How did they achieve their growth?
From the 1960s onwards Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong and Singapore followed similar patterns of development. The development process was supposed to have been started by import substitution. Taxes were placed on imports to discourage their purpose and hence allowing their own primary industry to flourish. However, instead they industrialised and developed aiming exports at highly industrialised nations of Europe and North America. All of the countries also had non-democratic political systems, meaning they could drive through plans easily. They also all pursued education as a way of ensuring a labour force, as all students were required to attend primary and secondary school. They further invested in universities and making foreign universities accessible to their own students. Trade unions were also discouraged, and rather reaffirmed job security. The government also offered security of tenure to land owners, encouraging people to invest in their land. * All of the tigers had a Chinese influence: * South Korea: 65% Chinese * Singapore: 75% Chinese * Hong Kong: 95% Chinese * Taiwan: 98% Chinese
Why was their growth referred to as an ‘economic miracle’?
An economic miracle is the term given to a period of great change, such as the period of dramatic economic growth the four Asian tigers went through from the 1960s to the 1980s due to them pursuing export-driven economic development by exporting to highly-industrialized nations.
How is their growth model being criticised?
The growth model has been subject to criticism for not following the typical model of development through import substitution with an aim of becoming self sufficient. They instead focus on exports, relying on the healthy economic state of their target nations rather than feeding their own consumer market. But the problem came in that they lost their competitive edge over neighbouring markets, such as India,
References:  New nation Chart 1: trends in economic growth, 1700–1850 Scene of Lockport on the Erie Canal (W. H. Bartlett 1839) President Andrew Jackson (1829–1837), leader of the new Democratic Party, opposed the Second Bank of the United States, which he believed favored the entrenched interests of rich Sharecropper plowing in Alabama (1937)  Urbanization