The four Asian tigers — Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan — once fascinated the economic world.
From the early 1960s until the 1990s, they regularly achieved double-digit growth. A generation that had toiled as farmers and laborers watched their grandchildren become some of the most educated people on the planet.
The tigers started by making cotton shirts and plastic flowers. Before long, they were producing memory chips, laptops and equity derivatives. In the process they spawned a debate about the source of their success. Some attributed it to the anvil of government direction; others to the furnace of competitive markets.
Then the world turned away. The Asian financial crisis destroyed their mystique. China became the new development star, even if, to a certain extent, it followed their lead. This year, the U.S. is on track to grow more quickly than all four of the tigers.
They all have seemingly intractable problems: stagnant wages in Taiwan, the dominance of big business in South Korea, an underclass of cheap imported workers in Singapore and a government in Hong Kong that will not, or cannot, listen to its people.
But it is a mistake to write off the tigers. A closer look at their economic record shows that they have much to boast about. The trajectory of their GDP per person, calculated at purchasing-power parity, has remained impressive. They blew past the supposed middle-income trap long ago. And South Korea will soon become the fourth tiger to overtake Japan, its former imperial ruler and economic mentor.
They have also gained ground on the U.S. Singapore passed it in the 1990s; Hong Kong drew level in 2013; and the other two have narrowed the gap. Indeed, in the past five years (2013-18), the GDP per person of Singapore and Hong Kong has grown faster than every country above them in the income rankings. With a couple of exceptions, the same is true of Taiwan and South Korea.
In their economic maturity, the tigers merit renewed attention. They face many of the same issues that bedevil the West: how to mitigate inequality; how to gin up productivity; how to cope with aging; and how to strike a balance between the U.S. and China. They do not have all the answers, but they do have novel, albeit sometimes foolish, approaches that are in themselves instructive.