Globalization in Southeast Asia

Abstract

The authors attempt to accomplish four interrelated tasks in this article: (1) to develop a plausible and defensible approach to studying globalization; (2) to define Southeast Asia; (3) to delimit and historicize the globalization process in Southeast Asia; and (4) to describe and analyze the economic performance of Southeast Asia over the past 30 years or so, paying particular attention to the region before, during, and after the events of 1997.

Public Administration in a Globalized Asia: Intellectual Identities, Challenges, and Prospects

“…Globalization is one of the most contentious phenomena and controversial ideas of our time (Weiss, ), especially due to its worldwide impacts and numerous actors and vested interests, as well as its massive studies and diverse approaches adopted in almost all fields of knowledge (Kim, ). Despite the immense diversity in the interpretations and intellectual sources of globalization (Farazmand, ; Coclanis and Doshi, ; Tillah, ), it can be commonly defined as “a process of integrating nations, societies, and peoples in the domains of economy, politics, culture, ideology and knowledge through the transnational networks of capital, production, exchange, technology, and information owned and controlled unequally by dominant states, organizations, classes, and individuals” (Haque, ).…”

“…The main actors involved in colonial territorial expansion in South and Southeast Asia were the trading companies and the incipient Western capitalist states as their main patrons. It is suggested that these European powers tried “to establish and enforce close economic, political, and cultural ties between themselves and their respective colonies or in some cases groups of colonies” (Coclanis and Doshi, :53).…”

“…In other words, the globalization process was guided by the mission of ideological expansionism in Asia and the agenda of the capitalist bloc to prevent new regimes from being influenced by the socialist bloc. Thus, there emerged certain initiatives undertaken by advanced capitalist states to exert influence on postcolonial Asian regimes to liberalize foreign trade and investment and allow the infiltration of transnational corporations, often in exchange of massive development aid and technical assistance (Coclanis and Doshi, ).…”

“…The current phase of globalization represents the most unprecedented, intensive, and all‐pervasive mode of globalization in human history. This stage has been interpreted as the neoliberal globalization as it is guided by market‐driven neoliberal principles, reinforced by neoliberal initiatives like the Washington Consensus, enhanced by promarket policies like liberalization and deregulation, and facilitated by the corporate‐owned information and communication technology (Coclanis and Doshi, ; Regnier, ; Kim, ). One basic indicator of globalization is the economic globalization index (measuring trade flows, foreign direct investment, and tariff rate).…”

“…In the aforementioned context, this article attempts to explicate these globalization–state–administration linkages, assess the consequences of using such exogenously prescribed administrative models for their societal incompatibility, and examine the limits of building a more indigenously compatible public administration knowledge in South, East, and Southeast Asian countries. The main rationale for focusing on these Asian regions is that they represent some of the most intensively globalized countries in the developing world where the formation of states and public administration systems has been largely based on colonial imposition and postcolonial imitation of Western models, although there are diversities among these countries in political, economic, and sociocultural backgrounds and features (Coclanis and Doshi, ).…”