Southeast Asia: Table of Contents
Organizer and Discussant: James F. Guyot, City University of New York
Chair: Lucian W. Pye, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
The political and economic development of Burma during its half century of independence is set in the context of other Southeast Asian nations that emerged from World War II. This context permits the comparative analysis of developments in a coherent yet significantly varied set of Asian nations, with implications for theories of political economy. Special attention is paid to inward and outward looking economic strategies, the shifting roles of the military classes, the interactions of political and economic elites with each other and with other segments of the national populations, and the institutionalization of political cultures.
In order to broaden participation, the panel has drawn for paper writers on a newer generation of Burmese Burma scholars, individuals under the age of 40 who came to the U.S. for study after the events of 8-8-88. The writers will not read their papers, rather the discussant will summarize and comment on them, permitting more time for exchange among the panel members and with the audience.
Ye Myint, Northern Illinois University
Burma’s entry into the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) marks a dramatic turn in its relations with its Southeast Asian neighbors since the country’s independence fifty years ago. From an initial active involvement in regional and international affairs, such as the founding of the non-aligned movement, the country turned to isolationism under General Ne Win’s rule. With the economic reforms of the early 1970s came a marginal opening to such multilateral organizations as the Asian Development Bank, yet distance from ASEAN was maintained.
The emergence of the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) following the suppression of the 1988 uprising was a watershed on several dimensions, including Burma’s blossoming relations with ASEAN. While the international community condemned the regime, ASEAN reached out with a policy of "constructive engagement." The incentives and costs on both sides of that engagement are analyzed.
Naing Oo, Petroleum Industry Research Associates
While the long run economic successes of the globally integrated economies of Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, and Indonesia are well documented and extensively analyzed, the stumbles of Burma and several other slow growth or retrograde economies in the region are less systematically known. The Burma case will be examined in terms of the socio-economic factors identified by the Harvard Institute for International Development in a report for the Asian Development Bank, with special attention to the shifting strategies adopted by the parliamentary democracy, the Revolutionary Council and Burma Socialist Programme Party, and the State Law and Order Restoration Council regimes.
Zaw Oo, Research Group for Economic Development of Burma
Toward the end of the 20th century, the world-wide transition to democratic regimes and open systems has brought to an end a number of regimes in which the military had played a dominant political role despite deficiencies in economic performance, public support, or international acceptance. A few existing military regimes such as Burma’s State Law and Order Restoration Council now face a crisis of legitimacy and are under pressures to open up their political systems.
Since 1958, under the claim that the military were both the true defenders of Burmese traditions and effective modernizers, the Burmese army has attempted in varying ways to monopolize the channels of political participation while engaging both directly and indirectly with the full range of economic tasks. This paper examines the military role in shaping and implementing economic policies and in rent-seeking behavior as well. This examination is undertaken in the context of similar and contrasting elements of political and economic development in Thailand and Indonesia.
Balancing economic and political goals, successive military regimes in Burma failed to secure either. The present regime also faces a serious dilemma in strengthening the socio-economic foundations through liberalization while seeking to secure a lasting domination in national politics. The prospects for disengagement from political roles by the State Law and Order Restoration Council will be addressed.
Ardeth Maung, University of Wisconsin, Madison
At independence Burma began a partial transition to socialism which accelerated as the "Burmese Way to Socialism." This course was radically reversed during the last decade, under the State Law and Order Restoration Council. Contrary to the mainstream scholarship that emphasizes rural-led growth policies for the former communist and socialist economies, the development processes in Burma have been systematically biased against the countryside in both the transitions to and from socialism. This bias is deeply embedded in a persisting political dualism which may be analyzed in comparison to the socio-political processes at play in other Southeast Asian nations, particularly in relation to the economic policy transformations that took place in Indonesia and Viet Nam.