Amanda Foreman writes:  Since its staid beginnings in 1971 as an annual management symposium at a Swiss ski resort, the World Economic Forum in Davos has grown into the premier talking shop for the global financial elite. Unsurprisingly, given the opportunities it offers for smug pronouncements and ostentatious parties, Davos (as it is known) has attracted—and earned—some trenchant criticism. The late Harvard political scientist Samuel P. Huntington coined the term “Davos Man” to pin and puncture a kind of obnoxious alpha male who flits from one international meeting to the next in self-serving pursuit of wealth and power.

But Huntington’s Davos Man highlights another issue about the forum: It was (and is) overwhelmingly male. This year, some 19% of the 2,500 delegates were women, according to the forum—a number that has barely changed since a (widely ignored) quota system meant to involve more women was imposed by the event’s corporate sponsors in 2011. (Saadia Zahidi, who heads the forum’s gender-parity initiative, said that the gender ratio in Davos reflects “global leadership as a whole” and that the forum is working to increase women’s participation.)

Behind some of the most famous public gatherings in history lie arguments and controversies about whether to include women. One particularly egregious example was the first World Anti-Slavery Convention, which met in London in 1840. Women on both sides of the Atlantic had been campaigning to abolish slavery since the 18th century. Nevertheless, the 350 male delegates were divided over whether to allow seven American women to participate. One faction, led by William Lloyd Garrison ’s supporters, favored their inclusion; friends and colleagues of the New York abolitionist Lewis Tappan vehemently opposed it. The latter won, and the women were forced to watch from the gallery.

Half a century later, women faced similar discrimination when the first modern Olympic Games were held in Athens in April 1896. Pierre de Coubertin, the founder of the International Olympic Committee, refused to include women. It would be “impractical, uninteresting, unaesthetic and incorrect,” he claimed. Four years later, when the summer games were held in Paris, the Olympic committee ignored his objections, and 22 women were allowed to compete alongside the 997 male athletes (although only in five sports: sailing, equestrian, tennis, croquet and golf). At the 2012 London games, some 44% of the athletes were women.

One notable irony relates to the U.S. civil rights movement. The only woman listed as an official speaker on the program for the famous 1963 March on Washington was Myrlie Evers, widow of the murdered Medgar Evers ; she got stuck in traffic. Leading female activists—including Rosa Parks —were not allowed to accompany the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. down Constitution Avenue but were sidelined to walk alongside the wives of male activists. After the women protested, organizers added a short tribute to their work. No women were among the delegation that met with President John F. Kennedy.

But in the long run, these slights only deepened women’s determination. Furious over their exclusion from the 1840 conference against slavery, the activists Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott went on to hold the Women’s Rights Convention at Seneca Falls, N.Y., in 1848, marking the start of a 72-year fight for women’s suffrage in the U.S. Similarly, frustration among women’s rights activists in the early 1960s led to the rise of second-wave feminism, from the founding of the National Organization of Women in 1966 to the passage of Title IX and Title X in the 1970s to guarantee educational and employment equality.

Davos Man still rules today, but history is against him. One day, he will be joined by Davos Woman—and she will, we hope, be as unlike him as possible.

Kerry Brown writes:  In the late 1990s, former President Jiang Zemin liked to talk of China entering a two-decade era of “strategic opportunity” — a period when China could become a middle income country while continuing the Deng-ist strategy of building up its capacity and strengthening its economy during the era of American hegemony. During this period, China would be low profile, largely free of global leadership responsibilities, and able to plead its status as a poor, developing power focused on solving its own problems as a reason to sidestep heavy diplomatic duties beyond its borders.

WIlliam Boot writes: The Asean goal of creating a single business market among the regional grouping’s 10 member countries is unlikely to happen for some years and certainly not by the target start date of the end of this year.

Burma is one of several countries in the bloc that lacks sufficient infrastructure to benefit from the planned beginning of the Asean Economic Community (AEC), they say.

And the dream of a single, joined-up market with unrestricted movement of labor—similar to the European Union—will be dogged by national self-interest for years to come, it is predicted.

Burma, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam will be slower to achieve their targets for trade liberalization than the other more affluent members, said the Wharton business school at the University of Pennsylvania in an assessment on the AEC this month.

The other six Asean members are Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand.

Meanwhile, the AEC countries are already facing their first and unexpected economic hurdle, Wharton said: sharply falling crude oil prices.

Most Asean countries will be unable to comply with AEC objectives for more relaxed rules on foreign ownership and freer movement of workers by the end of this year due to domestic political constraints, international law firm Allen & Overy said in its latest quarterly report on business.

One of Burma’s leading businessmen, Serge Pun, spoke on the AEC at the annual World Economic Forum in Davos.  Protectionist impulses were strong in government and business, but there now seemed to be a determined effort to make the AEC work, he said.

The disparity in development between the 10 member states could be an advantage to an emerging economy such as Burma, which “would welcome the unskilled jobs that more developed Asean members are shedding,” Serge Pun said.

Thailand’s deputy prime minister, Pridiyathorn Devakula, defied the general opinion at Davos: “Some in the audience may not believe it, but believe me, we will have a single market by the end of the year,” he said.

Murray Hiebert, the deputy director of the Sumitro chair for Southeast Asia studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, told the Wharton study that the liberalization of financial services and freer movement of capital and labor would be slow to develop.

“Some Asean countries are anxious about opening up financial services and capital markets out of fear of financial contagion and exchange rate volatility, even though integration would provide opportunities for risk-sharing,” Hiebert said.

A more unified market will eventually lead to a more organized industrial division of labor, some analysts believe. Not all member countries could afford to develop or sustain a car-building industry, for example.

At present Thailand is “Asean’s Detroit.” But Indonesia is fast catching up in production volume, which leaves little room for emerging players such as Burma to attract major investment in vehicle construction.

Commercial nationalism looks likely to impede full open markets for some time.

Burma poses two potential problems for the AEC.  Uncertainty following parliamentary elections later this year, and the prospect of more violence between majority Buddhists and the country’s minority Muslim Rohingya population.

In the longer term, the AEC is likely to bring greater cohesion between the member states, but this is likely to be a long and arduous process.

What Asean needs more than anything is a powerful supranational body, something akin to the Commission in the European Union, which could compel its disparate and self-interested members to comply with their promises.

William Pesek writes:  Raghuram Rajan’s recent surprise rate cut in India was what central bankers call an “insurance move.” In a highly uncertain and deflationary world, the Reserve Bank of India governor decided he’d rather risk higher inflation in hopes of boosting growth. More quietly, Rajan is hoarding dollars.

On Friday, the day before Barack Obama flew to New Delhi,  the RBI announced that India’s foreign-exchange reserves had risen to a record $322 billion. While the news couldn’t compete with the Modi-Obama hug at the airport, a nuclear deal and talk of cooperation on climate change, that swelling stash greatly increases the odds that Modi’s reform program will succeed.

By slashing the benchmark rate to 7.75 percent from 8 percent, the RBI governor made clear the central bank was ready to guard India’s economy against a fast-mounting number of risks around globe. Equally important was the “vote of confidence” the decision signaled about Modi’s government.

Now Rajan’s stockpiling of currencies should help catalyze change in New Delhi. As recently as September 2013, when Rajan started at the RBI, India was spiraling toward crisis. An economy once celebrated as one of the superpowers of the future — Brazil, Russia, India and China, or the BRICs — was being grouped among the world’s most “fragile” nations. Hedge funds bet India would be the first of the BRICs to be downgraded to junk.

Rajan moved fast to halt a run on the rupee, shore up the banking system and cap inflation. Rajan has stockpiled about $59 billion of reserves since taking charge at the RBI, or an average of $4 billion per month. While India’s reserves are still a fraction of China’s $3.8 trillion, they’re substantial enough now to “create a stronger firewall against external account shocks and build greater international confidence,” says Rajiv Biswas of IHS Global Insight.

India represents something of an outlier in the region. While Asian peers devalue to boost exports, Rajan has clearly decided that a stable, strong rupee is the key to cementing trust in India’s economy, which still suffers from a sizable current-account deficit and relies on short-term capital flows. A firm currency should attract overseas capital to support equities, upgrade infrastructure and pay down government debt.

In July, the prime minister’s first budget avoided “big bang” reforms like allowing foreigners to hold majority stakes in key sectors like insurance and defense. His government sidetracked a World Trade Organization deal to cut tariffs. And while he harnessed the plunge in oil prices to trim subsidies, Modi has been slow to dismantle budget-busting support programs.

Modi enters the budget process with a rare economic tailwind. By stabilizing the financial system and shoring ups its defenses, Rajan has given Modi considerably more latitude not only to restructure the economy, but to take risks like selling state assets and welcoming more foreign involvement in the economy. Once India reforms and moves beyond the boom-bust cycles of the past, it should be able to turn around and use its reserves to invest in education and healthcare as well as roads, bridges, ports and the power grid.

All Rajan has done, though, is prepare the ground. The onus still lies on Modi to push forward the politically difficult reforms he’s avoided thus far. He’s now got 322 billion good reasons to do so.