Economic Indicators

Economic Performance

Burma’s GDP per capita annual growth rate rose by 6.6% annually from 1990 to 2005 (Table 1). The sustained high rates of growth seem the success of open-door policy. However, GNI per capita with US$ 220 is relatively low compared to Malaysia. Figure 1 shows Malaysia’s growth rates during the first two decades of industrialization of very obvious, while Burma’s economic growth rates was lagged behind with the closed-door economic policy.

Table 1: GNI per capita, the annual growth rate of GDP per capita

	GNI per capita (US$) 2005	GDP per capita annual growth rate (1970-1990)	GDP per capita growth rate (1990-2005)
Burma	220	1.5	6.6
Malaysia	4970	4	3.3

(Source: www.unicef.org/statistics)

Figure 1: Comparison of Burma & Malaysia in terms of GNI per capita

(ii) Inflation

Despite of the sound economic growth rates in Burma, it has significant higher rates of Inflation than Malaysia. The tight labor market, budget deficits arising from increased infrastructure and military expenditures, sharp rise in public sector wages exert pressures on inflation. As a result, the economic risks and social disruption associated with fluctuating inflation rates is significantly increased. (Glesakos, 1984)

Figure 2: Comparison of Inflation rates of Burma & Malaysia (1990-2005)

Sector Contributions (% of GDP)

 

 

Table 2: Sector contribution to Burma economy as a percentage of GDP

Structure of Output % of GDP at current prices

1989

1994

1999

2004

Table 3: Sector contribution to Malaysia as a percentage of GDP

Structure of Output % of GDP at current prices

1990

1995

2000

2005

(Sources- www.adb.org/statistics)

Table 2 shows the structure of the Burmese economy during 15 years period. Burma seems a slow structural change of the economy. Industry, which contributed only 11 percent to the GDP of predominantly agricultural and primary producing country now accounts for 16% of the total output in the economy.

In contrast, Malaysia had a rapid structural change during the two decades of 1970-1990. One focus of the plan-moving up the value-added ladder of industry and services- is well articulated.

External Trade

The industry structure patterns can be reflected in external trade. Table 5 shows that the exports amount of food and live animals, crude materials and mineral fuels have grown rapidly. However, Burma is heavily dependent on foreign imports in chemicals, manufactures, machines and transport equipment. (Table 6)In contrast, Malaysia has a rapid growth of industrializing economy figured by high exports of manufacturing products and imports of primary products. Table 7 and 8 shows how Malaysia exports are dominated by machinery, mechanical appliances and electrical equipment.

 

 

Table 5: Major exports by Burma (Myanmar currency- Millions of Kyats)

Exports, by SITC section

1989

1994

1999

2004

Table 6: Major imports by Burma (Myanmar Currency- Millions of Kyats)

Imports, by SITC section

1989

1994

1999

2004

Table 7: Major exports by Malaysia

Exports, by HSC

1990

1995

2000

2005

Table 8: Major imports by Malaysia

Imports, by HSC

1990

1995

2000

2005

(Sources: www.adb.org/statistics)

(v) Foreign Investment

Due to macroeconomic instability, high inflation rates, political problems and economic sanctions, foreign investment in Burma is relatively low in contrast to Malaysian economy with strong economic growth, availability of manpower and good physical infrastructure and attractive incentive packages.

Figure 3: Comparison of net inflows of FDI in Burma & Malaysia

International Reserves & External Indebtedness (Millions of US$)

According to the data in Table 9 & 10, International Reserves of Malaysia and Burma have significantly increased in 2005 although Malaysian amount was nearly a hundred times greater than Burma. However, external indebtedness of Malaysia is also higher than Burma.

Table 9: International Reserves & External Indebtedness of Malaysia

	1990	1995	2000	2005
International Reserves	9871	23899	28383	69909
External Indebtedness	15328	34343	41874	50981

Table 10: International Reserves & External Indebtedness of Burma

	1990	1995	2000	2005
International Reserves	325.3	573.2	233.5	782.3
External Indebtedness	4694.8	5770.5	5927.8	6645.2

(Sources: International Monetary Fund, Financial Statistics)

Social Indicators

Demographic indicators

Although Harrod – Domar model assumes an increased population has no effect on output, Solow model clearly showed that increased population growth has negative level effects in the standard growth models. (Ray, 1998) So we have to take account the population growth rate as a social indicator to define the demographic patterns.

Figure 4 represents the annual growth rates of population between 1990 and 2005. Myanmar scores 1.4 while Malaysia has annual growth rate of 2.3.

Moreover, the average annual growth rate of urban population represents 2.8% in Burma and 4.1 % in Malaysia. % of urban population in Malaysia is also higher in Malaysia than Burma indicating the nature of the industrial structures in both countries.

Figure 5: Under -5 Mortality rates of Burma & Malaysia

Furthermore, the under-five mortality rate is higher in Burma than Malaysia as shown in the above figure. The causes of these huge disparities between them include the weaknesses of primary health care system and inadequate allocation of expenditures on health and nutrition. Ultimately, these weaknesses also lead to lower life expectancy at birth than Malaysia. (Figure 6)

Figure 6: Life Expectancy at birth

 

Education

Despite of low income per capita, adult literacy rates of Burma is relatively higher than the rates of Malaysia and both countries have the similar number of children enrolled in primary school. However, the number of children enrolled in secondary school in Burma has significantly dropped to 1 to 2.5 ratios. There similarities and disparities were clearly represented in the following figures.

Figure 8: Adult literacy rates of Burma & Malaysia (2000-2004)

Figure 9: Primary school and secondary school enrolment (2000-2005)

 

(sources: www.unesco.org)

Health

Drinking water sources and sanitation facilities are the significant indicators to determine the levels of development in terms of health. As a next-tier newly industrializing country, health care system and government facilities are better in Malaysia than a low income and high arms racing country, Burma. Figure 10 shows how different in percentages of population using improved drinking water and adequate sanitation facilities.

Figure 10: % of population using drinking water and sanitation facilities

Furthermore, the immunization programs for the one-year old children are also important in determining health figures. The following table shows the % of children who were immunized in Burma & Malaysia and the rates is Malaysia is higher than Burma. Also, the EPI vaccines is financed by Malaysian government while military government of Burma remained silence.

Table 11: Health indicators of Burma & Malaysia

	Burma	Malaysia
% of population using improved drinking water sources, 2004, total	78	99
% of population using improved drinking water sources, 2004, urban	80	100
% of population using improved drinking water sources, 2004, rural	77	96
% of population using adequate sanitation facilities, 2004, total	77	94
% of population using adequate sanitation facilities, 2004, urban	88	95
% of population using adequate sanitation facilities, 2004, rural	72	93
% of routine EPI vaccines financed by government, 2005, total	0	85
Immunization 2005?, 1-year-old children immunized against: TB, corresponding vaccines: BCG	76	99
Immunization 2005?, 1-year-old children immunized against: DPT, corresponding vaccines: DPT1?	76	90
Immunization 2005?, 1-year-old children immunized against: DPT, corresponding vaccines: DPT3?	73	90
Immunization 2005?, 1-year-old children immunized against: Polio, corresponding vaccines: polio3	73	90
Immunization 2005?, 1-year-old children immunized against: Measles, corresponding vaccines: measles	72	90
Immunization 2005?, 1-year-old children immunized against: HepB, corresponding vaccines: HepB3	62	90

Human Development Index (HDI) ranking

The HDI has become a standard means of measuring well-being since both economic and social indicators are taken account into consideration. (Waibel & dzung, 2004). According the UNDP 2006 HDI ranking, Burma was ranked as 130 while Malaysia was ranked as 61. HDI scores were calculated based on three basic dimensions of human development such as a long and healthy life, knowledge and a decent standard of living so that higher rank in Malaysia means better aspects of human development in Malaysia than Burma.

Conclusions

In conclusion, economic and social indicators of Burma and Malaysia shows that economic development is not only based on the income levels but also dependent on the human aspirations, conflicts and peace, political structure and religious composition as well as the political and civil rights of human beings that increase the capabilities and knowledge societies. However, the indicators cannot be able to give a complete picture due to the limitations of the data sources, mainly, the adequacy and reliability of information.

References

Bhagwati (1966) The Economics of underdeveloped countries, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London

Dicken, P. (1986) Global Shift: Industrial change in a Turbulent World, Harper & Row, London

Government of Malaysia (1971) Second Malaysia Plan, 1971-1975, Kuala Lumpur, Government Printer

Glezakos, C. (1984) Inflation & Growth: A Recommendation of the Evidence from the LDCs, in Ghosh, P.K. (ed) Economic Policy & Planning in Third World Development, Greenwood, London

Islam, I. & Chowdhory, A. (1997) Asia-Pacific Economics: A Survey, Routledge, London

Klitgaard, R. & Katz, R. (1983) ‘Overcoming Ethnic Inequalities: Lessons from Malaysia, Journal of Policy analysis and Management, Vol.2(3), pp.333-349

Lee, H. (1993) The Ethnic Dimension of Poverty and Income distribution in Latin America, World Bank research working paper, Washington DC

Lipset, S.M. (1959) ‘Some social responsibilities of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy’, American Political Science Review, Vol. 53,69-105

Matthews, B. (2001) Ethnic & Religious Diversity: Myanmar’s unfolding Nemesis, Visiting Research Series, ISEAS

McCoy (2001) The Africa Paradox: The Tribalism implications of the Colonial Paradox, Darke Social Sciences Journal, Darke University

Mier, G. (1995) Leading issues in Economic Development, 6th edition, OUP, Oxford

Peletz, M.G. (2005) ‘Islam and the cultural Politics of legitimacy: Malaysia in the Aftermath of September 11’ in Hefner (ed.) Remaking Muslim Politics: Pluralism, Contestation, Democratization, Princeton University Press, Princeton

Ray, D. (1998) Development Economics, Princeton University Press, Princeton

Saldanha, J. & Tavores, J. (2001) Country size and Economic Performance: A commentary with implications for East Timor, in Hill, H.& Saldanha, J. (eds) East Timor: Development Challenges for the World’s Newest Nation, Institute of South East Asian Studies

Sen, A. (1999) Development as Freedom, OUP, Oxford

Syrquin, M. (1988) ‘Patterns of Structural Change” in Chenery, H. & Srinivasan, T.N. (eds) Handbook of Development Economics, Volume-1, Elsevier Science Publishing, The Netherlands

Tan, A. (1998) Preliminary Assessment of Myanmar’s environmental Law, APCEL paper

Todaro, M.P. (1997) Economic Development, 6th edition, Addison- Wesley, USA

Trager (1967) ‘A Better Ending than Beginning, A Survey of Asia in 1967, Vol. 8 (2), 110-119

Waibel, M. & Kreisel (2004) The Pacific Challenges: Development trends in the 21st century, University of Germany

Zin, M. (2003) ‘Waiting for an Industrial Revolution’, The Irrawaddy, Vol. 11(7)