Search results

Prior to the events of 11th September, 2001, international cooperation in the field of global financial crime prevention was already well established. Prompted by separate initiatives led by the United Nations Organisation and the Basel Committee in the late 1980s, the creation in 1989 of the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering (FATF) by the G7 countries set in place an international body to coordinate anti‐money laundering measures across 26 countries and jurisdictions. Subsequently, and prompted by the creation of the FATF, other regional interstate organisations in western and eastern Europe, across the Americas and the Caribbean, and also in Asia, have drafted similar anti‐money laundering standards for their respective countries. In turn, these interstate regulatory initiatives have been complemented by parallel business‐led ‘voluntary’ initiatives, such as the example of the Wolfsberg Anti‐Money Laundering Principles designed to promote greater transparency across the banking sector.

Contemporary debates over the future direction of retirement pensions policy have been dominated by a polemic over the scope of, and the future balance between, the respective roles of public and private sectors in the management and delivery of benefit “entitlements”. This debate has negatively judged the institutional capacity of the state sustainably to supply adequate national retirement provision. This development is viewed as problematic as it is contentious in that it seeks to abandon lessons learned from the long, albeit currently underestimated, historical pedigree of public‐private partnership in institutional pensions provision. Against the ascendancy of World Bank‐driven attitudes regarding the limitations of “public”’ pensions provision, it is argued that due recognition be given to the ongoing capacity of state sectors to contribute positively to the management and delivery of old‐age pensions. Argues further that the social welfare‐driven imperatives which led states initially to become increasingly more involved in national pensions provision remain no less salient today and for the future, and are particularly salient for developing economies with poorly developed private financial sectors.

The Malaysian Employees’ Provident Fund (EPF) was created as a mandatory national saving plan in 1951 and has grown consistently. Following two decades of state‐led economic development, substantially funded through EPF contributions, the Malaysian Government is now ostensibly seeking to reduce state intervention in the economy in order to encourage liberalization and thereby engender further economic growth. Tracing the parallel evolution of the EPF and the growth of the Malaysian economy, highlights both the direct role of the EPF in providing soft‐loan capital for state‐sponsored development projects and the indirect role of the fund in underpinning politically effective, but not concomitantly economically efficient, strategies for ethnically rebalancing the economy. Accordingly, in direct contradiction to recent World Bank analyses, concludes that the continuing Malaysian commitment to a publicly managed national provident fund (NPF) is based on both efficiency criteria (in relation to the EPF itself) and effectiveness criteria (in relation to state‐determined investment strategies). Although the success of Malaysian economic development policies inevitably involves a restructuring of the operations and management of the EPF itself, the continuity in the Malaysian commitment to its NPF complements and underpins similar continuities in the active role of the Malaysian state, even in an era of privatization.