From B. Geddes (1990), Political Analysis: "Analysts trying to explain why some developing countries have grown so much more rapidly than others regularly select a few successful new industrializing countries (NICs) for study, most often Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, Brazil, and Mexico. In all these countries, during the periods of most rapid growth, governments exerted extensive controls over labor and prevented most expressions of worker discontent. Having noted this similarity, analysts argue that the repression, cooptation, discipline, or quiescence of labor contributes to high growth." One policy implication of this reasoning (that many have advocated for) is that developing countries ought to repress labor unions in order to get economic growth. From a logical / methodological standpoint, what is flawed about this reasoning? Explain your critique in plain language.

The reasoning is very flawed. First of all, it is not taking into account all the other factors that led to high economic growth in the selected countries, besides, for each country mentioned the factors were different, and the results as well.

For example, while South Korea and Mexico both might have opressed labor, South Korea industrialized much faster than Mexico, and invested a lot more in human capital, which led to way higher economic growth. Mexico on the onther hand, always had poor education results, and its economic growth has been lower. Nowadays, South Korea is a developed country while Mexico is still developing.

The reasoning is also flawed because it assumes that developed countries have the same conditions than developing countries in the past (decades ago). Low economic growth in developed countries has to do with many things other than labor rights. High public and private debt, high taxes, lack of investment in human capital, low aggregate demand. The reasons are varied and specific for each country, and must be analyzed case by case.