Asian Stttdies, Journal of the Department of Government and Politics, JIJ, No. 30, June 201I (ppl03-119)

Development, Governance and Irony of Democracy

Md. Ashraf HossainNurul Huda Sakib

Introduction

The problem of economic development of the undeveloped countries became the centre of world

arrention after the end of World War-II amid great hopes that, given the political will it would find

necessary solutions. However, most of those nations, after six decades, yet remained least

developed with vast peoples under internationally recognized poverty line. While many countries

failed to develop, Japan and East Asian tigers - popularly known as newly industrialized economies

(NIEs) appear to have succeeded within much shorter periods than the western developed countries

(DCs). What conditions allow an economy to takeoff? What are the lessons of the past conventional

and authoritarian development strategiesi How Japan and Asian NIEs' experiences differ from the

western DCs? How can the n.* ,pi.it of liberty be brought for securing good governance and

sustained economic growth? Both the Western and East Asian governments have played some

common roles, as inJicated by Stiglitz (1996 and r997)l to spur development' So far, one cannot

discuss development without thinking about polity, the state as a political entity.

We have been passing through an eccentric democratic era, since the cold war finished. The United

Nations (UN) at rhe L.ginning of 21't cenrury in HRD Report 20022 called for a new emphasis on,,deepening democracy-" at the local, national and international levels. Seldom anyone would

disagree wrttr it in current days. Traditionally, some western DCs have been campaigning in such

*uyi that democracy like an antibiotic that can cure all social ills! Nevertheless, misuse of

democracy, may slow-down the "Economic takeoffl' - a popular view among East Asian economists

and policymakers.

Economic takeoff requires several conditions be met and that the engine runs at full throttle'3 It

implies that at the time of takeoff everything has to work properly. Conventional development

intervention, as openly pushing for early democratization simply has been hurtling the development

of now-LDCs ulry tturshly lecause of giving less attention on a country's developmental

preparedness or uuoiding thi critical preconditions for economic takeoff. The USA and its western

allies - the alias prophets of democracy, are perhaps the abusers of their own ideology and their

double-standard poiitical policy strategies act as obstacles in the development process of

contemporary LDCs.

Democracy is not a new concept at all. The ancient Greek philosophers in their gteat works had

discussed the issues of government, development, democracy and governance. Plato and Aristotle

both preferred qualitative governance by a "few good guys". Hopefully, we do not underestimate

the importun." of democraiy rather *. ur" investigating democracy-links to development through

analyzing the background features of the economic takeoff periods and enquiring whether

democracy is actually an essential precondition or not for economic takeoff of the-LDCs'

Movement of Nations toward Development and Democracy

What are the established ideas of economic development? How the contemporary rich nations had

developed? History is a mirror on which the image of the present comes into focus with similarities

and differences of the past. Here the authors tried to construct such a mirror regarding two

103

established development patterns under which some nations have deveroped.Deveropment patterns, Deveroped Nations and LDcswestern rich na.tions have a long history of development.and industriar izationunder stabre and nondemocratic environments. wheieas, Jaian una it," asian'tigersloo"., to have succeeded first *iththeir industrial policy tou"gitt unarr uuro"rurr. analor tiniteo d;ocratic regimes. it is genenailyrecognized that many countries in Asia uno

"i."*r]".. und.r difrerent democra;;il;.rs incr'dingso-called military-dt-ot'uty ror a".uo.r n""r'i:,1.^o ;;,il;;;"'o..uur. of the combination ofvarious ostrich policies tn trt"it aluelopment pru*ing and industnar strategies.Industrial Revolution and western Developed Nations: western development srrategy hasE1::',1:T:::,T$:::.ilii:"!t"E*#t?j;:Ul5ktyi,u.ru;t"n a,i; ,,u.,r,fro,""rextires & Sieam Era: 1772-il30 tr,u,r'u.-o*nl.a ,it1 .;il;T:;g*t*],i ffi.#:whereas in the succeeding rrug. iig30-rg75i;^r!1.., rruJ urJo'pro-ored to IR furrher because

of those inventions' Thelrt,.a"")g e Q87.5-rq05) ;u, mosr remarkatre in IR due ro new invenr in;.ffi"illlli,l;JiliffXt#;i.*#;;i '."# 3" *,' inau,tJurilution had been deep_rooedin

Thbre 1: The Basic stages of Industriar Revorution (IR)o

i:*il:;::.'1r::tl'Fd#;:#ff ii';;%'ffi l':;i: j:::::;;1i1ir1diffi ii;#,

Communication, Electricity * "

f5l',ll"li"il?iif l;!il:""",'fr

",ff

jH',T,:ffi *ll:m,x:,.:5,,::il1:e:ilyRudolf Diesel n4rAftr. aL^ r:

iF 'i'ft Hill lttri::#,?Lrn Tff T:r land their growth had heen hooor .i r ran d th eir gro wth h ad beEn;; J;' ;'ffi ;,:",T;i-fJ":::JJTffi

, 3X;T,1ffi ;:,Tj#innovations.s

East Asian rndustrialization and Growth Miracre: The new wave of indust ializationafterworld war-Il was surging succes']-]tq r,ot g*ry,-.grting to late-starting countries, specificary inthe last few decadq oT zorrr .."*ry, when arrun'xn, r"fir*rJi, iuor,a hua st o*n ttr. strongesrindustrial growth in the *orrJ. aJf6rinstance;;; i;60r;il;;. ilanced capitalist counrries hada most dynamic vitality that accomplished s-o p..."nt of industriar growth rates, both Japan andNIEs were proud

"r i""urr;; inaust.ial ,ri** ,il;;l;g1ut"-reoor, 1970s and part of

Textites & Steam, Era: e.g., *. *

i"^frl ,Yi:T,l"l,lJ',,i;J.".'?,#!'iff"1'ff,*:llf#n*,.{y..:"Bp:eaves,s the spinningp_.'r"c t. rr'.'bi " "

i " e,

", J' i,T?rf Hn ":l U:|;;r_Arkw

ri gh, r riiii.- 3&i tiffi :fY*Hj-'l'^n^t,s-the cofton gin (17e3), Roberr Fult-on,"'

"13'TJ:^1 ryi:i ,""' rriiililit

,iqxeiilH[ti:::r"': "T",

r"';$Li#ilx'r#l1iltrji jrff ;Liiil:Iril;sil;niim;u:ffi :t

104

1980s.6 The overall economic growth rates in those countries for two decades had been 7 to 8percent or more a year.

The typical model would fail to predict that the Japan and NIEs would become high achievers, andtheir high-growth experience is often called a Miracle. Average per capita income of Japan in 1880was US$660 that before the World War II had risen to US$1500 by 1940 at 1980's prices, when realper capita income was US$9140 and increased to US$29,700 in 1990; and Japan had overtaken alldevelopment countries in average per income in early-1990s.7 The four tigers - the Republic ofKorea (South Korea), Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore - started to grow rapidly in thelate-I97ls; and the IMF added them to the list of advanced economies in its World EconomicOutlook in mid-1990s. Malaysia and Thailand started to grow rapidly in the mid-1980s, and Chinasoon followed.

What a difference within two-three decades assembled in Asian NIEs, for instance, the South Korea- whose GDP per capita in 1960 was roughly the same as India's, became a member of OECD inL996, the only second country from Asia after Japan. Conversely, the enormous developmentinvestments of post World War II period under different political systems have so far failed to.transform the situation of the poor in the LDCs, especially the more populous ones, like Bangladesh,where mass poverty still persist in a severe form.o The East Asian success story raises many issues,why did some economies grow rapidly and joined the group of industrial countries while othersfailed to grorv at all? How did productivity growth increase? Are there any common trends amongthe economies that did takeoff?

Economic Takeoff of Nations toward Development

There is a critical moment in development for economic takeoff - a popular view among East Asianeconomists and policymakers, and usually elaborated development stages. The old idea ofeconomic takeoff is, in- which a stagnant agrarian economy was beginning to industrialize, seen asan airplane taking-off.e Successful iakeoffiequires that several .onditioni - principally economic,social, and political prerequisites, be met and that the engines run at full throttle; and it implies tha.tat the time of takeoff everything has to work for the plane to become airborne.

Initial Conditions and Economic Takeoff: Typically an eeonomy's metamorphosis initiates froman agrarian state to an economy with a simple industry such as textiles, then to an economy withmore sophisticated manufacturing, and eventually to service economy mirrors the history of stienceand technology In line with this, various experts have listed favorite mind-sets in their own-way.Kuznets'u for instance, observed that countries that had achieved "modern economic growth" e.g.European countries, USA, Canada, and Japan, shared some explicit characteristics - modernscientific thought and technology were applied to industry; real GDP per capita grew at a rapid andsustained rate, usually accompanied by population status; the industrial structure was rapidlytransformed; and international contacts and trade expanded. With more data from the Asian NIEs.this list of characteristics may require some rethinking.

In a typical regression of cross-country growth rates for last few decades are regressed on initialconditions, including such economic and social variables like political stability, education levels,population status, skill-ness of labor, technology-absorption capacity, and openness to trade, etc.The background features during economic involution period of Japan and Nds were quite differentthan the western DCs. Table 2 categoizedthe basic characteristics of two development patterns inabstractive form.

105

Es

The western development pattern can be defined as the application of power-driven machinery tomanufacturing accelerated with ensured raw materials supplied from the colonized territories oftheir might. Conversely, Japan and Asian NIEs, all of which are poor in natural resources anddensely populated; and initially all of them had faced severe pioblems of poverty and foodinsecurity with huge uneducated and unskilled workforce. However, Japan's transformation froman agrarian state in the 1890s to an industrial one in the 1930s was much faster than Britain's earlier

Table 2: Checklists of Western and East Asian Development Strategies rl

Western Pattern[Capitalistic European Countries, USA, etc

East Asian Pattern[Japan, Asian NIEs, Malaysia, Thailand, etc.]

At a Glance Image: Constitutional government;Politr_cal stability, Sustained economic growth; primebeneficiaries & controllers of the UN & world trade;Capitalistic economy; Transformed into moderndemocratic ideologies (Post War II) but human rightsviolators in other places due to incredulous or dou6le-standard political policies & sly strategic objectives(e.g. oil price control or arms trade), etc.

At a Glance Image: Authoritarian rules (e.g.Military-juntas/ dictatorship, Aristocracy j,bureaucracy or strong leadership with limiteddemocracy); Politically stable wirii lirtle human-rights; Resource poor but newly industrialized withexport-oriented strategies; Magic-like economicgrowth rates, often double- digit, even withoutarms-trade; Transformed into dembcratic svstem &human-rights situations improved, etc.

Initial Conditions. Population: Mostly homogeneous & low density.

' Better socio-economic conditions (e.g. highliteracy); Technologies invents & commuiicationsimproved.

. Long development history e.g. cultural & industrialrevolution (lR) with skilled manpower & agro_employment below 507o.

. New services with IR but resources mobilized fiom& trade facilities created in their respective colonies.. Vg.rtly monarchy or aristocracy/oligarchy but fromI 8''' century limited democracy (foibusinessmen &elites only) but abuse of human rights in colonies.

. Planning pd-carrying_social development strategies(Universal education, Social gaps reduced, etc.)."

Initial Conditions. Population: Typically homogeneous and high density.' Severe socio-economic conclitions: e.g. vast peoples

under poverty & illiteracy, traditional way of livinls.. Rural subsistence & closed or mixed economy withagro- employment over 80Vo (unskilled & disguised).r Less or no natural resources, and basically isolatedfrom wesrern world. Albeit, in Merli Era (166g_lg12)Japan had established linkages with outsid'e world.. Monarchy, dictatorship/oligarchy or colonial rules(e.g. Korea); and abuse of human rights, etc.

' Prior World War I, planning & carrying socialdevelopment straregies

-(e g. rn Japan ioripulsory

primary education srarred inlarly Mdrli Era;.

Post World War I Periods: Limited democracy (e.g.prior World War II, no voting rights for womenf;Trade-expansion and conflicts creations in coloniiiterritories; Industrialization deep- rooted due toinvented new machines, iechnologies andcommunications, new services & skills development,and free or cheaper raw- matenals supplied fromcolonial territories, etc.

Post World War I Periods: polirical stability throughfolrarq\y, aristocracyi oligarchy and/or srroigleaderships or robust cotoniit bureaucracieslInitiatives for higher education & research facilitiei;Quickly absorbed western technologies and skillitowards industrialization; Business promotion andinfrastructure developed but severely <iamaged duringWorld War II.

Post World War II Periods:. Transition into modern democracy with little

exception of Eastern Europe (until iold-war), butunjust or confused political polarization (e.g.supporting dictators, even if democratic !);

. Labor-saving - te-chnologies, capitalism & export

promotion including arms trade; etc.. Fconomic growth and expansion of military power

(Arm-race during cold-war periods); and arms salesi1 poiitically-conflicted -regions (created by

themselves during de-colonization peiiod or lateron);

. Post cold-war situations became worse, arms salesincreased drastically & new predatory-ness ofresources, as had been during colonial era.

Post World War II Periods:i Authoritarian rule.s, e.g. dictatorship/ military- juntas,

aristocracy or limited-democracy, liaderships orstrong bureaucracy, etc.

' Planning & carrying nation-buildin_es programs, e.g.,Higher education, research & skill-trarninls, poveriyredressed, Social gaps reduced (& caste systemabolished, e.g. Eta society in Japan).

. Successful land reforms (e.g. Japan. Korea, & Taiwan,etc.) and structural transformations: etc.

. Effective combination of labor-using & labor- savingtechnologies; Promotion of export- 6riented localent-repreneurs; Rapid absorption of moderntechnologies; and integration with global markets, etc.

106

n

transformation. Japan became industrial super power very quickly having almost no naturalresources either of her own, nor much even from her tiny and short-lived colonial territories. Thegeographical proximrty and cultural similarities were helpful for the Asian NIEs to follow Japan.

Restructuring Policy Strategies, East Asian Successful Take-off and Now-LDCs: The reasons

behind the East Asian quick development and tremendous economic growth are many. Those have

been reported elsewhere broadly as- the successful industrial restructuring policy strategies,area-based development strategies as part of various comprehensive national development plansincluding national land development plans, known as ZENSO (Zenkoku Sogo Kaihatsu Keikaku),12and reducing rural-urban and social gaps and redress poverty through sectoral reforms,harmonization of global industnal system with local industrial communities, and export-orientedproduction and business strategies, etc.'" However, it should not be out of our mind that suchtremendous development achievement was actually rooted from and based on past developmentpolicies and strategies started from Merli restoration (1968-1912). Japan, flying in front, is flankedby Hong Kong and Singapore, and followed by the South Korea and Taiwan, and behind them areMalaysia. Thailand, The Philippines, and Indonesia, etc.

The economic takeoff had been discussed by some experts since early-1960s; and probably first hadbeen analyzed by Clifford Geertz (1963)14 in his study of the agricultural economy of Java(Indonesia) in the 1950s and 1960s. He sought to explain why Japan developed so differently fromJava; and found that in Japan during the previous more than a century almost all additionalpopulation was absorbed in cities and in modern sectors of the economy, whereas in Java only theeconomy had tried to involute. At the time of that study, economists were looking for the takeoffpoint at which the economies of new nations would gain enough momentum to industnalize andgrow on their own. Geertz attnbuted the lack of takeoff in Java to colonialism, especially in1830-70 when Java, he thought, lost its chance to develop like Japan did. Probably the country alsolost second chance, as it did not able to follow the Asian NIEs because of long military dictatorshipwithout any development missions and visions. Geertz did not discuss other important issues - thebehaviors, beliefs, and organizational capacities of Japan versus Indonesia. It is these very qualitiesof the Japanese, Koreans, and Taiwanese, which have enabled them to modernrze rn their own way.Almost 5 decades after his study, Indonesia is not in a state of involution yet; albeit, with hugenatural resources the country has been moving ahead economically than the resource-poor LDCs.

The post-independence large industrial promotion strategy in many LDCs was a combination ofvarious ostrich policies, above all, lack of political leaderships, inadequate infrastructure, and cleardevelopment visions and missions for economic takeoff. As of Auty (1995),1s the provision of aninadequate infrastructure including education and technical skills, und the lack of realistic policiesfailed after World War-II, however to industrialize; and the vast rural people totaled to three-fourthor more had not been absorbed in agriculture fully, neither been shifted to other sectors.

Economic Development and Popular Metaphors: For economic development, various expertsenlisted their favonte metaphors in their own ways, such as Stiglitz (1997)tu has enlisted fourmetaphors - engine, chemical, biological, and economy-equilibrium metaphors, whereas Ito(1997)" mentioned three as economic takeoff, biological, and flying geese. To grow, resource-pooreconomies, as Japan and NIEs, are much dependent on imported inputs, and they have to facedemand for their products, often from aboard, which leads export growth basically drives takeoff.However, we also think, the basic structures of the governments in any society the politics and goodgovernance, economic policies, and knowledge in combination shape socio-economic life andlivelihoods security, above all, the rapid economic growth, eventually sustaining development.

It is now qecognized that the past development policies for decades in LDCs had failed to deliversustainable development to those living in poverty as almost all programs represent the classic

t07

top-down approach to development, where local governments and communities had little or no sayin the process. So far, one cannot discuss development or even poverty alleviation in particularwithout thinking about polity, the state as a political entity. What sort of political system ensuresbetter governance?

We have concentrated our focus more on economic takeoff issue and here we also like to illustrate a

completely different issue "democracy", whether it is an essential precondition or not in economicdevelopment of LDCs, whether it essentially ensures good governance or it is to establish westernhuman rights that however may not be well fit in other cultures and socio-religious settings, or is itanything else, like western political propaganda that resembling for the necessities of fulfilling theirconcealed strategic objectives.

At the beginning of 21" century, as mentioned earlier, the UN called for a new emphasis on"deepening democracy" at the local, national and international levels: and the same HRD reportrEwarned against compromising human rights and democracy in the fight against global terror, andsurprisingly it also strongly disputed the notion that authoritarian regimes are better for politicalstability and economic growth. Such views are oversimplification of reality as there is yet noimplemented proof, even no tested citations that ensure "democracy" is essential precondition forgood governance, political stability and economic growth.

Besides parallelism, the Japanese development experience has shown some dissimilarity with otherdeveloped nations. So far so on, the mixed development experiences during last few decades underdemocratic disciplines and authontarian rules have shown us, there is no way to reach suchclear-cut conclusion. In recent times, the UN itself has been suffering from severe image crisis, as itdidn't improve human security situations because it openly became flatterer of USA and herwestern allies. Further, in UN system itself, there is no real democratic element, as for instance, theVeto-Power of the five perrnanent members of Security Council, neither a democratic nor a globalpolitical problem solving system; however the details focus here on UN is per se out of the scope ofthis paper.

East Asian Authoritarianism and Nation-Building in Briefs le

Japan and the NIEs countries, had reached better socio-economic position either through monarchyor a dictatorship or aristocracy (or limited democracy) or an oligarchy. Let us give here briefoverviews on political aspects of Japan and some Asian NIEs prior to their economic takeoffperiods.

Japan: Modern nation-building period of Japan started from Me4i restoration (1868- I9l2) and thepolitical, social and economic structure had been dismantled by the Meiji government. It was thebasic turning point for development of the country. Gradually the hereditary caste system wasabolished, freedom of occupation was permitted, and a centrahzed hierarchy of government bodieswas established through the creation of nation-wide robust bureaucratic setups. During the Meijirestoration, Japan had been situated at the crossroads of the international power scramble; and Meijigovernment's nation-building basic policy was "Rich-Nation Strong-Military" to catch up with thewestern nations."' However, during the era of the weak emperor Taisho (1912-26), the politicalpower was shifted from the oligarchic clique to the parliament and the democratic parties. In postWorld War I periods, Japan's economical situation worsened. During the 1930s, the militaryestablished almost complete control over the government and many political opponents wereassassinated, communists persecuted, and indoctrination and censorship in education and mediawere intensified. Navy and almy officers soon occupied most of the important offices, including theone of the Prime Minister."' During post War-II periods, Japan gradually transformed into a

democratic system, and the politics had been conducted in a framework of a parliamentaryrepresentative democratic monarchy, where Prime Minister was the head of government. Japanintroduced a multi-party system, The Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) ruled the country from 1955

108

i

to 2009, except for a short-lived coalition government in 1993. The liberal Social Democratic Party(SDP) came to power on 16 September 2009.

South Korea: Despite the country's brief but checkered history, with no less than nineconstitutional amendments and three aborted democratic openings it had been againstmilitary-juntas/dictators between 1948 and 1988. President Park Chung-hee, after ruling for 18years, was assassinated tn 1979 and such abrupt ending of an authoritarian regime left Koreanpolitics in a state of instability. Since the late-1980s, South Korea, a formerly war-ravaged country,has acquired a scintillating dual identity as an East Asian model of economic prosperity and limitedpolitical democracy toward establishing pluralistic governing institutions and protecting thepolitical and civil liberties of its citizens. Korea became the first, 'third-wave democracy' in EastAsia to transfer power peacefully to an opposition party, in early 1998. Although there is little doubtthat Korea is now electoral democracy, its journey toward democratic consolidation is far fromcomplete.

Singapore: The politics of Singapore takes place within a parliamentary framework. Having adominant-party, the People's Action Party was in power since the general election of 1959 when[,ee Kuan Yew became the country's first prime minister. The opposition parties and politicalanalysts argue Singapore rs a de facto one party state or a "hybrid" country with authoritarian andfew democratic elements, etc. Western countries consider the form of government to be closer toauthoritarianism that could be considered an illiberal democracy, totalitarian democracy orprocedural democracy. The "Reporters Without Borders (RWB)" ranked Singapore 140th out of167 countries in its 2005 Worldwide Press Freedom Index. o' ln 2010 it was recognized as thenumber one coffuption-free country in the globe.23

Taiwan: In 1949, after losing control of mainland China, the KMT (or Chinese Nationalist Party)moved to Taiwan and Chiang Kai-shek declared martial law. Japan formally renounced allterritorial rights to Taiwan in 1952. The KMT ruled Taiwan as a single-party state for forty yearsuntil democratic reforms were promulgated in mid-1990s, which culminated in the first ever directpresidential election in 1996. In 2000 the first non-KMT candidate was elected as president but thepresidential election of 2008 marked the second peaceful transfer of power, to the KMT once again.

Movement of Nations towards Development and Modern Democracy: The Western DCs priorto their industrial revolution, market-economy mechanism and democratic involution, hadaccomplished better socio-economic position, especially they had educated their peoples undermonarchy or a dictatorship or aristocracy (and limited democracy) or an oligarchy. New marketswere won and controlled in colonized territories to feed the industrially revolutionized Europe andnew places were created to procure cheapest raw materials for their industries back home. Whenthey became rich and educated their peoples then they opted for democracy. As for instance manydemocratic elements had been recognized gradually in post World War II periods, includinguniversal human rights, women's voting right, abolition of social caste system and discriminations,etc.

After World War II periods and apparently, since then many countries have been trying to catch-upwestern countries in the process of democracy and market economy, as shown in Figure 1. Thecountries, like Japan and Asian NIEs, while accomplishing take-off under stable politicalenvironments and authoritarian rules, succeeded to develop. High savings, high investment, andexport promotion are often cited as a corrrmon denominator among these economies. They are poorin natural resources and densely populated, but there are some basic differences in ihei.development strategies. I-arge industrial conglomerates dominate Japan's and Korean economies,whereas small-scale businesses propelled growth in Taiwan and Singapore. Japan did not rely muchon foreign capital but on raw materials for its investment, whereas Korea and Singapore borrowedlarge capital from aboard before achieving surplus in their current accounts. The government

109

mostly owns financial institutions in Taiwan and Singapore, whereas Japanese and Korean financialinstitutions are basically private and closely connected to large companies.

Figure 1: Movement of Nations toward to Development hnd Modern Democracy

Market Eonomy

I snd"oot I

ru. roreal orul' rl9.f:il:Philippines

S. l6rea&Iairaraf -

,E?st

Errbpeanz'Nationsll

l!t!I

Authoritarian* DemocracyIIII

il ;l,.; lj

Chiha &

Centrally-PlanldVor Mixed Eononry

Notes: This figure is an explanation of the periods between Post World War II to now, not drawn to exact time scale;

and for lucidity of the figure, only selected countries are considered here.* Communist and Socialist nations as well as countries under dictatorship (military juntas) and monarchy,

aristocracy, oligarchy, etc.** The country was part of India, as East Bengal; and after World War II it became part of Pakistan as Eastern wing

that became independent in 1971.

In the absence of market-economy mechanism (closed economy), the communists and socialistblocks virtually had collapsed in early 1990s. These countries however, have moved easily todemocratic discipline having little political unrest as they were in much better position, basically inuniversal education, than the now-LDCs. Conversely, the countries with long tradition ofunintemrpted democratic practice (e.g. India) have fared very poor within the overall context of theeconomic growth, effective governance, income inequality, and socio-religious gaps, etc. Due tomany political zigzagging and long governance crises under various democratic practices, it is

however not an easy task to locate the actual position of now-LDCs.

Democracy, Governance, and Development: Brief Historical OverviewsWhat exactly democracies are and what exactly they ought to be, are issues which became more

complicated with the passage of time. Democracy is not a new concept; even if, prior to World WarII it had not been very popular political entity for effective governance and development.

Ancient Views on Government and Democracy: Aristotle offered only two qualitativemeasurements for government - good and bad, and quantitatively. The Greek philosopher classified

110

llt:

them as a government by one (god monarchy or a dictatorship), a few (aristocracy or an oligarchy)and by many (democracy or anarchy). Both Plato and Aristotle preferred govemance by a "few godguys". Things have changed since then - many prefer democracy not bechuse it is the perfect form ofgovernment, but it is the most desirable one since it is more (sanguinely!) corrigible than theleadership of one or a few.

Limited Democracy and Development: In late 18th Century, some-form of democratic practicesfirst appeared in Europe. Industrial revolution backed by Renaissance gave Europe the lead thathoused the most powerful countries Spain, Portugal, France and Britain, etc. Though some of thesecountries had practiced "limited democracies" where even the voting rights were limited to elitesand rich merchant classes, their lower classes were satisfied by a modest standard of living in theirown countries, so as not to rise up against the ruling classes of that time. However, they pursuedworst form of imperialism in other countries. They had promoted and fathered slavery in its utmostcruel form, trampled, tormented and exploited people of areas they colonized by their might. Mostimportantly, western world had mobilized valuable resources from their respective colonies forlong and most of those colonial territories gradually became independent only after World War II,and are basically branded as LDCs, or developing countries.

Democratic TFansitions in Asia: Japan has developed its economy through nation-ledbureaucratic development strategy since the Meiji Era (1868-1912) and democracy had beenexogenously introduced only after World War II. The same strategy was followed by the AsianNIEs in one way or other, as mentioned earlier. Comparatively high political stability for economicdevelopment in the NIEs was realized by authoritarian political rules at the expense of democracy,human rights, etc. Japan with almost no natural resources has added new waves in development andthe success of Japan and the Asian tigers, demonstrates the effectiveness of a more market-basedevelopment strategy. In recent years, Chinese economy has been^growing rapidly even withoutdemocratic philosophy, although there are other favorable elements.'" Again, Malaysian experiencehaving comparatively limited democratic practices but strong leadership has shown us anotherexample for rapid development. After the first few years of independence, democratic rule inPakistan yielded to military dictatorship whereas India preserved its democracy partly because ofelite's commitment and due to huge regional as well as socio-cultural differences.

Democratic Juggernauts and Contemporary LDCs: The modern democracies in western worldpromised equal rights to their citizens, gave the right for individuals to decide by whom they shallbe governed, and the priorities be decided and acted upon. However, the westerndemocratic-juggernaut has been hurtling the development of LDCs. Apparently, the USA and itswestern close allies - the alias prophets of democracy, are perhaps the abusers of their ownideologies and their incredulous and/or double standard political policy strategies and sly strategicobjectives are the prime developmental obstacles in LDCs. The rest of this article focuses on allthose aspects, with particular reference to the American democracy, a typical case to compare withother western democracies.

Modern Democracy and Development - The Pr6cis of Facts and Realities

In recent times, political regimes of all kinds describe themselves as democracies but it has notalways been so. The HRD 20OZ defined the goals of good governance as respect for fundamentalrights and freedom, accountability of the rulers, fair rules (institutions, and practices governingsocial interactions), non-discrimination based on race, ethnicity, class, gender or any otherattributes, responsiveness of economic and social policies to people's needs and aspirations,eradication of poverty, people having a say in decisions affecting their lives, etc. It is a tall order tomeasure these standards. In fact, most issues were never translated into reality under democratic

system' Apart from the difficulty of knowing what democracy is, as future destination might be like,how much credence should we give to the possibility that u giurn country will actually get there?

New Politic Colonization: The problem of economic development of the LDCs be came morepronounced at the end of World War-II when one after anothlr, became independent from theircolonial rulers. In the creation-process, peculiar political arrangements were made by the colonialru-lers with supports from comprador elite classes for their hidden objectives. The strange-partitionof Kashmir and Bengal territories by the British is the deep-rooted reason behind the longIndia-Pakistan conflicts and the innocent human-beings of both countries had suffered a lot fromthree major wars. The'new governments had placed rapid economic target high on their policyagenda under the same or similar objective-oriented ur rill as elite dominated administrations andinfrastructures engineered by the colonial rulers.

The Political Polarization and Self-Ideologr Abuses: In rhe name of helping the LDCs to achievedevelopment objectives, the governments of the western DCs provided technical and financialassistance devoid of local realities and preparedness of the LDCs. The relationship between thevarious states adopting communism or pursuing liberal democracy had u.rn riruin.a. The twoconflicting views of the world with little too* for ideological conciliation were neither fairlyimplemented nor policy strategies were for advancement of the LDCs, rather controlling theregional power and doing businesses, especially arms-trade. For instance, during whole cold warperiod, Pakistan, a military-dominated authoritarian state in South Asia had received economic andmilitary supports openly from the USA, and there are dozens of other such examples of support tothe autocratic regimes and human-rights abusers (e.g. Jordan and haq)! Conversely, the formerSoviet Union, even had raised placards for communist blocks, surprisingt had supported India, thelargest democratic country! Thus, after six decades of the publicized efforts under theirdouble-standard deliberate policy strategies, to bring about development, the early hopes have beendisappointed.

In post cold war era' a coincidence of forces evolved which led some to believe that final stage ofdemocratization had arrived, that in fact became a great threat for human security due to unjust warsin the name of anti-terrorisms or disarmament o. d"-o"ratic transition but it became clear to theworld about the strategic objectives of the so-called prophets of democracy. In regions where thereis no or less conflicts, the predatory axis pushed througil either western human-rights or any otherpolitical propaganda (e.g. security of other country) to ,".u." fat orders for arm-s and to captureresources or ensure resources price that remain low (e.g. oil prices in middle east). As for instance,in recent years double standard US foreign policy strategies basically arm-trade in South Asia -providing military equipments to Pakistan (e.g. militaiy aircrafts) ar the same rime sellingequipments to India - can be seen.

Arm Trade, Western World and Growing Global Insecurity: After the cold war, it is assumedthat all systems will conform to democratization without altering the Iocal culture, traditions andinstitutions. Indeed, the scarcity of resources and the tightness Jf fiscal constraints facing LDCstoday make it imperative that resources be spent efficiently. However, they have been spendinghuge amount for military spreading when vasi of the peoples remain under ioverty line. The annsindustry operates without any regulation, not even

-*onito."d by the UN, and it suffers from

widespread comrption and bribery. And it makes its profits on the back of machines designed to killhuman-beings. Oxfam says, the irresponsible sale of weapons to the LDCs is diverting money fromdevelopment and promoting global insecurity; and the nei result is the LDCs' health and educationbudgets are spent on weapons. Pakistan's total defense expenditu re in 2002, for instance, consumedhalf of the country's GDP So, who profits most from this murderous trade?

tL2

These days, the USA and it western allies routinely sell weapons not only to the democraticcountries (e.g. India, Taiwan, etc.) but also to mary,undemocratic regirnes e.g. Pakistan, most Arabnations, those are the gross human rights abusers.'o In fact, up to $900 billions was spent each yearon defense, and only $60 billions on aid, as has been indicated by the Oxfam. Traditionally, theUSA, the UK, and France earn more income from arms sales to LDCs than they give in aid. Forinstance, in 2002 roughly 90 percent of all arms deliveries were made to Asia, ttie Middle East,Latin America and Africa. During 1999-2002, the LDCs accounted for 64.6 percent of all arrnstransfer agreements made globally; and all those arrns were supplied by the five permanentmembers of the IIN security councilo' - the USA, UK, France, Russia, and China. Together, they areresponsible for over four-fifth of all reported conventional arms exports. Oxfam has called for aninternational treaty to regulate and control this multi-billion dollar industry. Besides manycriticisms, the 5 pennanent members of the UN Security Council together with Germany and Italy

' account for around 85 percent of the arms sold durin 92002-2009 28

and traditionally neai half of ailarrns trade even done by the USA.

The USA and its western allies do not actually support democracy in LDCs, especially in theMiddle East because "it is much simpler to manipulate a few ruling families (and to secure fatorders for arms and ensure that oil prices remain low) than a widJvariety of personalities andpolicies bound to be thrown up by a democratic system." For instance, in the MiOaj. East countries,with the exception of Israel that has provided an exemplary democratic system for its Jewishcitizens, none of America's allies in the region could really be considered as d.-o..u.ies. Indeed,the USA has reduced or maintained at low levels support - its economic, military, and diplomatic -to Arab countries that have experienced substantial political liberalization in recent y.urrln while ithas been increasing support for autocratic regimes e.g. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc. fhe democraticcampaigns of the USA and its western allies are not so visible in resource-poor areas (e.g. NorthKorea) or in the countries where resources are already under their control (e.g. Saudi Arabla). Iranis the only nation that somehow holding a democratic system but became a great enemy of America,as she is not ready to fulfill the western strategic objectives. Very iecently, .o-. politicalhooliganism is reported in some Middle East countries, e.i. Egypt, Libya, Jordan, etc, in the nameof democratization.

The US Democracy - At a Glance

Real and participatory democracy is a romantic fiction. The need for political reform is not limitedto LDCs only, in fact, there are no perfect democracies on earth. Democracy is a government ,,bythe people" but the responsibility for the survival of democracy rests on the shoulders of elites. Thecentral proposition of elitism is that all societies are divided into two classes, the few who governand the many who are governed. Elitism implies that public policy does not^necessarilyieflectdemands of "the people" so much as it reflects the intereits and values of elites.3o Elitrr, not masses,in reality few large entrepreneurs govern America, just as totalitarian society that is shaped by ahandful of guys.

In USA, constitutional review is the prerogative of 9 un-elected persons who hold their jobs for life.The fact remains, however, that in November 2000 the electoral system in the USA failld to yield aresult that could be widely accepted by most voters. Al Gore had won the national vote. Had thatbeen ?lTgl' he would have become president-elect forthwith bur rhe Electoral College srood in hisway! '^On four such occasions - 1824, 1876,1888, and 2000, the presidential candilates with thelargest popular vote failed to obtain an electoral vote majority.32

^

Yet there is no guarantee that democracy be always safe in the hands of any elected elites; and onceelected as state representative either through popular-vote or any other means of manipulation (e.g.by misuse or influencing bureaucracy and media or favoring .orporate-interertr, o, cunnirigprogramming for vote-casting, and so on) there is no guarantee that the guy will be intelligeni

113

100

90

G' 80o\

;70ol960cg50840C

30

enough to serve the peoples, and rather be a real idiot and/or a schooi C-grader, as the last TJS

presiient Bush junioi;33 and in such cases the masses may be fatally vulnerable to tyranny, and

global humanity no-doubt would be in danger.

Aspects of US Electoral Participation: Another problem with the theory of popular control over

pu6lic policy through federal elections is the fact that nearly half of the adult population, though

iducated, fails to vote, even in US presidential elections, and typically the people's participation

reportedly has been very low for off-year congressional elections (Figure l). For instance, in 1998

elections in the House and Senate as low as 36.4 percent of age-eligible Americans had bothered to

vote that was extremely lower than any other modern democracies.

If the country is a democracy, where freedom of speech is valued above all other freedoms , a crtrzen

might feel obligated to speak out against the wrong or iniquitous policies of his own government. In

fact, it might be his duty as a citizen but reality is - once people elected their leader nobody cares

voters, regardless of rich or poor nations. In USA, even majority people's opinions on very

sensitive issues, especially the decisions about the foreign policy strategies were ignored during1990s and recent past years. Importantly also, for any international issue (say, military attack inparticular country) American government takes opinion of their own citizens rather the opinion ofthe respective country's residents !

Figure 2: National Voter Ttrrnout in Federal Elections: L950-2008 34)

Parthpatbn h tr Presi1entbl& r CongressbnalEbctbns (1950-2008)

s@@ooooooNNN

Surely, American citizens enjoy certain degree "freedom of expression" under their own

democratic system but why a significant number of them have no interest in opinion polls? Other

side of the coin is, even most American citizens have no or less interest in current world-affairs, and

are ignorant about exact locations of any particular country invaded by their own military (e.g.

Somalia, Panama, Afghanistan or Iraq, etc.). Even the most highly educated citizens do not know

when their civil war took place or never heard of the Voting Rights Act, etc., and surpnsingly it isalso true in case of the ordinary citizens as well as the mos_t_graduates and students of the 55

prestigious universities including Harvard, Yale, Stanford etc.tt

Democracy vs. Governance

Democracy can not guarantee good governance, or offer a treatment to cure all existing crises. As ofCPI index of the Transparency International (Tf), around 70 percent countries score less than 5 out

of a clean score of 10, which reflects perceived levels of comrption among politicians and public

officials. Corruption is perceived to be rampant in the LDCs with a score of less than2, whereas the

countries with very low levels of comrption scoring over 9 are predominantly some European DCs

sf(o@ON$(o@OC\lsf@@ONN F- t- @ @ @ @ @ O) O) O) O' O) O Oo, o, o) o, o) o) o) o) o) o) o) o) o) o orNN

oc\lt(o@oC\lt@@oNlororr)lr)to(o(0(o(o(oNNcD o, o) o, (', o) o, o) o) o, o, o,F r r

- - r F

t14

f..

'

such as Finland, New zeeland, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, etc.'u Tht only exception from

Asia is Singapore (Table 3), which is never recognized as a modern democratic country but became

the most cleanest entity in the globe in 2010'

Comrption levels and governance situations in the USA and Japan remain questionable as can be

seen. In 2001 Banglalesh became the world's most corrupt one iri CPI scores and remained

champion for five years (2001-2005).

Table 3: The CPI Rank and Score for Selected Countries: 2001'201037

Year

CPI Rank (CPI Score) CountrY

[Score ranges: 1Q = highly.l"un, 0 = highly.otopd CountrySurveyedUSA Japan Singapore Bangladesh*1

2001 16 (7.6) 2t (7.t) 4(e.2) 91 (0.4) 9l

2006 20 (7.2) 17 (7.8) s (e.4) 156 1Z.O;*'2 r63

2007 22 (7.r) L7 (7.5)*3 4 (9.3) 162 (2.0) 179

2008 18 (7.3) 18 (7.3) 4 (e.2) 147 (2.r) r80

2009 22 (7.s) 17 (7.7) 3 (e.2) r39 (2.4) 180

20t0 22 (7.r) r7 (7.8) I (e.3) L34 (2.4) r76

Notes: CpI - Corruption perception Index; and CPI Score relates to perceptions of the degree of corruption

as seen by business peopte ani risk analysts, and score ranges between 10 (highly clean) and 0 (highly

;;;;6. ;tnungtuo-sh was placed at tire bottom of the list i.e. most corrupted country for the fifth

successive y"u, tzdoi-g!r.;; frort.otrupted along with Chad, Congo & Sudan, un6 x3iointly with Ireland'

In LDCs, politicians increasingly pay lip service to fight corruption. Comrpt political elites working

hand-in-hand with greedy buiiness people and unscrupulous investors, are putting private gain

before the welfa.. of citizens and thJ economic development of their countries. Further, the Bribe

payers Index (BpD 3s of the TI addresses the propensity of companies from top exporting countries

to trib" in emerging markets. The BPI2002, for instance, revealed high levels of bribery by firrrrs

from Russia, China-, Taiwan and South Korea, closely followed by Italy, Hong Kong, Malaysia.

Japan, USA and France, etc., although many of these countries signed the Anti-Bribery Convention

of OgCn, which outlaws bribery of foreign public officials.

Concluding Remarks

While many countries failed to develop particularly because of their unprepared-ness for the

economic takeoff, Japan and Asian NIEs have succeeded within much shorter periods than the

Western DCs. The most remarkable phenomenon of economic development in the last century and

more specifically after World War-II has undoubtedly been the Japanese case because of magic-like

growttrexperiences. The geographical proximity and cultural similarities were helpful for the Asian

Nm. to follow Japan. fheii rapidly rising per capita income had been accompanied by major

changes in industrial stnrcture. However, prime lessons here are, successful takeoff through an

industrial policy requires several conditions, principally economic, social, and political

prerequisirc; be met and that the engine runs at full throttle; and to grow, economies have to face

Or-unO for their products, often from aboard, which leads export growth that often drives takeoff.

After World War II and apparently, since then many countries have been trying to catch-up western

countries in the process bi A*-otracy and market economy. However, the success of Japan and

Asian NIEs demonstrate the effectiveness of a more market-based development strategy. They have

achieved their remarkable economic growth and rapid development through discipline enforced by

115

bureaucratic system or a political strongman or limited democracies, and gradually have beeneasing their way into a more democratic style of governance.

Many de-colonized countries are still politically unstable and economically poor under so-calleddemocratic practice' while military dictatorship ls inimical'to democratic governance, there is noguarantee that civilian rule may not degenerat. into blatant authoritarianism. The experiences ofsingapore tell us that the LDCs in ....n." need not be democratic. Thus, it is essentially difficult toreach any clear conclusion on what process should the contemporary LDCs follow to obtain goodgovernance and sustainable development. one may argue, why many other countries like Indonesia,Burma (Myanmar), North Korea, Pakistan etc., having autr,oritarian rules remain stagnant?The corollary is that, regardless of location or political system, where leadership is sincere anddynamic and where institutional atmosphere is conductiue good results can be achieved. That is thecase of Japan and Asian NIEs' The lessons of great un.i.nt philosophers (Aristotle and plato)regarding effective and good governance by a "few good guys" huu" strong validity even in modernera' The discussions here suggest that the strong airput.o-notion of HDR zxlzon authoritananregimes is over simplification of reality- Modernization need not imply westernization in the senseof necessary conformity to a single ivestern model. Such a conclusion is encouraging most ofnon-westerners who want to make progress without losing their identity and social values.Similarly, democratization surely need noiimply Americanizaion. The uSA and its western alliesactually do not,want democracy to take roots in LDCs because of their strategic objectives and forthem "it is much simpler to manipulate a few ruling families than a wide variety of personalities andpolicies bound to be thrown up by a democratic system,,.

vvrsv YC'rrvLJ ur [,,c

East Asia's success raises obvious questions whether a formula for growth can be imitated fromtheir experiences' Even if there are many lessons that can be learnt f.o* East Asian sffategy butcopy and paste of these strategies may not be the perfect solution for LDCs. Japan and NIEs,experiences indicate that political stabiiity is not the only condition but structural transformationsand convincing socioeconomic policies, collectiveness of the peoples, etc., are also essentialconditions.

with due respect to democratic ideologies, the authors' understanding is that the strategies ofwestern DCs' may not be the right wiy to solve the-contetry"."o LDCs, problems directly.Unfortunately, the exuberance of democracy rnay lead also ,o ,"n"r" disorderly conditions, whichare inimical to development. If democraci i. itit oduced to LDCs before o. ut the beginning ofoverall socioeconomic development, it may negatively influence political stability and bureaucraticfunctions' conversely, this dilimma raises yet inott e. important iu"rtion - what major reforms areneeded in democratic transitions in LDCs. Also strong question is, whether LDCs a.e ready to or beable to do so by keeping majority of their population out of uniuersal education and other basicneeds.

The rule of law is as important to the development of a free market as it is imperative to thedevelopment of democracy. Free markets ur. very important for economic growth and thegeneration of opportunities for citizens, but sound .oi., are equally important. The name of Adamsmith is often invoked in support of complete laissez-faire, tut iou- smith advocated no suchthing' Smith had emphasizedihe importance of institutions, rule of law and so on. Democracy is atits weakest when the citizenry loses confidence in governing elites. In recent times, politicalregimes of all kinds describe themselves as democracies but it his not always been so. There is lackof political-will to build up solid political institutions to ensure effective governance which is animportant precondition for over ali development.

Democracy requires a strong sense of community and therefore this resolves the issue of individual

116

L"I

and collective rights. We are moving into a phase where the criteria of legitimacy of governmentswill be based more on performance than on historic legitimacy only. This will affect how anyparticular country organizes her politically. The ruling elite's attitude tcwards freedom antl civilliberties is a major factor in determining whether a democracy succeeds or fails. In nascent andfragile democracies, courts are often weak and corrupt, and only partial media-freedom is notenough to ensure good governance.

In modern time, neither monarchy, nor military-juntas, nor even western democratic-juggernautunder their double-standard.policy strategies, is desirable in the LDCs. Development should not beequated with so-called democracy only or economic growth strategy. The rules must rule everyone,including the rulers. Lack of appreciation for the value of rules and institutions threatens mostcountries like Bangladesh. People are mostly poor not because of mind-set created by establisheddevelopment thinking but for the complex number of reasons. It is worth emphasizing that povertyis the central of many interrelated problems, and there is need for an integrated approach to curbpoverty. As Todaro stated,3e deueiopment must be conceived of as a multidimensional processinvolving major changes in social structures, popular attitudes, and national institutions, as well asthe acceleration of economic growth, the reduction of inequality, and the eradication of absolutepoverty. Most importantly, participation in economic activity presupposes the existence of somereasonable form of democracy and rule of law. But the existing distortions in many societies make itimpossible to move toward achieving democratic objectives.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we believe that only a strong national government regardles.sof any particular political system, with power to exercise its will directly on the people, would beable to establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the commoo ro.io-economicsecurity, promote general welfare, and secure the blessings of humanity and liberty.

Notes and References

Joseph E. Stiglitz : The Role of Government in Economic Development, Keynote Address, In M.Buruno and B. Pleskovic (eds.), Annual World Bank (WB) Conference on Development Economics1996, wB (1/1997): pp11-23. Also J. E. Stiglitz: Some Irssons from the East Asian Miracle, The WorldBank Res. Observer,ll(2) August, 1996.

See, Human Development Report: Deepening Democracy in a Fragmented World, IJNDp, 2002.

For detail, please refers to - W.W. Rostow: The Stages of Economic Growth- A Non-CommunistManifesto, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1960; S. Kuznets: The Economic Growth of Natiorcs, Harvard Univ.Press, I97l: Clifford Geertz: Agricultural Involution- the Process of Ecological Change in Indonesia,California Univ. Press (Barkeley),1963: S. Ishikawa: Economic Development in Asian Perspective,Kinokyniwa Bookstore (Tokyo), 1967 .

Mobilized from M. Ashraf Hossain Industrial Revolution, Development Patterns and DevelopedNations, Discussion Paper, No. 4, Lecture Series of Postgraduate Seminar, The Graduate School ofsocial & cultural studies, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan ,p. 3, March 2001.

Please consult with: Y. Miyakawa: Local Initiatives in Regional Development and GlobalTransformation within the Japanese Orbit, In I.E. Nickum & K. Oya (eds.): Environmental Management,Poverty Reduction, and Sustainable Regional Development, New Development Paradigms-Vol. 4,20Ol(Greenwood PressAil/estport in cooperation with UNCRD). Also see, H. Nagamine (ed.):Nation-Building and Regional Development - The Japanese Experience,Mantzen Asia, 1981(Publishedfor & on behalf of UNCRD). See also, Yujiro Hayami : A Century of Agricuttural Growth in Japan,University of Tokyo Press, Japanl98O; Yujiro Hay4mi, W. R. Vemon, and M. S. Herman (eds.):Agricultural Growth in Japan, Taiwan, Korea and the Philippines, University of Hawaii press,Honolulu. Lee & D.W, 1979. Culver : Agricultural Development in Three Asian Countries- A

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

TT7

comparative Analysis, Agricultural Economics Research,3T(r): pp.g-13, 1gg5; and c. Lee &D.W.culver: Agricultural Development in Three Asian countries - e'Comparative Analysis, AgriculturalEconomics Research, 37 (l): pp.9-13, 19g5.

See, United Nations statistical Yearbooks, various years of late-1g60s, 1g70s and lggos.YKMF (ed'): Yono Kotaro Memorial F_o_undation): Suji-d-e-miru Nippon-no-hyakunen, 19gl (100 yearsof rapan: Facts and Figures). Also, YKMF (ea): setai-kokusai- zii lwoaa census compendium) (infapanese, 1996. Also,H. Nagamine (ed.): Ibid (Ret.#s), l9gl.

8' As of various local and internation al organizations,-arou nd,4}-45vopeople are yet very poor, those dailyincomes fall below us$l in PPP scale. As of world Fact Book-Bungtuderh .rii-ur., uround 40 percentBangladeshis are yet below the poverty line<https://www.cia.gov/librarylpublicati,ons/the-world_factboolc/geos/bg.html>

(15.5. 2An).9. W.W. Rostow (1960); Clifford Geertz(1963); and S. Ishikawa (1967): Ibid (Ref.# 3)10. Kuznets (1971): op. cit., (Ref.# 3).

1l' Modified from M' Ashraf Hossain: People's Activities, Resources Management and the GrassrootsInstitutional Paradigm- Evidence from Modus operandi of the Grameen Bank, Doctoral Dissertation,Nagoya University, Japan, p. 56, March lggg.12' M' Ashraf Hossain and N' H' Sakib: Area Plannin^g

1ld Land Management in Japan - The DevelopmentTools and the central-Lo.ul .\o]:t, Journal of ed^iristrative Errdirr, No.), June, JahangirnagarUniversity, Savar, ZWg, ppl15_130

13' H' Takeya: Industrial Restructuring and Agricultural organization in Japan, International Review ofEconomics and Business, vol. )oo(vm, N'o.tz, Decemir, rggl,Milano. Also, y. Miyakawa (2001)& H. Nagamine (l9gt/ed.): Ibid (Ret. # 5).

14. Clifford Geertz (1963): op. cit., (Ref.# 3).

15' M' R' Auty: Patterns of Development- Resources, poticy and Economic Growth, r-ond,on: EdwardArnold, 1995.

16. Stiglitz (1997): op. cit., (Ref. #l)17 ' T' Ito' What can Developing countries Learn from East Asia's Economic Growth? In B. pleskovic & J.E' Stiglitz, (ed'): Annual wortd Bank conference on Development Economics lgg1,world Bank.18. IIDR 2002 (LINDp): op. ai., (Ref. # 2).

19. M. Ashraf Hossain (2001): op. cit., pp.5-9, (Ref. #a).20' To bridging th-e technological gap with western counrics, beside educational infrastructuredevelopment and the compuisory univenal educati(xl, sonrc remakablc initiatives also had taken; andsome of such initiatives, for example, werc-- sending Japanese snrdenB oversqN for higher study andprocessionavtechnical training or so on; Inviting overscas professionals and experts at highereducational institutions and nraior projecs; and Impon of wcsLrn technologies those either directlytransferred to individual entrepreneurs and/or csablished model factories and then fransferred to theprivate sector' Please refers tot y- Miyakawa (2001), and H. Nagamine (lggl/ed.) : op. cit.(Ref. #5).27' E'o' Reischauer, Japan-the History of a Nation,3dEdition, charles E. Tuttle co. (Tokyo), 1993. Also,Pictorial Encyclopedia of Japanese culure - The soul and Heritige of Japan, (19g7), published byGakken Co. Ltd. (Tokyo).

6.

7.

22. Reporters Withoutfreedom of the20.M.20rt).

Borders @WB) is a intl. NGO was

23' cPI Annual Report 2or},Transparency International <http://www.transpqrency.org>.

pressrS

that advocates(Accessed:

founded in 1985

118

24.

25.

Modified from, M. Ashraf Hossain (1999): op. cit., p'57 , (Ref' #11)'

For instance, Chinese big domestic market enonnously is a plus point for economic involution that has

been attracting foreign iivestors in one way and others. Further, one basic difference between China &

former Soviet Unio-n (USSR) or its "uri"* blocks or now North Korea, China has had robust

business-links even with her biggest political-rival, the USA.

For some understandings on conventional Arms Transfers to the LDCs and the related stories, please

refer to Stockholm Intl. peace Research Institute: Yearbook 2004- Armaments, Disarmament and

International Securiry, oxford University Press, 2004; Control Arms Campaign CAC (2003): The Arms

Baz.aar, Shattered Lives(Chapter 4), In Control Arms Campaign, Oct. 2003' See, Richard F' Grimmett,

CRS Report for Congress on "Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations:2002-2009", The

US Congressional Research Service, 2002 & 2010'

The UN was created after World War-II with leading efforts by the America and her key allies in the

name of preserving world peace through international cooperation and collective security! The UN and

all its aglncies and projecl-programslunds spend about $1.70 for each of the world's inhabitants, of

which handsome portion spendlor staff salary, their family benefits and for UN missions, etc. Yet, the

UN,s entire budget is just a tiny fraction of the world's military expenditure, around 1.57o. See, Global

policy Forum (ZOd3): UN Financial Crisis, Globat Policy Forum, 12D003. Also In<http://www. globalpolicy.orglfin ancel>

Richard F. Grimmett (2010): op. cit., (Ref. #26).

Jordan, for example, received large-scale U.S. support in the 1970s and 1980s despite widespread

repression and authoritarian rule; when it opened up its political system in the early 1990s, the U.S'

suistantially reduced support, and for a time, suspended foreign aid. Surprisingly, aid to Yemen was cut

off within months of the newly unified country's first democratic election in 1990!

Thomas R. Dye and L. Harmon Zeigler, The lrony of Democracy - An Uncommon lnftoduction' to

American politics,3d Ed., Duxbury Press, Wadsworth Publishing Co., Belmont, California,1975.

For detail of "How a President Is Nominated and Elected" and for "Electoral College" and related links,

see <http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781446.hnnb (Accessed:29.04 201 1).

US National Voter Turnout in Federal Elections <http://www.infoplease.com/palA0781453' html>

(Retrieved : 29 .M.ZOII).

33. See, Michael Moore, Stupid Wite Men - and Other Sorry Excuses for the State of the Nation, Penguin

Books , Victoria: Penguin Group Australia Ltd,2OO2'

34. Mobilized from: op. cit., (Ref. # 33).

35. A group of total 556 seniors and students were giver a multiple-choice test consisting of 34 questions

with wide range of choices that were described as high school level but these top students could only

answer $% ;t them correctly. A whopping 4OVo of them did not know when the Civil War took place

and 7O% had never heard of the Voting Rights Act! However, two questions they scored highest on,

werc: (a) Who is Snoop Doggy Dog? (Snoop & fellow rappers have much to say about America's social

ills!), and O) who are Beavis and Buu-head? (Which represented some of the best American satire of the

l999s) - as of them 98Vo and 99Vo respectively knew right answer! For some interesting realities and

related views, please refer to Moore (2002): op' cit,' (Ref' # 34)'

36. Transparency Intl. Reports: 2001-10 <hnp://www.transparency.org>(Retrieved: 21.4.201 I )'

37. Mobilized from: Ibid.

3g. The Bribe payen Index z}Oz,Transparency Intl. (Berlin) 1.httry//www.transparenc!.org> (Retrieved:

21.4.2009).

39. M. P. Todaro, Economic Development in the Third World, New York: Longman, 1989.

26.

27.

28.

29.

31

32.

30.

119