Search results

This paper will examine the challenges of the globalisation process on the Malaysian economy and the role of the state and the private sector and their state of competitiveness in meeting the challenges. Issues relating to the enhancement of technological capability, the role of education, training and R&D will be examined in greater depth with respect to the country's quest for industrial nation status by the year 2020.

The Asian crisis, which exploded in Thailand in July 1997 initially, spilled to the other ASEAN countries (Indonesia, Malaysia, and Philippines) and later it spreads to Korea and even crossing the continent to Russia and Brazil. The chronological pattern seems to indicate the contagious behaviour of the crisis. However, the sequential economic down‐turns that occurred in the Asia Pacific do look like a contagion effect. The idea that currency speculators contributed to the depth of the crisis is agreeable but to conclude that they are the roots of the problem would be misleading. This paper argued that the roots of the problems lie in current account deficit and loss of competitiveness, and moral hazard and over‐investment This paper also argued that the currency crisis is a symptom and not the cause of the Asian crisis.

Structural economists have been amongst the foremost proponents of a pro‐active industrial policy as the mechanism for promoting rapid economic growth (Lewis, 1956; Myrdal, 1957; Kaldor, 1967; Thirlwall, 1989). This is substantiated by the argument that manufacturing being characterised by increasingly specialised inter‐related activities, radiates tremendous impulses both intra and inter sectorally (Young, 1928: 527–42). Using a sample of 12 developed countries, Kaldor (1967:3–23; 1975:891–6; 1979; 1989:282–310) attempted an empirical study to support this relationship. A positive correlation between manufacturing growth and that of the economy has been defended on the grounds that manufacturing growth increases static (relate to size and scale of production units and are characteristic largely of manufacturing where in the process of doubling the linear dimensions of equipment, the surface increases by the square and the volume by the cube), as well as dynamic (relate to increasing returns brought about by ‘induced’ technical progress, learning by doing, external economies in production, etc.) returns (Thirlwall, 1989: 60). Since manufacturing also produces capital goods that are used in different industrial branches and other sectors, it is seen as a powerful mechanism for transmitting technical change (Weiss, 1988). It is for these reasons, structuralists generally prescribe government policies that favour manufacturing expansion. Malaysia is a good example of a natural resource rich country that has made manufacturing its main plank of economic growth especially since the launching of the New Economic Policy (NEP) in 1971 (see Malaysia, 1976). However, as industrial policy in each socio‐political space offers state‐specific characteristics, we will analyse industrialisation within Malaysia's setting.

This paper analyses the policies related to the development of the agricultural and industrial sectors in Malaysia. The objective of the paper is to determine whether there exist biases in government policies pertaining to these two sectors. The paper begins by providing a brief overview of Malaysian economic development. This section analyses the policies introduced to develop the two sectors. The next section contains an analysis of the policies, government expenditure and employment in the agricultural and industrial sectors to test the presence of policy biases. The paper concludes that there is no significant policy biases between these two sectors.