Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Huff, W. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Related Collections
Right arrow O11 - Macroeconomic Analyses of Economic Development
Right arrow O21 - Planning Models; Planning Policy
Right arrow O53 - Asia including Middle East
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Copyright © Cambridge Political Economy Society

research-article

What is the Singapore model of economic development?

W. G. Huff*

*University of Glasgow and Australian National University

Abstract

This article elaborates the concept of a Singapore model of economic development which depended externally on services as much as manufactured exports. Extensive government intervention and planning, though not a rigid central plan, were essential to the successful expansion of both. Singapore's experience illustrates an approach to economic planning which admits possibilities other than just ‘the market’ or ‘the plan’, and shows that this is not a polarised debate. Analysis of the Singapore model points to a structuralist approach and leads away from a current neoclassical ascendency in development economics, founded ‘empirically’ in part on the Republic's success as one of the four East Asian dragons.

Manuscript received April 26, 1993; final version received January 23, 1995.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Review of Radical Political EconomicsHome page
P. Burkett and M. Hart-Landsberg
Alternative Perspectives on Late Industrialization in East Asia: A Critical Survey
Review of Radical Political Economics, June 1, 2000; 32(2): 222 - 264.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.