ISSN 2502-0722 Issue 24/ June 2017
The Initiative for ASEAN Integration (IAI): What Went Wrong?
Narrowing the Development in ASEANGaps Feminising the Economy: Women’s
Empowerment and Economic Development in the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) +
INFOGRAPHIC ASEAN ROUND-UP
The Initiative for ASEAN Integration (IAI):
What Went Wrong?
Narrowing the Development Gaps in ASEAN
Feminising the Economy: Women’s Empowerment and Economic
Development in the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC)
ASEAN Round-Up Terrorist Attacks in SE Asia?
Infographic
Gender Inequality in ASEAN
2 6
14 14 9
16
16
Project Supervisors Rahimah Abdulrahim Executive Director, The Habibie Center Hadi Kuntjara
Deputy Director for Operations, The Habibie Center
Editor in Chief A. Ibrahim Almuttaqi Thinking ASEAN Team
Agustha Lumban Tobing Askabea Fadhilla Fina Astriana Muhamad Arif Hana Hanifa Bastaman Rahma Simamora Tongki Ari Wibowo Wirya Adiwena
A note from the editor
Dear readers:
Welcome to the June 2017 issue of the monthly Thinking ASEAN!
The past few weeks have been a difficult time as the spectre of terrorism continues to rear its head not only around the world but also in the Southeast Asian region. In particular the suicide bomb attack in Kampung Melayu in Jakarta, Indonesia and Islamist militants lay siege to Marawi City in the southern Philippines. Despite the pain and suffering brought about by such incidents, we must not give in to terror, instead uniting in defiance to those that seek to change our way of life and dictate our future.
It is in this spirit that we present to you our three articles, where we take a special look at the development gaps in the region.
First up is our lead article by Ms. Fina Astriana, researcher at The Habibie Center, who writes on ‘The Initiative for ASEAN Integration (IAI): What went wrong?’ Her article makes the argument that the IAI – one of ASEAN’s key instrument to address the development gap – has failed as the gap remains significant between the ASEAN-6 and CLMV countries.
She highlights some of the reasons for the failure, including lack of engagement with local stakeholders, insufficient implementation, and lack of public information, before providing some steps that ASEAN should take.
The second article is by Vannarith Chheang, consultant at the Nippon Foundation. He also takes a look at the development gaps in ASEAN, presenting an update on the state of that gap. Highlighting some of the key challenges in implementing the IAI, he ends by providing some recommendations on how to address the issue.
The last article by Ms. Hana Hanifah, researcher at The Habibie Center takes a look at one of the key stakeholders affected by the development gap: women. Her article, which is entitled ‘Feminising the Economy: Women’s Empowerment and Economic Development in the ASEAN Economic Community’, aims to examine the impact of economic growth to women’s empowerment in the context of the AEC in ASEAN. In particular her article analyses why gender inequality in ASEAN persists through a critical examination of the way economy works.
As usual, we present a short infographic, this time looking at gender inequality in ASEAN, and a summary of the goings-on in selected countries from around Southeast Asia.
Don’t hesitate to drop me a line at thinkingasean@
habibiecenter.or.id if you have comments, input, or prospective submissions.
Happy reading!
Best regards from Jakarta
Thinking ASEAN is a monthly publication that aims to provide insightful, cogent and engaging perspectives on issues central to contemporary Southeast Asia and the ASEAN member states. It is a product of The Habibie Center, with the generous support of the Republic of Korea’s Mission to ASEAN.
The content of Thinking ASEAN does not reflect the official opinion of The Habibie Center or institutions related to the publication. The Habibie Center was founded by Indonesian President Bacharuddin Jusuf Habibie in 1999 as an independent, non- governmental and non-profit organization to promote the democratization and modernization of the country.
Responsibility for the information and views expressed in Thinking ASEAN lies entirely with the author(s). For comments, suggestions and prospective contributions, the Managing Editor of Thinking ASEAN can be reached at thinkingasean@habibiecenter.or.id.
The Habibie Center was founded by Bacharuddin Jusuf Habibie and family in 1999 as an independent, non- governmental, non-profit organisation. The vision of The Habibie Center is to create a structurally democratic society founded on the morality and integrity of cultural and religious values.
The missions of The Habibie Center are first, to establish a structurally and culturally democratic society that recognizes, respects, and promotes human rights by undertaking study and advocacy of issues related to democratization and human rights, and second, to increase the effectiveness of the management of human resources and the spread of technology.
The Initiative for ASEAN Integration (IAI):
What Went Wrong?
Paddy harvesting in Malasari.
Source: Ade/Wikimedia Commons
Fina Astriana is a researcher at The Habibie Center’s ASEAN Studies Program
A
SEAN Leaders have long been aware of the development gap within ASEAN, particularly between the CLMV countries (Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, and Vietnam) and the ASEAN-6 (Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand). The issue triggered the Leaders to launch the Initiative for ASEAN Integration (IAI) at the 4th Informal Summit of ASEAN Leaders in 2000. It was followed by the adoption of the Hanoi Declaration on Narrowing the Development Gap for Closer ASEAN Integration in 2001 by the ASEAN Foreign Ministers.The first IAI Work Plan (2002 – 2008) managed to accomplish 232 projects in four areas, namely infrastructure, human resource development, information and communication technology, and regional economic integration. Whereas the second Work Plan (2009 – 2015) had 182 actions covering issues under the three pillars. However, only 78 out of 182 actions or 42.8% were implemented.1
The latest work plan, which is the third IAI (2016 – 2020), was adopted at the 28th ASEAN Summit in Vientiane in 2016.
It reaffirmed the Leaders’ commitment to address the issue of development gap within ASEAN. The third IAI Work Plan has identified five strategic areas: (1) food and agriculture, (2) trade facilitation, (3) micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs), (4) education, and (5) health and well-being. The implementation of the third IAI shall take into account the past experiences in implementing the first and second work plan in order to effectively narrow the development gap.
The gaps still remains
There is no doubt that CLMV have been achieving high economic growth for the past years. They even recorded higher economic growth than the older members of ASEAN (refer to Figure 1). In 2015, Lao PDR had the highest economic growth at 7.6, followed by Myanmar and Cambodia at 7.1 percent, and Vietnam at 6.7 percent.
On the contrary, Brunei Darussalam and Singapore had the lowest economic growth at -0.6 and 2 percent, respectively.2 CLMV’s high economic growth is one of the reasons why investors are becoming more interested in expanding their business there. Investors believe that they have big untapped economic potential.
Although the CLMV countries manage to achieve high economic growth and has huge economic potential, however, it can still be clearly seen that the development gap between the ASEAN-6 and the CLMV countries remain.
The disparities in GDP can be seen in the Table 1. GDP in ASEAN in 2015 ranged from USD 12,909 million in Brunei Darussalam to USD 857,603 million in Indonesia. In terms of GDP per capita, the gap is also wide. Singapore and Brunei Darussalam have the highest GDP per capita which is USD 52,744 and USD 30,942, respectively. In this case, Singapore’s GDP per capita is almost 52 times bigger than Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar and 26 times than Vietnam. The huge income gap has existed for decades.
In addition, competitiveness in ASEAN is also very varied. While Singapore ranked as the second most competitive country among 138 countries in the world, Cambodia and Lao PDR are left behind and are ranked 89 and 93, respectively.
One of the factors that hinder the CLMV’s competitiveness is their inadequate infrastructure. Among the CLMV countries, Vietnam has better infrastructure, even above the Philippines. However Cambodia and Lao PDR are ranked 106 and 108,
Figure 2. Human development Index Value, 2015
Source: UNDP Figure 1. GDP annual growth rates in ASEAN-6 and CLMV,
2010-2015 (in percentage)
Source: ASEAN Secretariat (2016)
Table 1. Comparison in economic indicators Source: ASEAN Secretariat (2016), World Economic Forum (2016) Notes: N.A. is not available; (*) rank out of 138 countries
showing that infrastructure development in both countries are lagging far behind.
Inadequate infrastructure in the CLMV countries has made them less connected with neighboring countries and the world, thus reducing their competitiveness.
The gap between the CLMV countries and the ASEAN-6 does not only occur in the economic issues but also in another aspect, such as human development (refer to Figure 2). In terms of HDI (human development index), Singapore and Brunei Darussalam have managed to achieve the
‘very high human development’. Malaysia and Thailand fell under the category of ‘high human development’. The rest of ASEAN Member States (AMS) who had lower HDI were in the ‘medium human development’
with CLMV being in the bottom of the group. Myanmar had the lowest HDI with a score of 0.556 meanwhile Singapore scored 0.925. The CLMV countries are indeed catching up with the ASEAN-6 as the gap is not as big as it used to, yet the gap remains significant.
What went wrong?
Lack of engagement with local stakeholders It is no doubt that the implementation of the IAI requires officials with relevant capabilities and skills so that the IAI can be executed well. However, CLMV may face limited human resources. While it is important to ensure that CLMV officials have the capacity and skills, it is also crucial to ensure that they have sufficient number of dedicated officials to implement the IAI projects. In the meantime, they also have to accomplish other ASEAN projects under different cooperation framework, such as the ASEAN Connectivity.
In order to overcome the challenge, CLMV officials need to work together with their local stakeholders, such as the private sectors, academics, NGOs, to share the burden. According to the IAI Work Plan III, ASEAN has underlined the importance fo engaging stakeholders proactively. In this regard, ASEAN only mentioned Dialogue Partners and external parties. It does not specifically mention the private sector, foundations, and NGOs as ASEAN’s partner in implementing the IAI, unlike the IAI Work Plan II where their involvement was stated clearly. Their potential roles should not be excluded as they may give positive contributions based on their expertise.
It is important to take into account local consultants’ involvement in the implementation of the IAI.3 Their role in formulating the project proposals is deemed crucial as they have better knowledge of their own country’s needs and situations. Meanwhile, they can also still learn from foreign experts in the process, however those foreign experts should be familiar with the conditions in the CLMV countries.4 Furthermore, not only they should be involved in the design of the projects, local consultants should also be involved in the implementation and evaluation of the projects.
Involvement of local stakeholders in every stages of a project will raise their ownership to the IAI. It will also reflect the accurate needs of each CLMV countries.
Hence, it will be easier for the government to implement the projects with strong support from the local community. In the end, narrowing the development gap is not only the government’s responsibility but also the local community.
Insufficient implementation
The implementation of the IAI Work Plan I and II faced some challenges that should be taken into consideration so that the Work Plan III will not repeat the same mistakes. For example, in one of the workshops under the ASEAN e-commerce Programme organized in November 2003, there were several issues related to the implementation such as the substance, participants invited to the workshop, and evaluation for the event.
One of the critiques is that the workshop does not really meet the initial objectives.
The idea of organizing the workshop was to increase the capacity of officials that participated in the workshop. However, the way the workshop was carried out was only to raise awareness despite its stated objectives of improving analytical skill and decision making skills.5
Regarding the participants, it is also challenging to choose the right participants to attend the workshop.
When the workshop is organized abroad, participants will sometimes be dominated by some senior officials. Their involvement is sometimes questioned, and raises questions whether the invited organization are sending the right person to the workshop. Last but not least, the use of English sometimes also hinders the effective implementation of the workshop since some participants do not undertand it well.6
The implementing agency should really ensure that the implementation of workshops, training, or other IAI projects will meet the initial objectives and do not stray from it. The objectives and activities of IAI projects should also reflect the
... narrowing the development gap is not only the government’s
responsibility but also the local
community.
needs and priorities of participants in each countries. Again, close consultation with local partner is needed to find the most pressing and important issues for their countries. By doing so, CLMV countries will receive tangible results from the IAI projects.
Lack of public information
Although the problem does not directly hinder the implementation of the IAI, however it is also important to share information to wider public. Information related to the implementation of the IAI that is publicly available is very limited.
The public have little knowledge on how the IAI works, how many projects have been and will be carried out, the current progress, what are the achievement, the impact and benefits of the projects, etc.
If ASEAN aims to create a people oriented and people centered community then it should let public to engage more with them. It can only be done if ASEAN can provide information – that maybe not too sensitive – to the public so that they can access and monitor the progress of IAI and can give valuable inputs to the ASEAN policy makers.
Steps need to be taken
In order to improve the effective implementation of the IAI, several steps need to be taken. Firstly, ASEAN policy makers should have more engagement with the local community such as local private sectors, NGOs, academics, and think tanks.
For example, one of the actions under the IAI Work Plan is to broaden access to financial literacy for MSMEs. In this case, policy makers can engage with local banks
to provide training on financial literacy.
The use of local language is encouraged to anticipate a situation where most participants do not understand English.
However, it is also important for the local banks to work together with foreign banks or experts so that they can learn best practices from them.
In addition to that, ASEAN policy makers should not only have better engagement with local stakeholders in the implementation stages but also in the planning and evaluation stages. It will allow them to provide inputs on issues that is most important and beneficial to the CLMV. By doing so, policy makers will be able to meet the objectives of the IAI and will improve its implementation rate.
Secondly, the ASEAN Secretariat should be more active in providing more information on the IAI to the public. While the ASEAN Secretariat has provided some information on the website, however it is not updated and still no information of the progress of the implementation of the IAI. In addition, the ASEAN Secretariat could also conduct public discussions with the general public, not only with the usual stakeholders engaging in the implementation of the IAI.
The IAI needs to be better known in each AMS, especially the CLMV countries. It is important for ASEAN to disseminate such information to attract people’s attention and to gain trust from the public that ASEAN is actually doing important and good things for the poeple. By doing so, ASEAN can maintain its relevance with the people.
The implementation of the IAI is indeed not perfect. Since the first adoption of the IAI, the development gaps within
ASEAN still exists. Indeed, 15 years is not long enough to significantly reduce the gaps. Therefore, strong commitment by the Leaders should be accompanied by effective implementation of the IAI and with assistance from all related stakeholders.
Endnotes
1 ASEAN Secretariat (2016), Initiative for ASEAN Integration (IAI) Work Plan III, Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat, p. 11.
2 ASEAN Secretariat (2016), ASEAN Community in Figures (ACIF) 2016, Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat, page 4.
3 Rodolfo C. Severino (2005), ‘The Initiative for ASEAN Integration: Mid-Term Review of The Work Plan’, retrieved from: http://www.asean.org/storage/images/2012/
Economic/IAI/Documents/IAI%20Work%20Plan%20I%20 MTR%20Report.pdf, p. 4.
4 Ibid, p. 40.
5 B. H. Quah (2008), ‘CLMV Development Assistance Programmes: Background, Approaches, Concerns’, in C.
Sotharith (ed.), Development Strategy for CLMV in the Age of Economic Integration, ERIA Research Project Report 2007-4, Chiba: IDE-JETRO, p. 99.
6 Ibid, p. 101.
ASEAN policy makers should not only have better engagement with local stakeholders in the implementation
stages but also in the planning and
evaluation stages.
Narrowing the Development Gaps
in ASEAN
Vannarith Chheang is Visiting Fellow at ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute
Traditional seaweed farmer Source: Aktual.com
A
s ASEAN is working towards the realization of its 2025 vision, it must holistically address the development disparity and capacity gap between and within the member states.Realizing an inclusive and people-centered ASEAN requires a mutually supporting ecosystem with ASEAN.
Development gaps refer to an unequal level of socio-economic development between countries or regions within a country.
Development is not only measured by GDP per capita but also by the provision of basic needs such as healthcare and education.
Institutional capacity and leadership of the less developed economies of ASEAN are not at the same pace as the other members. Some countries have not effectively implemented a national single window or integrated a regional agenda with a regional development strategy.
Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, and Vietnam (CLMV) are the less developed economies in the region. Institutional capacity, human resources, and physical infrastructure are some of the constraints and challenges in their regional projects.
Moreover, the private sector, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in these countries, face difficulties in joining the regional production network due to the lack of market information, sources of financing, production capacity, and non-tariff trade barriers such as standard-related measures.
The poverty rate in CLMV countries is relatively high. According to the Asian Development Bank, the poverty rate in Cambodia is 14 percent, Lao PDR 23.2 per cent, Myanmar 25.6 per cent, and Vietnam 7 per cent.
According to the World Bank, the adult literacy rate in Cambodia is 73.9 per cent, Lao PDR is 94.1 per cent, Myanmar is 95 per cent, and Vietnam 93.4 per cent.
Life expectancy at birth (in years) in Cambodia is 68, Lao PDR 66, Myanmar 66, and Vietnam 76. Cambodia, Lao PDR, and Myanmar have low levels of healthcare provision, while Vietnam has only a basic healthcare provision.
The level of Internet penetration in ASEAN has increased from 81 million in 2009 to 339 million by January 2017. This means that 53 per cent of ASEAN population
has access to the Internet. However, the number of Internet users in Cambodia is only 45 per cent (7.16 million users), Lao PDR 26 per cent (1.8 million users), and Myanmar 26 per cent (14 million users).
In terms of governance gap, the corruption perception in CLMV countries is relatively high. According to Transparency International’s index in 2016, out of 176 countries, Cambodia was ranked 156, Lao PDR 123, Myanmar 136, and Vietnam 113.
Development disparities in Southeast Asia threaten long-term peace and stability, sustainable development in the region.
The development gap at the national level and within ASEAN potentially creates a two-tiered ASEAN, which is the potential root cause of future politico-social ills and conflicts.
Development and security are intertwined.
To realize a secure, prosperous and caring community, ASEAN needs to implement an inclusive regionalism in which an
“integrated and comprehensive approach towards regional integration” is required.
Acknowledging the repercussions of a multi-tiered-ASEAN, the leaders have adopted several regional initiatives and created regional and sub-regional institutions and mechanisms to assist the less developed economies to catch up with other members.
At the 6th ASEAN Summit in Hanoi in 1998, the ASEAN Leaders expressed their political will and commitment to “narrow the development gap among member states to reduce poverty and socio- economic disparity in the region.
The Initiative for ASEAN Integration (IAI) was launched in 2000 with the objectives of narrowing the development gap and accelerating economic integration of the newer members of ASEAN. The first phase of the IAI Work Plan was implemented from 2002 to 2008, whilst the IAI Work Plan phase II was from 2009-2015.
The IAI Work Plan phase III is from 2016 to 2022. Three mechanisms were created to coordinate and implement the IAI Work Plan: IAI Development Cooperation Forum, IAI Task Force, and ASEAN Secretariat- IAI division.
The criteria for projects in the IAI Work Plan include identifying the precise needs of CLMV in terms of external assistance, the importance of a project’s role in national
development plans, its effectiveness in building CLMV capacity for participation in ASEAN programs, long-term continuity and sustainability, and absorptive capacity of CLMV countries.
The challenges in implementing IAI are the lack of coordination among key stakeholders in needs assessment and project implementation. Institutional capacity, transparency and accountability are the main structural obstacles that need to be overcome.
How to narrow the development gaps?
ASEAN needs to have strong political will and robust strategy to allocate more resources to narrow development disparity, implement more effectively the IAI.
It is suggested that regional institutional building and the promotion of social protection, particularly the establishment of mechanisms to take care of the most vulnerable. are crucial to narrow the gaps.
ASEAN and its development partners must target where the gap lies, through identifying development gaps and suggesting policy recommendations. Multi- stakeholders partnership is critical to harness resources to reduce the gaps.
Institutional capacity, resource limitations, and governance and accountability need to be holistically addressed. Development needs to be comprehensively understood.
CLMV countries must reform their fiscal policy by allocating more of the budget to education and skill development, health- related issues, food security, and social protection.
They need to deepen the speed and breadth of policy reforms with a focus on inclusive land reform, free and fair trade policy, foreign investment and labor migration policy.
With regards to institutional capacity building, ASEAN and its dialogue partners should provide more financial and technical support for the capacity building of public servants and innovating public sector.
More support is needed to assist SMEs in CLM countries (Cambodia, Lao PDR, and Myanmar) countries to be part of the regional production network. The main challenges facing SMEs are access to credit,
market information, business networking opportunities, and language barrier.
The export capacity of CLM countries is relatively low. Non-tariff barriers such as standard requirement are the main constraint for these countries to export their products, especially agricultural products and processed food, to the region.
ASEAN and dialogue partners need to assist these countries to enhance the quality and standard of their products.
To bridge the digital divide, ASEAN and its dialogue partners must intensify capacity building projects on digital economy for the CLM countries.
As Singapore is planning to focus on the digital economy next year when it chairs ASEAN, more action plans need to be geared towards an inclusive and resilient digital ASEAN, which refers to the capacity and readiness of ASEAN community in adapting to and grasping the opportunities in a digital age.
Feminising the Economy:
Women’s Empowerment and Economic Development in the ASEAN Economic Community
(AEC)
A worker folds garment in a textile in Yangon, Myanmar Source: Asia Weekly
Hana Hanifah Bastaman is a researcher at The Habibie Center’s ASEAN Studies Program
A
SEAN is labelled as one of the most economically dynamic regions, with a positive record and good projection of economic growth and poverty reduction. ASEAN was the seventh-largest economic power in the world in 2014. Its combined GDP placed it as the third-largest economy in Asia.1 ASEAN also has the world’s third largest market and labour force, after China and India. The ASEAN Economic Community (AEC), kicked off in 2015 as the region’s economic integration project, is projected to bring more benefit as the Community promises to bind the bloc closer and integrate most of its economic activities. And yet, ensuring an inclusive economic growth for everyone, especially in regards to ensuring gender equality, remains one of the key challenges for ASEAN.Recent research on gender and development suggest that there is an asymmetrical correlation between gender equality and economic growth. Whilst there is a consistent pattern that indicates gender equality does have positive impacts on economic growth, there is less robust evidence for the claim that economic growth will result in better gender equality.2 Evidence suggests that societies with lower gender inequality tend to grow faster, and that higher gender equality in economic participation, education, health, and political empowerment has contributed to higher level of competitiveness and increase in GDP per capita.3 However, as the World Development Report (WDR) suggests, income growth by itself does not guarantee to deliver better gender equality on all fronts.4 These findings highlight the importance of not only improving women’s contribution to economic growth, but also in ensuring that economic growth will contribute to women’s empowerment and gender equality.
This article aims to examine women’s contribution to economic growth and, conversely, on the impact of economic growth to women’s empowerment in the context of AEC in ASEAN. It explores the general trend of economic growth and the pattern of women’s involvement in ASEAN’s economy. The article analyses why gender inequality in ASEAN persists through a critical examination of the way economy works.
Framing gender and development agenda in ASEAN
ASEAN excels well in terms of economic
growth. According to IMF, the region’s economy grew at an average of 6 percent annually between 1990 and 2015.5 As a region with the third-largest labour force in the world, ASEAN’s economy is forecasted to further grow at an average 5 percent annually until 2020, and its middle-class population is projected to increase by around 70 to 194 million by 2020.6 The region is currently one of the most attractive destinations for foreign investment and trade cooperation, and it has embarked on an economic integration project through the AEC since 2015.
It was the ASEAN Vision 2020, adopted in 1997, that laid the foundation for the establishment of an “ASEAN Economic Region.” The 2009-2015 Road Map was then agreed upon as the blueprint to establish the three communities – AEC, Political-Security (APSC), Socio-Cultural (ASCC) – that will form the ASEAN Community. The AEC is envisioned to turn ASEAN into a single market and production base, allowing free flow of trade and investment across the member states, which will jointly develop policy for competition, intellectual property protection, e-commerce facilitation, as well as investment protection and dispute resolution system. Some of the key elements of the economic integration project are promotion of exports in eleven priority areas, including automotive, electronics, fisheries, air travel, and textiles, and free movement of skilled labour. The AEC Scorecard was then established to monitor the progress on the implementation of AEC, as well as to identify the gaps and challenges in achieving the vision. Currently, the AEC Blueprint 2025 serves as the main guideline for the implementation of AEC.
In terms of gender equality, the AEC Blueprint and the Scorecard have failed to incorporate specific gender goals. Whilst the AEC Blueprint has envisioned to
‘engender a more equitable and inclusive economic growth in ASEAN,’ and to
‘widen people-to-people’ connectivity,7 the document does not mention a specific element to promote gender equality and ensure equal participation and opportunity for women. The Scorecard has no indicator to track the extent to which economic progress has impacted gender equality and women’s empowerment within the region.
Within the ASEAN framework, social and gender issues are included under the ASCC pillar, in which there are only four out of 31 indicators to track the progress of men and women separately.8
The aforementioned condition exposes two main problems related to the pursuit of gender equality agenda in ASEAN. First, the agenda on gender mainstreaming across all three pillars of ASEAN community has not yet been fully implemented, and ASEAN still lacks the substantive institutional coordination, especially between the economic pillar and the social pillar. Secondly, in the context of the gender and development agenda, ASEAN still largely focuses on the instrumental value of gender equality and has not yet incorporated the agenda to promote the intrinsic value of gender equality.9 This means that ASEAN principally only regards gender equality as an important instrument to economic growth, but has not valued gender equality as an intrinsic element of human rights to ensure the ability to live the life of one’s own choosing and to be spared from absolute deprivation, which should be independent of whether one is male or female.10 Indeed, looking at the report on ‘Gender Dimensions of the ASEAN Economic Community’ published in 2016, ASEAN, similar to the World Bank, regards the gender equality agenda mainly as ‘smart economics’ agenda, which regards gender equality as an important contributing factor to economic efficiency and to achieve other key development outcomes.
Although, similar to World Bank, ASEAN has gone so far as acknowledging that trade expansion and economic growth is not gender neutral and might potentially worsen gender inequality, it has not yet taken any serious research agenda or measure to address this gap.
Snapshot of women’s empowerment in the ASEAN region
Following the ‘smart economics’ agenda, women’s empowerment in the context of AEC often implicitly defines as the ability of women to participate in productive market activities to contribute to economic efficiency and development.
There is variation across ASEAN member states’ achievement in realising gender equality in this regard. According to the Global Gender Gap Report 2016 by the World Economic Forum, the Philippines is the highest performer in the East Asia and the Pacific region in terms of closing the gender gap as measured by economic opportunity and participation, educational attainment, health and survival, as well as political empowerment.11 It was followed by Lao PDR, Singapore, Vietnam, Thailand, and Indonesia, in that order. However, a closer examination will reveal that whilst a country can excel in a certain indicator,
it might lack in others. For example in the case of the Philippines, whilst it has achieved a high score for educational attainment, its score for economic participation and political empowerment was still lower.
Specific to economic sectors, women’s participation is persistently low across all ASEAN countries. Although women’s participation in the economy in general has expanded, this has not yet translated into improvements in gender equality in employment, wages, decent work and social protection. Women share of employment in ASEAN generally fluctuates and varies across countries. According to the latest data available, women share of employment was lowest for Malaysia (37 percent), followed by Indonesia (38 percent) and the Philippines (39 percent).12 Women share of employment is equal in Viet Nam, Cambodia, and Lao PDR, but the rate has generally declined over time in Viet Nam and Cambodia.
The rate of women’s participation in the economic in the rest of ASEAN countries has generally increased or remained more or less constant.13
Better employment rates do not necessarily reflect better gender equality, especially because women employment is usually concentrated in the low-skilled and informal sectors. In Southeast Asia, women employment is mainly concentrated in the agriculture, garment, tourism, and care service sectors. On average, women share of employment in agriculture is about 39.2 percent, whilst in services it is about 44.4 percent.14 The majority of women in these sectors are employed in vulnerable jobs, usually at the bottom-end of the supply chain or in informal care work, with almost complete absence of access to benefits and social protection because they perform short-term, contractual work.
Other than this, the problem of gender wage gap also persists. According to ILO, women in Southeast Asia will continue to earn 20 percent less than men in 2025.15 Meanwhile, the employment in the rising high-skilled sectors such as automotive, electronics, financial services, as well as oil and energy, is still dominated by men.16 In this case, low labour participation rate for women is often explained as a result of low level of human capital amongst women, which is usually measured by the rate of education attainment.
However, it is interesting to note that the 2016 MasterCard Index of Women’s Advancement has revealed that more women are enrolled in tertiary education
compared to men across ASEAN, and generally, ASEAN women actually outperformed their male peers.17 Looking at this data, it can be observed that the persistently low rate of women’s labour participation in ASEAN seems to be more influenced by specific social or cultural factors that hinder the translation of women’s full potential to contribute to the economy.
In spite of all the reports indicating that women in ASEAN do not have valuable contribution to the economy, women actually have always been the main contributor to the economy. The problem is, their contribution is largely invisible and not valued as a “formal” or “market” work.
Women have contributed substantially to economic development through large amounts of unpaid care work, such as household tasks and child rearing. In fact, women in Asia carry out around 2.5 times the amount of unpaid care work that men do, which is estimated to be worth around USD 10 trillion a year globally.18 It is also reported that married women in ASEAN spend around 3.5 hours more per day than married men to do unpaid household and care work, which has resulted in time poverty that further hinders women to fulfil market’s expectation to participate in labour force.19 This is problematic because whilst women bear the most burdens to make a good household environment to enable better quality of human resources, their contribution is not considered as a part of productive market activity within the economic system. ASEAN should start to take this problem seriously.
Add women and stir: the problem with liberal economy approach in AEC
In responding to the grim reality of women’s empowerment in the context of AEC, a recent report put the blame mainly on the social norms, laws and regulations, and institutional barriers that have contributed in creating a specific gender stereotype of jobs and discrimination in labour market.20 Whilst it is true and the report indicates a good progress in finding solutions, such observation has ignored the inherent gender-biased nature of the market economy system promoted by the AEC. To promote gender equality agenda more sustainably within the AEC framework, ASEAN should change the way its economy works by expanding the terms that defines what kind of things are valuable to the economy.
To achieve gender equality, ASEAN seems
to promote an apolitical vision of women empowerment in the region. The agenda of women empowerment is put under the social-cultural pillar, and it is mainly framed as a way to boost economic growth and development, not necessarily to advance women’s well-being. As mentioned in the previous section, this means that ASEAN still has not taken the intrinsic value of gender equality as human rights in its development agenda. There seems to be a lack of efforts to go beyond the mainstream development narrative, which is mainly framed in terms of liberal market approach, to include women not just as an addition to labour force and a part of market instrument to generate growth.
The market economy is not gender-neutral.
In fact, as long argued by feminists, labour markets are “bearers of gender” because they operate based on conventional gender construction that values men and women’s labour differently, and thus in doing so the system perpetuates the narrow gender views in the economy.21 Women’s undervalued contribution in the household sector is the case on point to illustrate this.
Women’s significant contribution in supporting the economy through household and care work remains largely invisible and unaccounted because of the limitation in defining what can be considered as valuable to the economy.
The System of National Accounts (SNA) limits the kind of production that can be measured in the gross domestic product (GDP), which is used as the key indicator to measure economic development. Only works included in the category of “paid market work,” “unpaid market work” and
“unpaid nonmarket work” are allowed to be counted.22 On the other hand, domestic and care services that include the care of the children, preparation of meals, as well as the care of the sick, the elderly, and persons with disability are not counted because it is considered to be both “unproductive” and “nonmarket.”23 This shows the way economic growth is counted is indeed gender-biased, and as a consequence, roles attached to femininity, and women’s potential roles in the economy, has always been undermined and undervalued.
ASEAN should start to tip the balance and acknowledge the intrinsic value of gender equality in the AEC, not just adding women to the current gender-biased system as an addition to the labour forces.
Women’s contribution, wherever they wish it to be – from the public or private
sphere – must be regarded as valuable and protected with adequate remuneration and social protection. ASEAN should start to build more robust substantive coordination between the three pillars of ASEAN Community, especially in integrating gender equality agenda to economic development goals. The main goal in gender equality agenda should not just limit to increase the participation of women in the economy, but also to ensure the quality of their participation and the consequences they will have to bear. Economic growth should not be the sole end, but must be used as the mean to enhance gender equality, both in realising its instrumental value and intrinsic value.
Approaching its 50th years anniversary, ASEAN should promote this new way of promoting the intrinsic value of gender equality in AEC as its new priority.
Conclusion
ASEAN has a positive economic growth and development projection, but the landscape of women empowerment and gender equality in its economy has not shined as brightly. Women’s full potential remains largely inept and their contribution has not been fully counted, if not dismissed. Economic growth and gender equality should be mutually reinforcing, and ASEAN has the potential to promote this. ASEAN should pave the way to fully integrate gender equality agenda in its economic development targets, especially in the context of AEC. It should move forward from the mainstream policy discourse that promotes women’s economic empowerment mostly in terms of women’s instrumental potential and contribution to the narrowly defined market economy. As an organisation that priorities human rights protection and promotion, ASEAN should formulate new ways of doing business to ensure economic growth does not perpetuate
gender inequality and does enhance the intrinsic value of gender equality as an important element of human rights. To ensure the sustainability of gender equality agenda, ASEAN should also address the social or cultural factors that hinder the translation of women’s full potential to contribute to the economy.Feminisation of AEC should be at the top priorities for ASEAN to actualise its 2025 vision.
Endnotes
1 Wolfgang Lechmacher. 2016. “The ASEAN Economic Community: what you need to know.” World Economic Forum. Retrieved from: <https://www.weforum.org/
agenda/2016/05/asean-economic-community-what-you- need-to-know/>.
2 NailaKabeer. 2017. Women’s Economic Empowerment and Inclusive Growth: Labour Markets and Enterprise Development.
GrOW Working Paper Series, GWP-2017-01-Concept Paper. ISID – Institute for the Study of International Development.
3 ASEAN Secretariat. 2016. Projected Gender Impact of the ASEAN Economic Community. Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat.
4 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank. 2011. World Development Report 2012 – Gender Equality and Development. Washington DC: The World Bank.
5 Trini Leung. 2016. “Asian Women are Working a Double Shift. Here’s How to Redress the Balance.” World Economic Forum. Retrieved from: <https://www.weforum.org/
agenda/2016/06/gender-equality-in-asia-heres-how-to- make-it-happen/>.
6 Christopher Fossick. 2016. “Can ASEAN Compete with the World’s Economic Superpowers?” World Economic Forum. Retrieved from: <https://www.weforum.org/
agenda/2016/05/can-asean-compete-with-the-world-s- economic-superpowers/>.
7 See ASEAN Secretariat. 2015. ASEAN Economic Blueprint 2025. Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat. Retrieved from: <http://
astnet.asean.org/docs/AEC-Blueprint-2025-FINAL.pdf>.
8 ASEAN Secretariat. 2016. Op. Cit.
9 Refer to The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank. 2011. World Development Report 2012 – Gender Equality and Development. Washington DC: The World Bank for the definition of instrumental and intrinsic value of gender equality.
10 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank. 2011. Op. Cit.
11 The full table of global gender gap rank can be seen in World Economic Forum (WEF). 2016. Global Gender Gap Report 2016. Retrieved from: <http://www3.weforum.org/
docs/GGGR16/WEF_Global_Gender_Gap_Report_2016.
pdf>.
12 ASEAN Secretariat. 2016. Op. Cit.
13 Ibid.
14 Ibid.
15 International Labor Organization (ILO) and Asian Development Bank (ADC). 2014. ASEAN Community 2015:
Managing Integration for Better Jobs and Shared Prosperity.
Bangkok, Thailand: ILO and ADB. Retrieved from: <http://
www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/42818/asean- community-2015-managing-integration.pdf>.
16 ASEAN Secretariat. 2016. Op. Cit.
17 MasterCard. 2016. MasterCard Index of Women’s Advancement 2016 – Asia Pacific. Retrieved from: <https://
newsroom.mastercard.com/asia-pacific/files/2016/03/
Report-MasterCard-Index-of-Womens-Advancement- 2016-Asia-Pacific.pdf>.
18 Oxfam. 2016. “Underpaid and Undervalued: How Inequality defines Women’s Work in Asia.” Oxfam Issue Briefing. June 2016. Retrieved from: <https://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.
oxfam.org/files/file_attachments/ib-inequality-womens- work-asia-310516.pdf>.
19 UN Women Asia-Pacific. 2016. “Infographics – ASEAN Women are a Potential Boost to the Region’s Labour Force and Economy.” Retrieved from: <http://www2.
unwomen.org/-/media/field%20office%20eseasia/docs/
publications/2016/07/migrationinfographics.pdf?vs=4947>.
20 ASEAN Secretariat. 2016. Op. Cit.
21 ShahraRazavi. 2011. World Development Report 2012: Gender Equality and Development an Opportunity Both Welcome and Missed (An Extended Commentary). UN Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD). Retrieved from: <https://gdnonline.org/resources/razavi-extended- commentary-wb2012.pdf>.
22 Paid market work refers to the production of goods and services for the market by remunerated labour and remunerated self-employment. Unpaid market work is the production of goods and services for the market by contributing family workers belonging to economic units producing for the market. Unpaid nonmarket work here refers to the production of goods and services for own consumption or own capital formation of the household.
For complete information on these definitions please refer to Asian Development Bank (ADB). 2015. Balancing the Burden? Desk Review of Women’s Time Poverty and Infrastructure in Asia and the Pacific.Mandaluyong City:
Philippines. Retrieved from: <https://www.adb.org/sites/
default/files/publication/177465/sdcc-balancing-burden.
pdf>.
23 Asian Development Bank (ADB). 2015. Balancing the Burden? Desk Review of Women’s Time Poverty and Infrastructure in Asia and the Pacific.Mandaluyong City:
Philippines. Retrieved from: <https://www.adb.org/sites/
default/files/publication/177465/sdcc-balancing-burden.
pdf>.
ASEAN should pave the way to fully integrated gender equality agenda in
its economic development targets,
especially in the context of AEC.
Imagine ASEAN
at your fingertips
thcasean.org
AS E A N R O U N D - U P
Philippines conflict:
Starving residents tell of terror in Marawi
BBCNews, June 6 2017, BBC
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-40155369 For the past two weeks the Philippines army has been fighting Islamist militants in the southern city of Marawi. So far, the conflict has killed at least 170 people, including 20 civilians, and more than 180,000 residents have fled. The BBC’s South East Asia correspondent Jonathan Head reports from Marawi.
For more than a week the military spokesmen have been offering the same, upbeat outlook in the embattled city of Marawi. The Philippines armed forces controls nearly all of the city, they have been saying; the black-clad militants, who so surprised them by seizing Marawi in the name of so-called Islamic State on 23 May, have taken heavy casualties, and are encircled.
The military will, of course, eventually retake the city. Even fighters happy to die for Islam cannot withstand constant bombardment indefinitely. But nearly all of the city is still off- limits to non-military personnel.
Marawi
plotters shown in video
Inquirer.net; June 7, 2017
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/903248/marawi- plotters-shown-in-video#ixzz4jHwfhAfb It was an audacious plot sketched out in chilling detail with blue pens on the back of a paper calendar: Islamic militants in the Philippines, including one of the world’s most-wanted militant leaders, would take over a key central Mindanao city in their boldest attack to date.
With unsettling calm, the terrorist leaders spoke of taking hostages from a school, sealing off roads and capturing a highway
“so the people will get scared.”
Smoke rises from houses following airstrikes by Philippine Air Force bombers as government forces battle to retake control of Marawi city from Muslim militants who lay siege for nearly a week Saturday, May 27, 2017 in southern Philippines.
Source: AP
Terrorist Attacks
in SE Asia?
For the past two weeks, the Mindanao region in the Philippines has been under martial law as the Philippine Armed Forces continue their siege on the city of Marawi.
The siege began after the armed forces uncovered an impending threat resulting from an alliance between the Maute Group – militants also known the “Islamic State of Lanao” responsible for many previous terrorist attacks – and Isnilon Hapilon, the leader of the terrorist organization Abu Sayyaf and recently styled “emir” of Islamic State (IS) in Southeast Asia.
Philippine military officials said that the alliance between the two militant groups was in order to launch a rebellion and establish an Islamist state within the Mindanao region. The armed forces have said that the militants were planning on taking control of Marawi at the start of Ramadhan and that the military raid that precipitated this conflict was in order to preempt the militant’s salvo which was therefore forced to be executed prematurely. Information has been slow to arrive from the conflict zone and often change, but as recently as June 1st the armed forces revised their estimates and said that up to five hundred militants are involved in the conflicts but that half of them may have already fled from Marawi and are in neighboring villages.
So far, the conflict has resulted in around 200 casualties, including at least 38 civilians and forced 180,000 to evacuate and some 85,000 displaced. Entering the conflict’s third week, it is estimated that there are still around two thousand civilians trapped in the conflict zones within Marawi, presumably with depleting stocks of food and water. Local officials are still trying to evacuate the remaining civilians as ground troops are advancing further to clear Marawi from militants.
Rather disconcertingly, most of the recent terrorist incidents in the region usually fit the pattern of the lone or a handful of suicide-bombers in a crowded area, but the Marawi incident points to what might be a change in their strategy. The military operation in Marawi has so far revealed that the hundreds of militants
had stockpiled many months’ worth of supplies, hidden in basements, mosques, and hidden underground tunnels, meaning that these terrorists were ready for a protracted battle with the armed forces.
Even their plans to take over an entire city was unheard of outside of the Middle East, indicating that the terrorists are confident that even more daring feats would have a sufficiently high likelihood of succeeding.
The Philippine government’s ability to handle the difficult situation in Marawi is of critical importance to the country and the region. Allowing ISIS-affiliated terrorists a foothold in the region will perforce pose many problems, not just to the unity and peace of the Philippines itself but to the security of the entire region. The terrorists involved in the Marawi conflict do not just want to create a state in Lanao de sur, but to enact their perverted version of sharia law as widely in the region as possible. It is thus paramount for other states in the region to help in keeping the peace in Mindanao. Sharing intelligence between ASEAN states is essential in ensuring that the no country is never left uninformed of the security situation pertaining to the region. The Philippine armed forces surprise of finding Isnilon Hapilon where they expected to find the Maute brothers, as well as President Duterte’s later assertion that the Maute’s were in Libya points to contradictory intelligence within the country itself.
As of June 9, Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines have agreed to do joint border patrols at their shared boundaries at the Sulu Sea (with Singapore stating that they will do whatever to help). Although this is not an unwelcome start of security cooperation between ASEAN member states, a crisis such as these also requires that other countries country also actively help in alleviating at least some of the burden the crisis has wrought. For instance, the 200,000 evacuees from the conflict are now dispersed in many evacuation centers, not all with adequate supplies and facilities. Soon those evacuees and the displaced will need to be relocated to places to move on with their life as Marawi itself has effectively been bombarded and
bullet-sprayed into rubble. In this case, humanitarian aid from other countries is important to ensure that these innocent people need not suffer further.
Ultimately, the conflict in Marawi will require careful and daring political action. The Philippines’ Mindanao region has a long history of ethno-religious insurgencies, stretching back as far back as at least the 1960’s, when the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) sought independence from the central government through armed struggle. After decades of peace negotiations, the MNLF and the central government reached a compromise in which the Mindanao regions became partly autonomous from Manila. The previous administration of President Aquino agreed to grant further autonomy to the region after negotiations with the MNLF’s harder-line splinter group the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF). But even more extremist splinter groups of the MILF, such as Abu Sayyaf, the Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters, and the Ansar Al-Khalifah Philippines (the latter two apparently now subsumed under the Maute Group, along with other fighters from other countries, including Malaysia, Indonesia, and Chechnya), will not agree to anything except complete separation from the Manila government.
The conflict in Marawi is not just another random terrorist attack, but is very much part of a decades-old problem that should not be stalled further.
President Rodrigo Duterte’s proposal for a federal form of government in the Philippines is commendable in its willingness to enact radical change. Yet giving Mindanao or the Bangsamoro even more autonomy does not necessarily mean that the violence will suddenly stop. Terrorists aren’t known for their gratefulness and moderation. The even larger test looming for Philippines and the region after the current conflict is to ensure that when peace in Marawi is achieved, it will be kept.
Agustha Lumban Tobing is a researcher at The Habibie Center’s ASEAN Studies Program
Why it Matters
Share of employment by major economic sectors, most recent year (%)
Girls spend fewer years in school
1 More women work in vulnerable
conditions than men
2
Women consistently earn less than men in the same sectors
3 Across ASEAN, women do more
of the worse jobs
4
Estimated GDP losses due to gender gaps in economy in ASEAN member states (percent of GDP)
A higher proportion of women than men endure low pay, security, benefits or social protection.
Elementary
occupations Clerical Workers
Managers &
Senior Officials
5
Recommendations for increasing women’s participation in trade oriented sectors
6
Cash
Incentives Business
Scholarship
Subsidized
Loans Vocational
Trainings
Source: Projected Gender Impact of The ASEAN Economic Community (UN Women), Infographics - ASEAN women are a potential boost to the region’s labour force and economy (UN Women)
Icon: The Noun Project
in some countriesm the pay gap reaching
ASEAN STUDIES PROGRAM The Habibie Center Jl. Kemang Selatan No.98, Jakarta Selatan 12560 (P.) 62 21 781 7211 (F.) 62 21 781 7212 www.habibiecenter.or.id www.thcasean.org
facebook.com/habibiecenter @habibiecenter The ASEAN Studies Program was established on February 24, 2010, to become
a center of excellence on ASEAN related issues, which can assist in the development of the ASEAN Community by 2015. The Habibie Center through its ASEAN Studies Program, alongside other institutions working towards the same goal, hopes to contribute to the realization of a more people-oriented ASEAN that puts a high value on democracy and human rights.
The objective of the ASEAN Studies Program is not merely only to conduct research and discussion within academic and government circles, but also to strengthen public awareness by forming a strong network of civil society in the region that will be able to help spread the ASEAN message. With the establishment of ASEAN Studies Program, The Habibie Center aims to play its part within our capabilities to the ASEAN regional development.
Cover:
A local villager sells goods at the Damnoen Saduak floating market in Thailand Source: National Geographic
