In Asia the debate about development has been muddied by arguments about the role of Asian values. These are usually defined as family loyalty, hard work, high savings and the overall good of society.
Such virtues are often cited to justify cronyism and the tolerance of abuses. This is particularly true, critics say, in developing societies like Indonesia, Malaysia and Myanmar (formerly Burma). The concept is also cited to justify the curtailment of civil liberties in super-modern states like Singapore.
The champions of Asian values have included former President Suharto of Indonesia, ousted in May when the economy collapsed, and Singapore's elder statesman Lee Kuan Yew, who created one of the most successful cities in the world.
Prominent opponents of the concept of Asian values are found among the staunchest advocates of western-style democracy, like former Hong Kong governor Chris Patten, who in his recent book East and West accuses Western leaders of using it as a convenient way of closing their eyes to human rights abuses. But many leading Asian politicians also abhor their misuse.
South Korean President Kim Dae-jung, the first opposition leader to be elected to the office, said as Indonesia went into political and economic meltdown that the situation there "testifies to a grim reality of so-called Asian values in which democracy can be sacrificed for economic development".
The lesson has already been learned in South Korea, says President Kim, who repeatedly warns that the "Asian values" upheld by the South Korean military in former days spawned social ills, including corruption.
President Kim has been praised by US Secretary of State Madeline Albright for "discrediting the worn out debate between so-called Asian values and Western values" and embodying human values.
The fall of Suharto, whose benevolent dictatorship improved the lot of most Indonesians, marked a watershed in Asian development. Several commentators asked if his exit was the final nail in the coffin of the Asian formula of thrift, investment and exports combined with rampant corruption.
"Is there something severely lacking in it which questions the adequacy of Asian values of familial ties and lesser concern for westernstyle institutions and practices?" asked the Indonesian Business Standard.
"The corruption in Korea and the nepotism that marked Suharto's reign have been extensively discussed lately. But it is difficult not to appreciate the single-minded determination with which education, health and investment in infrastructure have been pursued in all these countries, along with a desire to become world class manufacturers."
In contrast India remains mired in poverty, despite having a formal democratic structure. Asian values and ways of doing business are different from Western ways, but this does not mean that they must be inferior or wrong, maintains Malaysia's prime minister Mahathir Mohamad, one who sees Asians as victims of Western conspiracies.
In a speech last month he cited high savings as an Asian virtue which meant Asian businesses could borrow much more and the loans were repaid. But when they borrowed from abroad, Dr Mahathir said the Asians did not expect their capacity to repay foreign loans to be undercut when the currency traders deliberately devalued Asian currencies.
"The Asian borrowers found themselves owing more than they borrowed," he says. "And so they could not repay or even service their foreign loans. Eventually they could not service even local loans. Is this their fault? Is this the fault of the Asian way of doing business?"
He blamed a biased, racist, foreign media for projecting the view that the Asian financial crisis was due to corrupt and incompetent governments.
"If they do anything at all for the good of their countries, it must be because they are corrupt and want to help their cronies and families," he says, adding: "We have to hold on to Asian traditions and values; traditions and values which are in no way inferior to those of the ethnic Europeans."
Dr Mahathir has pointedly befriended the repressive military government in Myanmar/Burma, which invokes Asian values to justify crushing the country's democracy movement.
In December when Dr Mahathir visited Myanmar the state-owned media called him "a staunch defender" of Asian values who has been "vocal on matters in which others with sinister designs often dabble. Many a time, he has been known to be deservedly vitriolic in dealing a straight hook to those who interfere in the internal affairs of countries in this region on the pretext of human rights and democracy."
However the attitude of Dr Mahathir to Myanmar, which is ostracised by the West for its poor human rights record, is little different from that of the United States and the EU to communist China, where the democracy movement is also repressed but which is much more important to these countries for strategic and trading reasons.
Any debate on development and Asian values should take into account the experience of two more open Asian countries which have rejected the Indonesian model of development and are showing evidence that their way will prevail. The Philippines, with its own freewheeling style of democracy since 1986, enjoys stability and can see prosperity ahead.
Thailand was already moving against corruption in business and politics when its currency collapsed in 1997, intensifying the popular demand for change and sweeping out of office a prime minister identified with vested interests. Success for these two countries would be the best answer to those who use Asian values to justify repression in any form as a necessary condition for growth.