-
42. The ASEAN Model of Regional Co-operation
- ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute
- Chapter
- Additional Information
The ASEAN Model of Regional Co-operation 189 By: ROS Size: 7.5" x 10.25" J/No: 03-14474 Fonts: New Baskerville 42. THE ASEAN MODEL OF REGIONAL CO-OPERATION JOHN WONG Reprinted in abridged form from John Wong, “The ASEAN Model of Regional Cooperation”, in Lessons in Development: A Comparative Study of Asia and Latin America, edited by S. Naya, M. Urrutia, S. Mark and A. Fuentes (San Francisco: International Center for Economic Growth, 1989), pp. 121–41, by permission of the author. More than a decade after the Bali Summit, ASEAN’s achievements in the major area of regional economic cooperation have been uneven and modest. Its trade liberalization program, which lacks sufficient breadth and depth, is still ineffective in terms of restructuring ASEAN’s trade pattern and shifting it toward a greater regional focus, even though some nineteen thousand commodity items are now on the official list of tariff preferences. Results of industrial cooperation as embodied in the AIP and AIC programs are even more disappointing , and only a number of small joint ventures under the AIJV scheme are actually moving ahead. Is the lack of conspicuous success in ASEAN’s economic cooperation endeavors tantamount to a failure for ASEAN itself, as in the case of other ill-fated Third World regional groupings? A proper evaluation of ASEAN’s progress toward regional cooperation must be made by placing it in the context of the historical circumstances under which ASEAN has evolved — that is, the geopolitical forces that have shaped it and the chronic problems that are inherent in the economic structures of the member countries. It is also not appropriate to pass judgment on ASEAN’s present pace of progress without taking into account its own stated time frame. The ASEAN leaders have all along stressed that economic cooperation is to be realized as a long-term goal, and fluctuation of events in the short run is considered irrelevant to these long-term objectives. As long as the ASEAN institutional apparatus is kept in existence, the option of cooperation is open and the process continues. In any case, it does not cost much to maintain the ASEAN machinery; the ASEAN Secretariat in Jakarta is inexpensive to run compared to many huge international bureaucracies. Hence there is quite a favorable cost-benefit ratio for ASEAN members. 042a AR Ch 42 22/9/03, 12:47 PM 189 190 John Wong By: ROS Size: 7.5" x 10.25" J/No: 03-14474 Fonts: New Baskerville Furthermore, ASEAN is already reaping remarkable benefits from its extraregional cooperation activities. Over the years it has been successful in developing a unified perception of the many regional and international economic issues, such as protectionism , that affect it as a group. ASEAN has also developed a framework for regular dialogues with Australia and New Zealand, Canada, the EC, Japan, and the United States in order to improve bilateral relations . In this way, it has learned to yield some considerable external leverage in order to secure a better deal for its common interests. Gains from external cooperation can serve to increase ASEAN’s internal cohesiveness. They can also provide the needed incentive for the group to maintain its operational momentum despite sluggish progress and even despite setbacks in its intraregional cooperation programs. Ultimately, the effectiveness of ASEAN as a regional economic grouping will depend on breakthroughs in its formal areas of cooperation covering the trade and industry sectors. It is here that ASEAN’s past experiences in economic cooperation will be instructive both for ASEAN itself and for other regional groupings among developing countries. It is not possible in this context to go into all the major causes and circumstances that have led to the underperformance of ASEAN’s economic cooperation programs. Many of the underlying causes are well known and have been extensively discussed by ASEAN scholars and officials elsewhere. Here, ASEAN’s past problems in economic cooperation will be examined in terms of two “gaps”: one expectation, the other implementation. The expectation gap. The underperformance of ASEAN’s existing programs can be attributed to the existence of what may be called an expectation gap. Because of structural and policy obstacles, there has been a difference between what the existing economic cooperation programs were expected to achieve and what was actually attainable. Both the trade liberalization and the industrial cooperation programs were established to build some measure of regional economic integration. Yet neither has made much progress even though both may be...