Much has been written about privatization. Partial privatization is a lesser known fact, although most privatization programs begin with a period of partial rather than full divestment of state-owned enterprises (SOEs). In this type of privatization, the government plays the role of a regulator and a shareholder. This could give rise to conflicts of interest; for example, the possibility of political interest overriding the commercial interest. As a consequence, privatized SOEs may face difficulty in globalizing their business through financial and fixed asset investment. This article argues that setting up state-owned holding companies (SOHs) can be a constructive way to manage the important link between the government and the privatized SOEs and demarcate the government’s role as regulator and shareholder. By means of a case study, the Temasek Holdings Limited of Singapore, this article illustrates the Singapore’s experience in managing and globalizing partially privatized firms.

This paper investigates the causes and consequences of politicized economic management in the cross strait. The first half of the paper briefly reviews the cross-strait political and economic environment. The passage of the anti-secession law by Mainland China in March 2005 marked a new high in the political tension in the cross strait. From the economic standpoint, cross-strait relation has registered a more positive outlook. But this is merely on the surface. As the second half of the paper shows, politicians from both sides are still exerting much influence on how firms are to conduct their business with their counterparts. Hence, economics are highly politicized. The result is destructive. Firms face a high degree of vulnerability and uncertainty in the conduct of their business because political tension makes it difficult for them to make economic decisions independent of politics. As long as political differences remain unresolved, it would not be easy for full economic integration between Taiwan and the Mainland. Military confrontations cannot be ruled out in spite of greater economic integration when future economic outlook between the two economies remains uncertain.China, Taiwan, international political economy,

This paper investigates the relationship between regional and national identities in the age of globalisation, with particular reference to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). For members of ASEAN, economic integration is seen as a necessary step forward in order to (i) reduce reliance on Western countries during times of economic crisis and (ii) speed up the recovery process in the aftermath of a crisis. The concept of an ASEAN Economic Community represents a step towards achieving this goal. However, by means of a case study, this paper demonstrates that the idea of an ASEAN Economic Community does not yet have sufficiently solid foundations. Cracks appear when member states act in response to national interest. Given the frequency of friction between member nations, and the fact that ASEAN members are quite diverse in both economic and cultural respects, there is still much more to be done to realise the objective of forming an effective and credible regional economic group. In this paper some suggestions are offered that might assist with the achievement of this goal.

No abstract

Economic nationalism is often associated with the mercantilist view. Being nationalist is viewed as non-conventional, particularly in the age of globalization in which cross-border trade and investment are perceived to bring benefits to all participants. The paper questions this notion of economic nationalism. The author argues that in today's context, policy changes that appear to be ‘nationalist’ may not be totally inconsistent with policies advocated by liberals. This description of economic nationalism is applicable to Singapore and Thailand. By means of a case study (involving the Shin Corporation of Thailand and Temasek Holdings Limited of Singapore), the paper shows that the governments did not hesitate to arouse local support to maximize their respective national interests while at the same time remaining active in regional and global initiatives. The decisions of the Thais and Singaporeans reflect the trend towards an increasing discomfort with globalization.