Globalization, Governance, and the Political‐Economy of Public Policy Reform in East Asia

Abstract

In the wake of the crisis that developed in East Asia during 1997, perceptions of the region have been transformed. Critics claim that East Asian political practices and economic structures must be reformed if the region is to prosper in an era of globalization. In short, the region must adopt a different sort of public policy, one associated with an influential agenda of “good governance.” This paper critically assesses this discourse and the predominately “Western” assumptions that underpin it. It is argued that, not only is this reformist agenda likely to be resisted by powerful vested interests, but the institutional infrastructure to support such a style of governance is inadequately developed in East Asia.

The (Perceived) roles of corporate governance reforms in Malaysia: The views of corporate practitioners

“…Corporate governance is in a state of transition in most countries in the world, with the strongest force for corporate governance reforms being the liberalisation and globalisation of financial markets (Beeson, 2001). Privatisation, deregulation and open free markets with increased foreign direct investments (FDIs) and trading in recent years have all deepened the role of (local and international) capital markets and the private sector in both the developed and the developing worlds.…”

“…Countries and companies compete on the price and quality of their goods and services, and compete for financial resources in global financial markets. These global market pressures, to a certain extent, are driving many countries (in particular emerging and less developed) to change and conform to the so-called 'international benchmark' of corporate governance practices (predominantly based on the Anglo-American models) (see Uddin and Choudhury, forthcoming;Lambert and Sponem, 2005;Beeson, 2001;Economist, 2000;Millstein, 2000).…”

“…One of the key events that prompted worldwide corporate governance reforms was the 1997/1998 Asian financial catastrophe (Liew, 2007;Singh and Zammit, 2006;Koehn, 2002;Beeson, 2001). Malaysia and other affected East Asian countries were under pressure from supranational organisations such as the World Bank, IMF and ADB to improve/change their corporate governance practices, especially after the collapse of many large conglomerates in those countries, so as to match the expectations of the international/Western community (Liew, 2007;Glen and Singh, 2005;World Bank, 1998).…”

The state and illegality in Indonesia

“…Unbridled competition without the institutions to underpin it can increase uncertainty and instability by encouraging violent informal enforcement practices, as has happened in China and Russia (Ding 2001;Volkov 2002). It could even undermine existing institutional arrangements for guaranteeing property rights and personal security (Beeson 2001). If the globalizing anti-corruption agenda does prevail, it is by no means certain that Indonesia's construction industry would look as benign as the agenda's ideologues portray it.…”

Competing Capitalisms and Neoliberalism: The Dynamics of, and Limits to, Economic Reform in the Asia‐Pacific

“…The precise historical circumstances that pertain in different regions will delimit the possible range of economic structures, practices and relationships that are feasible in different parts of the world: it is not simply that there are substantial political and economic interests resisting Anglo-American neoliberalism in Asia, but there are significant doubts about whether the sort of non-state, private sector dominated patterns of relationships that predominate in Western Europe could be replicated in East Asia in the short-term even if there was a desire to do so (see Beeson 2001). In other words, in much of East Asia, where civil society and the private sector remain comparatively underdeveloped, there may be no alternative to major state intervention in promoting economic developmental and regulating economic activity.…”