Efforts to Improve the Creative Economy During the Covid-19 Pandemic in Asean Countries

Increasing the creative economy during the pandemic is very urgent, as an effort to stabilize the economy in ASEAN. The character of the creative economy is characterized by economic activities that are based on the exploration and exploitation of creative ideas that have high selling value. All tourism ministers from ASEAN countries to strengthen tourism cooperation, one of the economic sectors hardest hit in the pandemic. Intelligent marketing is needed in order to know the strengths of our competitors and market tastes, because in the era of globalization, war is actually a war in the economic field and the creative economy is the main weapon. Strong cooperation in efforts to jointly handle the impact of COVID-19 in the tourism sector in the ASEAN region. All ASEAN members to jointly enhance cooperation not only in dealing with pandemic problems but also in terms of developing the creative economy.

A Comparative Study of Administrative Practices of Public and Private Sector Universities of Pakistan

Administration is the backbone of any institute, which not only utilizes the human and material resources in the best possible way but also gives direction for the achievement of its goals and objectives. This study aimed to compare the administrative practices of public and private sector universities of Pakistan. The administrative practices consisted of amendments in university statutes; university governing bodies; its members selection; tenure; meetings; decision making practice; and implementation of decisions; recruitment/selection/appointment and promotion of official and faculty; provision of facilities to faculty; administrative, financial and academic matters; establishment of new departments; allocation of funds; university timings suitability; scholarships; evaluation of the employees; Procedure for overcoming irregularities; university management; dealing of university with community, HEC; Government, and other universities; HEC influence in university affairs; students admission; affiliation to colleges; and the like. The population of the study consisted of all administrators and academicians in the universities of Punjab and KPK provinces of Pakistan. Eight universities, four each from Punjab and Khyber Pakhtoon-khwa (two public and two private of each provinces) were randomly selected as sample of the study. Questionnaire for Administrative Practices (QAP), consisted of 32 domains, was utilized for data elicitation. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was used to measure the reliability of QAP, resulting in 0.963. Data was analyzed through the utilization of Mean score and t-test. Significant difference was observed between public and private sector universities regarding the administrative practices i.e. amendments in the statutes; universities bodies tenure; the provision of facilities to staff; officials attitude for handling of ixacademic matters; official’s way of supervising their subordinates; student admission; university timings suitability; process of college affiliation; evaluation of employees; procedure for overcoming irregularities; meeting with authorities; university management. While insignificance difference was found for universities bodies members selection; student representation in university bodies; their meetings; decision making; decision implementation; official appointment; staff promotion; administrative and financial matters; relations with community; HEC; Government and other universities; HEC influence in administration and other matters; scholarships; fund allocation; process to visit authorities and establishment of new departments. Significant difference was found between the opinions of academicians of public and private sector universities in terms of amendments in statutes; bodies decision making; staff selection; financial matters; academic matters; HEC influence in administration; student admission; university timings; meeting with authorities, and university management. Significant difference was observed between the opinions of administrators of public and private sector universities in terms of universities bodies’ tenure; bodies’ decision implementation; provision of facilities to staff; administrative matters; academic matters; official supervision; relations with other universities; HEC influence; fund allocation; university timings; College affiliation; procedure for overcoming irregularities; and university management. It was concluded from the findings that both public and private sectors are performing numerous practices in different ways and means. The university stakeholders’ administrators and academicians have lack of coordination. xIt is recommended that the coordination body HEC may arrange workshops, seminars for both public and private sectors universities. In the universities a body may be established which strives for the coordination between administrators and academicians.