This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Economy of East Asia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
OK, I'll give this one a shot. DOR (HK) ( talk) 01:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Various organizations and disciplines define "East Asia" in different ways. The United Nations classifys South-east Asia (the 10 ASEAN members plus East Timor) as a distinct region, but other sources add North-east and South-east Asia together, which is the practice in this article.
The economic entities of East Asia are thus Japan; the Democratic People's Republic of (North) Korea; the Republic of (South) Korea; the People's Republic of China and its special administrative regions Hong Kong and Macau; Taiwan; and the 10 ASEAN members: the Philippines, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Burma, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, and Indonesia. The lack of useful statistical data makes including East Timor problematic, and so unless otherwise indicated, it will be omitted. DOR (HK) ( talk) 07:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
A 1997 Asian Development Bank (ADB) study < ref >Emerging Asia: Changes and Challenges, ADB 1997 ISBN 971-561-105-2. </ref> identifies three conventional theories as to how and why Asia developed so much faster than other regions. The classical theory identifies outward orientation and relatively strong property rights protection as key ingredients, as well as access to good ports and major markets. The neoclassical theory emphasizes rapid capital accumulation and the opportunity for high returns on investment that shortages presented. The third, endogenous growth theory credits superior economic institutions such as lifetime employment and consensus building as the superior attributes of the Asian culture. The study then notes that none of these theories attaches sufficient importance to demography, particularly changes in age structure, dependency ratios and overall population growth rates. This, according to the authors, is where much of the explanation lies. DOR (HK) ( talk) 06:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Among the major policy choices commonly adopted in East Asia, and noticeably less so elsewhere in the developing world are openness to foreign trade, significant levels of government savings and an emphasis on education for both boys and girls. While these attributes were far from universally applied, they are conspicuously present in the region to a much larger degree than is the case elsewhere. < ref > Emerging Asia: Changes and Challenges, pp. 68-69. ADB 1997 ISBN 971-561-105-2. < /ref> DOR (HK) ( talk) 07:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
< ref >UN World Population Prospects 2008, http://esa.un.org/unpp/< /ref > In 2005, East Asia had more than one-third of the world’s population, an estimated 2,075 million people. Growth during the decade is expected to 0.79% per annum, pushing the total to 2,154 million by 2010. South-east Asia is expected to grow more than twice as fast (1.32% p.a.) as North-east Asia (0.60% p.a.). 65.5% of the population is working age (15-59), slightly higher than the global average 61.4%.
The North-east / South-east divide holds for other demographic indicators, too. The average age in the North-east was 33.1 years in 2005, and 26 years in South-east Asia. Life expectancy (74.1 years vs. 70) is not as distinctly different, although infant mortality rates differ by nearly a third: 21.8 per 1,000 in North-east Asia vs. 28.3 in South-east Asia. DOR (HK) ( talk) 07:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
< ref >UN World Population Prospects 2008, http://esa.un.org/unpp/< /ref >
Infant mortality ratio (per 1,000 live births)
Median Age (2005)
Life Expectancy (2005)
DOR (HK) ( talk) 07:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Savings Rates, 1970-92 (%) < ref > Emerging Asia: Changes and Challenges, ADB 1997, p. 108 ISBN 971-561-105-2. </ref>
DOR (HK) ( talk) 06:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Dr. Thorbecke has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
There should be a discussion of regional value chains. These are one of the most significant developments in East Asia recently. Firms have sliced up the value chain and allocated production blocks across the region differences in factor endowments in the fragmented production blocks
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
We believe Dr. Thorbecke has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:
ExpertIdeasBot ( talk) 15:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Economy of East Asia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
@ Backendgaming: Let's just stick to the disputed page which is Economy of East Asia without starting a war because that's not exactly helpful. So why do you think Singapore should be included on the page? I don't think ethnicity is an appropriate reason for its inclusion because this is about the economy which has nothing to do with one's ethnicity. Is there a specific reason why it should be included? The only reason I can think of is because Singapore developed in a similar way to other East Asian economies, namely Taiwan, Hong Kong and South Korea. If that is the reason we should then add Four Asian Tigers to the "See also" section. I'm willing to start a discussion here without any anger, so let's get a consensus so we can solve it. We can compare and contrast our thoughts so we can achieve a consensus that pleases both parties. What do you think? ( 121.220.60.18 ( talk) 00:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC))
It is very difficult to discuss editing with someone who won’t register. How is one to know if the person on the keyboard is the same one that previously used it or not? As a rule, those who do not register, in my opinion, are casual editors who don’t think the standards many of us try to maintain are worth upholding.
I spent most of my life in East Asia, and can confidently say that I have never heard the phrase used in a way that excluded South-East Asia. The Philippines is further east than China, so simple geography doesn’t define the region. Singapore has more in common with Hong Kong than it does with Indonesia, so race, religion and culture have no real value in defining the area.
Which leaves us with history, more specifically recent history since the more common term prior to the 19th century was East Indies, East Asia, the Orient or the Far East. The colonial and post-war history binds the region together more than almost any other characteristic save proximity.
Set that aside. What is your reason, 121.220.60.18, for excluding Economy of Singapore from a list of references for further reading? What pressing reason is there for denying readers easy access to another article that might provide deeper or broader understanding of the subject? And, why in the world do you feel so strongly that no one should be able to tap a link and quickly go to a page about Singapore's economy? DOR (HK) ( talk) 10:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Insufficiently paraphrased text removed per WP:C and WP:CLOP. A list of the removed text is shown here. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 22:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Singapore is not located in East Asia. So any mention of Singapore in this article is gravely misplaced. 49.146.59.197 ( talk) 10:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Wow. First day of the year and we already have full-year statistics. Just, wow. DOR (HK) ( talk) 17:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Economy of East Asia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
OK, I'll give this one a shot. DOR (HK) ( talk) 01:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Various organizations and disciplines define "East Asia" in different ways. The United Nations classifys South-east Asia (the 10 ASEAN members plus East Timor) as a distinct region, but other sources add North-east and South-east Asia together, which is the practice in this article.
The economic entities of East Asia are thus Japan; the Democratic People's Republic of (North) Korea; the Republic of (South) Korea; the People's Republic of China and its special administrative regions Hong Kong and Macau; Taiwan; and the 10 ASEAN members: the Philippines, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Burma, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, and Indonesia. The lack of useful statistical data makes including East Timor problematic, and so unless otherwise indicated, it will be omitted. DOR (HK) ( talk) 07:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
A 1997 Asian Development Bank (ADB) study < ref >Emerging Asia: Changes and Challenges, ADB 1997 ISBN 971-561-105-2. </ref> identifies three conventional theories as to how and why Asia developed so much faster than other regions. The classical theory identifies outward orientation and relatively strong property rights protection as key ingredients, as well as access to good ports and major markets. The neoclassical theory emphasizes rapid capital accumulation and the opportunity for high returns on investment that shortages presented. The third, endogenous growth theory credits superior economic institutions such as lifetime employment and consensus building as the superior attributes of the Asian culture. The study then notes that none of these theories attaches sufficient importance to demography, particularly changes in age structure, dependency ratios and overall population growth rates. This, according to the authors, is where much of the explanation lies. DOR (HK) ( talk) 06:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Among the major policy choices commonly adopted in East Asia, and noticeably less so elsewhere in the developing world are openness to foreign trade, significant levels of government savings and an emphasis on education for both boys and girls. While these attributes were far from universally applied, they are conspicuously present in the region to a much larger degree than is the case elsewhere. < ref > Emerging Asia: Changes and Challenges, pp. 68-69. ADB 1997 ISBN 971-561-105-2. < /ref> DOR (HK) ( talk) 07:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
< ref >UN World Population Prospects 2008, http://esa.un.org/unpp/< /ref > In 2005, East Asia had more than one-third of the world’s population, an estimated 2,075 million people. Growth during the decade is expected to 0.79% per annum, pushing the total to 2,154 million by 2010. South-east Asia is expected to grow more than twice as fast (1.32% p.a.) as North-east Asia (0.60% p.a.). 65.5% of the population is working age (15-59), slightly higher than the global average 61.4%.
The North-east / South-east divide holds for other demographic indicators, too. The average age in the North-east was 33.1 years in 2005, and 26 years in South-east Asia. Life expectancy (74.1 years vs. 70) is not as distinctly different, although infant mortality rates differ by nearly a third: 21.8 per 1,000 in North-east Asia vs. 28.3 in South-east Asia. DOR (HK) ( talk) 07:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
< ref >UN World Population Prospects 2008, http://esa.un.org/unpp/< /ref >
Infant mortality ratio (per 1,000 live births)
Median Age (2005)
Life Expectancy (2005)
DOR (HK) ( talk) 07:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Savings Rates, 1970-92 (%) < ref > Emerging Asia: Changes and Challenges, ADB 1997, p. 108 ISBN 971-561-105-2. </ref>
DOR (HK) ( talk) 06:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Dr. Thorbecke has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
There should be a discussion of regional value chains. These are one of the most significant developments in East Asia recently. Firms have sliced up the value chain and allocated production blocks across the region differences in factor endowments in the fragmented production blocks
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
We believe Dr. Thorbecke has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:
ExpertIdeasBot ( talk) 15:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Economy of East Asia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
@ Backendgaming: Let's just stick to the disputed page which is Economy of East Asia without starting a war because that's not exactly helpful. So why do you think Singapore should be included on the page? I don't think ethnicity is an appropriate reason for its inclusion because this is about the economy which has nothing to do with one's ethnicity. Is there a specific reason why it should be included? The only reason I can think of is because Singapore developed in a similar way to other East Asian economies, namely Taiwan, Hong Kong and South Korea. If that is the reason we should then add Four Asian Tigers to the "See also" section. I'm willing to start a discussion here without any anger, so let's get a consensus so we can solve it. We can compare and contrast our thoughts so we can achieve a consensus that pleases both parties. What do you think? ( 121.220.60.18 ( talk) 00:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC))
It is very difficult to discuss editing with someone who won’t register. How is one to know if the person on the keyboard is the same one that previously used it or not? As a rule, those who do not register, in my opinion, are casual editors who don’t think the standards many of us try to maintain are worth upholding.
I spent most of my life in East Asia, and can confidently say that I have never heard the phrase used in a way that excluded South-East Asia. The Philippines is further east than China, so simple geography doesn’t define the region. Singapore has more in common with Hong Kong than it does with Indonesia, so race, religion and culture have no real value in defining the area.
Which leaves us with history, more specifically recent history since the more common term prior to the 19th century was East Indies, East Asia, the Orient or the Far East. The colonial and post-war history binds the region together more than almost any other characteristic save proximity.
Set that aside. What is your reason, 121.220.60.18, for excluding Economy of Singapore from a list of references for further reading? What pressing reason is there for denying readers easy access to another article that might provide deeper or broader understanding of the subject? And, why in the world do you feel so strongly that no one should be able to tap a link and quickly go to a page about Singapore's economy? DOR (HK) ( talk) 10:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Insufficiently paraphrased text removed per WP:C and WP:CLOP. A list of the removed text is shown here. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 22:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Singapore is not located in East Asia. So any mention of Singapore in this article is gravely misplaced. 49.146.59.197 ( talk) 10:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Wow. First day of the year and we already have full-year statistics. Just, wow. DOR (HK) ( talk) 17:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC)