Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:46:44.106Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

East Malaysia in Malaysian Development Planning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2009

David Lim
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Malaysia consists of Peninsular Malaysia and the two East Malaysian states of Sabah and Sarawak. Development planning in Peninsular Malaysia began as early as 1950, while the first plan for the whole of the Malaysian federation founded in 1963 was published in 1966. Have the two East Malaysian states been integrated properly into the various Malaysian plans? Or have they, with their somewhat different economic, political and social backgrounds, been treated as a nuisance element and appeared in the plans only as an afterthought? In any case, is the planning experience of Peninsular Malaysia relevant for solving the problems of the much less developed East Malaysian states?

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Southeast Asian Studies , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , March 1986 , pp. 156 - 170
Copyright
Copyright © The National University of Singapore 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Federation of Malaysia, First Malaysia Plan, 1966–70 (Kuala Lumpur: Government Printer, 1965), pp. 60–64Google Scholar.

2 Federation of Malaysia, Second Malaysia Plan, 1971–75 (Kuala Lumpur: Government Printer, 1971), pp. 4–6Google Scholar.

3 Federation of Malaysia, Third Malaysia Plan, 1976–80 (Kuala Lumpur: Government Printer, 1976), p. 273Google Scholar.

4 Federation of Malaysia, Fourth Malaysia Plan, 1981–85 (Kuala Lumpur: Government Printer, 1981), p. 207Google Scholar.

5 For a more detailed evaluation of Malaysian planning, see Lim, D., “Malaysian Development Planning”, Pacific Affairs 55 (Winter 1982–1983): 613–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 For a detailed account of the Harrod-Domar model of planning, see Gillis, M., Perkins, D.H., Roemer, M. and Snodgrass, D. R., Economics of Development (New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 1983), pp. 121–28Google Scholar.

7 Federation of Malaya, Second Five-Year Plan, 1961–65 (Kuala Lumpur: Government Printer, 1961)Google Scholar.

8 Federation of Malaysia, Mid-Term Review of the Fourth Malaysia Plan, 1981–85 (Kuala Lumpur: Government Printer, 1984), pp. 80 and 87Google Scholar.

9 Ibid., p. 95.

10 For an excellent discussion of “rent seeking” in general, see Krueger, A., “The Political Economy of the Rent Seeking Society”, American Economic Review 64 (1974): 291–303Google Scholar.

11 The “vent for surplus” approach to economic development shows how international trade enables an abundant resource with no effective internal demand to be exported and so to earn the foreign exchange to import the goods for which there is an internal demand. See Myint, H., “The ‘Classical Theory’ of International Trade and the Underdeveloped Countries”, Economic Journal 68 (1958): 317–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 For a useful discussion of the various Sabah development plans, see Gudgeon, P.S., “Economic Development in Sabah, 1881–1981”, in Commemorative History of Sabah, 1881–1981, ed. Sullivan, Anwar and Leong, Cecilia (Kota Kinabalu: Sabah State Government Centenary Publications Committee, 1981)Google Scholar.

13 State Government of Sarawak, Development Plan, 1964–68 (Kuching: Government Printer, 1963), pp. 17–18Google Scholar.

14 For a detailed theoretical discussion of the Dutch disease, see van Wijnbergen, S., “The ‘Dutch Disease’: A Disease After All?”, Economic Journal 94 (1984): 41–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar.