The Contribution of Education to Economic Development in East Asia
Khanittha Saleemad*
Abstract
This article examines the educational development in East Asian countries such as Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan, known as the Four Asian tigers. The attention is to identify the significant features that played a major role in the process of educational development that contributes to economic growth in these countries. The study shows that their economic development relies heavily on educated workforce and investment in education can contribute to the productivity and economic growth. Although, there is no a single model for developing a successful educational system among Asian countries, there are common features between Asian educational systems, which are 1) they all aim at the same target which is building a well-qualified human power, 2) they place human resource development at the core of plans for national development, 3) primary schools are considered the foundation for a sequential successful education, with special attention to sciences and mathematical subjects; that eventually contributes to economic development, and 4) there are the mechanisms for coordinating the supply of skilled workforces so as to meet the demands of industry.
Keyword: Education, Educational Development, Economic Development, East Asia
* Lecturer, Graduate School of Srinakharinwirot University Corresponding author’s email: [email protected]
1. Introduction
After World War II, the Asia region was seen with pessimism, as it contained with many poor countries which characterized by the high level of illiteracy and by the aftermath of war and civil wars.1 For that reason, other regions like Africa and Latin America were thought to be the onset of rapid development; however, this situation proved elusive. This can be illustrated by the higher growth rate of the East Asian countries such as Japan, Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, etc.
Especially, the speed of their development needs to be highlighted. In 1960, South Korea had the same GDP as it was in Sudan. It took South Korea 11 years to double real per capita income from 1966, whereas USA did it in 47 years from 1839, and Japan achieve the same outcome in the 34 years from 1900.
Much credit on their economic success is given to their production of human capital through rapid expansion of education.2 These East Asian countries
emerging a rapid development are that they have invested greatly in education.
The investments resulted in well-educated work forces in both white-collar and blue collar is a common broad property of late industrialization.3
The outstanding history of four poor agrarian economies, such as Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan, known as the Four Asian tigers and as newly industrializing countries, has provoked many academic interests.
Besides, the performance of these four Asian Tigers is not only the high rates of growth, but also the sustainability of their growth rates. In the point of view of Ashton, the economic growth is paralleled by a growth human capital. In 1960, these four countries had high level of school enrollment of five to fourteen year olds ranged from 57 per cent to 67 per cent. Consequently, the high percentage of school enrollment brought about the supply of human capital for their economies.4
1 Morris, P. “Asia’s Four Little Tigers: A Comparison of the Role of Education in Their Development,”
Comparative Education, Vol. 32, No. 1. (March., 1996), p. 95.
2 World Bank.The East Asian Miracle: Economic Growth and Public Policy. New York Oxford University Press 1993.
3 Amsden, A.Asia’s Next Giant. OxfordUniversity Press, 2006, p. 215.
4 Ashton, D. Education and Training for Development in Asia: the Political Economy of Skill Formation in East Asian Newly Industrialized Economies. Florence, KY, USA: Routledge, 1999. p. 1.
This article focuses on examining the educational development in East Asian countries, particularly in the Four Asian Tigers which has been claimed that it was a key factor of their human development and economic growth. The attention is to identify its significant features that played a major role in the process of educational development in the East Asian countries.
First section aims to answer the question on how education contributes to economic growth. Then, it will examine the overall education system of the East Asian countries and find out whether there is a single model of educational development.
In doing so, the broad similarities and differences in their educational policies and systems will be identified.
2. The Contribution of Education to the Output and Economic Growth
There are many attempts to measure the contribution of education to economic growth. Those researches were based either on the growth accounting approach used by Denison (1962) and others, or on the rate of return to human
capital which adopted by Schultz (1963) and others. The growth accounting approach is based on the concept of an aggregate production function that links output (Y) to the input of physical capital (K) and labor (L). That is a country’ economic growth is divided into various contributing factors, such as growth in the workforce, investment in physical capital, and investment in human capital and be calculated on the equation:
Y = F (K, L). In this regard, it is possible to separate the rate of growth of output into its capital and labor parts. The first attempt of Denison in explaining U.S.
economic growth between 1910 and 1960 failed due to a large residual that could not be explained in this way. His second examination, regarding to solve the problem of residual, came with the results.
He found that about 23% of the rate of growth of output in the U.S. between 1930 and 1960 was due to the increase in education of the labor force.5
Another method of measuring the contribution of education to economic growth in terms of the rate of return to human capital comparing with the rate
5 Denison, E. F. The Sources of Economic Growth in the United States and the Alternatives Before Us.
New York: Committee for Economic Development. 1962.
of return to physical capital was used by Schultz (1963). He used this method in estimating the contribution of education to economic growth both in the United States and in developing countries since 1950. His overall conclusion is that a substantial proportion of the rate of growth of output in developed and developing countries were due to investment in education.6 This can be supported by his research in 1961that originated the classic examples on the controversy issue of investment in human versus physical capital between India and Japan.7 It reveals that the steel mills investment in India was not come with sustained growth, while the emphasis on education of Japan since the Meiji placed the foundation for Japanese economic miracle.
Further research by Wheeler (1980) confirms the fact that education and other indicators of human resource development such as literacy rate are a basis of economic development. He formulated a simultaneous model which
was applied data for eighty-eight developing countries. The findings from this examination suggest that education, health, and nutrition contribute to growth of output directly and indirectly by increasing the rate of investment and by reducing the birth rate. He also found that in the average an increase in literacy rate from 20 to 30 percent brings about GDP to increase by 8 to 16 percent.8 Similarly, an analysis which examined data for sixty-six developing countries by Marris (1982) concluded that education strongly affects economic growth, and that general investment has less effect on growth rates when there is no support from education investment.9 Moreover, a World Bank research on the links between education and the productivity of farmers which done by Jamison and Laurence (1982) has shown that investment in improved seeds, fertilizers, and irrigation is more productive in terms of increased crop yields, when farmers have four years of primary education rather than none.10
6 Schultz, T. W. The Economic Value of Education. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press. 1963
7 Schultz, T. W. “Investment in Human Capital,” American Economic Review, Vol. 51, No. 1, 1961, p. 1-17.
8 Wheeler, D. Human Resource Development and Economic Growth in Developing Countries: A Simultaneus Model. World Bank Staff Working Paper no. 407. Washington, D.C., 1980.
9 Marris, R. Economic Growth in Cross Section. London: BirkbeckCollege, Department of Economics.
1982.
10 Jamison, D. T., and Laurence J. Lau. Farmer Education and Farm Efficientcy. Baltimore, Md.: JohnsHopkins University Press. 1982.
The recent research by Easterlin (1981) argues the notion that education makes both a direct and an indirect contribution to economic growth. In addition, he is one of the economist researchers who strongly support that the most causal link between them should be from education to economic growth, not the other way around. After investigating in twenty-five of the largest countries in the world, he came up with the conclusion that “the spread of the technology of modern economic growth depended on the greater learning potential and motivation arising from the development of formal schooling.”11 Therefore, the economic history and also recent economic research confirms the theory that investment in education can contribute to the productivity and economic growth.
3. Is there a single model of educational development?
Cummings argued that there is a single model of human resource
development or the educational approach in the East Asian countries or the Four Asian tigers. The Eastern Asian approach emerged in the late nineteenth century as Asian countries responded to the Western challenge. Only Japan and Thailand were able to escape from the fetters of Western imperialism. As Japan has gone through greater developmental success, the educational approach of the Japanese has been the most influential among other Asian nations. Consequently, many countries in Eastern Asia have experienced the educational policies of “Learning from Japan”. The approach is labeled by Cummings as the J-model as in recognition of the fact that “Japan was the first architect of the approach, and most of the components were fully realized in Japan circa the 1960s.”12
The core components of the Japanese/Eastern Asian approach are as follow:
11 Easterlin, R “Why Isn’t the Whole World Developed?” See George Psacharopoulos & Maureen Woodhall, Education for Development An Analysis of Investment Choices, OxfordUniversity Press, 1985 , p. 21.
12 Cummings, W. Human resource development: the J-model. Challenge of eastern Asian Education, the Albany, NY, State University of New York Press, 1997, p. 156.
Human Resources are Critical for National Development
There was recognition in Eastern Asian national leaders that a major cultural and human transformation would be essential to respond to the Western challenge.13 Recognizing the scarcity of their natural resources, Eastern Asian leaders concluded that people were their key resources. In Eastern Asian countries, not only the development of human resources has been stressed but also on their utilization. To make it happens; they placed educational and cultural policy at the core of plans for national development.
As a result, educational streams in the public sector were closely linked to projected workforce requirements.
Governments took part as a coordinating role in the transition from education to work.
The State is Responsible for the Framework
The Eastern Asian states assumed a central role in their development. Their authorities sought to set up educational
goals and a curriculum as well as to provide textbooks and staff. The state was satisfied with these contributions because it could form the educational process, such as giving a slim budget, minimizing its involvement in the management of schools. The reliable principals and staff were expected to do their job. Thus, the school-level autonomy in implementation was remained within the centrally prescribed framework.
Seeking Knowledge throughout the World
Because of entering late into the modern era, a need to catch up the leading Western nations was recognized by the Eastern Asian nations.14 Therefore, a core component in their catch-up strategy was seeking knowledge throughout the world and especially from the West. Western knowledge was seen as the necessity means for developing national strength and competitiveness, particularly in the areas of science, medicine and technology.
A solid foundation in these areas, such as
13 Smith, T. C. Political change and industrial development in Japan: Government Enterprise, 1955. See in William Cummings. Human resource development: the J-model. Challenge of eastern Asian Education, the Albany, NY, State University of New York Press, 1997, p. 161.
14 Levy, M. J. Jr. Modernization: Latecomers and survivors, 1972. See in William Cummings. Human resource development: the J-model. Challenge of eastern Asian Education, the Albany, NY, State University of New York Press, 1997, p. 161.
mathematics and science, was expected to be provided in the schools from the first grades of the primary education. It expected to be provided and emphasized in colleges and universities.
Western Science/Eastern Values
Although, Western knowledge was considered valuable, Asian leaders denied the societal framework of the West. That is because they believed that the social and political values of Eastern Asia effectively provided a better foundation for the good society.15 Hence, schools contained moral education as a core of their curriculum. Moreover, teachers were expected to establish proper examples, and lead the youths to respect Easter Asia’s enduring traditions. The normative core primarily emphasized proper behavior such as honesty, hard work, respect for parents and authority, cleanliness, etc.16
Public Primary Schooling Provides the Foundation
Eastern Asian educators placed special importance on the development of effective primary schools, reflecting their belief that excellence derives from a command of the basics.17 Much concern was allocated to the curriculum and teaching methods at this level. Also adequate budget was provided to assure a solid basic education for all. Eastern Asian countries have been likely to acknowledge universal enrollment faster than other parts of the world.18
The Public School Teaches; the Pupil Has to Learn
With the conscious of scarce resources, Eastern Asian teachers placed limits on their school’s responsibilities.
Their school’s job was to teach the curriculum in an effective manner for the average pupil.19 The responsibility
15 Hall, I. P. Mori Arinori, 1973. See in William Cummings. Human resource development: the J-model.
Challenge of eastern Asian Education, the Albany, NY, State University of New York Press, 1997, p. 162.
16 Befu, H. Cultural nationalism in East Asia, 1993. See in William Cummings. Human resource development: the J-model. Challenge of eastern Asian Education, the Albany, NY, State University of New York Press, 1997, p. 162.
17 Passin, H. Society and education in Japan, 1965. See in William Cummings. Human resource development:
the J-model. Challenge of eastern Asian Education, the Albany, NY, State University of New York Press, 1997, p. 162.
18 Williamson, J. G. ‘’Human Capital Deepening, Inequality and Demographic Events along the Asia-Pacific Rim,” 1993. See in William Cummings. Human resource development: the J-model. Challenge of eastern Asian Education, the Albany, NY, State University of New York Press, 1997, p. 162.
19 Cummings, W. K. Education and equality in Japan. Princeton: PrincetonUniversityPress, 1980.
for studying lied on the pupil, and it was up to them and their parents to take advantage of the school’s presentation.
The school worked closely with local leaders and parents to insure this common understanding and to gain their cooperation.
Public Secondary and Tertiary Education Focus on National Priorities The concern of the Eastern Asian countries in catching up public resources was assigned in accordance with this objective. Therefore, the public sector had a limited objective in productivity critical workforce in education beyond the foundation level.20 The state set up a limited number of educational opportunities in the critical areas such as engineering.
These areas were heavily subsidized, so tuition was low and good students were attracted. Actually, the state funded a surplus of opportunities in expectation of future expansion in the related labor markets.
Ashton (1999) also agreed with the Cummings’s argument, especially in the argument that there was a distinctive Asian approach to human development expansion which the state performed as a coordinator between schools and workplaces. That is the state involves itself in workforce training, job placement and the coordination of science and technology. According to Ashton, there is the emergence of the mechanisms at the core of government which operate the function of linking the output of education and training system to the current and future economy skill demands in the Four Asian countries namely, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan.
The mechanisms’ function is to convey relevant information and to ensure that the needs of the economy are accorded a high priority by decision-makers. He stated that these mechanisms are clearly visible in Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong; however, “they take on varying forms.”21
20 Fong, P. E. Education, workforce and development in Singapore, 1982. And Cummings, W. K. Education and equality in Japan. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980. See in William Cummings. Human resource development: the J-model. Challenge of eastern Asian Education, the Albany, NY, State University of New York Press, 1997, p. 162.
21 Ashton, David. Education and Training for Development in Asia: the Political Economy of Skill Formation in East Asian Newly Industrialized Economies. Florence, KY, USA: Routledge, 1999, p. 129.
The channels of communication in Singapore are through the Ministry of Trade and Industry, the Economic Development Board and the Council for Professional and Technical Education. As the most important ministry, the agenda of Ministry of Trade and Industry tends to dominate the agendas of other ministries.
There are its representatives in various boards and councils in order to ensure the effectiveness of the process of internal communication. The task of the Economic Development Board is to ensure that the internal investment is available to provide the capital for the new industries. In performing this function, the human resource requirements for those industries are aware by the Board. The national skill requirements are shaped by the information of the skill requirements of those industries and the existing employers.
The national skill requirements are also identified by the information from the education training institutions that provide data on their existing and projected outputs. In this data, judgments are made
about the level of future output from the education and training institutions and whether it will be necessary to fill any gaps by employing suitably skilled labor from outside the country. Then, this information is used by the Council for Professional Technical Education to establish specific targets for the universities, polytechnics, schools and the Institute for Technical Education. In addition, the Council also corporately works with the Singapore Productivity and Standards Board which has the responsible to ensure that the skills of the labor force are upgraded to meet the requirements of the existing and projected demand. The cooperation between these two institutions provides mechanisms to ensure that when the country delineates its future skill needs, these are translated into specific targets.22
In Korea, the mechanism for coordinating the supply of skilled work- forces in order to meet the demands of industry is under the Economic Planning Board (EPB). The EPB has had three
22 Ashton, David. Education and Training for Development in Asia: the Political Economy of Skill Formation in East Asian Newly Industrialized Economies. Florence, KY, USA: Routledge, 1999, p. 130.
major roles: planning and formulating economic policy programs, coordination of economic and other policies by ministries and evaluation of policy programs. It has been the key influence in formulating educational and industrial policies for the last thirty years. In its planning function, the economic Planning Board has received the cooperation and support of the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Science and Technology.
Hence, the education and training implications of the economic development strategy are transferred to the ministries responsible for implementation.
In Taiwan, the Council for Economic Planning and Development (CEPD) has operated the function of the main linking mechanism. The CEPD works with the government in establishing the industrial strategy and ensures that other ministries work in the same line to meet the economic plans’ objectives.
Its responsibility is to ensure that the education and training system deliver appropriately skilled personnel to meet the demands of the economy, as defined
by the Industrial Development Board. An outcome of the activities of the CEPD was the Workforce Development Plans. The strategic plans are carried out the more detailed planning and direction of policy by the Workforce Planning Department which is included within the CEPD. This set of connections ensures that the policy’s direction regarding to the supply of appropriately trained personnel is delivered in practice.23
The mechanisms for coordinating the supply and demand for labour in Hong Kong consisted of three main bodies: the Education Commission, the Education and Workforce Branch and the Vocational Training Council. The first two institutions were influential bodies within the government. The Education Commission consisted of government and business representatives. Although it only had advisory powers, it was a significant influence in formulating public policy in the education area. The Vocational Training Council is also influential because it is highly centralized and controlled by a small elite closely linked
23 Ashton, David. Education and Training for Development in Asia: the Political Economy of Skill Formation in East Asian Newly Industrialized Economies. Florence, KY, USA: Routledge, 1999, p. 130.
to the inner circles of government.
Therefore, when adjustments are required they can be quickly implemented. While there was no formal policy making institution to ensure the requirements of economic dominated in the decision- making process among these three organizations, there were close formal and informal linkages between the memberships of the various councils, commissions and government departments which made possible a consensus to be sustained. Hence, while the Hong Kong’s government has not sought to influence the demand for skilled personnel, it has developed sophisticated mechanisms to ensure that the skills required by the economy can be rapidly responded.24
On the contrary, some have suggested that there is no single East Asian model of educational development.
Of those who agree on this issue argued that whilst patterns of educational provision exhibited some common features, there were also differences in other areas. According to Morris’s research in 1996, he concluded that some common features in the patterns of educational provision were visible;
however, there were also some significant differences in some areas within the three levels of education (elementary, secondary and tertiary) and vocational education in South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore.25
His study indicates that the most outstanding common feature across these four countries was the high demand of access to elementary schooling prior to industrial take-off procedure.
24 Ashton, David. Education and Training for Development in Asia: the Political Economy of Skill Formation in East Asian Newly Industrialized Economies. Florence, KY, USA: Routledge, 1999, p. 138.
25 Morris, Paul. “Asia’s Four Little Tigers: A Comparison of the Role of Education in Their Development,”
Comparative Education, Vol. 32, No. 1. (March 1996), p. 95-109.
Table 1 Percentage of Enrollment in Elementary, Secondary and Tertiary Education in East Asia
Percentage of age group enrolled in education
Elementary Secondary Tertiary
1965 1986 1965 1986 1965 1986
Taiwan 97.15 99.57 - 92.19 - 25.18
South Korea 101 94 35 95 6 33
Singapore 105 115 45 71 10 -
Hong Kong 103 105 29 69 5 13
Source: Morris. “Asia’s Four Little Tigers: A Comparison of the Role of Education in Their Development,” Comparative Education, Vol. 32, No. 1 (Mar 1996), p. 100.
Table 1 show that by 1965 the rates of elementary education enrollment in Taiwan, South Korea and Hong Kong were all over 100 percent, and the figure of Taiwan was 97.15 percent, while the figure of other low income countries of the world in that year was only 73%.
In addition, in each of the countries examined, the provision and expansion of basic education benefited both boys and girls. The second common feature emerges across the four countries was the sequential nature of education expansion which first main concern being given to primary education, later to general secondary education and then to tertiary
education. The expansion of primary education took priority in the early stage of growth and industrialization. Much less proportion was spent on secondary and tertiary education brought about a small proportion enrollment of the relevant age group. Subsequently, as Table 1 illustrates at first secondary and then tertiary education became the centers of expansion as motivated by the changes in the economy and by the growing expectations of parents whose children were completing their primary education. In the early phase of industrialization, the secondary education was selective for elitist. One of the key goals was to prepare a minority
of pupils for access to the final stage of formal education. Hence, the rates of secondary education enrollment in Korea, Singapore and Hong Kong were 35%, 45%
and 29% respectively. As their economies grew, the governments’ revenue and people’s living standards and aspiration increased. Secondary education expanded rapidly as can be seen in Table 1. By 1986, the enrollment rates for secondary schools in Taiwan had gone up to 92%, 71% in Singapore, 95% in South Korea and 69%
in Hong Kong.
However, some differences did emerge in a substantial degree of variation across the four countries. First, in terms of the sources of funding for primary and secondary education, the pattern is inconsistent. In Hong Kong the demand was fulfilled by private schools, while in the rest countries the provision of primary education was managed by the state.
Secondly, Taiwan and South Korea had a strong reliance on workforce planning with a consequent focus on technical and vocational education in the period after initial industrialization, in contrast, Singapore and Hong Kong pursued educational policies which were less interventionist and more market oriented. This represents the
very different levels of state intervention in education despite the existence of strong states in all four countries. Finally, all of the three countries examined used education to promote national cohesion and a sense of cultural identity except Hong Kong.
Tilak (2002) also agree with Morris on the notion that there is no single East Asian model of educational development. He claimed that the East Asian countries have followed different policies and adopted different strategies and approaches over time. According to Tirak, there are several factors that provided a highly conducive environment for sustained heavy investment in education in the East Asia which are a few economic, demographic, political and cultural factors. These factors, such as (a) a rapid economic growth, (b) significant decline in population growth, (c) equitable income distribution and (d) cultural and political factors, allow the economies to spend more on education. They also allow the economies to restructure their education budgets away from the quantitative expansion and in support of improvements in quality and equity. On the cultural side, the Confucian values which respect
education and acquiring knowledge are important. On the political side, the rulers’ commitment to support education and link it to socioeconomic and political development is an important component of educational expansion. All these factors have positively influence the demand and supply factors regarding to educational investment, and transformed education system into a potentially important means for development.26 Yet, there were some similarities in conditions and approaches, the policies adopted by the countries were inevitably different.
The similarities among East Asian countries were that, firstly, education is viewed as “a prime national investment”
of the countries.27 For Eastern Asian countries, education is considered as a vital instrument of industrialization and economic development. The principal national priority has been economic
development, and education is intended to serve this purpose. As a result, primary education is regarded as providing a basic foundation; secondary and higher education have meant to fulfill the human resource needs. Secondly, the education has been developed not only a good-quality educa- tion system, but also the effective utiliza- tion of the graduate output for economic development which is a significant factor in the accomplishment of East Asian economies.28 The existence of elaborate and efficient workforce planning systems and development plans noticeably emerged in Korea, Singapore and Taiwan.29 Finally, because all of the region’s countries have limited natural resources with the exception of China, they concentrate on development of human resources.
Particularly, Singapore has both limited natural and human resource, so every individual has been converted into valuable
26 Tirak, Jandhyala B.G. Building Human Capital in East Asia: What Others Can Learn. The international bank for reconstruction and development/ World Bank, Washington, D.C. USA, 2002, p. 38.
27 Ibid, p. 39.
28 Park, E. Y. Management of Human Resources and Korean Industrialization: 1960-1990, 1994. See in Tirak, Jandhyala B.G. Building Human Capital in East Asia: What Others Can Learn. The international bank for reconstruction and development/ World Bank, Washington, D.C. USA, 2002, p. 39.
29 Kim, Y. B. Evaluation of Workforce Policies in the Republic of Korea, 1987. See in Tirak, Jandhyala B.G. Building Human Capital in East Asia: What Others Can Learn. The international bank for reconstruction and development/ World Bank, Washington, D.C. USA, 2002, p. 39.
30 Yeoh, O. C. Singapore: System of Education, 1994. See in Tirak, Jandhyala B.G. Building Human Capital in East Asia: What Others Can Learn. The international bank for reconstruction and development/ World Bank, Washington, D.C. USA, 2002, p. 39.
31 Tirak, Jandhyala B.G. Building Human Capital in East Asia: What Others Can Learn. The international bank for reconstruction and development/ World Bank, Washington, D.C. USA, 2002, p. 39.
human capital.30 Tirak asserted that
“economic growth in the region, constrained by the availability of natural resources, flourished through its strong education system and high-quality educated and skilled work force.”31
Some differences regarding to the educational policies were that Japan, Korea and Taiwan have followed expansionist policies in higher education, allowing rapid growth with public and private investments; in contrast, China and Singapore have implemented respective policies. For example, Singapore followed a controlled admission policy in order to decrease possible mismatches between supply and demand for graduate work- force.
4. Conclusion
From this article, some major points can be summarized. It is shown clearly how education can be a strong factor in shaping the economic status of a country. It has been explained thoroughly how this economic development rely
heavily on educated workforce. Educated labor force produce at more efficient levels, therefore, their work produce higher rate of output as mentioned in the statistic of the U.S during the 1930s and 1960s. Besides, general investment has less effect on growth rates when there is no support from education investment.
Hence, investment in education can contribute to the productivity and economic growth.
Although, there is still a controversial question whether there is a single model for developing a successful educational system among Asian countries or not.
There is a variety of opinions on this issue, some suggesting that the Japanese model is the leading and only form of educational systems that guaranty sophis- ticated educational achievement. Hence, there might be only a single model that all Asian systems follow. Others see that there are common features between Asian educational systems; however, they also have various differences in policies and implementing approaches. Despite these
differences, the common features are still superior to the differences as they all aim at the same target which is building a well-qualified human power and that is the overall and most important objective of any educational system and consequently achieving national development in all other developmental aspects. Another important common feature between most Asian systems is that they place human resource development at the core of plans for national development. Besides, most of these well-organized systems believe in the necessity of a strong educational content during primary education; in other words, primary schools are considered the foundation for a sequential successful education, with special attention to sciences and mathematical subjects;
that eventually contributes to economic development. Finally, there were the mechanisms for coordinating the supply of skilled workforces so as to meet the demands of industry.
References
Amsden, A. (2006). Asia’s Next Giant.
Oxford University Press.
Ashton, D. (1999). Education and Training for Development in Asia: the Political Economy of Skill Formation in East Asian Newly Industrialized Economies.
Florence, KY, USA: Routledge.
Cummings, W. K. (1980). Education and equality in Japan. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Cummings, W. K. (1997). Human resource development: the J-model. Challenge of eastern Asian Education, the Albany, NY, State University of New York Press.
Denison, E. F. (1962). The Sources of Economic Growth in the United States and the Alternatives Before Us. New York: Committee for Economic Development.
Easterlin, R. (1985). “Why Isn’t the Whole World Developed?” See George Psacharopoulos & Maureen Woodhall, Education for Development An Analysis of Investment Choices, Oxford University Press.
Jamison, D. T., & Laurence J. L. (1982).
Farmer Education and Farm Efficiency. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Marris, R. (1982). Economic Growth in Cross Section. London: Birkbeck College, Department of Economics.
Morris, P. (1996). Asia’s Four Little Tigers: A Comparison of the Role of Education in Their Development.
Comparative Education, Vol. 32, No. 1.
Schultz, T. W. (1963). The Economic Value of Education. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Tirak, J. B.G. (2002). Building Human Capital in East Asia: What Others Can Learn. The international bank for reconstruction and development/
World Bank, Washington, D.C.
USA.
Wheeler, D. (1980). Human Resource Development and Economic Growth in Developing Countries:
A Simultaneous Model. World Bank Staff Working Paper no.407.
Washington, D.C.
World Bank. (1993). The East Asian Miracle:Economic Growth and Public Policy. New York Oxford University Press.
