Governance -- the way in which decisions that affect the public interest are made -- has emerged as a key factor in determining a country's pace of development. Successful governance brings purposeful change. Failure is punished by unrest, disaffection, and stagnation. Tomorrow, a conference in Bangkok will dissect the prospects for improved governance in Asia.
Today's Asian policymakers confront a very different environment from that faced by their predecessors 50 years ago. Asia's population has more than doubled since 1950, with most of that growth coming in its poorest countries. The political systems of these countries were tailored to small, static, rural populations. Now these societies must cope not only with vast urban centers, but also with the very different talents and demands of urbanized people.
The global economy has changed dramatically, too. Increased flows of goods, money and knowledge around the world mean that foreign organizations and individuals become more influential, making it increasingly difficult for national governments manage their countries by themselves. For example, international bodies such as the WTO have changed the framework within which economic decisions are taken.
A "back to basics" approach is vital in three inter-linked areas, in which national governments must take the lead: minimizing corruption, enforcing property rights and consistent application of the rule of law. Few countries score strongly here.
Close links between business and governments were blamed by many for the financial crisis that struck Southeast Asia in 1997. In parts of South Asia, violent conflict and the power of vested interests threaten the rule of law. The result of such failures is that small elites benefit while the majority suffers.
A clear structure of formal rules is the best antidote to these flaws, for they bolster the informal customs on which so much in society depends. Most business is not conducted in courts but in meetings where trust and reputation are essential.
As the social theorist Robert Putnam has explained, "social capital" -- the networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate cooperation and coordination for mutual benefit -- is as much a determinant as it is a result of economic growth.
Empowering as many members citizens as possible is likely to instill a widespread sense of purpose into efforts to move countries forward. Government, the private sector and civil society all have a role to play in strengthening social capital. But successful interactions between these sectors cannot be wished into existence and it is essential that the role of each is clearly defined.
But governments retain a role in fostering an enabling environment within which markets operate. Monitoring rules and enforcement are important, but different ways of working -- say, through public-private partnerships -- are also increasingly being considered in many innovative Asian economies.
The valuable role of civil society in giving voice to communities that governments cannot reach is also recognized, but its relationship with government and business is often characterized more by conflict than cooperation.
The private sector's role in decision-making, too, often needs to be clarified -- where businesses have too much influence over government, their need to operate profitable may lead to policies that favor the few over the many.
The metaphor of a game -- with rules and participants -- leads many to think in terms of a competition between nations. This is not entirely healthy, as our interdependent world is not a zero-sum game, where one country's gain is another's loss. Indeed, countries do not compete against each other in the way that firms do.
Trade is potentially a positive-sum game, with all countries benefiting by exploiting their areas of comparative advantage. Good governance can enhance this positive-sum game, and ensure that companies and individuals within countries partake of the benefits.
In another sense, however, it is valuable to think of governments as being in competition -- providing a more effective service to their people than other governments. International comparison of systems therefore plays an important role.
In this spirit, this month's joint conference with the UN Conference on Trade and Development along with the UN Development Program -- "Governance in Asia: Underpinning Competitiveness in a Global Economy" -- will bring together policymakers from across Asia to discuss the governance challenges that Asia faces.
The role of government -- the only actor possessing the legitimacy of a popular mandate -- is fundamentally important in steering a society forward.
The private sector and civil society are, of course, increasingly important partners for governments. How relationships among these stakeholders function will powerfully influence Asia's future development.
David Bloom is professor of economics and demography at Harvard University. David Steven is a policy/strategic consultant who founded the UK-based knowledge consultancy River Path Associates. Mark Weston researches and writes on policy issues for a variety of organizations.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations