Search

During the last decade, leaders of the Mekong Countries have found it mutually advantageous to open up the Mekong Sub-Region (MR) for development and trade, which promises some degree of political stability and regional security. Within the present political, cultural, and economic dynamics, the Mekong River Basin (MRB) — one of the major international river basins in MR — is a powerful catalyst for regional cooperation that facilitates sustainable development and regional stability; if that is, the effective management intervention is in place to make sure that the benefits and costs of river basin development are spread equitably and peacefully. Nonetheless, there are numerous stumbling blocks in achieving integrated and balanced MRB management, such as limited success in real basin wide planning, implementation and monitoring and a poor knowledge base for supporting informed decision making and, finally, political impediments. A workable and truly regional cooperative mechanism for integrated management of the MRB is yet to be developed, regardless of the existence of numerous regional institutions and organizations. The present paper proposes new schemes with (re)designing principles and performance determinants for a regional cooperative mechanism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Vietnam's "Doi Moi", initiated in 1986, translated to high economic growth and rapid urbanization for the country, but also widened the gap between rural and urban areas. Vietnam's National Target Program on New Rural Development for 2010-2020 was aimed at developing the rural economy and improving the living standards of rural people, but after five years the urban-rural gap remains substantial. Two of the main reasons are the lack of investment capital and lack of effective ways to mobilize community involvement. In contrast, during the 1970s, rural areas in Korea experienced huge improvements under the "Saemaul Undong" movement. The program's success at promoting sustainable development in Korea's rural areas has inspired rural programs in other developing countries. In this paper, we compare and contrast the two movements to provide explanations for the different results between the two countries. Based on this analysis, and policy implications stemming from it, we recommend resource mobilization strategies to change villagers' attitude and increase their involvement in Vietnam's rural development movement, aligning with the inclusivity principle "people know, people discuss, people do and people check". [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]