Milan Pfeiffer ID: 2021195207 Professor Michael Kim ISM3513.01.00 History of Globalization and Development Involvement and Interaction: the Variety of Foreign Influence East Asian development was by no means an anomaly, illustrated by the growth experienced in multiple countries within the region. Rather, it was inherently facilitated by key developments that had happened prior, such as a strong focus on education which produced a strong base of human capital and large investments in infrastructure. These factors, in stark difference to those situations experienced by African and Latin American nations, allowed them to pursue their plans for economic development, such as export-oriented industrialisation which could actively attract foreign direct investment. This paper posits that such pre-existing factors as education or existing human capital means that African or Latin American countries would have, from the onset, no ability to adopt the models employed by East Asian countries. Furthermore, it will explain why these earlier factors were not present due to both neo-colonialist policies and aggressive foreign intervention, in Africa and Latin America respectively. The first consideration to make is that the economic advancements and development achieved by most of East Asia came without a natural wealth of resources, which could be both advantageous or detrimental depending on domestic circumstances. However, they were able to circumvent this through their distinctive style of development, that being intensive and efficient use of human capital (Pomeranz, p. 323). This meant that the majority of primary resources had to be imported into East Asia, impressing upon their governments a need to industrialise in order to be able to develop further, turning towards a high degree of manufacturing and their subsequent export for economic growth. This was further made possible due to direct government intervention to support this growth, providing subsidies and investments into crucial infrastructure. Lastly, foreign involvement was largely limited to direct investment, with incentives in place to encourage these practices which led to a great deal of technology transfer and job creation for a demographic which was already well educated and equipped to use these boons to their advantage (Pomeranz, p. 341). Such factors were largely absent in large swathes of Africa and Latin America, where education and health sectors remain underdeveloped even in the status quo. This consideration would make things such as an export oriented economy or the attractiveness of foreign direct investment unlikely. The reasons for this are plentiful, yet they all share a common cause, being direct foreign intervention, either through neo-colonialist coercion or direct control through the colonial process. For Latin America, they remained under influence of both US and European affairs even after achieving political independence, as they were heavily dependent on them for economic reasons (Escobar p. 28). Such dependance gave way to a desire for economic independence and an increase in nationalism, which eventually led to Latin American countries to transition to import substitution industrialisation, so as to achieve economic independence. Although it would eventually see some success after the second world war, as the destruction caused by the fighting would prove a boon for Latin-American exports of goods such as textiles and petroleum (Bertola and Ocampo, p. 154), this quickly faded with the reindustrialisation of Western Europe and later Japan. Over time, domestic production would become highly unsustainable as it relied on an ability to export even with the production of inferior products, and the growth of a domestic market, which was limited in size and eventually stopped growing altogether. For Africa, it was left to recover after multiple centuries of foreign occupation, which had led to a mass exploitation of its resources and had stumped the ability of its human capital, with extremely low literacy rates, and had stagnated its development in infrastructure. The infrastructure that was placed on the African continent was related to transport, so as to export as much as possible for trade, which largely profited its colonisers (Roberts, p. 83). As such, much of Africa was covered in railways and agricultural plots, and the economic growth that occurred in Africa was as a result of its newfound control of its agricultural sector. However, the production of these primary goods was fairly common and soon waned in importance, leading to economic stagnation within newly independent states due to the lack of focus on education. They too, eventually turned to import substitution industrialisation after achieving independence, however this process, as in Latin America, similarly led to overpriced and low quality products that failed to make any impact overseas (Cooper, p. 100). Thus, the differences that make the East Asian Model of development inapplicable to Latin America and Africa are threefold; the ability to innovate, the degree of foreign involvement, and natural resources. East Asian countries, having already a highly educated population, were better able to adapt to and produce industrial goods and goods that were highly exportable, such as silk. Along with an industry heavily geared towards exports, companies operating in East Asia had a high incentive to innovate and produce high quality products, and they had the ability to do so. Contrarily, even though in reality there was little innovation in Latin America and Africa due to a lack of competition, it likely would not have been well able to achieve innovation to the degree of East Asia, as it did not have an established labour force that was well educated. This would point to them still being ineffective exporters, even if there would have been an attempt to innovate. Furthermore, it would have likely led to a worse outcome, as for innovation to happen many protectionist policies would have had to cease, giving foreign companies with better products access to the African and Latin American markets. Foreign involvement also occurred in vastly different ways across the three regions. Whereas Latin America and Africa experienced direct involvement, often to the point of total control, East Asia (for the most part) mainly engaged with the world powers of the time through trade. This distinction is significant, as it impacts the development of the people living in these areas in different ways. East Asia was able to learn the technology employed by the likes of the United States or Britain through this free trade, whilst Africa and Latin America did not experience such technology transfer. Part of this was rooted in discriminatory assumptions that natives had no capacity for science and technology (Escobar, p. 22), but nonetheless it invited the exploitation of these natives in Africa and Latin America. This drastically changed the course of development in these areas when compared to East Asia, and set them behind from the onset of their independence. A second reason for the exploitation of Africa and Latin America by foreign powers was the presence of natural resources, simultaneously a boon and a curse for them. Although it might have been an extremely valuable commodity, and profitable for the people of these countries, such resources at the same time caused an over-reliance on them (Cooper, p. 96) and long-standing political instability within these areas. East Asia on the other hand had no such resources to rely on, and so were pressed to diversify the products produced to become feasible for exports. When natural resources are present then, little incentive would exist to diversify a country's production and so even assuming that these regions would adopt the East Asian model of development, it is already unlikely that companies would prioritise the production of new products over existing natural commodities. In conclusion, East Asian development, although occurring broadly in the region, was effective primarily within East Asia due to a variety of factors that would not have allowed for either Africa or Latin America to adopt the same model, to such an extent that their development might have been worse had the model been used by them.