Search

This paper investigates the effects on and responses of five middle‐income Southeast Asian economies to the current global environment of authoritarian populism, the retreat from economic liberalism, and the appeal of anti‐globalization movements. While the political histories and institutional capabilities of the five – Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam – vary greatly, these economies have a history of at least moderately fast economic growth for extended periods, and of increasing regional and global economic integration. We argue that most of the factors behind the discontent with globalization in the rich economies are not present to the same degree in these countries, and that there has therefore been no major retreat from the economic policy settings that have underpinned their past economic success. However, there are no grounds for complacency. Economic growth is slowing in some of the countries, economic insecurity remains widespread, and the development of durable independent institutions has lagged economic growth.

After three decades of rapid economic growth during the authoritarian Soeharto era, followed by the deep but relatively short‐lived Asian financial crisis, Indonesia transitioned rapidly to democratic and decentralized governance. We examine policy‐making processes and economic outcomes during the first two decades of this new era, leading up to the 2019 national elections where it was widely conjectured that Indonesia might follow the global trends of authoritarian rule and illiberalism. We conclude that, thus far, Indonesia has navigated the transition from authoritarian to democratic rule quite successfully. Compared to the Soeharto era, growth has been somewhat slower, inequality has risen, and policy reform is slower and generally incremental. But living standards continue to rise and all major political players have elected to operate within the new democratic parameters. Macroeconomic management has continued to be effective. Nevertheless, there are no grounds for complacency: there is a large outstanding reform agenda, and the economy is not providing enough economic opportunities for the better‐educated senior secondary and tertiary graduates entering the workforce.

This paper examines Cambodia's socioeconomic development since the early 1990s peace settlement. The country's economic growth has arguably been the fastest among post-conflict societies, driven by the credible restoration of peace and security, large public and private capital inflows, economic openness, reasonably prudent macroeconomic management, and a dynamic, integrating neighborhood. A legacy of history and small size is that the government has limited policy space, although this has not necessarily retarded economic development. We also highlight some key challenges, including rising inequality, uneven spatial development, weak institutions, and high levels of corruption. Looking forward, we highlight the importance of strengthening supply side capabilities, broadening the benefits of growth, and developing stronger institutions and property rights.

This paper provides an analytical narrative of Indonesian economic growth over the past two decades. Particular attention is paid to the key economic crisis events of 1997–1998 and 2008–2009, and how and why Indonesia's response to them was completely different. We emphasize and illustrate how the years 1997–1998 were a watershed in the country's economic history and political economy. We underline the country's generally good economic performance, especially the rapid recovery over the past decade, while also highlighting the fact that its economic growth has never quite matched that of the very high-growth East Asian economies. The final section analyzes some key policy challenges, including embedding reforms in a highly fluid political environment, macroeconomic management, and “connectivity” and regional (subnational) development.