Culture and Privilege in Capitalist Asia - Jurusan Antropologi ...

CULTURAL RELATIONS AND THE NEW RICH 15
movement of capital and labour between different countries, the region’s national
economies have become increasingly entwined and unequal.
Because of its largely state-based and corporate character, economic growth in
most of Asia is not easily attributable to the ideal personage of neo-classical
economics: the free-wheeling, individual capitalist entrepreneur. Though the
ideology surrounding this character prevails in some quarters, it has generally been
subordinated to culturalist or ethno-nationalist ideologies, usually associated with
the state. For much of the 1970s-1990s, a major stumbling block to sustaining the
idea of the transacting individual capitalist has been the corporate monopoly
character of world capitalism, in which even the most highly placed and powerful
individuals are commonly salaried managers. It is largely the predominance of
monopoly capital that has made it impossible for many entrepreneurs in Asia to
succeed independently. Here the role of the state in promoting local business has
been decisive, whether through the formation of state corporations or monopolies,
favoured access to loans, contracts and licences, or other such practices (Deyo
1987; Hewison et al. 1993).
While there have been significant differences between the more legalbureaucratic
manner in which the Singaporean state has promoted local capital,
and the particularistic and nepotistic practices that often link state and capital in
other countries, the common legitimising umbrella of ‘national development’,
founded in the experience of Western colonialism and imperialism, has been
crucial throughout the region. Aside from the special case of Singapore, an island
of largely second-and third-generation migrants, there also appear to be significant
historical continuities. In many cases, the state is seen not only as the locale of
administrative authority, but as a vehicle of privilege for high-status families, or
ethnic groups, through which they may establish their own businesses, or else form
profitable alliances with wealthy, but less honourable business people. These ideas
and practices retain a certain continuity because of their efficacy under changed
circumstances of state-led development. 24
However, the economic and political forces at work here are complex and
changing. Post-Fordist restructuring, along with the growth in service industries
and the retail trade, which have followed the initial surge in manufacturing, have
opened up new opportunities for capitalist entrepreneurs, independent of
particularistic state assistance. There has also developed, in many countries, a
powerful negative discourse on ‘corruption’ and ‘cronyism’. In countries like the
Philippines, this discourse has gained ground among the growing numbers of
capitalists and new middle class who are not particularly dependent on, or
beholden to, the state, as well as among the broader populace (Pinches). Whether
or not this discourse becomes stronger in the context of the economic crisis that
has been experienced in several countries in the region from 1997, remains to be
seen. Should this happen, we might expect greater celebration of the idea of the
independent individual capitalist entrepreneur, as has occurred in the Philippines,
post-Marcos (Pinches). Alternatively, in Indonesia, where the crisis has been most
severe, discourses which attribute it to Western capital or to domestic Chinese