Writing on 14 March 2020, it was unclear just how restrictive lockdown ought to be and what accompanying policies would be needed to successfully respond to Covid-19. Five months in, even as debate about seemingly “authoritarian” government responses and competing economic priorities abounds, it looks as though I was right.
Covid-19 is now in over 100 different countries, and so far, only a handful have showed the institutional capacity and political will to take the necessary measures to contain it. They had the least amount of lead time and yet, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and China have demonstrated exemplary leadership that has already saved thousands of lives.
Interestingly, we have seen these countries grouped together before, long before Covid-19 or even before SARS. We know them as the “Asian Tigers.” (China’s story is a bit more complicated, so it is not always included in this list, but shares many of the characteristics.)
The Asian Tigers underwent very rapid industrialization beginning in the 1960s, and did so without the help of Western development banks, consultants, or conditional loans. In fact, these “late developers” pursued policies that directly contradicted the conventional wisdom of the times, rejecting free trade agreements to protect infant industries, heavily subsidizing manufacturers, and investing extensively into universal healthcare and education. Government intervention in shaping market forces towards political goals remains a staple characteristic of the political economy in these countries.
Their success irks neoliberals so much that their stories are not taught in economics courses, and if they are, aspects of their industrial policy are downplayed. Orthodox economists prefer to focus on stories where free markets and small governments lift millions out of poverty, which has happened literally nowhere in the world, ever, making the few successes like the Asian Tigers all the more educational and all the more threatening to the neoliberal paradigm. This may well be why much of the West is so reluctant to take advice from China or the others on Covid-19, or acknowledge how successful they’ve been in responding to the crisis. (It is also why the US, in particular, is so reluctant to extend unemployment benefits and other government programs to shield people from economic hardship and the virus.)
But just as interestingly, the Asian Tigers underwent their extraordinary rise to prosperity under very centralized political regimes. This is well known about China, but here’s another example: in the 1960s, South Korea re-wrote its constitution to allow the president to serve a third term (!), at which point he dissolved the National Assembly (!) and ruled under a “state of emergency” until he was assassinated (!) in 1979, when the transition to democracy could finally begin. Singapore was under a dictatorship until as late as 1990.
While it is awkward to challenge the idea that democracy is the best form of governance, it is often argued that these countries were successful precisely because their leadership did not have to worry about warring factions, upcoming elections, or other democratic pressures. The legitimacy of the government rested on whether it could deliver results: rapid and distributive economic growth. And although (most of) these countries are now democratic, it is likely that this social contract has remained in the collective psyche of the constituency, permitting these governments to act decisively to limit individual liberties for the sake of the public good to stop the outbreak, in a way that seems completely unfathomable in the West.
And from here (because it is often helpful to have an older white male as back up), this New York Times op-ed by Ian Johnson picks up nicely on my argument:
“In my experience living in China for weeks during the peak period of the lockdown and talking to various groups beyond the disgruntled elites, people were frustrated, even exasperated, by the containment measures — but they largely supported them, too. And while some in the West fixated on how China’s system failed to stem the outbreak at first, they were ignoring the aspects of it that worked. There’s nothing authoritarian about checking temperatures at airports, enforcing social distancing or offering free medical care to anyone with Covid-19.
Singapore, Taiwan and perhaps soon enough South Korea, have moved forcefully but sensibly to contain the virus, showing the sort of savvy that seems to be missing in large swaths of the West. Maybe it’s because these countries are close enough to the center of the outbreak that their governments could recognize its seriousness, while also being wary of China’s sledgehammer measures.
But too many countries further afield have stood by, watching for weeks what was unfolding in China, and then elsewhere in Asia, as though it was none of their concern. Some governments have dithered for lack of political will. Some seem to fall prey, still, to a perception of China as the eternal “other,” whose experience couldn’t possibly be relevant to us, much less provide any lessons — other than in what not to do.”
