The American Model: The good points of this model are flexible labour and product markets, low taxes, fierce competition and shareholder capitalism which puts pressure to maximise profits. Its bad points are wide income inequalities, low welfare benefits, poor quality of "public goods" such as primary and secondary education, low investments and very low savings rates.

The Japanese Model: Its good points are lifetime employment, encouraged loyalty and high skill levels, public services, especially education of high quality, close relations between banks and other firms, corporate cross-holdings shelter managers from impatient shareholders, allowing them to take a long term view of investments. Its bad points are that the virtues mentioned above shelter the firms from the full force of the market and they feel little pressure to use capital efficiently.

The East Asian Model: The region has long been an intellectual battleground for economists. Some saw rapid growth as proof of the virtues of the market-friendly policies -- low taxation, flexible labour markets and open trade. Others argued that South Korea's industrial policy was evidence of the possible gains from selective government intervention. The truth is there is no single "East Asian Model". Economic policies vary largely from relatively liberal Hong Kong to heavy handed South Korea, from widespread government corruption in Indonesia to squeaky clean Singapore. What the East Asian countries shared was openness to trade and higher savings than other emerging countries.

The German Social Market Model: Its good points are excellent education and training, a generous welfare state and narrow wage dispersion breed social harmony, close relations between firms and banks that assist high investments. Its bad points are overly powerful trade unions, high taxes, overgenerous jobless benefits and widespread labour and product market restrictions have led to persistently high unemployment.

The Swedish Model: This model was once advertised as a "third way" between capitalism and socialism. Its good points are relatively open markets combined with comprehensive welfare state, narrow wage dispersion and employment schemes that pushed the jobless back to work. Its bad points are rising inflation, increased budget deficit caused by recession, and as unemployment rose, costly job schemes were no longer affordable. High on personal income tax also blunted the incentives to work.

The New Zealand Model: Radical reform in the 1980s transferred the rich, and world's most regulated and closed economy into one of the most free market with the lowest tax rates, lowest trade barrier, widespread privatization and the most autonomous central bank. But its bad point is big increase in inequality.

The Dutch Model: Once an extreme example of Eurosclerosis, some see the Netherlands as a model for the rest of Europe. Workers have accepted smaller pay rises in return for more jobs, rules on part-time and temporary jobs have been relaxed and social security rises have been trimmed. The result has been a dramatic fall of unemployment -- to 3.6% compared to an average of 10.6% in Europe. The Dutch model appears to offer a way to cut unemployment without big cuts in the welfare state or wide pay differentials. However, the headline jobless rate paints too rosy a picture; actually one third of workers are part-time, the highest proportion in the rich world and unusually large number of people receive disability or sickness benefits and so are excluded from jobless count.

Comparing the performance of the various models described above is a tricky business since perceptions about relative performance are hugely distorted by the cyclical factors. In the late 1980s many Americans, terrified of being overtaken by Japan, urged that Japanese model be adopted. Today, America is close to the peak of its cycle. Japan, in contrast, is mired in recession and Germany is slipping towards one. When America next meets recession, its model too may quickly lose its glamour. Despite these constraints, attempts have been made by experts in the recent past to compare the performance of the three big economies of USA, Germany and Japan in terms of growth in output, productivity and job creation during a ten years time horizon, which includes at least one recession. Such studies indicate the following:

GDP per head: This has averaged 1.6 per cent in America over the past decade, exactly the same in Japan and less in Germany. It is true that Japan's 1.6 per cent average growth was influenced by couple of years of its bubble. But then America's economy currently looks bubble affected -- with high risk of sharp slowdown or recession at some stage over the next few years.

Productivity: This is an area in which America is enjoying almost a miracle now. Its level of productivity (GDP per worker) remains higher than elsewhere and in the recent years the rate of increase has quickened. But over the past decade, America's productivity has grown slightly less rapidly than Japan's while Germany's has grown twice as fast.

Job Creation: This is the only area where America outperforms other economies. Unemployment has fallen to only 4.2 per cent of the labour force, less than half of Germany's rate of 10.5 per cent and now for the first time below Japan's 4.6 per cent.

From what has been stated above it will be evident that overall the notion that the American economy stands on the top of the world is questionable. It is also vulnerable to criticism because of its wider income disparity. It is often asserted that America has traded higher inequality for faster growth; yet over the past decade average income has risen by similar amounts as in other two major economies.

What are the morals of the above discussion? They seem to be the following:

- Super models change with economic circumstances and different models may suit different countries given their different cultures.

- The differences as opposed to similarities between economic models tend to be exaggerated. In their zeal to make a successful economy fit their favourite theory economists of one persuasion or another are too quick to swallow myths about the nature of economy.

- American model of economy should not be considered as "one size fits all" and should not be put on sale for all countries. What is good for the gander may not be good for the goose. Besides, this model now ruling supreme may come under fire if America's economy is to go into recession disturbing signs of which are already on the horizon. Once there is a downward spin of US economy as predicted by some, American model smarting from a sense of triumphalism may lose a lot of its present gloss and appeal.

America is now widely held to be the clear winner in the world's economic beauty contest. But the judges may not have really studied the figures.

- Various models should be studied not with a view to embrace any one of them blindly, but to better understand what suits a country. In this regard what the French historian Alexis Touqville said about American democracy is relevant. "Let us not turn to America in order to slavishly copy the institutions she has fashioned for her self but in order that we may better understand what suits us; let us look there for institutions rather than models, let us adopt the principles rather than the details of the laws." (Democracy in America 1838)

Finally there remains one question. What model of development Bangladesh is pursuing? Is it the Japanese model? Is it the American model? Or is it some homegrown model? Ever since the inception of Bangladesh we have been preparing rather fat documents on successive Five Year Plans, annual development plans, other numerous studies, letters of intent listing conditionalities crafted by international lending agencies for submission to donors and agencies for seeking their financial assistance; but the general public who will execute such plans have not been privy to their content or outcome. What the public really see, instead, has been aptly summed up by a frustrated solicitor general of a tiny country of West Africa called "The Gambia" when she told a foreign development expert, "We could do a study quickly that would identify six areas that need fixing. But that is a problem here; it is always more studies and more studies. Most of the aid received goes for studies; then the studies tell us what we already know." (Institutional Adjustment and Adjustments to Institutions by Robert Kilgaard).

It is high time for the government and particularly our Planning Commission to come out of their hall of fame to the marketplace with their development strategy for the people to see, debate, comprehend and participate in the planning process. The soul of any development process is the people. What is the worth of the body without the soul?

During my school days I read in the textbook on history of England a statement by King Edward I "What touches all must be approved by all." This single statement on true democracy etched in my mind for more than sixty years still applies to Bangladesh. How long should we continue to fiddle with the so-called democracy and planning without caring to discern their nature suitable for us? Bangladesh government, in its development policy which has no road map seems to be a firm believer in a Spanish proverb which says "Traveler, there are no roads. Roads are made by walking." (Quoted in the last two lines of the book "Diplomacy" By Henry Kissinger, 1994).

This game should come to an end.

K. N. Ahmed is a former Governor of Bangladesh Bank.