Critics Of South East Asia's Political And Economic Systems

IntroductionAnother suggestions made by South Asian critics is
South East Asian countries (China, South Korea,the fact that their governance structures with regard
Japan and Taiwan) have been the object ofto IT and capital flow have not been in tuned with
economic discussions over the past decade. Thischanges in the policy. These critics assert that in
began in the nineties where experts called theseorder for South East Asian countries to boost their
countries ‘economic miracles'. However, in theeconomies, they should not merely focus on
late nineties, these countries begun underperforminggathering capital but should do this against the
after the vulnerabilities of their economical and politicalbackdrop of policy changes. They also add that
reforms were exposed. In the late nineteen nineties,Information Technology cannot be regarded as an
the Asian crisis sparked off a lot of debate about theagent for change alone if it does not operate within
problems of the South East Asian economic andthe confines of political and social changes.
political agenda. Many experts began prescribing newWhile these arguments may be correct, one cannot
approaches that would deal with the crisis. Some ofhelp but see some of the faults that can spring from
them prescribed reformist agendas that wouldimposing such systems upon the South East Asian
prepare these south East Asian countries for futurecountries. It should be noted that within these
effects of globalization. The essay shall examine thecountries, the issue of political governance has been
legitimacy of these prescriptions and giveassociated with economic governance. Underhill
recommendations on the way forward. (Winters,(2000) asserts that trying to separate these two
2000)categorizes within the South East Asian context
How East Asia performed before the economic crisiswould be an exercise in futility. It would therefore be
The forces of globalization propagated East Asia'snecessary to look at the two types of systems
economic success. Globalization in this context referstogether. In the South East Asian context, it would
to the unprecedented mixing of cultures, technology,be extremely difficult separate those two entities
manpower and resources from different parts of theyet this is the underlying principle behind the reformist
world; a phenomenon brought on by Informationagenda brought forward by South east Asian critics.
Technology, the end of communism and the shiftThe underlying principle behind these suggestions is a
towards free market forces. The overall effect ofneo-liberal system with separate entities of political
globalization within the South East Asian countriesand economic governance. However, imposing such a
was a rapid increase in the standards of living for asystem upon the South East Asian countries would
large portion of the region. It also led to increasedmeet stiff opposition. This is because it would be
literacy levels within the countries hence a high qualitycreating a market-centered approach to the
labor force. On top of this, the South East Asianeconomy.
economies boasted of better health. (Sell, 2000)Additionally, assertions by South East Asian critics
Two major ‘recipes' were crucial to theabout adopting a neo-liberal market approach would
economic success of the early nineties. These werefail drastically owing to the non-existence of
summarized in the World Bank report (1993) knowncompatible structures within those countries. It should
as the East Asian miracle. The two issues were; solidbe noted that each country has its own unique
macro-economic policies and government intervention.political and economic models. This models do not just
The report studied the overall patterns used by eighthappen overnight. They are as a result of the
South East Asian countries and found that thesehistorical phases that those respective countries have
respective governments did the following. First, theyundergone. Even the United States, which is keen on
reduced fiscal spending and encouraged greaterimposing its political reforms to the South East Asian
savings. Those savings were then redirected intoregion, did not just find themselves in those
infrastructural development and export growth. Thegovernance structures; they got there through some
South East governments demonstrated to the worldsystematic steps inherent in their own history. Due to
just what could occur when the governmentthis reason, prescribing aggressive reforms to the
collaborated with the private sector with the aim ofSouth East Asian continent without considering their
improving their economy. Besides this, thegovernance institutions can be deemed unrealistic.
government introduced flexibility within the labor(Beeson et al, 2000)
markets and also changed their credit markets. ItSome of the changes that occurred prior to the crisis
should be noted that this latter aspect was thecreated some strong systems that eventually
object of great debate after the Asian crisis.characterized their political and economic environment.
South East Asian countries reaped the benefits ofOne such case is the issue of elite control. Therefore,
these reforms because their capital flow increasedimposing neo-liberal reforms in South East Asia can
adversely as was seen in GDP growth rates of closeonly be effective if these changes were not present.
to five point five percent annually. Additionally, theseHowever, because they exist and they are there to
countries could also boast of greater foreignstay, it would be difficult to change them. The
investments and increased productivity within theirreasons why those changes are likely to resist
local environments. Because of the savings culturechange within the South East Asian arena is because
adopted in the fiscal markets, the countries couldthose same groups were responsible for the success
provide stable economic environments for greaterof the emerging economies in the early nineties.
exportation. This was the point at which majorConsequently, South east Asian governments and
sectors of their economies began opening up to thesocieties alike owe these groups some form of
world. One particular area that depicts these changesloyalty for bringing about the changes that
was the industrial sector. However, some criticscharacterized the early nineties even when those
assert that these policy reforms brought on thechanges are no longer relevant.
problems that the country experienced in the lateA reformist agenda within the South East Asian
nineties because they ended up benefiting the elite.countries is likely to fail owing to the fact that most
(Higgot, 1999)South East Asian countries have deep seated
Causes of the South East Asian crisisinstitutional reforms already. Taking the example of
Globalization was the key factor propellant of theJapan, this country adopted a developmental model
South East Asian economic and political boom yet atof governance. The country realized that it was not
the same time, it was one of the major reasons forin a position to be laid back about the governance
its downfall. Through globalization, the South Eastapproach. They had developed at later stages
Asian countries began operating in extremelycompared to their Western counterparts.
competitive markets. The countries that hadConsequently, in order to remain competitive, there
traditionally dominated the world markets were facingwas a need to create a push within the system. This
threats from these emerging economies.would only be possible by direct government
Consequently, the traditional countries started makingintervention in the markets. The reform agenda
their own changes. They did not want to beproposed by South East Asian critics centered on
displaced by the emerging economies.creating liberal markets where decisions should be
Despite the latter fact, there was another moremade solely on market forces. By instructing such
serious reason that cased the 1997 Southeast Asianreforms, this would be going against some of the
crisis. This was the susceptibilities of the Asiandevelopmental aspects of the South East states and
markets' macro economic forces. Many critics havewould therefore solicit friction from the latter
asserted that the South East Asian models was verycountries. (Beeson, 2001)
effective at mobilizing resources but was very poorIn line with the latter arguments, it will also be difficult
at controlling those resources that needed to beto impose some of the suggestions surrounding the
controlled. For instance, there were no set regulatoryneo-liberal systems because there are massive cases
mechanisms for choosing the most productive areasof immigrations within the South East Asian region.
of the economy. As matter of fact, key industriesFor instance, many Chinese have relocated to other
were left out in these capital allocations thus leadingparts of the South Eastern region. Woo Cummings
to plummeting prices and poor service delivery.(1998) estimates this number at around fifty million.
Examples here include the energy sector and theThe large dispersion rates of the Chinese people
telecommunications sector. One cannot underminehave been facilitated by their huge population size
the importance of these two areas to the economyand also by the need to cushion themselves against
yet the Asian continent had been very poor atthe hostilities of the external market. The overall
implementing changes here. As a result, the countriesresult of such a system is that many Chinese
could not eliminate the underperforming sectors ofcapitalists have prospered in the South Eastern
the economy thus allowing them to drag other partsregion. They utilize their prior contacts to access
of the system too. (Rhodes, 1997)resources and penetrate regional markets. In this
Other critics also assert that the Asian economiesregard, it would be very complicated to try and fight
missed the mark when it came to localsuch a complex network yet this is the basis of the
manufacturers and businesses. The countries hadreformist agenda suggested by critics.
tried protecting their local manufacturers while at thePolitical systems within the South east Asian
same time promoting exportation. This increased thecountries have a large part to play in term of the
level of assets within the country without dueoverall success of the reformist agenda. This is
consideration as to which assets were morebecause political systems in these regions have
profitable to the respective countries. Most of themtended towards authoritarianism. While one cannot
grew their economies but failed to consider the issueassert that this may no be out rightly visible; there
of equity.are hints of this political system of governance in
Possible reformsvarious avenues. For instance, in China and Japan,
Some experts have suggested reforms that couldtheir governments are used to having control on
assist South east Asian countries in the process ofeconomic systems. The capitalists that have the
restoring back their past economic successes.capacity to drive the economy also happen to be
However, suggestions made by these experts werepolitical entities. Consequently, trying to pursue a
not well received by the Asian counterparts. Part ofsystem that is tailored on a liberal approach would
the reason for their lukewarm response is becausenot be very realistic owing to the fact that it can
the South East Asian model of economic and politicalmeet stiff resistance from such political systems. The
reform created a system that encouraged elitesSouth East Asian political governments are deemed
within the system. These elites wanted to maintainas superior to civil society and therefore trying to
their positions and they have the capacity to do so.empower the latter would not be plausible in the
Consequently, suggesting reforms through aggressiveregion. (Searle, 1999)
economic and political transformation will beThere are certain dynamics within the South Eastern
extremely difficult to implement owing to thesepolitical context that would make it extremely difficult
powerful elites. (Winters, 2000)to adopt a western style reform agenda. This is
As if this is not enough, some of the changes thatbecause of the nature of operation of the Non
accompanied the opening up of the South east AsianGovernment Organizations. In the Western context,
economies have gone a long way in emerging theNGOs act as separate entities to the state and
local pollution. The economic and political modelstherefore have the capacity to affect the economic
adopted prior to the Asian crisis brought aboutand political landscape of Western states without
intellectual interactions among members of thesesoliciting interference from the respective governing
Asian countries thus exposing them to the benefitsbodies. However, in the Asian context, the same
of globalization. This means that locals within thosefeatures do not apply. As a matter of fact, NGOs
states are actually happy with the effects ofcharacterize government preferences. This is actually
globalization and could therefore resist any reformistthe notion behind government owned NGOs. One of
agenda that can threaten to change the nature ofthe problems that spring from such an approach is
the current system. Taking an example of a fastthat no external bodies can interfere in government
food company such as McDonald's, South East Asianregulation. In fact, this principle of government
compatriots have enjoyed the services of this foodsuperiority directs some of the regional bodies
outlet and actually want it to remain there. Thisformed for those respective countries. It has been
therefore brings in the argument on true effects offound that South East Asian bodies have a principle
globalization. Globalization is not a threat to Southof no interference in the internal affairs of another
East Asian countries because multinationals fromcountries. Consequently, imposing a reformist agenda
other countries come and force their way into localin such a stringent political arena would be an exercise
markets; on the contrary, it is a threat to thesein futility the power of the state overrides all other
Asian countries because their consumers have seeninfluences and would therefore not be feasible with
the benefits that emerge from it and now want tothe South East Asian operating environments. (Suzuki,
continue benefiting from it. Consequently, imposing2000)
economic and political reforms that are designed toConclusion
counter such effects would meet stiff resistanceEvery country in the world follows their political and
from the South East Asian locals. (Lee, 1999)economic path. These paths may be relevant and
Some economists have also suggested that imposingsuccessful at certain points but may not be applicable
a strong and totally different economic system wouldin other circumstances. However, they still form part
also bring problems because the major problemsof the political and social institutions in those countries.
behind the crises emerge from allocation of capital toIt would therefore be unfair to impose another
areas that do not yield effective returns. Examplescountry's economic systems upon another system
of such sectors include;yet this is the basis behind the reformist arguments
- Corporate governanceproposed for South East Asian countries. The latter
- Rule of lawcountry's political and social structures would not be
- Eliminate corruptionfavorable for Western-style liberal market structures
- Dispose of underperforming loansand therefore such reforms would fail drastically.
- Create reforms within banksReference:
- Allocate capital effectivelyBeeson, M., Jayasuria, K. & Kim, H. (2000): Politics
- Etcand Markets in the wake of the Asian crisis;
Some of the latter reforms seem better said thenRoutledge
done. This is because implementing some of theBeeson, M. (2001): Globalization, governance and the
reforms mentioned above would require rigorouspolitical economy on public policy reform in East Asia,
transformation of the economic sector which as wasJournal of governance, 14, 4, 481-502
seen earlier could bring about stiff resistance fromCerny, T. (1997): Paradoxes in competition states;
vested interests there.Journal of Government and Opposition, 32, pp
The role of good governance in revitalizing South251-271
east Asian economiesHiggot, R. (1999): Resisting the imperialism of
Some experts have suggested that the majoreconomics; University of East Anglia Conference
problem behind the South East Asian political systempaper, 9th September
is the fact that there are inherent corrupt systems.Lee, S. (1999): Political economy; Journal of far
This means that attracting foreign investors withinEastern Economic review, 22, 49, 15
such systems is very difficult because they face theRhodes, R. (1997): Understanding governance,
danger of issuing or receiving resources based onGovernance, Policy Networks, Accountability and
their relationships rather than on economics. Thisreflexivity, Open University press
makes their markets unpredictable and discouragesSuzuki, T. (2000): For and against NGOs; report for
investments. Such experts have even cited countriesthe New Left, No. 2. pp 63-84
such as Singapore that have done very well in theSell, S. (2000): Big Business and the new trade
international markets. They have been able to makeagreements; Oxford University Press
their mark because of their zero tolerance onSearle, P.
corruption.  (Cerny, 1997)