At Singapore's independence on August 9, 1965, a small city-state faced a survival dilemma rather than a ready-made success story: limited space, lack of natural resources, a narrow internal market, and heavy dependence on a volatile regional environment. In such a context, the most important explanatory question becomes not only how Singapore grew, but how it redefined the meaning of wealth in an economy without raw materials: by turning location, organization, and skill into functional substitutes for oil and minerals.This transformation is evident when comparing two simple indicators: per capita income (in current dollars), which in 2024 reached about $90,674 according to the World Bank, compared to very modest levels in the first decades after independence (World Bank, 2025).
However, reading the number alone may deceive; the rise was not the result of a neutral miracle, but rather the outcome of the choices of a developmental state that focused on building a disciplined administrative apparatus, neutralizing corruption as much as possible, and linking the legitimacy of governance to the state's ability to produce jobs, services, housing, and a competitive education system. Here is the central idea: Singapore did not compensate for the lack of resources with abundant capital, but with an institutional design that made economic efficiency part of the political and moral structure of the state.
The establishment of the Economic Development Board (EDB) in 1961 as a specialized government institution to attract investment and guide industrialization represented an early translation of the idea of pragmatic planning: the state does not just provide a general environment, but enters as a sector coordinator, setting industry priorities, providing infrastructure, attracting multinational companies, and creating local supply chains.Over time, the strategy evolved from labor-intensive manufacturing to higher value-added industries and then to a knowledge economy, without losing the state's role as a regulator: through coordinated wage policies, continuous investment in ports, airports and telecommunications, and a strict link between institutional performance and accountability.
The Central Bank of Singapore's reading of the history of the transformation confirms this gradual path: By the mid-1970s, industrialization had taken hold as the basis for growth, and the contribution of manufacturing to output had increased compared to the mid-1960s, reflecting a transition from a trading port to a productive economy. The meaning here is that the state did not just open markets, but engineered the economy's ability to benefit from openness.
In terms of economic geography, Singapore has turned its location from a fate into an advantage by turning it into a global logistics and financial node. The port is not just a transportation structure; it is a platform to bring Singapore into value chains, thereby attracting associated industries and services. In 2024, Singapore set a record in container handling of 41.12 million TEUs, with about 90% of the container traffic being of transhipment nature, cementing its role as the world's largest transhipment center, according to the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore, 2025. These figures are not a technical detail; they are evidence of a development model that imports materials and demand and exports services and value, so that logistics, finance, insurance and commercial arbitration become part of the country's wealth, not just supporting facilities.
But sustainable economic growth needs a viable social contract within the city, and here the housing file appears as an economic policy par excellence. The expansion of public housing through the Housing and Development Authority (HDB) was not just an urban project; it was a tool to stabilize social stability, raise productivity, reduce the relative cost of living, and create broad ownership that gives the state political credit in a multi-ethnic society. Recent HDB statistics indicate that the majority of the resident population lives in apartments, which explains how Singapore was able to reduce one of the main sources of instability in rapidly urbanizing cities: slums and rent crises.
This model is complemented by two elements that are often reduced to generic words: anti-corruption and education, but in the Singaporean experience they are part of the engineering of incentives and opportunities. In the 2024 Corruption Perceptions Index, Singapore scored 84 out of 100 and ranked third globally, reflecting an international image of public sector integrity compared to most countries (Transparency International, 2025).On the other hand, the country has fostered a human advantage through an education system that focuses on skills, science and mathematics, the results of which are reflected in international assessments such as PISA 2022, where Singapore students achieve very high levels compared to the OECD average (OECD, 2023). The analytical significance is not school excellence per se, but the country's ability to transform education into a competitive lever to attract skill-based investments and then transfer part of the returns of growth to education development again in a feedback loop.
However, no reading of the transformation is complete without understanding how surpluses and risks were managed. Here, public reserve and investment management institutions played a role in transforming surpluses into financial strength and resilience to shocks. The establishment of Temasek in 1974 as an investment arm of the state reflects a commercially managed public ownership approach in strategic sectors, with a tendency to internationalize portfolios later on.In the same vein, the GIC frames its role as one of the three entities managing Singapore's reserves, with the aim of long-term investment and preserving the purchasing power of assets. This structure does not mean the absence of controversy; it also creates questions about the limits of the state as an investor and the risks of politicization or concentration, but its importance is that it provided the state with a tool to finance structural transformations without being dependent on natural resources.
Singapore's story is not only a rags-to-riches story, but also a transition from a resource-based economy to a rule-based economy: effective institutions, controlled trade openness, global logistics, housing that reduces social tension, education that increases value added, and governance that increases trust. Its success is partly learnable: other countries can emulate principles such as building a professional administrative apparatus, directing investment towards exportable sectors, and linking social policies to productivity.But it is not fully replicable, because Singapore also benefited from unique characteristics: small size for ease of management, exceptional maritime location, and high capacity for institutional discipline. It is more accurate to consider the experience as a bundle of policies and conditions: what can be transferred is the logic of creating competitive advantage through the developmental state, not a ready-made copy of the results. In a world of increasing geopolitical risks and supply chain disruptions, the value of the Singaporean lesson remains in one idea: the state can be an economic resource in itself when institutions and incentives are well-designed.
Comments