Search results

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.

Post-crisis policy measures in Asia have focussed on banking sector and market reform. The paper argues that in order to propel growth, banking and market reform in Asia must be undertaken with the view that they are not mutually exclusive competitive tradeoffs. Rather banks and markets must be viewed as complementary supportive pillars in a financial system. Additionally, legal and functional reform must be undertaken simultaneously. The paper proposes that a likely consequence of doing so will enable creating a four-pillared multi-dimensional growth paradigm in the region to help restore and promote growth.

This chapter investigates the evolution of cross-strait economic relations and Asian regional integration and its implications for future development in the region. Trade and investment in Asia is fundamentally market-driven, and cross-border FDI is the major driving force. This investment-induced trade explained the cross-strait economic relations and intensive trade in intra-industry and intra-regional trade in Asia. The rise of China in 1990s with the assistance of Taiwanese firms further accelerated the trend of integration by forming regional production networks. However, after 2000 institutional arrangement like bilateral or plural-lateral FTA emerged to normalize and institutionalize the de facto economic integration. RCEP and TPP have evolved as the two major platforms for Asian regional cooperation with two key players, China and the United States, on each side. We argue that in the long run the win-win solution that the two platforms will further merge into FTAAP, which benefits all participants including China and the United States. However, in the short run, based on its 50 years of developmental experience, Taiwan can play an important role to promote and consolidate Asian regional integration as a technology provider and resource coordinator for the region and a risk buffer for entering Chinese market. We thus propose a roadmap for Taiwan and China to jointly participate in regional integration process. In the intermediate run, Asian economies need to change the structure toward more regional-centered trade in final goods through domestic consumption market in order to reduce the dependence on Western markets and mitigate any loss may arise from external shocks.

Asia is considered one of the fastest developing continents. As per the UNDP Human Development Report (2010), Asian countries like China, Nepal, Indonesia, Lao PDR, and South Korea are among the top 10 fastest growing countries. China, the second highest achiever in the world in terms of HDI improvement since 1970, is the only country on the “Top 10 Movers” list due to income rather than health or education achievements. Significant progress in human development was also found for most of the nine South Asian countries in the trends analysis – Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Iran, Nepal, and Pakistan. Inequality for women remains a major barrier to human development throughout Asia, the 2010 Report shows. The new Gender Inequality Index – which captures gender gaps in reproductive health, empowerment, and workforce participation in 138 countries – shows that six countries of East Asia and the Pacific fall in the lower half on gender inequality, with Papua New Guinea among the bottom 10. Asian Development Bank (ADB)'s Asian Development Outlook (2011) forecasts regional GDP growth of 7.8% in 2011 and 7.7% the following year. The projected growth rates are lower than the 9% posted in 2010 but show that the region continues its firm recovery from the global economic crisis. It needs to be kept in mind that Asia's diversity is based on socioeconomic, demographic, climatic, and cultural characteristics.

This chapter will situate the global paradigm shift toward Post-Education-For-All (Post-EFA) not only in the policy trends in the field of international education development, but also in the academic context of international relations and comparative education.

The chapter highlights three dimensions which characterize the paradigm shift; namely, discourse on norms, diversifying actors, and the changed mode of communication and participation in the global consultation processes. The existing formal structure of the EFA global governance is based on multilateralism which recognizes sovereign nation-states, representing national interests, as the participants. However, such an assumption is eroding, given that there is a growing number of state and nonstate actors who influence decision-making not only through conventional formal channels, but also informally. Urging the revision of theories of multilateralism, the chapter introduces the attention given to nontraditional donors and horizontal networks of civil society actors in this volume.

The introduction also shows that that the widening basis of participation in the global consultation processes on post-EFA and advanced communication technology have changed the ways in which discourse is formulated. While the amount and the speed of exchanging information have been enhanced and different types of actors have been encouraged to take part, it also obliges scholars to adopt innovative methods of analyzing discourse formation.

The chapter also demonstrates the importance of the focus on the Asia-Pacific region, which is composed of diverse actors who often underscore Asian cultural roots in contrast to Western hegemony. By focusing on the discourse, actors, and the structure through which the consensus views on the post-EFA agenda were built, the volume attempts to untangle the nature of the post-EFA paradigm shift, at the global, Asia-Pacific regional, and national levels.