This week’s seminar was on the politics of reform processes focusing on liberalising reforms in Myanmar against the backdrop the country’s transition from military to civilian rule. Or more broadly, in the words of Lee Jones, a ‘transition from state socialism to capitalism and from dictatorship to democracy’. The session focused specifically on the case study of the liberalisation of the telecoms industry in Myanmar against the backdrop of the country’s transition from military to democratic rule, in a session facilitated by Dr Niheer Dasandi.
My wider thoughts on the session were heavily informed by a group exercise that we engaged in relating to the telecoms reform process where we were asked to consider the structural support that a business, often in the form of large multinational corporations, now able to invest in the telecoms industry would need. We also identified who the winners and losers of such reforms would be, aiming at encouraging us to consider the actors and interests at play and the rules of the game determining how to act in that situation.
I) The role of (foreign) private sector organisations in development/post-conflict settlement
Drawing from this case study and our associated group tasks the session made me think of technological change as part of reform processes in the development of a country and specifically the role and associated politics of foreign private sector (often large, multinational) organisations in institutional reform.
This session clearly highlighted a variety of different actors involved in ‘doing’ development. I found this pleasing to explore as someone who is interested in public-private sector partnerships in relation to development for one, but more generally the role that these organisations, often with no specific development focus play in development. It’s intriguing to me, not only for the economic opportunities and capital provided for a particular country, but also for the ways in which their presence distorts the socio-economic and cultural landscape for those already on the ground and in turn, how the landscape affects the way that businesses must operate in different environments.
For example in Myanmar, as highlighted during the lecture, the intimate and significant role that the military still played in the economy, not least because of the crony networks between private sector leaders, gave the potential to these groups to ensure that the reform process was less than plain-sailing. A number of these cronies were also on international sanctions lists, which could in turn have had significant negative implications for foreign investors in this field if partnerships with local businesses had been formed.
II) Own your social/political science background
More generally thinking about how this session affected my pre-existing attitudes and experience, I saw the value of subjects in development studies and other social and political science-oriented thinking in business/ economic transactions. Put another way, the importance of this type of thinking and working politically in any arena particularly when a cross-jurisdictional context is involved, was re-affirmed to me.
As much as internal and operational considerations are important, commercial awareness- demonstrable awareness of the issues that your company faces must be as politically and socially-focused as it is economic and market-focused. It is indispensable to understand the wider social and political context.
Going back to the context of Myanmar, taking, for instance, issues regarding tension between different ethnic groups. Failure to understand and consider the dynamics between the marginalised Rohingya Muslim minority and the rest of the country- a minority who Burma doesn’t recognise as citizens, and who are largely regarded as illegal migrants of Bangladeshi origins are indispensibly significant for the impact that they could have on the public perception and standing of the company in the country, both positively, but potentially, negatively.
From this week, I’ve been reminded of how the training afforded by degrees such as development studies and in particular an emphasis on thinking politically would enable someone to read these contexts, much more easily.
It’s a comparative advantage to be exploited by those with such training, something that studying anthropology did show me prior to this, but I don’t think I always understood and stood as confidently in that uniqueness as I could have.
I understand now.
Sources
- Grindle, M. (2000) ‘Designing Reforms: Problems, Solutions, and Politics’, Harvard University Faculty Research Working Paper.
- Jones, L. (2014) ‘The Political Economy of Myanmar’s Transition’, Journal of Contemporary Asia, 44(1): 144-170.
- Lewis, Simon (2016) ‘5 Challenges Facing Burma’s New Civilian Government’, Time Magazine
The Narrator's Pen 