The wireless telecommunications markets of both Japan and South Korea developed rapidly, offering extremely sophisticated and advanced wireless services. Yet, their fortunes in international markets diverged significantly: while Japanese handset manufacturers retreated to become virtual nonplayers, Korean firms gained global prominence. This paper argues that the politics of standard-setting and liberalization, set in motion by differences in initial conditions that created distinct domestic market dynamics, are critical in explaining this divergence. The Korean government, seeking independence from foreign equipment, actively sought to build domestic technological capacities through a standard that would advantage domestic firms in international markets. In contrast, the Japanese government, independent from foreign technology, was not initially focused on international markets, making it difficult later on to shift the terms of market competition away from an exclusive focus on the domestic market.

It was meant to be a celebration not a showdown, let alone a showdown that the brutal junta in Burma (Myanmar) would win. In August 2007, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) turned forty. On November 20, to mark the occasion, the heads of government of the association's ten member states-Brunei, Burma, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam-met in Singapore for the thirteenth ASEAN Summit. A day later the heads of government from Australia, China, India, Japan, New Zealand, and South Korea joined them for the third East Asia Summit (EAS).

The summitry had three purposes. The first was to commemorate ASEAN's first forty years. From only five members at its inception in 1967, the association had by 1999 grown to encompass all of Southeast Asia's formerly quarrelsome states. For the first time in the region's history, a single indigenous organization could claim to stand for all of Southeast Asia-albeit only by overlooking just how variously accountable ASEAN's diverse regimes were to the peoples whom they presumed to represent.

But ASEAN was not content to rest on these laurels. The second reason for the summitry in Singapore was to prepare the organization for the future. The ASEAN summit's peak event was to be the unveilingand signing of a first-ever charter for the organization.

Finally, the packed schedule in Singapore was meant to project the best possible image of ASEAN to the assembled foreign guests and the wider world. By inaugurating a charter meant to enhance the association’s effectiveness, the organizers of the celebrations hoped to belie Western criticism that ASEAN was little more than a “talking shop.” They also hoped that showcasing the charter would distract attention from the presence in Singapore of ASEAN’s most widely castigated member, Burma, and thereby gain some relief from Western charges of guilt by association with that pariah state.

It was not to be. The summit was convened and the charter was signed. Plans to implement the ASEAN Economic Community were announced. But the Burmese junta stole the spotlight from these accomplishments in a way that tainted the anniversary, embarrassed the association in front of its foreign guests, and reminded analysts just how tenuously regionalism is related to democracy in Southeast Asia.

Contradictory goals plague China’s pharmaceutical policy. The government wants to develop the domestic pharmaceutical industry and has used drug pricing to cross-subsidize public hospitals. Yet the government also aims to control pharmaceutical spending through price caps and profit-margin regulations to guarantee access even for poor patients. The resulting system has distorted market incentives, increased consumer cost, and financially rewarded inappropriate prescribing, thus undermining public health. Though pharmaceuticals account for about half of total healthcare expenditures in China, representing 43% of expenditure per inpatient episode and 51% of expenditure per outpatient visit, some essential medicines are unavailable or of questionable quality.

Co-published by the East-West Center, this book originated in a 2004 conference convened by the Southeast Asia Forum (SEAF) at Shorenstein APARC.

The book in which this chapter appears—Southeast Asia in Political Science: Theory, Region, and Qualitative Analysis (ed. Erik Martinez Kuhonta, Dan Slater, and Tuong Vu—argues that Southeast Asian political studies have made important contributions to theory building in comparative politics through a dialogue involving theory, area studies, and qualitative methodology.

The book provides a state-of-the-art review of key topics in the field, including: state structures, political regimes, political parties, contentious politics, civil society, ethnicity, religion, rural development, globalization, and political economy. The chapters allow readers to trace the development of the field of Southeast Asian politics and to address central debates in comparative politics. The book will serve as a valuable reference for undergraduate and graduate students, scholars of Southeast Asian politics, and comparativists engaged in theoretical debates at the heart of political science.

Reviews

"The scholarship here is excellent. These people know their region and its literature cold. This collection demonstrates the potential of qualitative Southeast Asian area studies to contribute to the broader accumulation of knowledge in political science, including the development of disciplinary theory."
-Jack Snyder, Columbia University

"This collection consists of elegantly written, carefully crafted, intelligent, and interesting essays that will be of enormous value to scholars of the politics of Southeast Asia."
-John Sidel, London School of Economics