Of miracles and crises: (re–)interpretations of growth and decline in East and Southeast Asia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the last two decades of the 20th century Asia stumbled from miracle into crisis. The crisis not only had manifold social consequences but also demands a reconsideration of the multiple explanations offered for Asia’s miracle years. This paper examines these explanations in the light of the crisis and briefly discusses the ways in which scholars of different orientations have adapted and refined their views. In particular the paper looks back on the influential East Asian miracle report of the World Bank, how it was interpreted at the time of publication, and how the report did (or did not) reflect the dominant Washington consensus. The paper then offers a discussion of the post–Washington consensus concluding that the crisis has seen some convergence of the revisionist developmental state and neoliberal positions. However, this convergence should not be seen as a paradigm shift but rather as a reworking of existing positions in the light of debates that predated the economic crisis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".