Has crisis changed the IMF?
Cornel Ban and Daniela Gabor, Bristol Business School
Has the global economic crisis changed the International Monetary Fund — and if so, how? These were the questions posed at a workshop held at Boston University on April 8. The workshop was sponsored by the Boston University Center for Finance, Law and Policy and co-sponsored by Governance. The conveners were Professors Cornel Ban and Kevin Gallagher.
The IMF has played an important role in shaping governmental responses to the crisis over the past six years. But the crisis has also affected the IMF itself. Scholars from twelve universities participated in the workshop, examining IMF policies on fiscal policy, debt restructuring, financial sector surveillance, capital controls, and other topics. Read the rest of this entry »
Is Mahbubani too optimistic about Asia’s rise?
Last month, Governance published Francis Fukuyama’s commentary “What is governance?” On March 26 we posted a response from Kishore Mahbubani, Dean of the Lee Kwan Yew School at the National University of Singapore. Dean Mahbubani’s response was also published in the Singapore Straits Times. In this column, reprinted from the April 8 Straits Times, Sun Xi replies to Dean Mahbubani:
PROFESSOR Kishore Mahbubani, dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore, has been described as “the muse of the Asian century”. He is widely known for his famous idea, “the rise of Asia and the decline of the West”.
His full perspectives on the idea can be intensively explored in his books – The New Asian Hemisphere: The Irresistible Shift Of Global Power To The East, and The Great Convergence: Asia, The West And The Logic Of One World.
As an Asian youth, I am actually very receptive to his idea of the rise of Asia, since it gives us an unprecedented dose of confidence in our future. However, Prof Mahbubani’s idea also casts a doubt in my mind: Is he too optimistic about Asia’s rise? Read the rest of this entry »
Fung Institute’s Sheng discusses “What is governance?”
In Sri Lanka’s Sunday Island newspaper, Andrew Sheng, President of the Fung Global Institute, discusses Francis Fukuyama’s commentary “What is governance?”. Fukuyama, Sheng says, “has helped to clarify the methodology in thinking about the tradeoffs between the ability to have high discretion versus being bogged down by excessive rules, and high capacity to execute, versus low capacity to execute. . . . [And] he has decided to remove any suggestion that democracy is automatically associated with good governance, appreciating that ‘an authoritarian regime can be well governed, just as a democracy can be mal-administered.’” Read Sheng’s response. The Fung Global Institute is a Hong Kong-based organization that generates innovative thinking and business-relevant research on global issues from Asian perspectives.
Peter Hall: Will crisis produce a paradigm shift?
In the current issue of Governance (26.2, April 2013), Professor Peter Hall of Harvard University provides a commentary on the possibility of a “new policy paradigm specifying major shifts in economic and policy” following the global financial crisis of 2008-09.
A new paradigm will have to do more than address economic troubles, Hall says. “It will also have to speak to the quintessential political dilemmas of an age in which many have lost faith in the capacities of the state, worry that redistribution to others will mean less for them, and wonder to whom they owe solidarity in a rapidly globalizing world.”
The commentary is part of a special issue marking the twentieth anniversary of Hall’s influential 1993 article, “Policy Paradigms, Social Learning and the State.” Free access to the commentary until April 30.
Mahbubani on “What is governance?”
Kishore Mahbubani, Dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore, responds to Francis Fukuyama’s “What is governance?”:
Francis Fukuyama has done the West an enormous favor with his essay on “What is governance?” He is subtly introducing a distinction between democracy and good governance, a distinction which is almost inconceivable in Western minds.
To put it bluntly, democracy is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for good governance. And, yes, it is possible to have good governance without democracy. Anyone who doubts this should look at the record of China’s government over the past thirty years. It is not perfect but it has lifted more people out of poverty, educated more people, increased their lifespans and generated the world’s largest middle class. No other society in human history has improved human welfare as much as the Chinese government. It would be insane to deny that China has enjoyed “good governance.” Read the rest of this entry »
Goldsmith on “What is governance?”
Arthur Goldsmith of the University of Massachusetts Boston responds to Francis Fukuyama’s “What is governance?”:
“Good governance” arguably became the dominant paradigm for international development policy in the 1990s, as the shortcomings of the so-called Washington consensus suggested that institutional factors ought to be taken into account more fully in order for low- and medium-income countries to design and implement planned social and economic improvements. Right from the start, however, the good governance paradigm had difficulty dealing with the paradox that some seemingly poorly governed countries, notably China, appeared to be doing quite well on many dimensions of development. At the same time, most emerging nations floundered in trying to improve governance and make public agencies more effective in delivering basic services and promoting their private sectors. Read the rest of this entry »
Kumar discusses “What is governance?”
Last month, Governance published Francis Fukuyama’s commentary “What is governance?“ Here, Professor Sudhir Kumar offers a reply to the commentary. (Read earlier responses further down on the blog).
Written by governancejournal
April 28, 2013 at 9:16 am
Posted in commentary