Myanmar as a Potential Candidate for SAARC: Pave to Political and Economic Integration (PEI) with Bangladesh

Being neighbors, both Bangladesh and Myanmar (formerly Burma), although they possess potential opportunity for political and economic integration, have very limited economic, geographic and strategic cooperation over time. There are some key factors- long standing disputes over maritime boundary (now resolved) and the Rohinga Refugee problem over the decades, behind this unwillingness for being liberal in economic transactions through business and trade. Also the border (land) between Bangladesh and Myanmar occupies significant attention. This border is viewed as one of the top smuggling routes of the world. The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) for political and economic cooperation in South Asia, was given its institutional and organizational framework in 1985. SAARC is an economic and geographical organization comprised of eight countries- Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, Maldives, Pakistan, Sri-Lanka and Afghanistan of South and Southeast Asia, consisting of 21% of the world’s total population and occupy 3% of the world’s area. In terms of GDP, the economy of SAARC represents the third largest in the world. Based on the aim “to work together in a spirit of friendship, trust and understanding” and “to accelerate the process of economic and social development in member states,” SAARC has been becoming a hub of international attention for political, economic and geographic integration. Being included in SAARC, Myanmar will be able to expand its business and trade horizons in wider aspects, which in turn will benefit its national economy. On the other hand, as a neighbor, Bangladesh will be able to gain its market in Myanmar. As Bangladesh and Myanmar have very good ways of communication (both land and water), both the countries can gain the most from the economic integration. Combined sea-ports for both countries can be the landmark for further development in trade and commerce with the rest of the globe. The mutual off-shore resource exploration and exploitation can build the base for escaping the fuel crisis. And finally, this, in turn, will be coordinated with ASEAN, BIMSTEC and BCIM as well

Federalism, decentralisation and corruption

We investigate the empirical relationship between decentralisation and corruption. Using a newly assembled dataset containing data for up to 174 countries, we revisit the empirical evidence and seek to explain some of the inconsistent results that exist in the literature. We find that not only results differ due to the use of different specifications and data but more importantly because previous research overlooks the relationship between different dimensions of decentralisation. We propose an approach aimed at exploring the aggregate effect of decentralization on corruption. In this context, we analyze the existence of direct and indirect effects of these aspects on corruption. Our results suggest that fiscal (market) decentralisation is associated with lower corruption. However, we also find that constitutional decentralisation (federalism) is associated with higher corruption. Furthermore, we find that certain forms of political decentralisation worsen the positive effect of constitutional centralization on corruption. Finally, other forms of decentralisation such as spatial decentralisation do not appear to have a strong association with corruption. Our results suggest the possibility that previous empirical work may grossly overestimate de aggregate impact of decentralization and corruption.Fiscal decentralisation; Corruption; Federalism; Unitarism; Political Institutions

The usefulness of the debate between focus on form and focus on forms

This article was published in the BRAC University Journal [© 2016 Published by BRAC University]The literature review includes 13 articles and 2 chapters from 2 books titled Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching, and Learning, and Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching published in the last ten years focusing on the efficacy of Focus on form (FonF) or the communicative use of grammar in comparison with Focus on forms (FonFS) or the explicit use of grammar in language classrooms. The first section discusses researchers’ views on the employment of FonF vs. FonFS addressing issues like when FonF arises, points in favor of and against FonF in relation to FonFS, and different variables affecting the success of FonF. The second section discusses different views of learners regarding classroom use of FonF and FonFS with a separate subsection on the views held by the US and Colombian FL learners as they represent two contrasting preferences in terms of the adoption of FonF and FonFS. The third and final section deals with teachers’ views regarding the efficacy of FonF and FonFS followed by the difference in view among the US and Colombian FL teachers and how FonFS can be synthesized into FonF. The findings reveal that there is no universal efficacy of either FonF or FonFS; it is rather the context which decides on the efficacy of these two. Moreover, it is to be noted that a choice between FonF or FonFS is not mutually exclusive and one can be incorporated into the other.Publishe

In Conversation with Professor Mohammad A. Quayum

Professor Mohammad A. Quayum teaches in the Department of English Language and Literature at the International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM). A gifted student of literature with an impressive academic record at universities both in Bangladesh and abroad, and a recipient of many awards and fellowships, Professor Quayum began his teaching career in 1979 by joining the Department of English at the University of Chittagong, Bangladesh. Moving on, he then joined the Department of English at the University of Dhaka, Bangladesh in 1992 and has since taught at a number of universities overseas. Professor Quayum chose to work on American Transcendentalism for his PhD at Flinders University in South Australia. Two of his books Saul Bellow and American Transcendentalism (2004) and Saul Bellow: The Man and His Work (2000) directly grew out of his doctoral research. Apart from American literature, Professor Quayum is also interested in postcolonial literatures, especially Malaysian and Singaporean literatures in English. He has authored and (co-)edited numerous important books dealing with many different aspects of Malaysian and Singaporean literatures written in English, and is considered one of the leading critical authorities on them. In recent times, Professor Quayum has turned his attention to translation and has already published translations of works by two of the pioneers of modern Bengali literature, namely Rabindranath Tagore and Rokeya Sakhawat Hossain. He also has to his credit about fifty scholarly articles published in top-ranking peer-reviewed journals. Professor Quayum is the Founding Editor of Asiatic: IIUM Journal of English Language and Literature and has been co-editor of World Literature Written in English for eight years