Comment on “Association of Southeast Asian Nations Economic Integration: Developments and Challenges”

• Published date: 01 June 2011
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-3131.2011.01179.x
• Date: 01 June 2011
• Author: Hal HILL

Comment on “Association of Southeast

Asian Nations Economic Integration:

Developments and Challenges”

Hal HILL†

The Australian National University

JEL codes: F1, F4, F5

Chia (2011) provides a comprehensive yet succinct overview of the region’s economies,

emphasizing their diversity and the many challenges they face. She examines regional

trade and investment patterns, noting the growth in trade and investment, and also the

fact that extraregional sources still dominate. Then sections 3 and 4,the major par ts of the

paper, investigate the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) economic inte-

gration, from the early, halting steps in the 1970s through to the ASEAN Economic

Community (AEC) announced in 2003.aepr_117964..65

I write as an admirer of ASEAN, the most effective, durable, and influential regional

association in the developing world. One only has to compare the state of contemporary

Southeast Asia with that in the 1960s to appreciate the Association’s achievements. It is

obvious therefore that, as Chia emphasizes, ASEAN is about much more than economics

and that any evaluation of the challenges of economic cooperation needs to be cognizant

of this fact.

The major policy reforms in the ASEAN economies have, appropriately, always been

unilateral in nature. These include the sweeping liberalizations in Indonesia in the 1980s,

in the Philippines in the 1990s, and in the three Mekong economies over the past two

decades. As Chia stresses, the AEC is the most important recent initiative. The key issue

here is whether it should be regarded as one of the several ASEAN“vision statements” over

the decades, or whether it is likely to producereal action. Since it is now several years since

the announcement, it would be useful to have more information on the practicalities of

implementation, admittedly while recognizing that the global financial crisis has dis-

tracted policymakers since late 2008. For example, the conclusion that the“single market

and production base” has been 82% achieved needs tob e juxtaposedagainst the fact that

trade and investment liberalization in the ASEAN middle-income developing countries

has slowed appreciably in recent years. Moreover, are Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand

on track to meet their ASEAN trade-in-goods agreement (ATIGA) commitments to

eliminate their nontariff barriers (NTBs) by 2010, and the Philippines by 2012? In fact,

perhaps the author might like to invoke the“reform fatigue” evident in these countries as

a justification for ASEAN agreements being helpful in empowering technocrats in difficult

political environments at home.

†Correspondence: Hal Hill, Arndt CordenDepar tment of Economics,Crawford School, College of

Asia and the Pacific, Australian National University, Canberra, 0200, Australia. Email: hal.hill@

anu.edu.au

doi: 10.1111/j.1748-3131.2011.01179.x Asian Economic Policy Review (2011) 6, 64–65

© 2011 The Author

Asian Economic Policy Review © 2011 Japan Center for Economic Research

64