The Politics of Privatization in the ASEAN States

Milne, R. S.

doi:10.1355/ae7-3e

Cited by 9 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and various other international and United States development agencies provided Asian policy makers with strong arguments supporting deregulation and privatisation (World Bank, 1997). In Asia, privatisation experiences are noted by Ng and Woon (1992), Milne (1992) and Thynne (1995). The impact of power privatisation (in theory) should be a more efficient competitive system, ensuring a lower price of power for consumers.…”

Section: Privatisation Trendsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Privatising electric power in Malaysia and Thailand: politics and infrastructure development policy

Smith

2003

Public Admin & Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Electric power development in Asia until recently has been a monopoly of the state, with the power sector's planning, finance, construction and management being a part of government activity. The surge in demand for power, as well as external pressures, induced Asian governments to allow private sector participation in electric power. The Malaysian and Thailand cases represent different patterns of policy-making regarding privatisation. In Malaysia, the government divested Tenaga Nacional Berhad in 1992 and awarded independent power producers (IPPs) licences to build and sell electricity to Tenaga for transmission and distribution. The IPPs were awarded without tender to friends of the government and the system has enabled the IPPs to make large profits at Tenaga's expense. In the Thai case, privatisation has been a very slow process as successive governments since 1989 have not had the power to initiate extensive divestment of IPP contracting. Privatisation in Thailand is a very contentious political issue and the employees union of the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (Egat) is very powerful. Thus, while Malaysia has had extensive privatisation of the power sector, the system eliminates competition in power supply resulting in a higher price of electricity for consumers.

show abstract

Section: Privatisation Trendsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Privatising electric power in Malaysia and Thailand: politics and infrastructure development policy

Smith

2003

Public Admin & Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Privatisation, which often entangled many developing country governments in a web of political difficulties, was initiated in a rapid yet well-planned manner in the late 1980s and gained momentum in the early 1990s when the delinking of the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange from the Stock Exchange of Singapore (SES) depressed trading activities in the latter. While occasional resistance has arisen among civil servants and public sector employees, state elites have been able to overcome obstacles and push ahead with the privatisation process (Milne, 1991;Straits Times, 1992: 24).…”

Section: Singaporementioning

confidence: 99%

Between Decisiveness and Credibility: Transforming the Securities Industry in Singapore and Thailand

Zhang

2009

Journal of Development Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article suggests a political party-centred explanation of economic policy reforms that differs significantly from the standard theoretical models that emphasise social coalitions, government systems, regime types or electoral cycles. The explanatory approach advanced here focuses on inter-party and intra-party organisational dimensions within an integrated analytical framework as the major determinants of both the decisiveness of policy reforms and the credibility of such reforms. A comparative analysis of government efforts to transform the securities industry in Singapore and Thailand provides preliminary evidence with which to explore the proposed causal linkage between the patterns of stock market reforms and the changing configurations of political parties.

show abstract

“…Many observers have noted an anti-capitalist ideology in Indonesia 3 and have linked this to bitter memories of colonial exploitation to fears of Indonesian-Chinese domination of the modern market economy., and 3 more positively^ to values of equitable distribution of wealth for the benefit of the whole community (Glassburner 1971(Glassburner & 1978LIddle 1982;Hadl Soesatro 1989;Mackie 1971;McCawley 1982;Maclntyre 1994;Milne 1991;Rice 1983;Robison 1986). …”

Section: Shadow Languages Competition and The Television Sectormentioning

confidence: 99%

Shadow language: Competition and the television sector in Indonesia

Kitley

1998

Social Semiotics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Politics of Privatization in the ASEAN States

Cited by 9 publications

References 6 publications

Privatising electric power in Malaysia and Thailand: politics and infrastructure development policy

Privatising electric power in Malaysia and Thailand: politics and infrastructure development policy

Between Decisiveness and Credibility: Transforming the Securities Industry in Singapore and Thailand

Shadow language: Competition and the television sector in Indonesia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About