経済発展と工業化のパターン:世界の工業化の展望

抄録

1. Worldwise Tendency of Industrialization
Worldwise industrialization in 1960-90 showed a bipolarization trend: ratio of MAV per worker between lowest and highest increased from 1: 800 to 1: 1, 600. Ranks of Asian countries improved greatly. Ranking by per worker value-added was as follows:
World Bank (September 1993), The East Asian Miracle-Economic Growth and Public Policy, showed that eight countries (Japan, China, Four Tigers, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand) showed higher than 1.5% per-capita GDP growth (1960-85) and belonged to top 1/3 (middle, 1.5-0, bottom minus), while Gini coefficients decreased in these economies except China. So they achieved “growth and equity” simultaneously, based upon their exportoriented open development strategy and the virtuous circle (growth, equitable distribution, enlarged domestic market, further growth). This spurt is the core of developemnt of surrounding regions: Pan-Pacific-Ocean-Region (or APEC region).
Interregional inequality in China is high (C. V of 10 regions 0.3266 (1989) is comparable with 0.3451 (Japan, 47 regions, 1960). Until Fifth Five Year Plan (1981-85), China emphasized the local autarchy of foods and basic goods for defense purpose. After 6th Plan (1986-90) changed the development pattern to advancement of litoral and big-river areas and trickle-down to inland areas.
2. Industrialization of Four North-East-Asian (NEA) countries
Figures (at the end) show the MVA (1980 US million) of 27 subsectors, their share and growth in 1985-90 for 4 countries. Recently the growth slowed down due to worldwise recession.
Rapidly expanded subsectors are Machineries (38), chemicals (35) and glasses (36). Various machineries (electric and electronic) showed highest growth in many cases.
The rank of shares of light industries (Russia, China, Korea, Japan). Rank of heavy and chemical industries (Japan, Korea, China, Russia). The share of energy and other manufacturing is 9-10% in every country. Rank of machineries (Japan, Russia, Korea, China).
The dissimilarity index (Japan (1990) as base) is defined as the sum of absolute percentage differences between different country and period. Structure of Korea and China are similar to Japan 1970 and 1960, respectively. These three countries experience the similar structural changes. Structure of Russia is very different, and speed of change is very low.
The effective wage (real wage divided by average labor productivity) decreased in USA and Japan, but increased in Korea and China. The ratio are Japan (1.00), Korea (0.64), China (0.58), so cheaper than Japan by 36 and 42 per cent. Wage of Russia decreased from 0.28 to 0.13.
3. Future Direction of North-East Asian Region
The industrial structure of Japan is full-set type, and balanced between high-tech, middle-tech and basic-tech. One of Korea is cone-type. ASEAN mainly middle-tech. China and Russia lack middle-tech (Seki Mitsuhiro. 1993).
The Japanese FDI to China was US 1.2 billion (92), exceeded FDI to 4 South-east Asian countries.
The North-East China has (1) big accumulation of Basia-tech businesses, (2) is important to realize the well-balanced regional development of China, (3) will fave a good accessibility after the construction of transport ssystem, and has a good possibility of intra-industry division of labor as well as the assembly-type activities.
Eastern Russia is endowed with ample energy resources, and has a good chance of inter-industry-type division of labor.