ASEAN Introspection : Analyzing ASEAN’s Social Dimension using the Fair Globalization Framework

(1)

August 2015

ASEAN

Introspection:

Analyzing ASEAN’s Social Dimension using the Fair Globalization Framework

Rowena Ricalde

UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM

MASTERS IN EUROPEAN AND INTERNATIONAL LABOUR LAW 10733760

(2)

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

In the journey towards knowledge, it is difficult to fathom how one’s path leads to interesting consequences. I was blessed to have been given the privilege to study as much as I can by my supportive parents – Pelagio and Julliana (+) and husband - Moises. From my Juris Doctor degree in the Philippines to my LLM here in the Netherlands, each step of the way has been an opportunity to expand my horizons and perspective in life.

Mateo, our first son, was born amidst my studies for my LLM. I was also given work opportunities at Oxfam Novib and Child Helpline International (CHI) during my LLM. Without the support and understanding of my professors, classmates and friends, this leg of my journey would not be complete.

To all my classmates from February to December 2015 who hail from different corners of the globe, I thank you. To Matias and Valerie, my very good friends and reliable partners - in-crime (group mates in all of my courses), I thank you. And, to my thesis adviser and course supervisor, Prof. Beryl ter Haar, I thank you.

But, alas, this leg of my journey has to end. And, I must say good bye and thank you, University of Amsterdam, for being the vehicle for this quest.

(3)

I. INTRODUCTION

In the global context, regional development has been the trend in the last decade in terms of gaining ground economically. Fierce and stiff competition from developed countries has forced nations with less developed economic framework to band together in order to present a stronger and more united front. One of the most notable regional developments is the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).

This year 2015, ASEAN is beginning its journey to a free regional labor market. As ASEAN is now taking its baby steps to achieve this goal, it has to take into account the social dimension of globalization. The International Labor Organization (ILO) has published its report dubbed Fair Globalization, Creating Opportunities for all. 1 It was written by the World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalization which emphasized on the following:

 A focus on people.

 A democratic and effective State.

 Sustainable development.

 Productive and equitable markets.

 Fair rules.

 Globalization with solidarity.

 Greater accountability to people.

 Deeper partnerships.

 An effective United Nations.

Thus, in this paper, I would use this as my framework, to be henceforth referred to as the “Fair Globalization Framework,” to analyze ASEAN and answer the research question “Is ASEAN developing a robust social dimension in their regional integration?” However, because the factors in the Fair Globalization Framework are numerous, in this paper, I am focusing only on three factors, namely (i) A Focus on People; (ii) Fair Rules; and (iii) Deeper Partnerships.

1

(5)

A Focus on People takes into account respect for the core labor standards, decent work and gender equality. In delving into A Focus on People, I am answering the subquestion “How is ASEAN integrating the core labor standards, decent work and gender quality in its framework in order to achieve the factor – A Focus on People?”

The Fair Rules factor should discuss the framework that encapsulates rules on cross-border movement of people. Thus, in analyzing Fair Rules, I am answering the subquestion “What is the ASEAN legal framework or the Fair Rules that encapsulates the rules on cross-border movement of people?”

In Deeper Partnerships, the main points would revolve around engagement of governments, civil society organizations, employers and employees associations in achieving the regional economic and social goals. Therefore, the subquestion to be answered in this portion would be “Is ASEAN engaging in Deeper Partnerships with governments, civil society organizations, employers and employee associations in order to achieve Fair Globalization?”

II. THE FAIR GLOBALIZATION FRAMEWORK

Globalization is the main driver for states to band together and combine their machineries for a more efficient and effective running of their economy. The heavy dependence on trade and investment for the survival of a nation is apparent in all countries most especially in the last century. Instead of ravaging neighboring countries through war and plunder, states, through treaties, immortalize their agreements on how they could share resources together. These systems of agreements among neighboring states are manifestations of regional integration.

But, in this tumultuous road to a successful economic setup, often the laggard companion to this pursuit is the development of the social dimension of globalization. The asymmetric approaches in regional integration have allowed inadequate rules and policies that forget to protect the best interests of the working people as the core labor standards are not emphasized and strengthened.

(6)

Thus, in 2004, the International Labor Organization (ILO) produced a report called Fair Globalization, Creating Opportunities for all. It was written by the World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalization which emphasized on the following:2

 A focus on people. The cornerstone of a fairer globalization lies in meeting the demands of all people for: respect for their rights, cultural identity and autonomy; decent work; and the empowerment of the local communities they live in. Gender equality is essential.

 A democratic and effective State. The State must have the capability to manage integration into the global economy, and provide social and economic opportunity and security.

 Sustainable development. The quest for a fair globalization must be underpinned by the interdependent and mutually reinforcing pillars of economic development, social development and environmental protection at the local, national, regional and global levels.

 Productive and equitable markets. This requires sound institutions to promote opportunity and enterprise in a well-functioning market economy.

 Fair rules. The rules of the global economy must offer equitable opportunity and access for all countries and recognize the diversity in national capacities and developmental needs.

 Globalization with solidarity. There is a shared responsibility to assist countries and people excluded from or disadvantaged by globalization. Globalization must help to overcome inequality both within and between countries and contribute to the elimination of poverty.

 Greater accountability to people. Public and private actors at all levels with power to influence the outcomes of globalization must be democratically accountable for the policies they pursue and the actions they take. They must deliver on their commitments and use their power with respect for others.

 Deeper partnerships. Many actors are engaged in the realization of global social and economic goals – international organizations, governments and parliaments, business, labour, civil society and many others. Dialogue and partnership among them is an essential democratic instrument to create a better world.

(7)

 An effective United Nations. A stronger and more efficient multilateral system is the key instrument to create a democratic, legitimate and coherent framework for globalization.

With regard to labor law and the points the World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalization raised, these main points stood out that can easily help dissect the labor law aspect of ASEAN:

 A focus on people.

 Fair rules.

 Deeper partnerships.

III. A FOCUS ON PEOPLE

Numbers and money talk when paving the way towards success in globalization. Hence, this is precisely the reason for putting the bull’s eye on people and what benefits they can get from globalization when discussing the Fair Globalization Framework.

When focusing on people, whether becoming people-centered or people-oriented, often times we talk about universally shared values, respect for human rights and individual dignity, inclusive and democratically-governed. Maximum priority to policies on decent work and gender equality must be given. Competitiveness must integrate informal economies into the mainstream. Policies must also consider people’s needs at their place of residence and work. Thus, in this factor – A Focus on People, I shall delve more particularly on three things: (i) the Core Labor Standards; (ii) Decent Work; and (iii) Gender Equality.

A. Core Labor Standards

The Core Labor Standards are (i) the freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining; (ii) the elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labor; (iii) the effective abolition of child labor; and (iv) the elimination of discrimination in respect of

(8)

employment and occupation. These Core Labor Standards are embodied in the 1998 ILO Declaration on the Fundamental Rights and Principles and the eight ILO Conventions. The ASEAN member states have ratified the Core Labor Standards as follows:

TABLE 1: RATIFICATIONS OF CORE LABOR STANDARDS (ILOCONVENTIONS) BY COUNTRY3

Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining Elimination of Forced and Compulsory Labor Elimination of Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation Abolition of Child Labor # 87 # 98 # 29 # 105 # 100 # 111 # 138 # 182 Brunei x x x x x x 2011 2008 Cambodia 1999 1999 1969 1999 1999 1999 1999 2006 Indonesia 1998 1957 1950 1999 1958 1999 1999 2000 Lao PDR x x 1964 x 2008 2008 2005 2005 Malaysia x 1961 1957 1958 1997 x 1997 2000 Myanmar 1955 x 1955 x x x x 2014 Philippines 1953 1953 2005 1960 1953 1960 1998 2000 Singapore x 1965 1965 1965 2002 x 2005 2001 Thailand x x 1969 1969 1999 x 2004 2001 Vietnam x x 2007 x 1997 1997 2003 2000

Notably, only three ASEAN member states – Cambodia, Indonesia and the Philippines, have ratified all eight ILO Conventions. The ASEAN member states that have the least ratifications are Brunei and Myanmar with two and three ratifications respectively.

In a way, the ASEAN member states’ ratifications already give us a bird’s eye view of how the collective ASEAN views the Core Labor Standards. Indeed, the ten ASEAN member states do place different priorities in each of the four Core Labor Standards. Incidentally, when states ratify ILO Conventions, it opens the country to the mechanisms of external inspection, review, pressures and determinations. In this regard, these mechanisms may be considered an

3

(9)

impetus for the individual member states to change any laws or perceptions they may have – which can also trickle down to how they vote and decide in ASEAN.

However, these ratifications do not necessarily signify compliance with the essenc e of the Core Labor Standards. The ILO Conventions ratification behavior is a symbolic act as countries are most likely to ratify standards that they have already attained.4.

B. Decent Work

The ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) Blueprint has divided its thrusts into three pillars namely – (i) Political-Security; (ii) Economic and (iii) Socio-Cultural. In the three pillars thus mentioned, below is the table itemizing the labor-related issues included in the AEC Blueprint as mentioned in each of the pillars:

TABLE 2:ASEAN COMMUNITY PILLARS AND LABOR ISSUES5

ASEAN Community Pillar Labor-Related Issues Included in the ASEAN Communit y Blueprints

Political-Security  Strengthening criminal justice responses to trafficking in persons

 Protecting victims of trafficking

Economic  Issuing visas and employment passes of business

persons and skilled labor

 Working toward the recognition of professional qualifications

 Negotiating and implementing mutual recognition arrangements

 Strengthening human resource development and capacity building by:

o Developing core competencies and

qualifications in priority areas

4

Flanagan. Lab or Standards and International Advantage. 2003.

5

(10)

o Promoting effective national labor market programs in member states

Socio-Cultural  Facilitating investment in human resource development (with a focus on improving entrepreneurial skills)

 Promoting the application of labor standards and decent work regulations

 Promoting the introduction of comprehensive domestic welfare systems (including mechanisms against the negative effects of globalization)

 Protecting and promoting the rights of migrant workers

Decent work is mentioned in the Socio-Cultural Pillar of the AEC Blueprint. However, as emphasized in the Fair Globalization Framework, decent work must be included not only in one dimension of a policy, but must be considered in all through a broader range of cohesive economic and social policies.

For example, when formulating policies that promote decent work, international organizations and other actors concerned must recognize its importance and they must be involved in the development of the proposed policies. The issues on decent work must be linked back to the domestic economy and the enterprises that move up the global value chain. The key elements of decent work are conditions of work, social security, safety and social dialogue in addition to the Core Labor Standards and gender equality which will be discussed in the next part.6

Decent work is manifested in ASEAN through (i) the Cebu Declaration on Migrant Workers; and (ii) ASEAN Declaration on Social Protection.

The Cebu Declaration on Migrant Workers calls on source and destination countries to “Promote decent, humane, productive, dignified and remunerative employment for migrant workers” in accordance with national laws. It is important to address the ”legitimate concerns” of

6

(11)

receiving countries and address issues that have hampered the implementation of this ASEAN Declaration while aligning national policies with its principles.

The 2013 ASEAN Declaration on Social Protection reaffirms the ASEAN member states’ commitment to build an ASEAN community that is socially responsible and people oriented by, notably, fostering national social protection floors in the region and recognizing the rights of migrant workers and other vulnerable groups to “equitable access to social protection that is a basic human right and based on a rights-based/needs-based, lifecycle approach.”

But, with these two broad-stroked documents, a major lapse in the ASEAN social dimension arena is the non-recognition of low and unskilled labor in official documents and in regional actions. Migration is currently defined only with that of skilled and professional talents – meaning, ASEAN only recognizes legal and regular-status migration. Undocumented migration, which heavily persists in the region, is left in the dark in terms of policies and discussion. Even worse is that undocumented migration is recognized as trafficking of persons which is under the Political-Security pillar in the AEC Blueprint.

If the migration issue is not wholly addressed – skilled/unskilled, documented/undocumented, the decent work protection in this ASEAN regional integration will remain incomplete.7

C. Gender Equality

According to the Fair Globalization Framework, women, in the age of globalization, have been greatly adversely affected throughout. An example of this is through the subsidies given to agricultural products and consumer goods that wiped out women producers. Women farmers are displaced from their lands as increasing competition from entry of foreign firms has eased them out. And, at the other side of the spectrum, women producers do face daunting barriers to entry into new economic activities generated by globalization. Affirmative actions through gender budgeting can offset this trend in globalization.8

7

Chavez, J. Social Policy in ASEAN: The Prospects for Integrating Migrant Lab our Rights and Protection . Global Social Policy. 2007.

8

(12)

Looking at ASEAN, the table below illustrates the baseline data on the participation of women in the workforce in the national context.

TABLE 3: LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATES (2012)9

Gender disparity remains a major issue in many ASEAN countries that needs to be tackled with policies to improve job opportunities and working conditions for women. Malaysia, the Philippines, Indonesia and Brunei Darussalam have the lowest women participation rates in ASEAN with just below or above 50 percent. Moreover, significant gender gaps in education, health, and formal employment opportunities, preventing women from fully realizing their potential — are still apparent in the ASEAN.10

In order to strengthen the ASEAN labor market, ASEAN needs to introduce structural reforms aimed at guaranteeing equal opportunity for women including adopting region-wide standards for eliminating discriminatory employment barriers. These include the introduction of maternity leave systems for males (paternity leave), the provision of effective childcare systems, as well

9

Asian Development Bank. Asian Economic Integration Monitor. 2013.

10

Asian Development Bank. Framework of Inclusive Growth Indicators: Key Indicators for Asia and the Pacific, Special Supplement. 2013. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Female Male Total

(13)

as proactive measures to promote career and managerial development of women.11 Even the AEC Blueprint and the three pillars do not mention gender as one of their labor-related issues that ASEAN needs to focus on.

Another phenomenon in ASEAN is that women are often shunted aside into less productive work than men’s. In many cases they are restricted to marginal work with low job security - called as “vulnerable” work.12 Female workers are also disproportionally affected by economic crises, especially those that impact agriculture. Within the formal sector, the share of female corporate board members — or executive members — in ASEAN countries remains a small fraction of that in the US or Europe.13 Reforms are urgently needed in ASEAN countries to improve female working conditions.

Female migration in ASEAN is dominated by domestic work so it is important that governments ratify the ILO’s Domestic Workers Convention, 2011 (No. 189), and extend the necessary rights and protections. It is also important to enforce labor laws based on principles of equal treatment of migrant workers. This would help reduce labor market segmentation and minimize dependence on cheap foreign workers, while creating a level playing field for enterprises.

D. Conclusion for A Focus on People

In the factor – A Focus on People, the Fair Globalization Framework focused on three topics, to wit: (i) Core Labor Standards; (ii) Decent Work; and (iii) Gender Equality.

For the Core Labor Standards and the respective ratifications of the ASEAN member states to these ILO Conventions, it remains unclear if the Core Labor Standards do play a key role in the ASEAN regional integration and if they are addressed regionally. Only three ASEAN member states have ratified all the eight ILO Conventions with the Core Labor Standards. And it seems no movement/mention from any ASEAN regional integration document that encourages/compels the ratification of all these eight ILO Conventions is apparent. Therefore, it

11

Asian Development Bank and International Labour Organization. Women and Lab our Markets in Asia: Reb alancing for Gender Equality. 2011.

12

Asian Development Bank and International Labour Organization. Women and Lab our Markets in Asia: Reb alancing for Gender Equality. 2011.

13

McKinsey & Company. Women Matter: An Asian Perspective—Harnessing Female Talent to Raise Corporate Performance. 2012.

(14)

is concluded that the core labor standards and following such standards may be left to the device of each member state and will not be addressed regionally.

For Decent Work, the AEC Blueprint clearly mentions and prioritizes decent work in its agenda. However, when it was left to actually apply and implement the policies on decent work, it was not cohesively and comprehensively addressed. A clear example of this lapse is with the policy on migration. Migration was dichotomized into documented and undocumented migration wherein different sets of decent work policies applied. The documented migration policy is recognized under the Socio-Cultural pillar, while the undocumented policy is classified as trafficking under the Political-Security pillar.

For Gender Equality, no ASEAN document has mentioned how to address gender equality in the regional integration. It has been a topic that remained unattended and in which ASEAN has no clear guidelines on affirmative actions in the informal and formal sectors are seen and set in the near future. Even the member states themselves have poor track records on the female participation in the labor force. Incidentally, female migration in ASEAN is deeply rooted in the phenomenon of domestic work. Hence, ratification of the ILO Convention on Domestic Work remains an imperative step for the ASEAN member states if they want to move towards gender equality.

In summation, in answering the subquestion “How is ASEAN integrating the core labor standards, decent work and gender quality in its framework in order to achieve the factor – A Focus on People,” ASEAN has not fared well in delivering the needed regional impetus for the Core Labor Standards, Decent Work and Gender Equality. In all three topics, there are no clear policies to move forward as a region in this regard.

IV. FAIR RULES

The second factor in the Fair Globalization Framework is Fair Rules. The policies on trade and capital flows need to be complemented by fair rules for the cross-border movement of people. International migratory pressures have increased and problems such as trafficking in people and the exploitation of migrant workers have intensified.

(15)

Steps have to be taken to build a multilateral framework that provides uniform and transparent rules for the cross-border movement of people and balances the interests of both migrants themselves and of countries of origin and destination. All countries stand to benefit from an orderly and managed process of international migration that can enhance global productivity and eliminate exploitative practices.14

A. The ASEAN Way

ASEAN has proven over time quite effective in affirming itself as a family of nations sharing common values, based on consensus, openness, and pragmatism through the adoption of informal, nonbinding rules among its members and external partners. And despite the very limited power delegated to common institutions, this ASEAN Way has created a unique model, allowing internal flexibility through a multi-track, multi-speed approach used to implement its members’ regional commitments — a variable geometry that underscores the group’s large diversity in economic, political, and social development.15

Several scholars see the ASEAN Way as absolutely critical to ensure long-term resilience and sustainability. Principles of non-interference in domestic affairs, respect of national sovereignty, discreteness, and informality have often been cited — together with the use of extensive consultations — as distinctive features in conducting a uniquely successful regional approach to multilateralism. The ASEAN Way is also seen as bolstering the tenets of peaceful, diplomatic resolution of conflict based on the renunciation of the threat or use of force.16

Other scholars, however, without denying the importance of following the ASEAN Way, have also stressed the urgency to update some of its principles in order to improve the group’s efficiency and effectiveness.17 Needed reforms are identified in consensus decision-making,

14_{International Labour Office. “A Fair Globalization: Creating Opportunities for All.” 2004.} 15

Asian Development Bank. Emerging Asian Regionalism: A Partnership for Shared Prosperity. 2008.

16

Acharya, A. ASEAN 2030: Challenges of Building a Mature Political and Security Community.2012; Caballero-Anthony, M. Understanding ASEAN Centrality. 2012.

17

Soesastro, H. Regional Integration in East Asia: Achievements and Future Prospects. Asian Economic Policy Review 1(2): 215–234. 2006;

Capannelli, G. Shaping Asia’s Institutional Architecture for Economic and Financial Integration: Opinion Leaders’ Views. International Economic Journal 25(4). 593–616. 2011.

(16)

equality in financial contributions, and the absence of sanctions against member countries that do not adhere to commitments.

B. ASEAN Current Framework

Through the ASEAN Way, as discussed previously, the ASEAN regional integration has been characterized by its history of agreements and milestones, to wit:

TABLE 4: ASEAN ECONOMIC COOPERATION IMPORTANT MILESTONES18

Year Milestone in ASEAN Economic Cooperation

1967 Formation of ASEAN

1977 ASEAN Preferential Trading Agreement 1992 ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA)

1995 ASEAN Framework Agreement on Services (AFAS)

1997 ASEAN Vision 2020

1998 ASEAN Investment Agreement (AIA) Hanoi Plan of Action (HPA)

2002 Initiative for ASEAN Integration (IAI)

2003 Bali Concord II

2004 Vientiane Action Programme

2007 ASEAN Economic Blueprint

2008 ASEAN Charter Entering into Force

2009 ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement (ATIGA)

ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement (ACIA)

Cha-am Hua Hin Declaration on the Roadmap for the ASEAN Community (2009-2015)

2010 Master Plan on ASEAN Connectivity

2011 Bali Concord III

Framework for Equitable Economic Development

2012 Phnom Penh Agenda

2013 Bandar Seri Begawan Declaration on the ASEAN Community Post-2015 Vision

18

(17)

2015 ASEAN Economic Blueprint Entering into Force

The creation of ASEAN has never been part of any “grand plan” for regionalism in Southeast Asia. And in the absence of a political objective to “unite” the region, ASEAN members never contemplated to substitute a large part of their national sovereignty with shared regional sovereignty — two major differences with the EU approach.19

Indeed, until a few years before ASEAN was founded, many member countries remained under colonial rule, struggling to unite various ethnic groups populating their territories. War in Indochina had just ended when the Cambodia-Laos-Myanmar-Vietnam (CLMV) countries became part of ASEAN. Under these circumstances, it is not surprising that in Southeast Asia, the political priority still remains to cement national identities over creating common regional structures and institutions.20

Despite being criticized for a lack of internal cohesion and binding rules, ASEAN has been able to assume a central position in Asia’s institutional architecture for cooperation. It plays a prominent role in Asia and global integration. By bringing large and small powers together, it serves as a catalyst for different interests within the region. Through regular ministerial meetings and its secretariat, it provides a unique platform for channeling efforts at expanding regionalism across Asia and the rest of the world. ASEAN’s pivotal role in the region can be easily mapped.21

The notion of ASEAN centrality has been reinforced by the decision to establish the ASEAN Community — structured on its political-security, economic, and socio-cultural pillars. The ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement and the ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement for example, were respectively introduced in 2010 and 2012 as part of the AEC with the aim to maintain the group’s centrality. Another fundamental step that strengthened ASEAN centrality was the adoption of the ASEAN Charter in 2007, which provided, among others, for the creation of the Committee of Permanent Representatives (CPR).22 The ASEAN Charter and CPR have indeed helped elevate ASEAN’s ambitions and reinforce its internal cohesion and identity,

19

Asian Development Bank. Institutions for Regional Integration: Toward an Asian Economic Community. 2010.

20

ASEAN, On Track to ASEAN Comm unity 2015: ASEAN Annual Report.2013.

21

ASEAN. Joint Ministerial Statement of the 7th ASEAN Finance Ministers’ Meeting. 2003.

22

ASEAN. ASEAN Economic Community Scorecard: Charting Progress toward Regional Economic Integration— Phase I (2008–2009) and Phase II (2010– 2011). 2012.

(18)

pushing at the same time for a structural revision of some of the group’s basic governance principles.23

ASEAN’s institutional setup has served the region well so far. Its limitations have, however, become evident as it was designed for a group focused on regional security and handling a limited scope of activities. As ASEAN’s mandate and operations have largely expanded over the years, its institutional framework and governing mechanisms need efficiency updates. They have become inadequate in keeping pace with internal and external developments.24

Consensus has been ASEAN’s basic principle for decision making. Although a track, multi-speed approach was often used in implementing agreements, decisions are typically made only when agreement is unanimously reached by all member countries. The principle of consensus decision-making is enshrined in Article 20 of the ASEAN Charter, which also cites the importance of consultations to inform decisions, deferring to the Leaders’ Summit to resolve cases when consensus cannot be reached.25

A system using a qualified majority for day-to-day operational decisions, while maintaining consensus for decisions on fundamental issues, was introduced by the Chiang Mai Initiative Multilateralization (CMIM), with percentage shares of financial contributions used as the basic criterion to decide voting powers for members. The CMIM also uses a two-track decision-making system, where consensus is required on fundamental issues — size of the pooled fund, membership, individual member contributions, and lending terms — while a qualified two-thirds majority is enough to decide on operational issues — such as lending details, renewals, and defaults, among others.26

TABLE 5: INSTITUTIONAL BODIES AND MINISTERIAL MEETINGS FORMING THE ASEAN COMMUNITY27

ASEAN Summit (established in 1976)

 Comprises the heads of state or government

 Supreme policy-making body

23

ASEAN. ASEAN Vision 2020. 1997

24

ASEAN. Initiative for ASEAN Integration (IAI) Strategic Framework and IAI Work Plan 2 (2009–2015). 2000.

25

ASEAN. Status Update of the Initiative for ASEAN Integration (IAI) Work Plan I (2002–2008).2002.

26

ASEAN Master Plan on ASEAN Connectivity. 2011.

27

ADB and ASEAN (Asian Development Bank and Association of Southeast Asian Nations). The Road to ASEAN Financial Integration. 2013.

(19)

ASEAN Secretariat (established in 1976)

 Comprises one Secretary-General, four Deputy-Secretaries-General

 Basic Functions: Ensure the effective implementation of projects and activities; coordinate ASEAN bodies efficiently; support the organization of ASEAN Summits

ASEAN Secretary-General (established in 1981)

ASEAN Chair Committee of Permanent

Representatives (CPR)

(established in 2009)

 Main Functions: Facilitate and monitor progress to implement

ASEAN Agreements

and decisions;

participate in internal and external meetings; serve as ASEAN CEO

 Main Functions: Host

Summits and

promotes ASEAN

overall agenda;

represent ASEAN with external partners; coordinate activities in case of crises.

 Main Functions: Support the work of

the ASEAN

Community Councils

and Sectoral

Ministerial Bodies; Liaise with the ASEAN Secretariat and the Secretary-General for activities’

implementation;

facilitate cooperation with external partners ASEAN National Secretariats

 Located in each member country’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (national focal point)

 Main Functions: Coordinate the implementation of ASEAN Decisions at the national level; support the national preparation of ASEAN meetings; promote ASEAN identity

Monitoring and feedback of member countries’ adherence to cooperation initiatives (such as trade and investment agreements) or commitments to temper potential damage caused by economic interdependence (such as transboundary pollution and human trafficking) is essential for ensuring the effectiveness and credibility of ASEAN as an institution. The group, however, still lacks a proper feedback mechanism, a way to track compliance of members’ agreements, and applying sanctions when commitments are not honored.

(20)

To be sure, the Eminent Persons Group (EPG) that helped draft the ASEAN Charter recommended the creation of a system to settle disputes and introduce sanctions against those who violate agreements and commitments made by member countries. The EPG Report suggested the possibility to “take measures to redress cases of serious breach of ASEAN’s objectives, major principles, and commitments to important agreements.” The report also advised that sanctions against member countries that do not comply with their commitments should also “include suspension of any of the rights and privileges of membership”.28

The ASEAN Charter, however, does not incorporate all EPG recommendations, failing to empower institutions — including the ASEAN Secretariat and the ASEAN Summit — with the possibility to apply sanctions against members that do not comply with their commitments. Therefore, much room remains for introducing reforms and institutional innovation that create a culture of compliance to commitments — to ensure the effective implementation of decisions, honor timelines, and apply the rule of law. Without sanctions, there are no real incentives apart from peer pressure for member countries to respect commitments. In addition, it will be extremely difficult for ASEAN to govern the new markets the AEC creates.

The ASEAN Secretariat monitors the AEC through a scorecard system. While the disclosure of scorecards among member countries is meant to exert peer pressure when performance falls short of commitments, the fact that the system relies on members’ voluntary declarations instead of independent external assessments reduces its reliability, as a natural implicit conflict of interest arises. Besides, the absence of sanctions for noncompliance also contributes to delays in implementing the AEC Blueprint.29

C. ASEAN Agreements

ASEAN Free Trade Agreements (AFTAs)

The ASEAN Free Trade Agreement ( AFTA) is one of the most successful functional initiatives so far introduced in Southeast Asia and the developing world. Launched in 1992 to increase members’ competitiveness, AFTA has done well in promoting trade liberalization,

28

ASEAN. Report of the Eminent Persons Group on the ASEAN Charter. 2006.

29

(21)

institutionalizing dialogue among members (despite the marked diversity in readiness to open up their systems), and ensuring adherence to reciprocal commitments. When introduced, AFTA was also seen, especially by its most advanced members, as an effective way to lock in domestic reforms through a regional agreement and accompanying detailed plan of action.

Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRAs)

In order to have a standardized approach in accepting migrant workers, initially professionals, a set of mutual recognition agreements (MRAs) on skills and qualifications were put in place. This would reduce irregular migration. At the onset, MRAs involve medium-skill occupations for which there is high potential demand, with a view to managing labor mobility in the longer term.

Towards this end, governments can complete the ASEAN Qualifications Reference Framework to strengthen and benchmark their national qualifications frameworks, while developing regional model competency standards in key sectors such as construction.

Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP):30

The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) is currently under negotiation among ASEAN+6 (China, Japan, Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Australia, India) members. This is another potentially crucial functional institution, which could consolidate efforts for liberalizing trade and investment Asia-wide. RCEP could eventually expand its current membership to include other Asian as well as non-Asian economies (such as the US or the EU). The RCEP initiative was announced by the ASEAN leaders in November 2011. Negotiations started in 2013 and are expected to conclude at the end of 2015. This will be a 16-party ASEAN-led free trade agreement with Australia, China, India, Japan, New Zealand, and Republic of Korea. The RCEP aims at greater economic integration by supporting equitable economic development and strengthening economic cooperation. It will cover trade in goods and services, investment, economic and technical cooperation, intellectual property, competition, dispute settlement and other issues. To help ensure a comprehensive and balanced outcome, the negotiations on trade in goods, trade in services, investment and other areas will be conducted in parallel. RCEP will create a free trade and investment area

30

(22)

comprising over three billion people, with a combined GDP of roughly $21 trillion and 27 per cent of total global trade.

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP):31

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was launched in 2010, this is a proposed trade agreement which is still under negotiation. It has 12 members – Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, United States, and Vietnam. The TPP intends to enhance trade and investment, promote innovation, economic growth and development, and support the creation and retention of jobs. Through the TPP, the United States is seeking a trade and investment framework that will boost competitiveness, expand trade and investment with the robust economies of Asia and the Pacific, and support the creation and retention of United States jobs, while promoting core United States principles on labor rights, environmental protection, and transparency.

D. Conclusion for the Fair Rules

ASEAN has a very unique approach to establishing Fair Rules as per the Fair Globalization Framework.

ASEAN is not a political union like the EU wherein a central authority sets not only monetary and fiscal policies but is also responsible to a central parliament with the sovereignty of a nation’s government. Nor is ASEAN a centralized model wherein the main goal is to harmonize the rules of the member states. ASEAN, because of its history is hesitant to surrender its authority to a single authority. Hence, a way of consensus decision-making has been established in ASEAN. All ten member states have to agree on a decision on a fundamental issue. This is called the ASEAN Way. And, as some of the topics aforementioned – Core Labor Standards, Decent Work and Gender Equality, as they are all fundamental issues, any decision on these points must be agreed upon by all ASEAN member states. In this regard, any implementation of a guideline for these fundamental issues, in essence, should be easier since agreements to abide by these rules are already unanimous.

31

ILO and ADB. 2014. ASEAN Community 2015: Managing Integration for better jobs and shared responsibility. Bangkok, Thailand.

(23)

ASEAN’s current framework consists of a series of agreements. As ASEAN member states did not surrender its sovereignty to any central ASEAN body, it also does not have a single legislative body in which the member states entrust them with legislative powers. Hence, ASEAN does not have a body of laws that summarize and contain their own policies.

Examples in which ASEAN agreements integrate the social dimension policies regionally are through the AFTA and MRA. These agreements already include some labor law policies on Core Labor Standards, Decent Work and Gender Equality as conditions before they can be made applicable to a member state. In the RCEP, ASEAN has represented the ten member states in the agreement with six third-party countries. ASEAN, in binding the ten member states, also has agreed on certain policies on decent work in the RCEP. Like in the RCEP, the TPP, which currently do not have all ASEAN member states as part of the agreement, would have labor law policies included in the conditions of the agreement.

Thus, in answering the subquestion “What is the ASEAN legal framework or the Fair Rules that encapsulates the rules on cross-border movement of people,” ASEAN does not have a clear set of governing rules that clearly delineate its social dimension policies on cross-border movement of people, ASEAN has fair rules sporadically enacted through its summit agreements, free trade agreements and mutually recognized agreements.

V. DEEPER PARTNERSHIPS

Creating an ASEAN Community in 2015 implies close coordination in advancing its three pillars — political-security, economic, socio-cultural — and in adopting institutional reforms and the innovation needed for ASEAN to build a mature and thriving community. By following an approach to cooperation that is inclusive and capable of resolving national and regional conflicts (and disputes), ASEAN can easily fit within global frameworks where there is much room to strengthen and rationalize ASEAN-centered bodies, whether business entities, civil society organizations, regional centers, or other agencies. The creation of new functional institutions can follow a regionally decentralized approach, where individual members decide to host institutions based on specific interests and availability of human and financial resources.

(24)

As ASEAN consolidates its achievements and strives toward more ambitious targets, it needs to reform and innovate its institutional framework in a way that will allow it to thrive — not just survive.

Over the years, new forms of diplomacy have been recognized in ASEAN. Complementing and engaging the official meetings (Track 1) are gatherings of public intellectuals, academics and other non-state actors (Track 2). Track 2 diplomacy recalls the “epistemic communities”32 that provide expert advice and inputs to official processes before concrete projects or policy recommendations are adopted. In ASEAN, the recognized Track 2 actors include the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Organization (AIPO), the ASEAN Institutes of Strategic and International Studies (ASEAN-ISIS), and the ASEAN University Network. Track 2 diplomacy is an opening in the otherwise highly centralized ASEAN governance structure, but is employed in the discussion of predominantly political and security issues. More recently, ASEAN recognized a different type of Track 2 process, one led by the business sector entailing the establishment of the ASEAN Business Advisory Council (ABAC).33 Still weak is a people’s track (Track 3). While ASEAN has an official non-governmental organization (NGO) accreditation process, difficulty in accessing this system resulted in less than 60 NGOs enlisting; this is despite the region being known for its vibrant NGO communities.34

The ASEAN People’s Assembly (APA), a Track 2–Track 3 interface organized by ASEAN-ISIS, is designed in such a way that Track 2 also serves as a bridge between the official track and the people’s track; however, its NGO reach is limited.

The Asian Civil Society Conference (ACSC) started in Malaysia during the 11th ASEAN Summit (2005) is a new Track 3 mechanism through which direct civil society input can be brought to ASEAN. Together with the efforts of ASEAN civil society groups to push the ACSC forward, the readiness of the ASEAN leadership to engage directly with its citizens determines how far Track 3 diplomacy will progress. In December 2006, ACSC-2 was held with token participation of the ASEAN Secretariat and no Government participation at all.

32_{Haas, P. Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination. 1992.} 33_{ASEAN. Declaration of ASEAN Concord II (Bali Concord II). 2003.}

34

Loh, F. and Ojendal, J. Southeast Asian Responses to Glob alization: Restructuring Governance and Deepening Democracy. 2005.

(25)

A. Government Partnerships

To begin with, it should be noted that ASEAN Members’ heavy emphasis on sovereignty has precluded the development of contemporary EU-style supra-nationalism, which would otherwise tie together the different components of social policy at the regional level. Instead of binding agreements and enforceable policies, ASEAN issues declarations that elaborate principles and aspirations, leaving it up to individual member states to make the declarations operational. The social dimension in ASEAN has been characterized by functional cooperation dominated by time-bound and sector-specific research, training and public information. This functional cooperation in the social sectors provided the foundation for the ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community (ASCC), which to date is the most important expression of the social dimension in ASEAN.

Additionally, the move towards medium-term planning, initially with the Hanoi Plan of Action (1999–2004), and the Vientiane Action Programme (2004–10), signals firmer commitments from ASEAN member states in recent years.

The relevant government partnerships for social policy in ASEAN are the following: (i) ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission of Human Rights (AICHR); (ii) the ASEAN Committee on Women and Children (ACWC); (iii) the ASEAN Committee of Permanent Representatives (CPR); (iv) ASEAN Committee on Migrant Workers (ACMW); and (v) ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Organization.

B. Civil Society Partnerships

In the beginning of ASEAN, several ASEAN-related professional bodies and business organizations were created. In the late 1970s and 1980s, the ASEAN Bankers’ Association (1976), the ASEAN Confederation of Employers (1979), the ASEAN Chamber of Commerce and Industry (1980), and the ASEAN Ports Association (1981) — just to mention a few, were formed. Moreover, during the 1980s and early 1990s, several centers were established for capacity building and to support priority development activities, such as the ASEAN Centre for the Development of Agricultural Cooperatives (1985).

(26)

Nowadays, transnational social movements (TSMs)35 and civil society organizations (CSOs) are the norm as they make use of changing contexts to further or fine-tune their advocacy.

The two TSMs operating in ASEAN - the Migrant Forum in Asia (MFA) and the Task Force on ASEAN Migrant Workers (TF-AMW), examine their operations, how they respond to opportunities and the emphases they place on different forms of collective action. It then offers a preliminary assessment of the impact of TSMs in regional policy. In sum, MFA has three contributions to ASEAN-focused advocacy: (i) it brings into the regional advocacy its long history of international campaigning, and links its national members and international partners to regional groups; (ii) it contributes to the campaign for a regional instrument for the protection of migrants’ rights, in the process addressing the lack of protection in many AMS; and (iii) it is able to reach and develop new constituencies, including national. TSM advocacy at the regional level is important in two ways: (i) it pushes ASEAN to adopt internationally recognized norms; and (ii) it widens the constituency in support of the adoption of such norms.

C. Employer and Employee Associations Partnerships

All these efforts to better prepare ASEAN’s workforce would be more effective if based on strong partnerships with employers’ and workers’ organizations. Collaboration between education and training providers and the private sector would help ensure that curricula are practical and aligned with market demand, for example if based on skills needs assessments of enterprises. Employers can also develop complementary apprenticeship schemes through which young people can gain practical experience and job-specific skills that would ease the school-to-work transition. In this regard, Singapore’s Institute of Technical Education provides an effective model of leveraging public-private partnerships. Its governance structure is tripartite and close industry involvement in strategic planning helps enhance the relevance of curricula and integrate high-quality apprenticeships with coursework.36

Increasingly, there has been a trend in ASEAN Member States towards establishing and developing sectoral lead bodies (or sector skills councils) to formally bridge the gap between education and vocational training providers and the labor market. The goal is to create an

35

Chavez, J. Transnational social movements in ASEAN policy advocacy: the case of regional migrants’ rights policy. United Nations Research on Social Policy. 2015.

36

L. Song Seng: Case study on national policies linking TVET with economic expansion: Lessons from Singapore. 2012.

(27)

environment which will increase employer participation and investment in skills, promote enterprise competitiveness and foster industry dynamism. In Malaysia, for example, 16 industry lead bodies covering sectors ranging from agriculture to financial services have helped codify industry-specific competencies expected of skilled workers at various occupational levels. Notably, Myanmar plans to adopt a similar approach of establishing sector skills councils as mandated in its new Employment and Skill Development Law.

Moreover, encouraging businesses to expand firm-level training would reduce skills gaps, boost workplace productivity and support lifelong learning, given the significant positive association between increasing private investment in staff training and the easing of skills bottlenecks. The impact of such investments would be enhanced by working closely with workers’ representatives who can help identify crucial workplace training needs.

Within the ASEAN NGO recognition structure is the ASEAN Confederation of Employers (ACE), which affiliated in the second meeting of the 14th ASEAN Standing Committee in Manila on November 24, 1980. The ACE is composed of the major or biggest employers’ organizations of the original ASEAN member states, namely: the Employers Association of Indonesia (APINDO), the Malaysian Employers Federation (MEF), the Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF), the Employers Confederation of the Philippines (ECOP), and the Employers Confederation of Thailand (ECOT). In the 8th Joint Study Workshop convened by the ACE and Nikkeiren International Cooperation Center (NICC) in Singapore on February 20-21, 2002, members of ACE shared their views on U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan’s Global Compact Initiative (GCI) and the case studies they conducted on “Promoting the Principles Contained in the Global Compact” on selected enterprises in their respective countries. The GCI calls on respect and promotion of human rights, core labor rights, and protection of environment.

D. Conclusion for Deeper Partnerships

An annual dialogue between the labor ministries of ASEAN, the ASEAN Confederation of Employers (ACE) and the ASEAN Services Employees Trade Union Council (ASETUC) has been established in 2009. Since then high-ranking officials from governments, employers and trade unions in ASEAN meet to discuss labor issues and share information on social and labor standards.

(28)

Yes, there is so much disparity in the industrial relations system and legal framework in place among the different ASEAN countries – due to historical, political, economic and cultural reasons. Such disparity cannot be smoothened overnight. It has to be part of the process of community building being pursued by the ASEAN member countries based on their vision of a “community of caring and sharing societies”.

For this purpose, there is a great need for capacity building through a sharing of good experiences and good practices. There is a need to build up institutions and appropriate laws supportive of social dialogue such as the establishment of tripartite and bipartite bodies for purposes of social dialogue and recognition of basic labor rights (freedom of association and collective bargaining). This can only be done properly if deeper partnerships are established between government, civil society organizations, employer and employee associations.

Social dialogue is an integral component to economic and social development in ASEAN and its member states. The roles and responsibilities of social partners in the process of engaging in a dialogue on a range of matters ensure that growth and development work for the benefit of the largest possible constituents and with the sensitization of bi-partite perspective. In particular, strong bi-partite and tripartite institutions lead to better results in national policies and initiatives.37

Regional tripartite dialogue will help improve any AEC monitoring system and the design and implementation of labor market policies to complement economic and trade policies. This should involve cooperating with the private sector and workers’ organizations on the potential effects of the AEC on businesses and workers. Greater consultation, more effective business councils, and increased participation of the private sector and workers organizations, including those that relate to women and youth, in decision-making processes would also be beneficial.38

Thus, the answer to the subquestion “Is ASEAN engaging in Deeper Partnerships with governments, civil society organizations, employers and employee associations in order to achieve Fair Globalization,” is an affirmative with all kinds of engagements for partners from all

37

ASEAN Services Employees Trade Unions Council (ASETUC). Lab our Laws and Practices in ASEAN. 2013.

38

(29)

sectors all accounted. This is further evidenced by having the systems of Track 1, Track 2 and Track 3 in keeping tabs on these partnerships.

VI. CONCLUSION

The Fair Globalization Framework has allowed us to analyze ASEAN and take a glimpse at its progress in integrating a social dimension as it seeks to implement the AEC Blueprint starting this year, 2015.

(i) A Focus on People

 For the Core Labor Standards, it remains unclear if the Core Labor Standards do play a key role in the ASEAN regional integration and if they are addressed regionally. No mention in any ASEAN regional integration document that compels the ratification of all these eight ILO Conventions is apparent. Therefore, the core labor standards and following such standards may be left to the device of each member state and is not yet addressed regionally.

 For Decent Work, the AEC Blueprint clearly mentions and prioritizes decent work in its agenda. However, when it was left to actually apply and implement the policies on decent work, it was not cohesively and comprehensively addressed.

 For Gender Equality, no ASEAN document has mentioned how to address gender equality in the regional integration.

 In the three topics under the factor - A Focus on People, ASEAN has not fared well in delivering the needed regional impetus for the Core Labor Standards, Decent Work and Gender Equality. In all three topics, there are no clear policies to move forward as a region.

(30)

(ii) Fair Rules

 ASEAN is not a political union like the EU wherein a central authority sets not only monetary and fiscal policies but is also responsible to a central parliament with the sovereignty of a nation’s government. Nor is ASEAN a centralized model wherein the main goal is to harmonize the rules of the member states. Hence, a way of consensus decision-making has been established in ASEAN. All ten member states have to agree on a decision on a fundamental issue. This is called the ASEAN Way. Any decision on fundamental issues must be agreed upon by all ASEAN member states. In this regard, any implementation of a guideline for these fundamental issues, in essence, should be easier since agreements to abide by these rules are already unanimous.

 ASEAN’s current framework consists of a series of agreements. As ASEAN member states did not surrender its sovereignty to any central ASEAN body, it also does not have a single legislative body in which the member states entrust them with legislative powers. Hence, ASEAN does not have a body of laws that summarize and contain their own policies.

 The AFTA, MRAs, RCEP and TPP are agreements that already include some labor law policies on Core Labor Standards, Decent Work and Gender Equality as conditions before they can be made applicable to a member state.

 As can be gleamed from the setup of ASEAN, even though ASEAN does not have a clear set of governing rules that clearly delineate its social dimension policies, ASEAN has fair rules sporadically enacted through its summit agreements, free trade agreements and mutually recognized agreements.

(31)

(iii) Deeper Partnerships

 There is much disparity in the industrial relations system and legal framework in place among the different ASEAN countries – due to historical, political, economic and cultural reasons. Such disparity cannot be smoothened overnight. It has to be part of the process of community building being pursued by the ASEAN member countries based on their vision of a “community of caring and sharing societies”.

 For this purpose, there is a need to build up institutions and appropriate laws supportive of social dialogue such as the establishment of tripartite and bipartite bodies for purposes of social dialogue and recognition of basic labor rights (freedom of association and collective bargaining). This can only be done properly if deeper partnerships are established between government, civil society organizations, employer and employee associations which are evidenced by the Track 1, Track 2 and Track 3 mechanisms of ASEAN.

Hence, in answering the question “Is ASEAN developing a robust social dimension in their regional integration,” the answer would be ASEAN is in the process of developing a robust social dimension for regional integration. ASEAN has started to capitalize on the factor Deeper Partnerships and, at the same time, having the flexibility its system allows through the ASEAN way to formulate its Fair Rules framework in the way that is best applicable to the situation of ASEAN. However, the factor Focus on People is sincerely lacking behind because no clear direction and guidelines yet are put forward in tackling, as a region, the core labor standards, decent work and gender equality.

(32)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 ADB and ASEAN (Asian Development Bank and Association of Southeast Asian Nations). The Road to ASEAN Financial Integration. 2013.

 Acharya, A. ASEAN 2030: Challenges of Building a Mature Political and Security Community.2012.

 Asian Development Bank. Emerging Asian Regionalism: A Partnership for Shared Prosperity. 2008.

 Asian Development Bank. Institutions for Regional Integration: Toward an Asian Economic Community. 2010.

 Asian Development Bank. Asian Economic Integration Monitor. 2013.

 Asian Development Bank. Framework of Inclusive Growth Indicators: Key Indicators for Asia and the Pacific, Special Supplement. 2013.

 Asian Development Bank. ASEAN 2030: Toward a Borderless Economic Community. 2014.

 Asian Development Bank and International Labour Organization. Women and Labour Markets in Asia: Rebalancing for Gender Equality. 2011.

 ASEAN. ASEAN Vision 2020. 1997.

 ASEAN. Initiative for ASEAN Integration (IAI) Strategic Framework and IAI Work Plan 2 (2009–2015). 2000.

 ASEAN. Status Update of the Initiative for ASEAN Integration (IAI) Work Plan I (2002– 2008). 2002.

 ASEAN. Declaration of ASEAN Concord II (Bali Concord II). 2003.

 ASEAN. Joint Ministerial Statement of the 7th ASEAN Finance Ministers’ Meeting. 2003.

 ASEAN. ASEAN Economic Community Blueprint. 2008.

 ASEAN. Master Plan on ASEAN Connectivity. 2011.

 ASEAN. ASEAN Economic Community Scorecard: Charting Progress toward Regional Economic Integration—Phase I (2008–2009) and Phase II (2010– 2011). 2012.

 ASEAN. On Track to ASEAN Community 2015: ASEAN Annual Report.2013.

 ASEAN. Report of the Eminent Persons Group on the ASEAN Charter. 2006.

 ASEAN 2030. Toward a Borderless Economic Community. 2014.

 ASEAN Services Employees Trade Unions Council (ASETUC). Labour Laws and Practices in ASEAN. 2013.

(33)

 Brown, R. ASEAN: Harmonizing Labor Standards for Global Integration. LLRN Conference. June 2015.

 Caballero-Anthony, M. Understanding ASEAN Centrality. 2012.

 Capannelli, G. Shaping Asia’s Institutional Architecture for Economic and Financial Integration: Opinion Leaders’ Views. International Economic Journal 25(4). 593–616. 2011.

 Chavez, J. Social Policy in ASEAN: The Prospects for Integrating Migrant Labour Rights and Protection. Global Social Policy. 2007.

 Chavez, J. Transnational social movements in ASEAN policy advocacy: the case of regional migrants’ rights policy. United Nations Research on Social Policy. 2015.

 Flanagan. Labor Standards and International Advantage. 2003.

 Haas, P. Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination. 1992.

 Habito, C.F. Promoting Economic Convergence and Equitable Growth. 2012.

 ILO and ADB. ASEAN Community 2015: Managing Integration for better jobs and shared responsibility. 2014.

 International Labour Office. A Fair Globalization: Creating Opportunities for All. 2004.

 Loh, F. and Ojendal, J. Southeast Asian Responses to Globalization: Restructuring Governance and Deepening Democracy. 2005.

 McKinsey & Company. Women Matter: An Asian Perspective—Harnessing Female Talent to Raise Corporate Performance. 2012.

 Narjoko, D., P. Intal, and H.H. Lim. Accomplishing the AEC by 2015: Main Challenges. 2011.

 Soesastro, H. Regional Integration in East Asia: Achievements and Future Prospects. Asian Economic Policy Review 1(2): 215–234. 2006.

 L. Song Seng: Case study on national policies linking TVET with economic expansion: Lessons from Singapore. 2012.