected to this article when I've been looking for NIES. Is that another name for the Tigers, if yes, what does it mean etc... I don't find it in this article... Sara =)--123.227.32.128 (talk) 12:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sara, NIEs (Newly Industrialized Economies) is the politically correct term for NICs (Newly Industralized Countries), and refers to much more than just the Four Asian Dragons. That redirect may be because no one has written an article on the broader group of economically successful post-colonial nations. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You are probably looking for the BRICs and the Tiger Cub Economies, and others. -M0rphzone (talk) 06:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Benefits of the Elite Chinese
I'm sort of confused when it says "Taiwan thus benefited from the flight of many well-educated, bourgeois Chinese. A disproportionately high share of the immigrants were governing elites, merchants, Chinese capitalists, and well-educated professionals." Weren't many Taiwanese elites killed by the KMT? One of my relatives (who was born during the Japanese Era in Taiwan) went to Japan for college. KMT soldiers killed many of the college graduates. My relative was only spared because one of her friends said "我們都是中國人" meaning "we are all Chinese". After the KMT arrived at Taiwan, there was starvation, rebellions, murders, etc. So what did those educated professionals and capitalists actually do? Shuttlecockfc


 * It is true that an important characteristic of the 1949 migration was that it disproportionatly represented the elite of China (and, common soliders), and IMHO that this was decisive to getting the development process moving at a time when Chiang Kai-shek just wanted to build his forces in preparation for restarting the hot war. It is also true that many Taiwanese elites -- not the same as Chinese elites -- were killed in 1947+, but I have seen no evidence of starvation. What "those educated professionals and capitalists" actually did was to replace the departing Japanese elite. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Asian Tigers vs East Asian Miracle
I was wondering if East Asian Miracle really should redirect to Asian Tigers. I think the term really means more than just these four economies. Indeed, the book by the World Bank that coined the term actually referred to, as they call them, high performing Asian economies. Actually, I think there should be two articles: One for the Miracle and one for the four Asian tigers.--Asdirk 09:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the East Asian Miracle would have included japan which started the economic explosion in asia, and ending with the 'awakening of china'. Akinkhoo 14:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Japan already started during the Meiji Restoration. It's mainly regarded as a "Western" nation. China only just started, like in the late 20th century around the 90s and 2000s. — Precedingunsigned comment added by M0rphzone (talk •contribs) 06:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

India?
Why is India even relevant to this article? This is a page about EAST asian tigers. Last time I checked, India is a south asian country. Plus, the cultural, economical and historical similarities between India and other East asian countries are really minimum. I will delete the India section.

Cultural explanations and doubts about them
As far as I know, before the Tigers developed there had been theories explaining Asian "backwardness" using confucian culture, thought to hinder development. When the Tigers developed same confucian culture was used to explain how it helped development. So having this without critical voice in the article I've been wondering... Hope that someone here knows better about this than me =) Sara--123.227.32.128 (talk) 12:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Common Characteristics?
Does the GDP ranking really belong in the common characteristics of the introduction? The "12th, 21st, 36th, and 44th, respectively" don't actually seem very similar to me. Anyone have a problem with the removal of this from the list? If it is to stay it could be rephrased so that the sentence is clearer and less awkward.Ectoplasmical (talk) 14:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll dump this here until I find a place for it. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Comparative Import Tariffs on Capital Goods and Intermediate Goods, 1985 (Percent) Emerging Asia: Changes and Challenges, Asian Development Bank (Manila: 1997), Table 2.8, p. 97.

--- More common characteristics: All were colonies; all had large and aggressive neighbors very close by; all were under authoritarian governments until at least the 1980s; all stressed the importance of literacy, family responsibility for family members and the rights of women. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Incredibly Sino-Centric and Biased
This article is highly biased, derivative and self-ingratifying in extremis. It totally omits the reality of the TRUE tiger economies- driven by real commodities/manufacturing,.mineral resource wealth rather than financial capital Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia and Philippines- but glorifies the economic parasite nations of Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore.

The commonality of the three parasite nations as best expressed by Singapore: Sham democracies- authoritarian rule Human Rights violations Widespread restrictions on fundamental UN Human Rights- to which these nations were signatory too Secretive and illegal banking practices Widespread white-collar fraud Omnipresence and total market dominance of foreign multinationals such as HSBC, Keppel, Rothschilds, Rio Tinto, etc. No mineral wealth History of US-UK military presence Questionable investment activities

See the wood for the trees- these 'dragons' are actually mosquito: satellite regional headquarters for exploitation of nations which have tangible wealth.

This article reeks of atypical Chinese Middle-Kingdom (unjustifiable) cultural bigotry: "one white covers a hundred blemishes". For shame. Starstylers (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia and Philippines are not financial capitals. The article focuses on Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea and Singapore. --Platinum inc (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * So I have added the meaning of "Asia's Four Little Tigers" in Chinese. UU (talk) 08:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Way too Chinese Biased and Non-verifiable Claims
I have slapped a WP:NPOV as this article is way too Chinese biased. It looks like Chinese or China supporters want to glorify their country and its influences and ignore the actual point of this article - i.e. the economic growth of the four economies.

Right at the first sentence, it is very obvious that they are trying to glorify China straight-away, mentioning " They are also known as Asia's Four Little Dragons in Chinese, as these countries or territories have at various times throughout history experienced significant cultural contributions from China."

...? How is that ANY relevant with the economic growth of these countries?!?!

I mean, this is an encyclopedia, not a place where you brag about your country. Seriously. Please never insert such comments again.

PLEASE NEUTRALIZE THIS ARTICLE AND REMOVE SINO/CHINESE CENTRIC VIEWS OR CLAIMS.

Thank you. Lakshmix (talk) 11:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Anything the 3 nations and one territory have in common that might help explain their unexpected growth would be of interest to the user. But there should at least be some reliable source reference showing that some experts think the Chinese influence may be important. Readin (talk) 13:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, to put facts in perspective, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore are all ethnic Chinese dominated societies, while South Korea has significant Chinese cultural influences as the Silla, Goryeo and Joseon dynasties were all tributary states to various imperial dynasties of China. Therefore, the part on varying degrees Chinese cultural influences common to all 4 is definitely not inaccurate. Now, I think the issue we should try to come to an understanding on is whether this article should be a general one or a specialised economics one. If we want this to be a general article, that all common characteristics, economic or not, should be listed. If the consensus is to have a specialised economics article that only mentions the economic aspects, then it shouldn't be included except for maybe a small part on the role played by Confucianism - which by the way, originated in China. What I would think though is that while the part on Chinese influences should not be the focus of the article, it is still a common characteristic which warrants a brief mentioning. I hope this doesn't degenerate into a Chinese pride vs Korean pride debate, so I really think we should focus on whether we want a general or specialised article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The dog2 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Lakshmix got it wrong: the Chinese connection should stay. There was a time when "ethnic" or "cultural" explanations were all the rage, but that passed. Still, there is no denying that stronger historic / cultural / ethnic links to China positively correlate to this article. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added back the part on Chinese cultural influences, but I've tried to make the tone as neutral as possible. While it may not be directly relavant with the economic development, it's an interesting coincidence which I think is worth a brief mention, and it is certainly the reason why they are referred to as "dragons" and not "tigers" in Chinese. I hadn't done it for a while because I thought Lashmix was an admin and would block me if I didn't agree with his point of view, but from the look of his edits in general, he seems to be a Korean ultranationalist who would delete anything which might be seen as marginally unfavourable to Korea's image. I hope I don't come accross as anti-Korean, and I certainly am not. I've been to Korea and I also have Korean friends, and I must say I like Korea and appreciate its food and culture as unique. However, I think that articles should state all facts, whether or not they are favourable to a particular country. The dog2 (talk) 04:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

editing Criticism of the export-driven trade model
In Criticism of the export-driven trade model, it is talking to much about China. It should be more based on Criticism of the export-driven trade model of the four asian tigers, not about how great China is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by99.226.234.37 (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

21st century or 20th century?
An early sentence says, "In the 21st century, all four tigers became advanced economies and high-income economies." Am I missing some nuance, or did this occur in the TWENTIETH century? Maybe the sentence was intended to convey that now, in the 21st century, this is the situation, and the new thought got garbled with an older sentence. Can someone verify that this occurred and fix? Thanks. Holy (talk) 00:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality, tone, and style?
There seems to be an issue here over the article's general composition. The problem is that the issues mentioned above have been completely reversed and now the article looks like a ham-handed whitewash in favor of these tigers. The article as a whole reads more like an opinion piece to promote the idea that these four countries are miracles on earth. Can we possibly try to rewrite this?--Ipatrol (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that this article has problematic areas. For example, the last paragraph of the lead section describing the bubble is an opinion piece and has inappropriate language ("Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman patted himself on the back for..."). Richard☺Decal (talk) 10:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree about the Krugman issue. Perhaps "credited himself with" but "patted himself on the back" sounds ridiculously unprofessional.Law of Entropy (talk) 19:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Citation of the Economist article is appropriate to the general subject, but has no byline and makes no reference to Krugman. As such it is a decoy citation to justify opinion. Paragraph should be revised with reference to Krugman removed. — Precedingunsigned comment added by 173.164.215.241(talk) 16:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Table
At the end of the article the table shows South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore.

Perhaps the order they be in be sorted alphabetically or numerically?

--Platinum inc (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

They're sorted from north to south. What's wrong with that? Readin (talk) 19:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh I see. Are tables usually sorted "North to South"? Can you give an example where a table is sorted from "North to South"?--Platinum inc (talk) 20:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Then sort them south to north. I'm no polar-centrist.  Readin (talk) 20:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * But perhaps it would be more logical to sort them numerically in terms of GDP: purchasing power?--Platinum inc (talk) 17:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you find sorting by geographic location to be too demeaning to those countries of small latitude, then let's sort them alphabetically. But, just to make things interesting, let's sort based on the thirdletter of the name.  That will give some of the countries that usually find themselves at the bottom of these lists a chance to show up a little higher.  Or, if you really insist on being a traditionalist, we can sort by first letter. Readin (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What's with the sarcasm? I find it belittling and demeaning. Really, get off your high horse, your arrogance doesn't improve the article. Regardless, perhaps putting a label clearly stating "Sorted by Latitude" would make the reason for order more clear? Do you see where Im coming from? sorting by Latitude is quite bizzare.--Platinum inc (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. I was not intending to belittle.  Sorting alphabetical order is probably the best solution.  Sometimes a little humor is nice and I'm sorry that it offended you. Readin (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no need to apologise, I was the one being over-sensitive and misunderstood your humour, and for that reason I'm sorry. Anyway, I have changed the table in aphabetical order. Thank you for respoding to my posts. --Platinum inc (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am going to rake down this table if someone can not present more accurate figures soon. Taiwan's per capita was not $19 000 in 2005, it was much lower. I propose more reliable sources such as the world bank or the IMF.Pds0101 (talk) 12:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Reference to South Korea in summary
The last paragraph in the summary South Korea, the largest of the Four Asian Tigers, became the only Tiger to become a High-income OECD member, join the G-20 major economies, and be listed among the Next Eleven countries, while emerging as the world's largest shipbuilder, the world's fifth largest carmaker, and creating major global multinationals such as Samsung, LG and Hyundai-Kia. seems random and at best out of place. It first does nothing to help summarise the 'Four Asian Tigers' which is the purpose of this article. If the author feels this part is essential, it would at least be mentioned in a later section as a detailXsterx (talk) 07:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The last paragraph I agree contributes nothing towards the definition of the four asian tigers, it seems like it is written as a commercial boasting Korea..... it should definitely be edited. (Infuse10(talk) 11:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC))
 * Of course there are boasting words (especially from Koreans, Chinese, etc.). It's not surprising that there would be egos, pride, and glorification in these article. We just need to neutralize them and remove unnecessary details regarding each country. - M0rphzone (talk) 05:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Modern Asian Tigers
I was surprised to see this article leave out the modern take on "Asian Tigers", which I have always heard as China, Japan, and India. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 01:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They are completely different (in time periods, etc). Japan had already modernized with the West in the 1800s, 1900s during the Meiji Restoration and after, so it isn't considered as one. China and India didn't "modernize" until recently and are part of the BRICs. India was still a "colony" in the 1800s, 1900s, and China was isolationist/communist until the 21st century. You should probably learn the correct terms. -M0rphzone (talk) 05:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. India didn't really grow as significantly as Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan during the late 20th century. This article focuses on the significant growth of these 4 regions during the late 20th century. -M0rphzone (talk) 05:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

What's with the name?
The Chinese and Korean word is "dragons". There's no indication in the article that cites anyone using the word "Tigers" (come to that, there's no citations for "Dragon"). What's up?--68.161.181.28 (talk) 01:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

122.45.181.37
Why are you changing these numbers, and what is your source? I will continue to revert you until you can explain yourself.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 07:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

On this page, Republic of China has been agreed to write as Taiwan. Nowhere on this page Taiwan is marked as Republic of China. HDI, published in 2010, Taiwan's figures were not compiled. Please, keep in mind that the GDP in 2010 is only estimated figure. 'Freedom of the Press' is removed because it is minor than and redundant with 'Press Freedom Index' —Precedingunsigned comment added by 122.45.181.37 (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Where is the naming agreement you speak of?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

[Republic of China has been agreed to write as Taiwan]that just in Taiwanese,most peolpe in the world regard it that China is  —Preceding unsignedcomment added by 140.128.28.235 (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Role of traditional philosophies section
I removed the section below from the article. The first part of it is about Japan and so is completely off-topic. The second part is unsourced and seems to be original research as whoever wrote it implies that Japan and the four Asian tigers share the same values. Perhaps the first part of the section could be moved to a Japan-related article? Laurent (talk) 16:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Role of traditional philosophies
Economic success in Japan, followed by the Four Asian Tigers, has been attributed to the existence of harmonious labor-management relations (cf. W. Dean Kinzley, Industrial Harmony in Modern Japan: The Invention of a Tradition, Routledge, London & New York, 1991). “Industrial Harmony” is this unique “culture of harmony” that was consciously invented and developed over the last century in Japan. A semi-bureaucratic organization called the “Kyochokai” (The Co-operation and Harmony Society) was established in 1919 to meet the needs of an emerging industrial society. The Kyochokai took the lead in trying to define the values which would be suitable for a new Japanese-style industrial society, at the time of great social troubles in industrial Europe. The resulting "invented" tradition has played an important role in the evolution and character of Japanese economic values and behavior of social peace for economic development.

Japanese experience appears to challenge unilinear theories of modernization, and to suggest that Japan’s uniqueness lies in the creation of its own kind of modernity, sharply divergent from that to be found in Western countries, and based paradoxically upon a reaffirmation of ancient Confucian values and native Japanese traditions of harmony, self-sacrifice and non-individualistic group striving in pursuit of a common cause. Japan’s emphasis on long-term growth, scrupulous market evaluation, and process engineering are all well regarded as important components of its economic development.

These "Asian values" are the foundations of the "Asian political economy". Abandoning import substitution, the model advocated in the developing world following the two world wars, the Four Asian Tigers pursued an export-driven model of economic development with the exportation of goods to highly-industrialized nations. Domestic consumption was discouraged through government policies such as high tariffs. The Four Asian Tigers singled out education as a means of improving productivity; these territories focused on improving the education system at all levels; heavy emphasis was placed on ensuring that all children attended elementary education and compulsory high school education. Money was also spent on improving the college and university system.

Since the Four Asian Tigers were relatively poor during the 1960s, these nations had an abundance of cheap labor. Coupled with educational reform, they were able to leverage this combination into a cheap, yet productive workforce. The Four Asian Tigers committed to egalitarianism in the form of land reform, to promote property rights and to ensure that agricultural workers would not become disgruntled. Also, policies of agricultural subsidies and tariffs on agricultural products were implemented as well.

These places had strong industrial economies which set them apart from all other places in Asia.

Macau as an Asian tiger
Why isn't Macau included in the list? Macau has a highly developed economy based on tourism with a GDP (PPP) per capita of US$59,451 (larger than the four Asian tigers). Virtualerian (talk) 17:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)