The 1980s saw a conscious restructuring of economic life in Australia.
The direction of that restructuring was derived partly from prescript
ions about the virtues of free trade and government deregulation. Anot
her influence has been the view that the economic success of Japan and
the Asian 'dragons' is because of their adoption of free trade and li
beral market regimes. In this paper, evidence from Korea and Taiwan is
used to show that this interpretation is seriously flawed. The growth
of the dragons was not driven by comparative advantage. Rather, the i
ndustries of the dragons were set up independently of their competitiv
eness; some became competitive by exporting. Industrialisation in the
newly industrialised countries (NICs) exemplifies a variety of forms o
f local initiative by a state: how does it have the will and power to
create industrial policy? The development of state policy depends on l
ocal class structures and perceptions of the global political and econ
omic environment that nullify attempts simply to copy policy into diff
erent social and economic circumstances. The lessons of the economic s
uccess of the Northeast Asian NICs are improperly drawn in two respect
s: these are dirigiste, not free market, economies; and even if that i
ntervention has been for the good it does not follow that similar poli
cies could be applied, much less be successful, in the different place
that is Australia. This is the geographic lesson: places differ, and
so, therefore, must policies.