Abstract
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is divided. Most striking is the development divide that separates the newer members (the Cambodia, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Myanmar, and Vietnam countries) from the original ones (ASEAN-6). More rapid growth in the CLV since the 1990s, driven by trade, investment, and other market reforms, has reduced these income differences. While the development divide has narrowed, huge gaps remain. Further narrowing of these gaps will require an increase in the speed and the breadth of policy reforms. A gaping hole in the policy landscape in ASEAN is the failure to address labour mobility adequately. Ongoing demographic transitions will result in greater labour outflow. The current policy void on labour migration not only limits the benefits from trade and investment liberalisation but also increases the cost of structural adjustment. Although rapid growth has resulted in convergence between countries, it has increased polarisation within countries. This can threaten social cohesion, as well as the sustainability of future growth. In order to make growth more inclusive, there is a need to invest more in education and health and to institute land reform. Apart from directly reducing social and asset inequities, such policies will produce a workforce more able to participate in the growth process and adapt to structural change.
Highlights
The most striking characteristic of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) region is its great diversity, which may be unmatched by any other grouping in the world
The development divide is multi-faceted, its most conspicuous manifestation lies in differences in per capita incomes
These changes will take time to effect and since absorptive capacity is currently nearing its limit, it is an issue for the long-run
Summary
The most striking characteristic of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) region is its great diversity, which may be unmatched by any other grouping in the world. Notwithstanding these achievements, there is still a long way to go and much more needs to be done before the development divide is substantially narrowed This World Bank classification masks significant variation within the groupings; for instance, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic crept up to lower middle income status in 2010, while Viet Nam did so in 2008, and both of these countries are situated at the lower end of this scale. This multiple would be highest for Myanmar, at perhaps 60 or more, but data are sketchy.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.