Darryl Jarvis

Jarvis, Darryl S.L. and Toby Carroll (2017), ‘Preface: Development in Asia after the Developmental State,’ in Jarvis, Darryl S.L. and Toby Carroll (eds.), Asia after the Developmental State: Disembedding Autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.xvii-xxxviii. DOI 10.1017/9781316480502.001

Jarvis, Darryl S.L. and Caner Bakir (2018), ‘Institutional and Policy Change: Meta-theory and Method,’ in Jarvis, Darryl S.L. and Caner Bakir (eds.), Institutional Entrepreneurship and Policy Change: Theoretical and Empirical Explorations. Houndmills, Basingstoke; New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1-38. DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-70350-3.

Jarvis, Darryl S.L. (2017), ‘The State and Development in Malaysia: Race, Class and Markets’ in Jarvis, Darryl S.L. and Toby Carroll (eds.), Asia after the Developmental State: Disembedding Autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.201-236. DOI 10.1017/9781316480502.009

Jarvis, Darryl S.L. and Toby Carroll (2017), ‘Disembedding Autonomy: Asia after the Developmental State,’ in Jarvis, Darryl S.L. and Toby Carroll (eds.), Asia after the Developmental State: Disembedding Autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.3-50. DOI 10.1017/9781316480502.002

This article explores attempts to construct 'regulatory capacity' in developing countries, focusing on the work of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and its role as an international standard-setting institution in regulatory governance. The article explores how the construction of specific forms of regulatory capacity, and attempts to orchestrate the adoption of regulatory reform agendas in emerging economies, reflect broader processes of political-policy transfer that impact state capacity and the ability of developing states to manage economic development. By analysing the OECD's engagement practices with third party organizations such as APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation organization) and ASEAN (the Association of Southeast Asian Nations) and its specific engagement with emerging economies through country 'reviews' and 'audits', the author explores the implications for state capacity in terms of the adoption of regulatory systems of governance.

In this chapter I address the increasing influence of exogeneity on policy formulation. I do so by constructing a series of heuristic typologies as a means of organizing the now voluminous literature that has arisen to theorize and explain these trends, the new contexts of policy formulation, the transfer of policy knowledge across geographic space, the transnational nature of policy learning, and the structural forces propelling this change. I organize the literature into three typologies which I characterize as (1) the spread of neoliberal governmentality; (2) the globalization of policy formulation; and (3) policy formulation through policy transfer and ideational diffusion. While each of these perspectives is treated discretely for purposes of analysis, in reality the boundaries between such perspectives are blurred and represent a vexed intellectual- theoretical continuum.

The spread of quality assurance (QA) regimes in higher education has been an explosive phenomenon over the last 25 years. By one estimate, for example, half of all the countries in the world have adopted QA systems or QA regulatory agencies to oversee their higher education sector. Typically, this phenomenon is explained as a process of policy diffusion, the advent of marketization, the spread of neoliberalism, massification and, concomitantly, the emergence of a ‘global market’ for higher education, prompting governments to respond by validating standards, quality, and introducing certification and compliance regimes. In this paper I question the utility of these explanatory frameworks, specifically looking at the case of Hong Kong in order to explore the role coercive institutional isomorphism plays in policy adoption and the implications of this for regulatory performativity.

Quality assurance (QA) regimes have become an increasingly dominant regulatory tool in the management of higher education sectors around the world. By one estimate, nearly half the countries in the world now have quality assurance systems or QA regulatory bodies for higher education. This paper explores the emergence and spread of QA regimes, the coalescence of regulatory logics around qualifications frameworks, and the broad confluence of such approaches in terms of their impact on the historically contested relationship between the state and university. By focusing on the interlocking regulatory logics provided by QA, the article explores how such approaches impose quasi-market, competitive based rationalities premised on neo-liberal managerialism using a policy discourse that is often informed by conviction rather than evidence.

Multilateral development agencies have increasingly focused attention on underdeveloped countries in Asia as potential new sites for financial capital. Often referred to as “emerging markets”, these economies are seen as ripe for private sector investment and, at the same time, in need of foreign capital to support rapid industrialisation, modernisation and poverty reduction. For development agencies, this confluence of interests suggests a means for quickly closing the “development gap”, primarily through mobilising techno-managerial modalities designed to reduce barriers to capital entry and other institutional inefficiencies seen as inimical to investment. Thus development agencies now encourage the construction of “enabling environments” to support “market driven development” through processes of “financialisation”. Development, in this sense, is no longer state-led or state-centred, but rather financially driven and privately procured.

As we highlight in this special issue, however, financialised modes of development are highly contested and problematic. Indeed, the diffusion into the underdeveloped world of essentially developed world financialisation agendas that seek
to instil a broad-based market rationalism that downloads new costs and risks to populations is of significant concern. This Introduction sets in context and introduces a much needed set of articles that bring clarity to financialisation in developing
Asia and its implications for development as a process of substantively improving material conditions.

In the rush for development, the regulatory state has assumed the mantle of a new panacea: the instruments and mechanisms necessary for better government, better governance, and better lives. This paper poses two basic questions in response to the rise of the regulatory state and its increasing diffusion into developing countries. First, can regulatory states exist in developing societies or, more accurately, can effective regulatory states emerge and hope to function in a manner similar to their counterparts in developed countries and deliver the types of benefits and outcomes they promise? And second, do regulatory states offer the most effective modalities for delivering enhanced social well-being? By unpacking the concept of the regulatory state and addressing its underlying assumptions and implicit normative values, it is suggested that the modalities of governance entailed in the regulatory state model may not be well suited to developing countries, hurting rather than enhancing governance outcomes. These issues are explored in relation to the Indonesian energy sector, specifically the upstream electricity generation, transmission and distribution sectors, and the machinations involved in governing the sector.

This article explores the cooperative endeavours of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in the area of investment liberalisation. Investment liberalisation is variously associated with net positive effects on inflows of investment capital, technology transfer, employment, export generation, economic growth and development. As a net historical beneficiary of investment flows, the article hypothesises that ASEAN's stated commitment to investment liberalisation should by now be realising progress in each of four areas: (1) absolute reductions in national autonomy in relation to investment screening and conditionality provisions; (2) increased transparency in respect of member states' national investment regimes; (3) enhanced standardisation and codification of regulatory standards governing investment-related provisions across member states; and (4) enhanced centralised coordination and decision-making in respect of investment governance. Each of these areas is investigated in relation to ASEAN's three primary investment agreements and the ensuing regimes that govern investment provisions and policy practices among member states.

China’s rapid economic transformation over the last 3 decades has been remarkable both in terms of its speed and scale. As the Economist magazine reported recently, ‘In China each person now produces four times as much as in the early 1970s’ with as many as 400 million people being lifted from abject poverty into the ranks of an urban dwelling middle class in the space of a single generation (Economist, 2007). Much of this transformation has been off the back of China’s movement into low value adding manufacturing, in essence becoming the world’s assembly, manufacturing, textile, and footwear hub. China, however, is rapidly moving to reposition itself and climb up the value China, announcing its ambition to become a global leader in science and technology. This paper explores one such facet of this race for global leadership in science and technology, addressing China’s massive investment in nanotechnology research and attempts to become a leading producer of nano-materials and nano-science knowledge hub. As the paper highlights, however, science and technology innovation are underpinned by regulatory and institutional technologies, and require adroit policy supervision of complex innovation eco-systems. Whether China is able to leverage off its increasing wealth and funnel this into global leadership in science and technology, in large measure depends on still nascent regulatory systems.

Frank Knight was one of the twentieth century’s most illustrious economic thinkers. His writings and enquiry into the nature of method, theory and knowledge in relation to the activities of social actors, and under what circumstances and with what limitations we might adequately theorise social agency, bequeathed a rich tradition of theoretical and practical insight. Many of his writings centred on the issue of risk and uncertainty, how social actors anticipate the future and manage and mediate terrains of uncertainty and risk, and in doing so change the outcomes that obtain. Knight’s contributions essentially constructed a means for assessing and measuring risk in various facets of social activity, seeding insights which remain pertinent today. As the article notes, however, despite Knight’s insights and the methodological schema he constructed for probability analysis, remarkably few social sciences – including international relations – have mined his work. Ironically, much that we need to know to more effectively theorise and accommodate the conundrums of risk and uncertainty into social scientific methods Knight long ago handed down to us.

Asia's emergence as a key player in the global economy is witnessing intense competition within the region to become Asia's next great international financial centre (IFC). Hong Kong, Singapore and Shanghai, among others, are vying for primacy, attempting to attract dense clusters of financial services firms and reap the lucrative rewards associated with this. This paper explores this emerging competition. It does so from the perspective of attempting to map the parameters necessary to become an IFC, particularly the institutional, political and spatial contexts that facilitate the concentration of international financial services. Why and how financial clustering occurs and the factors that determine the location of financial centres is an important public policy concern, both for established centres eager to maintain their competitive position as well as emerging economies keen to identify the policy levers necessary to support financial sector growth. To that end, the paper explores the experiences and strategies of three of Asia's current contenders: Hong Kong, Shanghai and Singapore. It analyses the policy architecture, financial sector strategies, institutional mechanisms and spatial geographies undergirding financial sector growth, and the constraints, obstacles and challenges each face in developing and or consolidating their IFC.

Infrastructure provision the world over has undergone a series of profound changes in the manner of its financing and governance over the last 30 years or so. While the role of the state has diminished as a direct provider, builder and operator of infrastructure, its role as regulator and overseer has undergone substantial growth, increasing the regulatory burden on the state. While this transition has occurred relatively smoothly in developed country contexts, in developing countries the diffusion of the regulatory state has produced manifestly different forms of governance, stressing the regulatory capacity of existing and newly formed regulatory bodies. This paper explores the impact and manifestations of regulatory diffusion in the context of the Thai energy sector and the governance mechanisms responsible for electricity generation, transmission and distribution.

This article analyses the concept of political risk, its evolution and conceptualisation, and explores its utility as a means of understanding political events and processes that can threaten order, stability and continuity in International Relations and disrupt the normal practices of inter-state investment, trade and commerce. More particularly, the article organises the disparate literature that surrounds the concept of political risk such that it might be more rigorously applied as a social science method for understanding political events and their effects upon commercial and strategic activities.

John Quiggin noted recently that risk is to the 21st century what globalisation was
to the late 20th century.1 The application of “risk analysis” to virtually every facet
of human endeavour bears witness to its popularity and, more importantly, its
potential utility as a prism through which to generate technical knowledge.
Much of what we enjoy in terms of scientific progress, material wealth and
public service is the outcome of the management of risk. The advances we take
for granted in medicine and the management of pestilence and disease, for
example, have all been reliant on risk assessment and innovations in risk management
protocols. Equally, the advances we observe in the built environment and
the engineering marvels of the modern world rest on risk analysis as the basis
for structural design. In business and finance, too, the principles of risk management
define the operating parameters on which the banking, insurance and fund
management industry has come to dominate the global economy, in the process
transforming the nature of work, production and consumption. Even in the
social sciences, risk analysis has enjoyed wide application, utilised in psychology,
economics, criminology, social work and public policy. Put simply, risk analysis is
the singular most important analytical tool of the modern world in large measure
responsible for much of the economic, technological and social innovations we
enjoy today.

The rapidly changing nature of the international political economy along with its increasing complexity, poses challenges for both theoreticians as well as policymakers; the former in terms of developing innovative frameworks of analysis able to model and understand the constitutive nature and contours of its parameters; the latter in terms of developing suitable frameworks of analysis able to inform policy analysis and practical management strategies. This article explores these dilemmas from two disciplinary perspectives. First, from international relations (IR) theory, particularly how various theoretical approaches have failed to consider more fully the role of non-state actors like multinational enterprises (MNEs) despite the growth in their importance and the resources they control. Second, from the perspective of international business (IB) which, while focusing on MNEs, has done so in the absence of more contextual approaches that situate MNEs in power-political, regulatory, and inter-state environmental settings. By highlighting the weaknesses of both disciplinary approaches, the article then suggests that the construction of new interdisciplinary rubrics jointly created from IR and IB, offers a better means of appreciating the changing character of the global political economy and some of its most important actors and emerging processes.

Markets and Development presents a series of critical contributions focused on the political relationship between citizens, civil society, and neoliberal development policy’s latest form. The dramatic increase of ‘access to finance’ investments, newly gender-sensitive approaches to building neoliberal labour markets, the universal promotion of public-private partnerships, and the ‘development financing’ of extractive industries, have all seen citizens, social movements, and NGOs variously engaged in, and against, neoliberalism like never before. The precise form that this engagement takes is conditioned by both the perceived and real opportunities, and the risks, of an agenda which seeks to intern ‘emerging’ and ‘frontier markets’ deep within a concretising world market, with transformative repercussions for both those involved and, notably, for state-society relations.

Rapid economic growth, often combined with state-led development strategies, has witnessed several Asian countries successfully transition to high-income developed societies while others have made significant progress in poverty reduction. Despite this success, however, Asia’s record masks persistent poverty, rising inequality and ongoing political contestation over the policies now being pursued by governments to sustain growth and development. Notably, the increasing adoption of neo-liberal policy instruments that embrace market-led development is changing the contours of Asia’s political economy, state-market relations, and the role of the state in society, with wide ranging implications for the distribution of wealth, income and social outcomes. The restructuring of state entities through corporatisation and privatisation, the influence of financialisation and marketisation of the provision of various goods, services and social protection arrangements, and the construction of ‘enabling environments’ that promote private capital, are increasingly accompanied by large and often unintended shifts in social relations that embed new forms of risk and vulnerability. The contributors to this volume present a timely analysis of the impact of the most cutting-edge neo-liberal reforms in Asia, critically detailing the politics of neo-liberalism and marketisation and their connection to the transformation of state and society.

Toby Carroll is Associate Professor in the Department of Asian and International Studies at City University of Hong Kong. His research interests focus on the political economy of development in Asia. He is the author of Delusions of Development: The World Bank and the Post Washington Consensus in Southeast Asia (2010) and has published in journals such as Journal of Contemporary Asia, Development and Change, Pacific Review and Antipode.

Darryl S.L. Jarvis is Professor and Associate Dean (Research and Postgraduate Studies), Faculty of Liberal Studies and Social Sciences, at the Hong Kong Institute of Education. He has published widely in the areas of international relations, investment risk, regulatory politics and the political economy of investment. His recent books include ASEAN Industries and the Challenge from China (with Anthony Welch, 2011) and Infrastructure Regulation: What Works, Why, and How do we Know? Lessons from Asia and Beyond (with Ed Araral, M. Ramesh and Wu Xun, 2011).

China's relations with Southeast Asia go back centuries, but over the past two decades China's rise has presented new challenges and opportunities for the region. This book examines competition and collaboration between China and ASEAN, using the lens of different industries as the focus of its analysis. China's rise is neither an overwhelmingly positive development nor a negative one, but rather produces multifarious outcomes. The lesson of this volume is that much of China's impact on ASEAN industries depends on how ASEAN member states engage with China and how they evolve and implement industrial and industry sector strategies to capture the evolving trends and market opportunities. ASEAN is well placed to mould this in ways that can potentially serve ASEAN's interests. The key, however, lies in the degree to which ASEAN is able to coordinate national policies and evolve a regional strategy to leverage off China's new found interest in the region.

Regulation of public infrastructure has been a topic of interest for more than a century. Providing public goods, securing their financing, maintenance, and improving the efficiency of their delivery, has generated a voluminous literature and series of debates. More recently, these issues have again become a central concern, as new public management approaches have transformed the role of the state in the provision of public goods and the modalities by which the financing of infrastructure and its operation are procured.

Yet, despite the proliferation of new modalities of regulating infrastructure little is known about what works and why. Why do certain regulatory regimes fail and others succeed? What regulatory designs and institutional features produce optimal outcomes and how? And why do regulatory forms of governance when transplanted into different institutional contexts produce less than uniform outcomes?

This book addresses these questions, exploring the theoretical foundations of regulation as well as a series of case studies drawn from the telecommunications, electricity, and water sectors. It brings together distinguished scholars and expert practitioners to explore the practical problems of regulation, regulatory design, infrastructure operation, and the implications for infrastructure provision.

International Business Risk is an attempt to help investors and students of contemporary Asian affairs navigate the risk environments of Asia. Using the most up-to-date information and analytical techniques, the volume analyses the political, economic, regulatory, and security environments of 12 Asian countries. Each country is assessed for its political and economic trends, investment risks, and opportunities in a way that is clear, concise and easily assessible. The handbook conveys forecast information through a series of charts, graphs, and boxed summaries of data, making it a handy reference guide for business professionals as well as teaching and research professionals engaged in international relations, international business and trade with Asia.

This book is a valuable evaluation of the propensity toward parochialism in international thought. It analyzes the implications in terms of how the "problems" of international relations, the theoretical tools constructed to deal with them, and the direction of theoretical debate often reflect the unconscious bias of the national domains in which these intellectual activities are conducted. It scans the breadth of the contemporary discipline, broadly attempting to take its pulse and assess the contours of its new diversity.

Contributors include Pal Ahluwalia, Chris Brown, Molly Cochran, Robert M. A. Crawford, Roger Epp, Martin Griffiths, A. J. R. Groom, Teresa Healey, John M. Hobson, K. J. Holsti, Darryl S. L. Jarvis, Peter Mandaville, Mark Neufeld, Kim R. Nossal, Terry O'Callaghan, Jan Pettman, Tony Porter, James Richardson, Roger Spegele, and Michael Sullivan.

Jarvis provides a collection of essays designed to survey the issues, debates, themes, and points of contention surrounding postmodernist and poststructuralist thought in international relations and the Third Debate. It serves as an introduction to these new theoretical mediums, and as a critique to highlight weaknesses, problems, or concerns that arise in the context of perspectivism, interpretivism, postfoundationalism, relativism, ethics, and knowledge. In the fullest sense, the essays are concerned with assessing what postmodern and poststructural theories can contribute to international relations and the study of world politics.


The approach of Jarvis and his contributors is exploratory as well as pedagogical. They anticipate that explorations into the conundrum of understanding and explaining world politics will help students and other researchers beginning their own such investigations to form some tentative questions and, perhaps, even answers of their own. Provocative reading for scholars, students, and other researchers involved with political science theory and international relations.

Promising to stimulate discussion among those who celebrate the arrival of the "Third Debate" and those who fear its colonization and spread, D. S. L. Jarvis offers an innovative and highly controversial appraisal of the various postmodern and poststructural theories currently sweeping the discipline of International Relations. Tracing the development, importation, and application of these new epistemologies, Jarvis develops a series of critical typologies so that scholars working in International Relations can assess the utility of these new theoretical media for understanding international political relations at the dawn of the twenty-first century.

Policy and Society is an interdisciplinary journal exploring policy and its manifestations in broader political, economic and social contexts. Each issue of Policy and Society is typically devoted to a single policy theme. The theme may be approached from the perspective of single or multiple disciplines.

Policy and Society seeks to explore how policies are shaped by their context and, in turn, shape it. The Journal welcomes submissions that deal with policy theory and practice at the local, national and/or international level, including review issues on the state of the field. The journal only accepts proposals for themed issues, not individual papers.

Issues normally consist of an introductory review article (approximately 6 - 8,000 words) and 5 - 7 articles (approximately 6,000 - 8,000 words). Each issue is normally overseen by a special guest editor.

How to Submit a Proposal for a Themed Issue
Proposals should be approximately 3-4 pages in length and address each of the following criteria:
1. The title of the proposed themed issue
2. Statement of policy subject to be explored
3. Statement on the significance of this area to public policy research
4. Statement on the rationale for the proposed Journal issue.
5. A list of the proposed articles and abstracts
6. A list of the names of potential contributors

For submissions of thematic issue proposals and related enquiries, please contact: Policy-and-Society@nus.edu.sg

Martin Jacques (The Guardian, August 21) recent comments on the ‘death of neoliberalism’ are important, not least because he was one of the first analysts in the early 1980s to identify the emerging dominance of neoliberalism in the West. This reversal of fortunes for neoliberalism, due to what Jacques identifies as a wave of political developments in the two countries which were its main champions, the UK and USA, is thus significant – indeed for many a cause for celebration.

To borrow a line from Mark Twain, however, reports of the death of neoliberalism are greatly exaggerated. Jacques’ analysis is an overly optimistic reading of current political developments — developments which are still formative and which may yet challenge neoliberalism but through inherently nationalist and reactionary ways.

The series Studies in the Political Economy of Public Policy presents cutting edge, innovative research on the origins and impacts of public policy. Going beyond mainstream public policy debates, the series encourages heterodox and heterogeneous studies of sites of contestation, conflict and cooperation that explore policy processes and their consequences at the local, national, regional or global levels. Fundamentally pluralist in nature, the series is designed to provide high quality original research of both a theoretical and empirical nature that supports a global network of scholars exploring the implications of policy on society.

The series is supported by a diverse international advisory board drawn from Asia, Europe, Australia, and North America, and welcomes manuscript submissions from scholars in the global South and North that pioneer new understandings of public policy.