Law and Development in East and Southeast Asia

Abstract

Law and Development in East and Southeast Edited by Christoph Antons. London and New York: RoutledgeCurzon, 2003. Pp. 387. Law and development discourses have and are still punctuated with suspicion, inconsistency, and pomposity. In the main, due to cultural and ideological differences among sovereign nations, a consensual terminology and methodology framework for Rule of Law seems hard to envisage. Max Weber's theory that the success of capitalism in Europe is in part attributed to formal rational law, which diffused governmental intervention and accordingly induced a high calculable and predictable economic environment, has not necessarily been accepted by particularly developing countries, including Indeed, the Western legal-liberalism paradigm has often been criticized as being ethnocentric and imperialistic (Trubek and Galanter 1974). To add to this quandary, today's research surrounding law and development is alarmingly dearth, particularly in the Asian context. More importantly, the law and development nexus is yet to be firmly established by both systematic qualitative and quantitative empirical evidence. Several questions remain disturbingly unanswered, among others: Is law an end to itself? Is law a means to an end? Is law a pre-condition to development? Do law and development converge or diverge? The relatively recent studies of Pistor and Wellons (1999) shed some light to such questions, but more in-depth research undertakings that include a multidisciplinary focus are urgently needed. Fortunately, the law and development-thinking paradigm has resurfaced to importance since the early 1990s to a large extent due to the globalization process and the end of the Cold War. However, once again the motives of the proponents namely from the Western developed world as well as international economic organizations tend to be doubted and suspected. Undeniably, the onset of the Asian crisis in 1997 has certainly brought about fresh impetus to the subject matter. This edited volume by Antons certainly captures the nuances of law and development thinking along the impact of the Asian crisis in East and Southeast In most part, it contains papers that were presented at the International Institute for Asian Studies, in Leiden, the Netherlands, in January 1998. The paper writers are luminaries from various regions and include academics and legal practitioners. Thus the volume brings together rich and discerning multi-faceted perspectives. On the whole the papers are laboriously researched; judiciously analysed and include wide-ranging survey of the literature. Most importantly, the volume addresses the shortcomings of the development law model as seen in most Asian countries in a visible context. The edited volume contains five main parts. Part One covers Paradigms of Law and Development in Asia. At the outset, Antons (Chapter 1) has taken great pains to build an introductory framework that brings out the overarching dynamics of law and development thinking in a pragmatic and comprehensible manner. Next, Yasuda (Chapter 2) diligently analyses the historical patterns and conceptual frameworks of ASEAN legal systems. This includes the inherent strengths and weaknesses of laws with regard to developmental perspectives (political, economic and social). Bishop (Chapter 3) establishes the need for bureaucratic and political capacity in order for the Asian-type development law model to truly be successful. To this end, he cites the experience of Northeast As a broader picture it would have been beneficial to feature the focal differences in cultural and social norms between Northeast and Southeast Asian states. Similarly, Ohnesorge (Chapter 4) using the same logic offers an anti-thesis to the law and development thinking. Nevertheless it is arguable that ongoing globalization and democratization process may not necessarily accord to such a postulation. Further research work is urgently needed in this aspect. …