In a recent issue of The National Interest, Eric Jones cast a skeptical eye over the Singapore school of authoritarian rule. Concluding his timely critique, Jones reassures those of a liberal disposition that the creation of a new middle class will ultimately transform the prevailing social and political reality of East Asia. "Some elements of that class," Jones argues, "start to demand those effete and non-material things which are associated...with Western lifestyles and philosophies. The items include political participation, multi-party politics, an end to corruption, a freer press, environmental clean-up. Already these things and others can be seen emerging on the East Asian scene."
Having earlier observed that the East Asian Miracle occurs within "quite another ethic," it is perhaps a little surprising to find Professor Jones endorsing this commonplace of modernization theory. In this view, readily familiar to readers of The Economist, economic modernization creates an irresistible pressure for political liberalization. Initially, authoritarian rule offers the necessary stability for economic growth. However, as a fully developed modernity approaches, an increasingly redundant authoritarianism withers away. The invisible hand guiding this change is a self-confident, and increasingly articulate middle class. In other words, the middle class, itself the Frankensteinian creation of the Asian developmental state, constitutes its liberal democratic nemesis. But does it?
The Character of the New Bourgeoisie
Assessing the East Asian Miracle, the World Bank recently reported that the various Asian dragon and tiger economies that inhabit the lexical jungle of developmental studies uniquely combine "rapid, sustained growth with highly equal income distributions." The most significant social product of the process was a materialistic, upwardly mobile and highly urbanized middle class.
