Where do entrepreneurs have the best chances of success? The Asia-Pacific regulatory environment for entrepreneurial Micro And Medium Sized Enterprises (MMES)

Why do some entrepreneurs succeed while others fail in international competition? Perhaps it is better to turn the question around and ask, why is it that a particular country or economy becomes the home base for competitive globally-oriented entrepreneurs? What makes Australia a global leader in wine exports? How did New Zealand make it to global ranks in the creative industries? Why does Singapore have the most businessfriendly environment for entrepreneurs? Why is it “location, location, location”? One of the most powerful factors is the regulatory environment.

Asia-Pacific country-specific and region-specific regulations are diverse, and they seriously affect the climate for start-up entrepreneurs. They range from best-in-the world (e.g. Australia, New Zealand and Singapore) to the dreadful (Indonesia), according to the World Bank. Costs and profits can be affected as much by a government regulation as by a management decision. Fundamental entrepreneurial decisions--such as which lines of business to go into, which products and services to produce and introduce, which investments to finance, how and where to make goods and how to market them, and what prices to charge--are increasingly subject to governmental control.

In this short paper, we examine World Bank and Transparency International data on Asia-Pacific regulatory environments and make statements about how the economies compare to best practice. While I use data collected by other sources, I believe the added value comes through comparing and contrast the regulatory environments of our region in a justifiable and easily understood manner.

Regulatory and enabling approaches to corporate law enforcement : patterns of litigation 1986-2002 and the effect of recent reforms in New Zealand, Australia and the United Kingdom

Enforcement of corporate rights and duties may follow either a ‘regulatory’ or ‘enabling’ model. If a regulatory approach is taken, enforcement action will generally be undertaken by regulatory agencies such as, in New Zealand, the Registrar of Companies and Securities Commission, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) or the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) in the United Kingdom. If an enabling approach is chosen, enforcement action will more often be by private parties such as company shareholders, directors or creditors. When New Zealand's company law was reformed in 1993, a primarily private enforcement regime was adopted, consisting of a list of statutory directors' duties and an enhanced collection of shareholder remedies, based in part upon North American models and including a statutory derivative action. Public enforcement was largely confined to administrative matters and the enforcement of the disclosure requirements of New Zealand's securities law. While the previous enforcement regime was similarly reliant on private action, the law on directors' duties was less accessible, and shareholder action was hindered by the majority rule principle and the rule in Foss v Harbottle. This approach is in contrast with that used in Australia and the United Kingdom, where public agencies have a much more prominent enforcement role despite recent and proposed reforms to directors' duties and shareholder remedies. These reforms are designed to improve the ability of private parties to enforce corporate rights and duties. A survey of enforcement litigation in New Zealand since 1986 indicates that the object of a primarily enabling enforcement regime seems to have been achieved, and may well have been achieved even without the 1993 reform package. Private enforcement has, in fact, been much more prevalent than public enforcement since well before the enactment of the new legislation. Most enforcement action both before and after the reform was commenced by shareholders and shareholder/directors, and most involved closely held companies. Public enforcement was largely undertaken in areas such as securities law, where the wider public interest was affected. Similar surveys of Australian and United Kingdom enforcement litigation reveal a proportionally much greater reliance on public bodies to enforce corporate rights and duties, indicating a more regulatory approach. The ASIC and DTI enforced a wider range of provisions, affecting both closely and widely held companies, than those subject to public enforcement in New Zealand. Publicly enforced provisions in Australia and the United Kingdom include directors' duties and provisions dealing with disqualification from managing companies, as well as securities law requirements.

PSASB : constructing regulatory space for accounting change

This study applies the "regulatory space" construct, in concert with the notion of a "logic of appropriateness", to examine the role of the organised accounting profession in expanding and enhancing the domain of accrual accounting to Australian public sector financial reporting, through the advent, operations and output of the PSASB as its participant in regulatory space.

Beyond the separation of powers : judicial review and the regulatory proscription of terrorist organisations

Administrative law remains the key defence against an over-zealous executive arm of government, but administrative law needs to be understood in an international context. Perhaps nowhere is this more apparent than in relation to legislation designed to counter terrorist activities. The co-ordination of terrorist activities knows no borders, and state-centered executive action designed to address the threat of terrorism necessarily operates in a broader global environment. An important but controversial part of Australia's counter-terrorism legislation suite is the power to proscribe terrorist organisations. The authors contend that the scope of judicial review available in relation to decisions of the Commonwealth executive to proscribe terrorist organisations is inadequate and may jeapordise Australia's compliance with international standards, such as those provided in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Now is an opportune time to reassess the structure and operation of the power to proscribe organisations in Australia.

Regulatory challenges in the move to a low-carbon environment

An outcome of the international climate conference in Copenhagen (COP 15, 2009) was that a number of governments have undertaken to reduce their nations' greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and some have provided targets and deadlines for the achievement of their stated goals. While the transition to a low-carbon environment has the potential to stimulate growth, create jobs and opportunities, and to bring benefits to the economy, there are many challenges in the process. This is an exploratory paper aimed at identifying the major regulatory and governance issues associated with the move to a low-carbon environment. In terms of business governance, CEOs and other executives responsible for corporate oversight will need to monitor, assess, and manage compliance with climate change and carbon-related regulation. In the transition period government regulation encouraging appropriate carbon costs classification and measurement, financial sustainability reporting and disclosure, and responsible carbon citizenship are expected to be predominant.

Tax planning, avoidance and evasion in Australia 1970-2010 : the regulatory responses and taxpayer compliance

This article examines tax avoidance strategies used by Australian taxpayers over the last four decades and analyses the regulatory responses by the government, noting a move away from the ‘command-and-control’ approach of the 1980s towards one of ‘responsive regulation’ and ‘meta risk management’. It is argued that despite inherent complexity issues, this regulatory approach has nevertheless contributed to the fostering of trust and a perception of fairness in the Australian tax system.