Several arguments have contributed to the popularity of the hypothesis that Asian countries owe their successful growth experience to following a Japanese ‘model’ of development. One of these is the ‘late starter’ theme. Japan industrialized after Western Europe and the United States with all the disadvantages – but also the advantages – of such a late start. It may be seen either as the last of the major countries of today to undergo an industrial transformation or as the first (and to date the most successful) of the developing countries to industrialize. It has frequently been argued that the East Asian countries that began to industrialize in the 1950s and 1960s were also late starters (Kazushi and Rossovsky 1968), and that they accordingly followed similar industrialization paths to that followed by Japan. A number of characteristics stemming from Japan's particular economic history have more recently been present in other East Asian countries, thus contributing to the notion of a Japanese or East Asian model of industrial development. They include high savings and investment rates, an emphasis on export performance, active entrepreneurship and high productivity of capital and labour. A common ethnic/cultural outlook based on Confucian ideology is often regarded as the most important ingredient of a Japanese–East Asian model (Kim 1983).

The East Asian countries have a schizophrenic love–hate relationship with Japan typical of the attitudes of former colonies to former imperial powers. Sometimes they seek to learn from the Japanese experience, but sometimes they regard the Japanese experience as being of little importance in their rapid growth.