Lawmaking and institution building in Asian insolvency reforms: between global norms and national circumstances

It is now a truism to affirm that in all lawmaking a gap opens up between law on the books and law in action. This gap is a central focus of research for empirical socio-legal scholars of law worldwide.2 It is also increasingly recognised by law and finance scholars who assert that law inherently is “incomplete,” that its effectiveness relies heavily on the institutions of implementation.3 It is precisely this gap that has led the EBRD, in its surveys of Central and Eastern Europe, to measure separately the enactment and implementation (or effectiveness) of insolvency.4 Effectiveness in implementation becomes the ultimate criterion for appraisal of legal change and law reform.