[Looking for a third method in the wake of realizing the limitations of what governments and markets can do.] The global financial crisis of 2008, which originated from the US and the UK, casted doubt on the western paradigm that Asian countries were rushing to adopt after the end of 1990s. The Asian countries that experienced the merits and shortcomings of government-led economic growth came to realize that there was also a dark side to the market centric western economic growth model. 　 As a result, Asian countries now face the challenge of creating new frameworks and policies that are most suitable for their economic development status as well as its socio-economic conditions, culture and more. Moreover, Asian countries need to demonstrate to the rest of world on how corporations, the market, and governments can collaborate to create a sustainable economic model, performing their inherent functions including production, exchange and remediation respectively. Thus, Asian coutries can respond increased attention of the world on Asia, after the global financial crisis. 　 What would be the best way of going about making a new model that achieves both high economic efficiency and fulfillment of social responsibilities for Asian corporations which have come a long way through strong support and the leadership of the governments? From symbol of awe to the symbol of failure The world-renowned economist, CHANG Ha-Joon, Reader of University of Cambridge, who has presented critical observations on the limitations of western neo-liberalism, will share his thoughts at Asia Future Forum 2010 which may just answer the question. Especially, Reader CHANG will present a rich collection of historical facts and other evidence including relationship between business and government from his books including the recently published ’23 Things They Don’t Tell You about Capitalism’ to back up his claims. Looking back at history, East Asian economic growth models were once regarded as a respectable model to be replicated and then it became a symbol of failure. However, it is now about to present a new standard in economic development to the rest of the world. 　 The economic growth of East Asian countries in the second half of the 20th century is often referred as ‘compressed growth’. The economic growth achieved by Japan and newly industrialized countries Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore were unprecedented successes where they caught up to the level of achievement that western nations achieved in between 150 and 200 years in just 30 to 40 years. During the second half of the 20th century, per-capita income of the five Asian nations increased at the rate of 5 to 6% per year. During the industrial revolution, European and North American nations achieved an average of 1% annual economic growth. During the third quarter of the 20th century, a period known as the golden era of capitalism, the economy of advanced nations grew at a little more than 3% per year. By comparison, economic growth in East Asian countries was stunning. In addition, the five countries managed to improve human development indicators such as infant mortality rate, average life-span, and literacy at a remarkable rate although it should be noted that such achievement came with tyrannical governments that had problems ranging from human rights violations and oppression of labor movements to corruption. . According to Reader Chang, key characteristics of the East Asian Economic Growth Model can be summarized as the following. First of all, the governments’ top priority was industrialization and those governments made all other policy goals secondary including macro management. For instance, the governments placed a special tax on imported and luxury goods to reduce consumption and imposed a strict limitation on bank loans for non-industrial use. Second, the government was extremely selective in allowing foreign entities to participate in the domestic market even though export was the main means of economic growth. For instance, they allowed trades on products, technology and loans but did not allow much foreign direct investment, and the capital market was almost completely closed off to foreign players. Third, the governments provided support including tax, finance and administrative support until the target industries matured to a competitive level. Many countries failed to achieve successful industrialization even though they relied on similar policy tools. East Asian governments were successful because they had control over the private sector and were not afraid to cut support for sectors that did not produce satisfactory results quickly enough. Neoliberal revolution that caused greater disparity In 1994, economist Paul Krugman made a prediction that the ‘Economic growth of East Asia will come to a halt for it is not fueled by an increase in productivity but increased resource investment such as labor and capital.’ Similarly, many predicted that Asian economies would eventually adopt market economy tools to make a transition to a more market-based economy for qualitative transformation. However, the East Asian development model, once regard as solid recipe for quick growth was quickly discredited as an ineffective relic that needs to be reformed as the Japanese economy began to sink and the Asian financial crisis broke out in 1997. Critics pointed out excessive government intervention, lifetime employment, corruption and lack of transparency as the main cause of inefficiency. Japan was first to embrace a number of neo-liberal policies that the International monetary fund (IMF) prescribed in an attempt to end the economic recession and other countries followed to overcome financial crisis. Corporations also, began to place much greater emphasis on shareholder value. However, such policy reform resulted in increased income disparity, economic instability and social discord. In addition, this experience and recurring economic crisis taught many countries that we need a much more sustainable economic development paradigm. 　The recent financial crisis was yet more proof that western market fundamentalism and the shareholder value movement have their own limitations, and even IMF is admitting the same. Meanwhile, companies in South Korea and China are growing at an ever faster rate. Despite fast growth, social discord and a sense of crisis still looms large. The situation calls for a new order. 　 Asia Future Forum 2010 will provide an opportunity to listen to Reader CHANG Ha-Joon’s ideas for an alternative system, while also hearing from distinguished academics from Korea, China and Japan on their ideas of what should be next. 　 LEE, Bong-Hyun Research Fellow, Hankyoreh Economic Research Institute