Thomas Pogge's Global Resources Dividend relies on a flat tax on the use of natural resources to fund the eradication of world poverty. Hillel Steiner's Global Fund taxes the full rental value of owned natural resources and distributes the proceeds equally. The paper compares the Dividend and the Fund and defends the Global Share, a novel proposal that taxes either use or ownership, does so (when possible) progressively, and distributes the revenue according to a prioritarian rather than a sufficientarian or egalitarian principle.
Politics in Southeast Asia are often characterised by power abuses and corrupt practices, ramshackle political institutions, economic shocks, social inequities, and a steady erosion of cultural deference. In these conditions, mass-level mistrust of political leaders and institutions might be expected to surge. However, patterns of mistrust turn out to be more complex. Where political leaders are abusive and corrupt, while doing little to ease the declining fortunes of social forces, mistrust does indeed grow pervasive, even threatening political stability. But in other cases, political leaders, even though abusive, have ably mitigated mistrust, shifting mass-level grievances onto rival elites or social segments, deploying populist programs, or mobilising nationalist resentments, thereby perpetuating their standings. Analysis focuses on a number of contemporary leaderships in Southeast Asia that have produced variable amounts of mass-level mistrust, including those of Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand, and Singapore.
Analysts make much of the diversity of Southeast Asia's political regimes. However, the region also displays a mounting preponderance of pseudoand fuller democracies, as well as a common mode of transition where fuller democratization has taken place. This analysis argues that these "intermediate" regime categories can be partly ascribed to common, though countervailing factors of colonial legacies, structural forces, some faint cultural residues, and new globalized influences. Next, it explores the conditions in which changes may take place from pseudo-democracy to more fully democratic outcomes. Analysis turns finally to the ways in which despite this weakening of leadership, elites regain enough vitality that while transitions may go forward, they have been able to collaborate in limiting the quality of the new democracies that have emerged.