สำนักราชบัณฑิตยสภา

«“√ “√ √“™∫— ≥±‘µ¬ ∂“π ªï ∑’Ë Ú˜ ©∫— ∫∑’Ë Û °.§.-°.¬. ÚıÙı Chai-Anan Samudavanija ˆÒÒ also conflicts and losses. This is nothing new. What is important is to rethink our con- cept of change in order to be more people-centered, and less institu- tional or process-centered. It is also important to look comprehen- sively at the relationship between Globalization and Good Gover- nance in its key aspects: political, economic, cultural, and interna- tional. As explained below, we will then see that Globalization-driven Good Governance is relevant only to part of society: the private cor- porate sector. The people’s agri- cultural sector, on the other hand, is increasingly marginalized. Mar- ket forces are not sufficient to form an alliance between these two parts of Thailand’s bifurcated society. The Private Corporate Sector In the 1980s, the develop- mental role of state bureaucrats (or technocrats) was more pro- nounced than now, especially in the highly productive so-called “key industries” as well as in plan- ning, budgeting, and fiscal and monetary policy-making. As put forth by Robert Wade’s governed market theory, the state had an active role in directing capitalist market forces. In the 1990s, how- ever, the governed market theory ceased to apply. The Asian finan- cial crisis forced the Republic of Korea (the champion of the gov- erned market theor y) to fuel growth through foreign direct in- vestment (FDI) and mergers and acquisitions (M&A). Meanwhile, public-sector reform and an ur- gent need for capital led to large- scale privatization – another spur to foreign investment 1 . Authoritarian states, which had good records on industrial de- velopment, were forced to demo- cratize politically and to adopt Good Governance standards ad- ministratively. Without the eco- nomic crisis, there would have been no need for authoritarian regimes in Asia to relinquish power. Thus, the financial crisis has weakened Asian political re- gimes, although they are still na- tion-states with full sovereignty – as pointed out by George Soros, they wield legal powers that no indi- vidual or corporation can possess 2 . While globalization has un- dermined authoritarian govern- ments, it has empowered interna- tional regimes such as the World Trade Organization and the Inter- national Monetary Fund. The Asian crisis enabled these organi- zations to lay down conditions and guidelines for economic recovery. They have recommended mainly public-sector reform (which in- volves privatization of state enter- prises), liberalization of trade and services, and legal reform in line with international standards and practices. Politically and economically, the globalization process has stan- dardized criteria for governance and management. Indeed, the cornerstones of global networks are liberlization, privatization and harmonization of laws and poli- cies. Consequently, this process tends to iron out cultural diversity and unify what was a multiplicity of interests. In Europe there has been an attempt to counter- balance globalization’s integrating effects by evoking the Principle of Subsidiarity (which calls for resolv- ing any matter at the lowest pos- sible level of organization). Asia has seen the rise of Asian civil so- ciety, which actually should be termed “societies” rather than a universal, aggregate “society”, in the form of oppositional social movements with diverse values. As transnational operations replace the state in controlling and directing economic activities at all levels, elites – political, military and technocratic – lose their most fundamental power over the pri- vate sector, namely their regulative authority. Thus, the process of Globalization is inseparable from Good Governance: both exert pressure on the state. (By contrast, democratization involves the ex- pansion of political participation, which involves all sectors of so- ciety.) On the macroeconomic level, the weakening of the state makes possible growth that follows trade “flares” instead of adhering to artificial state boundaries. On the microeconomic level, people are freed to follow jobs or cultural ties, and to build connections with people in other states. These movements are both “above” and “under” the state. Multinational corporations are moving above, bypassing the state