Consensus and democracy in Indonesia : Musyawarah-Mufakat revisited

This paper analyzes customary practices of consensus decision making, called musyawarah-mufakat, as a basis of democratic stability in Indonesia. Musyawarah and mufakat (deliberation and consensus) are a traditional decision-making rule in Indonesia which has often been observed in village meetings. This paper argues that this traditional decision-making rule is still employed even in a modernized and democratized Indonesia, not only at rural assemblies but in the national parliament as well. Furthermore, this consensus way of decision making provides an institutional basis for democratic stability by giving every parliamentary player, whether big or small, an equal opportunity to express his/her interests. On the other hand, this system of musyawarah‐mufakat decreases political efficiency in the sense that it takes a long time to deliberate drafted laws in the parliament.

The Sandinista Revolution and Post-Conflict Development--Key Issues

Following Daniel Ortega's victory in the presidential election held in November 2006, Nicaragua has been undergoing a transition from a democratic to authoritarian system. In the 1980s, Ortega served as President of the Sandinista government and implemented a Cuban-type socialist system, but the system failed and democracy was established during 1990-2007. Considering this failure, why did Ortega succeed in taking power again? This paper provides a brief history of modern Nicaragua and gives some insights into the twists of Latin American politics. The paper was prepared for the international seminar on Helping Failed States Recover: The Role of Business in Promoting Stability and Development, organized by the University of Kansas Center for International Business Education and Research (CIBER), held on April 4-6, 2007 in Lawrence. The opinions and views expressed herein are those of the author. All mistakes and/or errors are entirely the author's responsibility.

Chapter 5 Industrial Policy, Structure, and Locations during the Transition toward a Market-oriented Economy in Myanmar

This paper examines Myanmar's industrial policy, structure, and locations during the transition from a centrally planned economy to a market-oriented one throughout the 1990s and up to the present. After the military government assumed power in 1988, it abandoned the socialist centrally planned economic system and began instituting a market-oriented one through a series of liberalization and deregulation measures, although most of which have stalled since 1997 and remain half-way implemented. Against this background, it is rather surprising that the impact of these new policies of international trade, finance, regulations, licensing and ownership requirements on industrial structure and location in Myanmar has been poorly documented and examined to date. Some key issues to understanding the impact and effectiveness of the market-oriented policies during the last two decades in Myanmar remain to be answered: Have the new trade and industrial policies changed the industrial structure and organizational behavior in Myanmar? Have they improved the performance of Myanmar's industrial sector? Have they had any impact on industry location in Myanmar? This paper reviews the series of liberalization programs implemented under the military government?the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) and the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC)?and assesses their impact on industrial structure and its spatial distribution.

The Political Economy of Growth: A Review

This cursory literature review discusses the direct and indirect effects of institutions, governance, and democracy on economic growth, and the following conclusions are drawn. First, institutions and governance have a positive effect on growth. Even reforms that are less than comprehensive can stimulate, though not sustain, growth. Second, democracy neither promotes nor hampers growth directly. It secures stability and resilience in growth. It also exerts impacts on sources of growth but its net effect remains inconclusive. There remains unanswered the question of why institutions and governance matter but not democracy does not. The difference may be partly due to negative effects on investment and labor supply as well as the low credibility of young or partial democracies.