Since holding elections in 2010, Myanmar has transitioned from a direct military dictatorship to a formally democratic system and has embarked on a period of rapid economic reform. After two decades of military rule, the pace of change has startled almost everyone and led to a great deal of cautious optimism. To make sense of the transition and assess the case for optimism, this article explores the political economy of Myanmar’s dual transition from state socialism to capitalism and from dictatorship to democracy. It analyses changes within Myanmar society from a critical political economy perspective in order to both situate these developments within broader regional trends and to evaluate the country’s current trajectory. In particular, the emergence of state-mediated capitalism and politico-business complexes in Myanmar’s borderlands are emphasised. These dynamics, which have empowered a narrow oligarchy, are less likely to be undone by the reform process than to fundamentally shape the contours of reform. Consequently, Myanmar’s future may not be unlike those of other Southeast Asian states that have experienced similar developmental trajectories.

International Statebuilding: The Rise of Post-Liberal Governance by David Chandler. Abingdon: Routledge, 2010

Regulating Statehood: State Building and the Transformation of the Global Order by ShaharHameiri. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.

You can read the review in JISB or here.

Since the late 1980s, the scope of security policy has widened dramatically to encompass a wide range of ‘non-traditional’ threats. Southeast Asian states have superficially appeared to embrace this trend, broadening their security discourse considerably. However, they are also often criticized for failing to translate this discursive shift into concrete regional cooperation to tackle these new threats. This article critiques the dominant theoretical framework used to explore the widening of states’ security agendas – the Copenhagen School’s ‘securitization’ approach – as unable to account for this gap due to its fixation on security discourse rather than practice. Drawing on state theory and insights from critical political economy, the article argues that the scope of regional security policy is better accounted for by the distinctive nature of state–society relations within Southeast Asia. The argument is advanced using case studies of Southeast Asian states’ policies toward Burma, environmental degradation, and border conflicts.

This article is part of my project with Shahar Hameiri on ‘Securitisation and the Governance of Non-Traditional Security in Southeast Asia and the Southwest Pacific’, which is funded by the Australian Research Council.