Building on Garry Wills’ A Necessary Evil: A History of American Distrust of Government (2013), East Asian societies often accept policies that Americans might consider heavy-handed, such as industrial planning, high-stakes exams like China’s Gaokao, or strict anti-drug measures. This difference reflects contrasting social contracts: in much of East Asia, the government is empowered to ensure collective stability and societal performance, whereas in the United States, the emphasis is on limiting government power to protect individual liberty. Understanding this divergence sheds light on why interventions viewed as intrusive in the U.S. are often normalized and even expected in East Asian contexts.
Industrial Policy and the Divergent Paths of State-Led Development versus Market Neutrality
In East Asia, industrial policy has long been a cornerstone of national development. Governments in countries such as China, Singapore, South Korea, and Japan actively direct resources, provide subsidies, and coordinate industries to achieve strategic economic goals. Such interventions are not only accepted but often expected by citizens, reflecting a social contract in which government authority is legitimized by tangible performance outcomes. Economic growth, job creation, and global competitiveness serve as markers of governmental effectiveness, reinforcing public trust in strong state guidance.
Historical precedent further normalizes this approach. Japan’s Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) guided postwar industrialization, South Korea nurtured conglomerates known as chaebols, and Singapore invested heavily in sectors such as biotechnology. These examples illustrate a pattern of state-led modernization in which coordinated industrial strategy is understood as necessary for national advancement, rather than as inappropriate interference in the market.
Cultural norms also play a central role. Collectivist values frame industrial policy as benefiting society at large, encouraging cooperation with government direction as a civic duty. Prominent companies—TSMC, Samsung, and BYD, for instance—are often regarded as “national champions,” with public support seen as a patriotic obligation rather than favoritism toward private interests. This alignment of government strategy with societal goals strengthens the legitimacy of state-led economic planning.
By contrast, in the United States, similar programs—such as the CHIPS Act and the Inflation Reduction Act—are subject to intense scrutiny for “picking winners and losers.” U.S. political culture emphasizes market neutrality, competition, and the protection of individual liberty from government overreach. The idea that the federal government should refrain from intervening in business is deeply ingrained, and any attempt at coordinated industrial strategy is often met with suspicion.
The divergence between East Asia and the United States highlights a fundamental tension in industrial policy: developmental states leverage government direction as a tool for national advancement, while liberal market-oriented societies prioritize neutrality to safeguard competition and limit state power. Understanding these contrasting approaches illuminates why state-led economic planning is embraced in East Asia, yet often resisted in the U.S., despite similar strategic goals.
Education Policy and Meritocratic Legitimacy: The Gaokao in East Asia
In East Asia, education policy often reflects a deep cultural commitment to meritocracy, social order, and collective advancement. China’s Gaokao, the highly centralized national university entrance exam, exemplifies this approach. Despite its intensity, the Gaokao is widely accepted because it embodies a form of meritocratic legitimacy: rooted in the imperial Keju examination system, it aligns with Confucian ideals that reward ability and cultivate social stability. Success in the Gaokao is understood as a reflection of personal effort, but also as a contribution to family, society, and the nation.
Trust in government-administered institutions underpins the legitimacy of such exams. The standardized system is viewed as fair, transparent, and insulated from local favoritism or corruption. Citizens perceive the state as a neutral arbiter, capable of defining educational standards and determining who is qualified for higher learning. This confidence reinforces compliance with rigorous testing, even when it demands years of individual sacrifice.
The collectivist framing of education in East Asia further strengthens public acceptance. Individual effort is tolerated and even celebrated because it benefits the broader social and national order. Moreover, the government assumes a central role in shaping educational priorities, with teachers and institutions serving as extensions of the state. This “teacher-state” relationship reinforces the perception that the state is entitled to define what constitutes knowledge, competence, and civic responsibility.
Similar systems in Japan and South Korea—through university entrance exams and the Suneung, respectively—demonstrate comparable legitimacy, reflecting a regional pattern in which standardized, merit-based selection is culturally reinforced. In contrast, the United States places greater emphasis on diverse educational pathways and individual choice, with standardized tests such as the SAT often criticized for reinforcing inequality or stifling creativity. Distrust of centralized authority leads Americans to prioritize personal development over rigid, state-mandated examinations.
The Gaokao therefore serves as both a symbol of opportunity and a mechanism for social cohesion. By legitimizing state oversight of education, it maintains societal stability while promoting meritocratic mobility. In contrast, U.S. educational policy privileges flexibility and individual autonomy, revealing a fundamental difference in how societies perceive the role of the state in shaping educational outcomes.
Government Role in Drug Policy: Prioritizing Social Harmony over Individual Liberty
In East Asia, drug policy is often characterized by strong, centralized control aimed at safeguarding public health and social stability. Governments implement strict laws, enforce severe penalties for trafficking, operate state-run rehabilitation programs, and conduct widespread public health campaigns. These measures are widely accepted, reflecting a cultural and institutional framework in which collective welfare takes precedence over individual liberty.
Public acceptance of heavy-handed drug policies is rooted in a combination of social and historical factors. The Confucian emphasis on moral order and social harmony legitimizes state intervention to prevent behaviors that could disrupt society. Institutional trust further reinforces compliance: strong bureaucracies are perceived as capable, fair, and efficient in implementing policies that protect the public. Historical memory, such as China’s experience with the Opium Wars, heightens the perception of drugs as threats to both social cohesion and national sovereignty, justifying decisive government action.
Cultural norms reinforce this paternalistic approach. Governments in East Asia are often regarded as parental figures responsible for guiding citizens away from harm. This “fu-mu guan” logic frames drug policy not as coercion but as moral stewardship, where individual sacrifices, such as restrictions on personal behavior, are tolerated in service of societal well-being. Countries like Singapore, with its harsh penalties for drug trafficking, and Japan, with consistently low drug-use rates, demonstrate how rigorous interventions are seen as both necessary and effective.
By contrast, drug policy in the United States is fragmented, politicized, and subject to intense debate over individual rights, privacy, and federal overreach. Heavy-handed approaches are often criticized as authoritarian, reflecting deep-rooted skepticism toward centralized authority. The U.S. prioritizes balancing public health with personal liberty, leading to more varied and contested responses to substance abuse.
Overall, East Asian societies view robust anti-drug measures as both moral and practical imperatives. By emphasizing collective welfare and trusting government competence, these countries maintain social order and reduce harm in ways that would likely encounter significant resistance in the United States, where individual liberty is paramount.
Broader Patterns in East Asia: Explaining the Acceptance of Strong Government Policies
Across East Asia, a consistent set of cultural, historical, and institutional factors helps explain why heavy-handed government policies are widely accepted. Legitimacy in these societies often derives from performance rather than process: citizens evaluate policies by their tangible outcomes, such as economic growth, social stability, and educational achievement, rather than strictly by procedural fairness. A government that delivers results earns public trust and reinforces its authority.
Collective-oriented norms further strengthen this acceptance. Policies are framed as serving the common good, and individual freedoms may be curtailed when doing so benefits society at large. This collectivist perspective is evident across diverse areas, from industrial planning and rigorous educational examinations to strict drug control measures, where societal welfare is prioritized over personal choice.
Historical experience also conditions expectations of government authority. Centuries of centralized governance—from imperial China to postwar Japan and Korea—have normalized strong state intervention, making it culturally familiar rather than threatening. Citizens view the government as a capable actor whose involvement in societal affairs is both expected and legitimate.
Trust in competent bureaucracy is another key factor. Professional civil services are perceived as fair, efficient, and capable of implementing policies effectively, reinforcing the public’s willingness to comply with government mandates. This institutional reliability allows aggressive policies to be both practical and socially accepted.
In contrast, the United States exhibits a deeply ingrained distrust of government rooted in revolutionary and anti-authoritarian traditions. American citizens prioritize individual rights and procedural fairness, and interventions—especially those perceived as intrusive or favoring select groups—are often met with skepticism. Where East Asia emphasizes outcomes and collective responsibility, the U.S. emphasizes liberty and accountability, explaining the stark differences in the acceptability of heavy-handed governance.
Final Thoughts
Policies that might appear heavy-handed or intrusive by U.S. standards—such as state-directed industrial planning, centralized exams, and strict drug control—are more readily accepted in East Asia. This acceptance is rooted in Confucian hierarchical trust, collectivist cultural norms, performance-based legitimacy, and a long historical precedent of strong government authority. In contrast, the United States emphasizes individual liberty, decentralized authority, and skepticism of concentrated power, often viewing similar interventions as overreach. The difference between the two regions reflects not the efficiency of policies themselves, but fundamentally divergent cultural expectations regarding the role and legitimacy of government.
References
- A Necessary Evil: A History of American Distrust of Government. Garry Wills. 2013