A tale of two cities: Education responds to globalisation in Hong Kong and Singapore in the aftermath of the Asian economic crisi

It has been suggested that although the most theorisation about globalisation has emerged from “western” contexts, the material implications of globalisation have been felt most strongly in non-western regions. With this in mind, we are undertaking a situated analysis of how two states, Singapore and Hong Kong, are interacting with the broader processes of globalisation through their educational policies. We apply Foucault's conceptual tool of governmentality to understand (i) the conduct of governing in the contemporary nation-state, and (ii) how the “right” rationalities are being inculcated by government to create “desiring subjects” who will play their part in ensuring national prosperity. We use the Asian Economic Crisis as a point of departure to show how global-local tensions are being managed by Singapore and Hong Kong. We conclude that both these global cities have adroitly managed the Asian economic crisis to steer their citizens away from pursuits of greater political freedom and towards concerns of material well being. They have done so through a selective interpretation of globalisation, by simultaneously resisting and embracing the contradictory strands of globalisation. Education has emerged as a critical space for this selective absorption of globalising trends.

Sovereignty under siege: globalisation and the state in Southeast Asia

It is commonly assumed that processes associated with globalisation are affecting the sovereignty of states. While the extent and implications of such processes may be debatable, globalisation presents even the most powerful states with new challenges to their autonomy and authority. In Southeast Asia, where the principle of sovereignty has been a crucial and jealously guarded part of regional governance structures, globalisation is an especially acute challenge for national governments. This paper examines the theoretical and policy implications of globalisation in Southeast Asia and argues that not only is globalisation threatening to unravel existing governmental practices in Southeast Asia, but that as a consequence we also need to re-think the way we understand core theoretical principles like sovereignty.

Globalisation, security and international order after 11 September

This article advances the discussion of the contentious question of links between global inequalities of power and violent responses, focussing on globalisation and non-inclusive forms of governance. Drawing on international political economy, the article criticises the nationstate-centrism in much political discourse, suggesting that both authority and security need to be reconsidered - to account for less plausible national borders and controls. It suggests that human security (including issues of development and equality) ought to replace national security as the primary focus of public policy. It draws attention to the intractability of difference, insisting that the terrorism of 2001 has complex transnational antecedents. Realist approaches to international order have become part of a problem to be overcome through further intellectual debate.

Diplomatic divergence in the antipodes: Globalisation, foreign policy and state identity in Australia and New Zealand

This article compares the constitutive relationship between foreign policy and globalisation in Australia and New Zealand. Drawing upon insights from constructivist international relations theory we argue that foreign policy instantiates a state's social identity, its self-understanding of its role and moral purpose by projecting a distinctive image onto the global stage. We explore the differences and the similarities between Australia and New Zealand by examining how each country views international order, global trade, global governance and human rights and international security. Although both countries appear to be transforming themselves into more 'globalised' states, there are significant differences in the way each seeks to balance the competing strategic and normative demands. This diplomatic divergence, we argue, stems from different conceptions of state identity.