The paper argues for a different reason why economic growth boomed in the region. A -sort of- one time shock of education, participation and investment. It seems that underlying fast growth is the laggard progress they had before World War II. So its not that they are particularly good at something. Nor it is that they are productive workers. Not even that real wages are low. These economies grew because they were far away from the needed level of capital human, investment and participation. Once they achieve these levels, employment along with exports pulled these economies.
When policy recomendations for countries like Mexico point to follow the Asian Tigers, the only thing there is to follow is the improvement of investment, participation and human capital levels, not necesarily the productivity indicators. Productivity should push prices down, but it takes more than that to increase aggregate output.
Mexican Senate organized a forum to recollect the opinion of experts to increase productivity and competition. According to Young's argument, competition should be addressed as a priority, including the increase in investment - GDP ratio. Taking official series at constant prices, the ratio's growth rate has lately fall to negative levels in Mexico. This should be a policy lesson.