Search results

The leaders of the Association of the Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) announced to negotiate a Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RECP) in November 2012, which is comprised of 10 ASEAN Member States (Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar) and its six FTA partner countries (China, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, and India). Embedded in the ASEAN Charter and implemented in all existing ASEAN + 1 FTAs, the ASEAN Centrality has been a corner stone principle in ASEAN-centric economic initiatives. Emerging discord in the region, complicated security climate and the rise of China, among others, have put the ASEAN Centrality under challenge. The development of the RCEP provides a timely case to assess ASEAN’s leadership role in creating the world’s most populous Free Trade Area. The RCEP may enhance ASEAN’s central role, but ASEAN needs to address challenges facing the regional integration now and beyond 2015. On the country/economy level, the chapter reviews some ASEAN Member States and their FTA Partners how they practice their ASEAN policy and seek leadership role in ASEAN. The three major players in ASEAN-Indonesia, Thailand, and Malaysia have reiterated the importance of the ASEAN Centrality in their foreign policy in the past, but debates emerge whether, such as in Indonesia, ASEAN Centrality best suits the national interests. The chapter also explores how the major powers, including China and the United States, respond to and collaborate with the group of smaller developing country players.

This chapter highlights the characteristics of Asia through the analysis of policy-related documents by five donor countries, namely Japan, South Korea, China, India and Thailand. It will also examine the roles played by regional bodies such as the Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization (SEAMEO) and ASPBAE (the Asia South Pacific Association for Basic and Adult Education) as the horizontal channels influencing aid policies in respective countries. Together with the analysis of the national and organizational policies, the regional process of building consensus on the post-2015 agenda is examined, with a particular focus on the Asia-Pacific Regional Education Conference (APREC) held in August 2014.

The analysis reveals that the region has two faces: one is imaginary and the other is functional. There is a common trend across Asian donors to refer to their historical ties with regions and countries to which they provide assistance and their traditional notions of education and development. They highlight Asian features in contrast to conventional aid principles and approaches based on the Western value system, either apparently or in a muted manner. In this sense, the imagined community of Asia with common cultural roots is perceived by the policymakers across the board.

At the same time, administratively, the importance of the region as a stage between the national and global levels is recognized increasingly in the multilateral global governance structure. With this broadened participatory structure, as discussed in the chapter ‘Post-EFA Global Discourse: The Process of Shaping the Shared View of the ‘Education Community’’, the expected function of the region to transmit the norms and requests from the global level and to collect and summarize national voices has increased.

The purpose of this paper is to study the factors that caused The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) security regime to be ineffective in saving transnational drug smuggling, including the internalization of non-optimal values and norms of the ASEAN Drug-Free Declaration.

This study uses primary data and secondary data. Data analysis and observation are carried out simultaneously, where data are analyzed directly after it is obtained using descriptive analysis. Interactive data analysis is carried out at the initial step by collecting primary and secondary data. Data are analyzed inductively by drawing conclusions from data obtained from general views to specifics.

The development of ASEAN has led to the idea of “ASEAN Way,” namely, the ASEAN security forum to eliminate the use of force in maintaining relations between member countries through the dissemination of agreed values. Multilateral negotiations refer to the establishment of a negotiation regime at the ASEAN level that emphasizes the interests of ASEAN member countries in determining agreements relating to transnational drug crimes. There are several inhibiting factors in the negotiation process, namely, perception differences between ASEAN countries on the threat of drug smuggling in the Southeast Asia region and the differences of ASEAN leaders’ priorities and agenda.

The originality/authenticity of research is analyzing the factors that affect the ASEAN security system in transnational protection policies by using two models, namely, the international level negotiation model and one at the national level in the form of ratification of ASEAN international relations related to drug smuggling. At present, transnational crimes, especially drug smuggling, appear and pose a threat to national and international security. The object of this research is ASEAN international organizations in cases of transnational drug smuggling.

In the years leading up to United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS), Southeast Asia drew the attention of the drug policy world because of its refusal to drop the goal of becoming a drug-free region and for the extreme methods used in striving to achieve it. This chapter presents an analysis of the official positions taken by governments in the regional body known as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations from before until after the UNGASS in the context of one of the most punitive drug policy environments in the world and offers a perspective on what we could expect from them in 2019.

Regionalisation in education has gained increased interest and importance because of the increasing collaborations among neighbouring nations. Definitions of the term vary, and more so the regionalisation practices and initiatives of higher educational institutions. In the Philippines, the emphasis on regionalisation has become even more pronounced with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Integration Vision. This vision of the ASEAN is geared towards enhancing regional collaboration and the creation of an ASEAN identity and puts education at the forefront, considering it as a strategic objective to achieve the region’s development agenda of economic, social and cultural growth. It becomes of paramount importance then to examine how regionalisation in education is understood by university constituents, its manifestations in terms of institutional activities and especially, how the ASEAN Integration shapes these initiatives and constructions of regionalisation. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

Using a multiple case study design that looked at three higher education institutions (HEIs) in the Philippines, this study found that regionalisation is associated and interchanged with internationalisation in terms of purpose, goal and activities, but is differentiated in dimensions of geographical location and orientation.

Institutional initiatives pertaining to regionalisation were largely functional and mostly open and soft collaborations. The ASEAN Integration creates an ASEAN-centric consciousness, and functions as an opportunity for expanding partnerships, institutional niches and programmatic initiatives; and for legitimising regionalisation and internationalisation goals.

These definitions and approaches to regionalisation have significant policy implications as HEIs strive to respond to the challenges of the Integration.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of Association of Southeast Asian Nations’ (ASEAN) flagship universities in moving the agenda of regional integration forward through academic/research collaboration and cooperation.

Flagship universities are leading universities in the national higher education systems of countries that make up the ASEAN. This study on the ASEAN’s flagship universities is based on a three-pronged strategy, namely, a literature review, analysis of websites contents, and citation of supporting pieces of evidence from other relevant studies to support arguments. Using the QS top universities in Asia 2016 listing, top 70 public universities in ASEAN were selected for investigation. In instances where public universities in a particular ASEAN country were not listed in the QS listing, a premier public university of that country was then selected for investigation.

There is a tendency for ASEAN’s flagship universities to look beyond ASEAN, primarily to establish vertical collaboration, which is important to their efforts in creating their image and enhancing their reputation. As a result, academic/research collaboration among flagship universities and collaboration between these universities and other universities in ASEAN is glaringly on the low side. Interestingly, to move the regional integration agenda in ASEAN, other intermediary agencies outside of ASEAN, such as in the European Union, are very active in providing a platform for both flagship and non-flagship universities to collaborate.

While regional collaboration and cooperation within ASEAN and East Asia have been discussed elsewhere, this paper has utilised and expanded Douglass’ (2016) idea of flagship universities to include regional relevance for the purpose of regional integration of ASEAN.

The study aims to investigate the profitability and marketability efficiency scores and determinants of 899 listed manufacturers in six Southeast Asian countries: Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.

The study employs the bootstrap two-stage data envelopment analysis (DEA) to measure profitability and marketability efficiencies of Southeast Asian manufacturers. The study uses the panel-data fractional regression model (FRM), which is an advantageous method that is suitable for the fractional response variables and applicable to time-differing heterogeneity, to investigate the determinants of Southeast Asian manufacturers' efficiencies.

The study demonstrates that listed manufacturers in Indonesia and Singapore achieve the highest average profitability and marketability efficiencies among the six Southeast Asian countries. The study also shows that the cash ratio, institutional ownership, headcount and technology-application positively affect Southeast Asian-listed manufacturers' profitability and marketability efficiencies at different levels of significance.

The current study is the first assessment of the listed manufacturers' profitability and marketability efficiencies in Southeast Asian countries, which consist of different market levels (developed, emerging and frontier markets). The study is a reference source for regional investors, manufacturers' managers and governments to make appropriate decisions in investing, managing and enhancing the development of the Southeast Asian manufacturing sector.

The study compares the socioeconomic development of the South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation (SAARC) to that of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). SAARC was established on December 8, 1985, as a result of former President Ziaur Rahman's efforts to promote the welfare of the people and mutual trust. ASEAN was founded in August 1967 with the goal of accelerating the region's economic growth, social progress, and cultural development while also promoting regional peace and stability. The SAARC countries share problems such as poverty and unemployment. SAARC countries have a GDP per capita four times that of ASEAN. A qualitative analysis based on secondary data pertaining to SAARC and ASEAN reveals that SAARC has not been more successful than ASEAN. National and international conflicts are common within SAARC. SAARC has 22% of the world's population and 3% of the world's economy, and there are enormous opportunities for economic growth and human development.

This paper analyses the current and potential impact of Southeast Asia’s regionalism on the European Union. It begins by giving an overview of the different manifestations that this regionalism takes (ASEAN and AFTA, sub‐regional economic zones, APEC) and comments on the overlapping linkages between them. The EU’s stake in Southeast Asia is then discussed in the context of broadening the EU’s interregional relations with East Asia. A detailed evaluation of the opportunities and threats that regionalist developments in Southeast Asia pose to the EU is presented thereafter. It is argued that the balance of effects will vary less for “insider” EU firms, which have established operations within ASEAN, and more for “outsider” EU firms. The potential benefits the former anticipate from Southeast Asian regionalism are considerable.

This purpose of this paper is to review the progressive development in bilateral trade and investments between China and the Association of the Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) since 1970. China's economic reform has served as a great incentive for ASEAN countries to engage in continuous political and economic dialogue with the economic giant as it is considered as one of the largest, growing markets in the world. The political and economic efforts initiated by ASEAN have sought to affirm an outward‐looking ASEAN in playing a pivotal role in the international community and advancing ASEAN's common interests, which include economic trade with China as regional partner.

A review of the literature based on secondary data provides the analysis of the stages of the Chinese political and economic reforms that had brought about improvement in the economic relationship between China and ASEAN.

The findings comprise reports that highlight the promising trend in investment relations between China and ASEAN.

The paper highlights the need for further in‐depth analysis of Chinese political and economic reforms that will have a significant impact on regional trade and investment in the Asia‐Pacific region.

The paper will allow international managers of multinational enterprises to have a better appreciation of the political and economic developments in China and to consider options to enhance greater business partnerships with Chinese corporations.

The literature gap in this particular area of study presents an opportunity to explore new developments in the Chinese Government's economic reforms.