Exams. P3 exams. Am I realizing that unless I decide to do another degree in my life, these might be the LAST set of exams ever? How nostalgic that feels, I am not sure. More exhilarating than anything else, I think...A bit surreal at times.

As I reached INSEAD on that fatidic morning, I started to get a feel for the change in atmosphere between P1 and P3. We had only two exams, people turned up in shorts, shirts and shades, with a glass of beer in their hands and slowly wandered into the exam rooms. People joked around, enquired about everybody’s holiday plans and leisurely organized their desks.

The first exam was IPA (International Political Analysis). There were a set of Multiple Choice Questions, which were basically giving free points to everyone, then we could choose between four subjects. I picked

3 - Business Leaders and economists often express the view that the 21st century will be the East Asian Century in terms of dynamic growth. This means they believe the region has great opportunities for profitable, long-term investments – perhaps better opportunities than any other region in the world. But political scientists aren’t so sure. Many of them believe that the region is ripe for rivalry. Why, do you think, political scientists take that view? What is it about the international system in East Asia that makes them concerned about the region’s future? In your estimation, what are the greatest political and security risks facing the East Asian Century and what are the prospects that the international community can manage them successfully? If you were responsible for foreign investment at a major industrial firm, how would those risks influence your strategy? Which countries in the region would you find most attractive to invest in, and which would you definitely avoid, and why?


Since I had taken Strategy for Asia Pac, and gone over all these questions, this was an easy questions, I had also traveled, talked to people and read about Asia this past period. Finally, the talks of the two ambassador and Singapore Minister helped tremendously get a European, US and Asian view on the matter. I must say, that athough, most of the ideas that I had developed in the paper are probably not original, they were comprehensive and reflected current states. I made sure to use the Realist, Structural/Dependent blah blah framework that we were given in class.

I think that my conclusion went something like that:
Countries to invest in with less of a cost advantage
- Singapore
- Hong Kong
- South Korea
- Taiwan

Countries to invest in with more of a cost advantage
- Malaysia
- Thailand
- Vietnam
- China

Countries with high risk right now
- Philippines
- Indonesia
- Myanmar

Countries in the middle
- Cambodia (still high level of corruption and low trust at local government level)
- Laos (similar picture and landlocked country)


4- The successful record of European integration is often used as a model for other regions in the world, including Latin America and East Asia. To what extent do you believe that lessons learned from the European experience can be exported to these regions (you may focus on only one region if you prefer)? How would you explain European integration and what were the crucial variables in advancing the process after World War II? Are those variables present in Latin America or Asia? If you were committed to the integration process, what advice would you give to policy-makers in these regions if they wanted to make progress in this direction?
*I chose to focus on Latin America since I had talked about Asia in the previous question*

There again, my taking the Strategies for Latin America course, my travelling for 5 months in the region, my being dispensed classes on European institutions and economics back in 1993 and 1994 in Europe + my spending so much time in Europe helped a lot. The fact that there is a share of common history and grievances, two common languages, a potential anchor (Brazil) should help a lot. However, nothing is granted: high risk and instability (take Venezuela), too big discrepancies in markets (Brazil Vs Bolivia), geographical closeness is a myth (Chile is FAR AWAY from Argentina logistically, the Andes are NOT easy to cross), only Mexico has received investment grade (how they managed in beyond my understanding), repetitive failures of government to bring a stable platform (Peru, Columbia, Bolivia), long history of military dictatorship (Nicaragua), high emotional levels (Bolivia/Chile), small markets (Costa Rica), low value add business (Mexico Maquiladora), high disparities in wealth appropriation (Guatemala), low growth stable countries (Chile) makes it challenging...

The question I chose not to answer were Hegemonic Stability and Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations. Overdone.