We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This Element argues that after twenty years of democratization, Indonesia has performed admirably. This is especially so when the country's accomplishments are placed in comparative perspective. However, as we analytically focus more closely to inspect Indonesia's political regime, political economy, and how identity-based mobilizations have emerged, it is clear that Indonesia still has many challenges to overcome, some so pressing that they could potentially erode or reverse many of the democratic gains the country has achieved since its former authoritarian ruler, Soeharto, was forced to resign in 1998.
Since 1945, the liberal-democratic model of capitalism spread across the globe, ultimately prevailing over communism. Over the past two decades, a new statist-authoritarian model has begun diffusing across East Asia. Rather than rejecting capitalism, authoritarian leaders harness it to uphold their rule. Based on extensive research of East Asia's largest corporations and sovereign wealth funds, this book argues that the most aggressive version of this model does not belong to China. Rather, it can be found in Malaysia and Singapore. Although these countries are small, the implications are profound because one-third of all countries in the world possess the same type of regime. With an increasing number of these authoritarian regimes establishing sovereign wealth funds, their ability to intervene in the corporate sectors of other countries is rapidly expanding.
Telecommunications regulation in the European Union is a good example of how consumers have benefited from EU regional integration. Mandatory EU rules, for example on interconnection, roaming and consumer protection, sit with diverse EU Member State approaches for ex ante telecoms regulation and spectrum auctions and ex post competition law enforcement. What can ASEAN learn from EU regional integration through sectoral regulation? This chapter will consider the dual role in integrating EU markets of (a) the EU Common Regulatory Framework (CRF) for electronic communications and (b) the “workhorse” model of economic regulation in the telecoms sector. The reform of UK telecoms regulator Oftel in 2003 as converged regulator Ofcom across communications markets is presented as an institutional case study for the influence of EU regional integration on a strong national regulatory culture. Conclusions will be drawn about competition policy for the telecoms sector in ASEAN markets, in light of the market integration imperatives of the ASEAN Economic Community – while taking into account the differences in local market conditions for each ASEAN Member State.
Ten Southeastern Asian nations have formed an economic community. While the free movement rules are community-wide and the nations aspire to achieve a single market, there is no present plan for a community competition law. Can the nations achieve a single market without a common competition law? To answer the question, the paper examines, first, paradigmatic single-market competition rules and the work they do. Second, turning to the world, which has no international competition law: What problems are posed by the absence of an international framework and how well can they be solved in its absence? Third, it reflects on models other than community-wide competition law that share the space between tight integration of markets and loose coordination of nations and their competition authorities. Fourth, back to ASEAN, it identifies the particular problems posed by the absence of community competition law, and asks two questions: How much can the ASEAN nations solve with 10 national competition laws plus cooperation and coordination?, and: What principles and initiatives are most critical in helping ASEAN approximate a single market without community competition law?