A European think tank’s quantitative global ranking of 119 states’ political and market-economy development has found a number of clusters of performance in Asia that range from two full-fledged market-based democracies to a range of what it terms “defective democracies, moderate autocracies or autocracies” with no clear trends except perhaps toward market mechanisms.

The latest and second edition of the Bertelsmann Transformation Index up to 2005 found what one expert termed a “pronounced decoupling” in Asia of evolution toward free markets and democratic systems of governance based on an extensive number of criteria as judged by some 250 national or other experts around the world. It also contained 40 specific country reports. The Bertelsmann Foundation is an offshoot of the German-based international media group.

In general, the Bertelsmann survey did not include OECD or other “consolidated” industrial or democratic countries and concentrated on the 119 “transforming” emerging countries. A foreword to the 2006 Index noted that “democracy is on the march,” especially in Eastern Europe where the EU model was a powerful influence,and added that 62 percent of the world’s population now lived under a democratic form of government. Yet the report also acknowledged a belt of 48 authoritarian states around the earth that “have proven themselves especially resistant to change.”

The general findings of the survey relating to Asia where presented at a special briefing February 21 in Brussels organised by the European Alliance for Asian Studies and hosted at the European Parliament by MEP Glyn Ford, a British member with special interest in Asia.

Dr. Aurel Croissant, a German political scientist specialising in Asia now assistant professor at the US Navy Postgraduate School in Monterrey, California, presented the Index findings on the region and other experts focused on specific countries, primarily China, India and North Korea. Croissant noted that there seemed to be “no trend” in Asia toward the development of combined democracy and market mechanisms, although he noted the progress of Indonesia toward the former and advancement toward market systems in countries ranging from Singapore to China or Vietnam, which indicated no progress toward democratic institutions. He said the region was characterised for “continuity rather than change”, but noted a deterioration of the situation in countries such as Nepal and Thailand. Cambodia, Malaysia and Singapore were categorised as “moderate autocracies” and China, Laos, Myanmar, Nepal, North Korea, Vietnam and Pakistan as “autocracies” with only Pakistan indicating some improvement in the years studied. Countries such as Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Papua-New Guinea, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand were qualified as “deficient democracies,” despite holding elections because of lags in other criteria such as state identity, overall political participation, rule of law and civil liberties, stability of democratic institutions including the judiciary and political and social integration.

The Transformation Index also more specifically delves and ranks the development of market economies and compiles an overall “management index” that focuses more on efficiency and rates performance of systems whether democratic or market based. Likewise the market economy index examines socioeconomic development and sustainability as well as more typical criteria.

Entitled “Governance in Asia,” the Brussels gathering also broadened to examine and compare such states as India and China and also North Korea as a special case.

There was some emphasis and discussion concerning the comparison between what was portrayed as the Chinese and Indian “models” and the perception that China seemed to be more in favour in European eyes. One speaker appealed for the EU to redress the imbalance. The sequencing in the two was noted by one speaker as differing with no single or common path seen, citing the perception that China had in fact a much more open economy and ranked higher in UN human development index than India, leading him to suggest the Chinese “model” was doing well. Other speakers from academia explained the Chinese emphasis on collective objectives rather than individualism and some of its roots in both Confucianism and legalism. But another pointed to the virtual collapse of the Chinese health system in recent years The Chinese village and township elections and exclusionary nature of the Indian caste system were also discussed. Nationalism in both countries was also brought up, with one commenting that in China nationalism was now more important than communism since the party had lost considerable influence, possibly in part resulting from the massive influx of businesspersons. Corruption in both countries was also regarded as a major element in their systems.

Since the question of North Korea has been a long-time interest of the host, MEP Glyn Ford, a presentation and discussion of that country also took place beyond its place in the Transformation Index as among the worst performing in the governance indexes. Geir Helegesen, senior research at the Nordic Institute of Asian Studies acknowledged that the country stood “outside the world order,” and its system, symbolised by the Juche doctrine of self-reliance, “hardly made sense” even in Marxism. But he said that until 1997 South Korea was also a rigid, paternalistic and deviated from the west and the mainstream. But he differed with the Transformation Index and suggested that much was changing in North Korea, with free markets and new laws emerging, state-owned enterprises being sold or transformed, shopping centres and industrial zones established, the family becoming the main driver of production and the leadership conceding that “interaction not isolation” with the world is a guiding policy.

Ford also noted that China was “the biggest game in town” and remarked that EU institutions, including the Parliament, were engaged across the board, including human rights, but decried that frequently in China and elsewhere this body was often more involved in “resolutions than dialogue.” But he said the EU soft power was being especially useful in Indonesia where a special mission was assisting the transition to peace in Aceh. He also pleaded for “constructive engagement” in North Korea.