STATE, SOCIAL ELITES, AND GOVERNMENT CAPACITY.pptx

Bspa state social elite and government

1. STATE, SOCIAL ELITES, AND GOVERNMENT CAPACITY IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

2. 1. Economic Growth and Stability: - Southeast Asian countries have witnessed varying degrees of economic growth and political stability over the past decades. - Singapore and Malaysia have experienced robust and resilient economic growth, driven by industrialization, infrastructure development, and strategic economic policies.

3. - In contrast, Thailand's economic growth has been somewhat slower, while Indonesia and the Philippines have faced challenges, with slower growth rates and economic fragility, including recent economic collapse in the Philippines. - Despite these differences, all countries have seen positive economic performances, albeit at different levels, which are not solely determined by laissez-faire policies or government intervention but closely tied to state capacity.

4. 2. **Social Tensions and Revolutionary Movements:** - The rapid economic changes in Southeast Asian countries have been accompanied by social tensions, particularly in urban and rural areas. - Revolutionary movements have emerged as responses to social inequalities, political repression, and economic grievances, posing challenges to central governments.

5. - While some countries have managed to address these tensions through political reforms and social policies, others continue to grapple with persistent social unrest and revolutionary movements.

6. 3. **Political Structures and Capacities:** - The political structures of Southeast Asian countries have played a crucial role in shaping their capacities to manage social pressures and maintain stability. - Singapore and Malaysia have adopted broad-based coalition governments, characterized by collaborative means of social control and

7. significant support from their social bases. - Thailand and Indonesia, on the other hand, have been ruled by narrowly based regimes, dominated by military elites, with substantial degrees of coercion in governance. - The Philippines, under the Marcos regime, experienced a narrowing elite and increasing coercion, leading to the collapse of the government in the mid-1980s.

8. 4. Specific Country Cases: - Singapore:The People's Action Party (PAP) has maintained control since independence, utilizing collaborative and co- optive means to secure significant support from the middle class and bureaucratic elite.

9. - Malaysia: The National Front (formerly Alliance) has held power through open electoral competition and co- optive tactics, maintaining support from a multiethnic social base.

10. - Thailand: The military-dominated regime has undergone significant changes, broadening its base after the 1973 revolution but retaining authoritarian control and limited civilian influence.

11. - Indonesia: The military has dominated the state since the late 1950s, controlling policies through coercion, patronage, and consensus practices, resulting in a narrow elite base and limited state capacity.

12. -Philippines: The Marcos regime centralized power, transferring authority from old political elites to technocrats, but increasing coercion led to the collapse of the government in the mid-1980s, demonstrating the limitations of narrow elite control and coercive governance.