Economic Growth and Development in Malaysia : Policy Making and Leadership
Malaysia is a multiethnic, upper-middle-income country that has relied heavily on income from its natural resources to engineer successful diversification into manufacturing and sharply increased incomes for all ethnic groups. This paper examines t...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Working Paper |
| Language: | English en_US |
| Published: |
World Bank, Washington, DC
2017
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/183111468050085348/Economic-growth-and-development-in-Malaysia-policy-making-and-leadership http://hdl.handle.net/10986/28046 |
| Summary: | Malaysia is a multiethnic,
upper-middle-income country that has relied heavily on
income from its natural resources to engineer successful
diversification into manufacturing and sharply increased
incomes for all ethnic groups. This paper examines the role
of the policy-making process and national leadership in
effecting this structural change and growth with equity. It
discusses the government's role in transforming
corporate ownership patterns while nurturing industrial
enterprises into niche products within complex value-added
chains. At the same time, the paper underscores the
difficulties and costs of attempting to move into areas
where an economy has no strong advantages, in this case
heavy industries. Privatization is seen to have been a
powerful tool for expanding private enterprise despite
limited entrepreneurial skills, but it is questionable as a
sustainable strategy; the aggressive formation of new firms
seems to offer better long-term prospects. An appropriate
regime of policy making and implementation is required,
characterized by political determination, stability, high
attention to growth with equity, experimentation, and an
ability to learn through implementation, both at home and
from the experience of others. These are key factors
accounting for the relative success of Malaysia. Nothing in
the Malaysian experience suggests that it is possible or
desirable to undertake reforms serially; in fact, the
evidence suggests that the "reform cluster"
approach to policy implementation is more effective because
it addresses several coordination problems at the same time. |
|---|