struggling to regain their earlier growth patterns. According to Shahid Yusuf, there are several factors that fostered growth in this region, to wit:
"Much of the growth in the industrializing countries of East Asia is traceable to capital accumulation and the benefits accruing from a youthful, fast growing and increasingly educated workforceà. As one comes closer to the present, the contribution of total factor productivity (TFP) to growth has risen in the middle- and upper-income countries, although it is still below the average for the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. There remains some controversy as to the precise magnitudes involved, and this is unlikely to be settled because the methodology of estimation is inherently fallible. The quality of the data is an additional handicap. However, most researchers believe the growth rates reported for economies in the region--although doubts have been voiced regarding those of China -and broadly accept micro level evidence showing a continuous absorption of manufacturing technology, rising technical efficiency, and a resilient competitiveness extending from low- to middle-tech and now into high-tech products. Many of those who look at East Asian performance through an econometric prism are persuaded that the contribution of total factor productivity is trending upwards. They would also assign a significant role to the level of education as an important complement to resource mobilization, again with a respectable fringe of doubters whose regressions cannot discern the imprint of education on growth outcomes.
Yusuf further noted that East Asia developed in part because of the assistance of external actors û including China and Japan (though both are also at times included as part of the region) and the United States. .
Peng made the case that East Asian development was more strongly influenced by regional factors than by the larger ...