Strategic Management of ASEAN Economic Community: An Analysis of Strategic Change and Change Strategy

Strategic Management of ASEAN Economic Community:

An Analysis of Strategic Change and Change Strategy

Ulaş Başar Gezgin

Abstract

The regional integration implementation plan of ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) is progressing in slow but bold steps. The ASEAN Economic Community is under construction. Firstly, single market and production base (free flow of goods, free flow of services, free flow of investment, freer flow of capital, and free flow of skilled labor), secondly, competitive economic region (ASEAN Highway Network, ASEAN Power Grid, trans-ASEAN Gas Pipeline, and ASEAN Open Skies Policy), thirdly, equitable economic development (reducing economic inequalities across ASEAN countries and regions in the long term) and fourthly, ASEAN’s integration into the global economy (free trade areas under negotiation including RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership) which involves the negotiations with ASEAN and 6 FTA partners (India, China, South Korea, Japan, Australia and New Zealand) that comprise 30% of global GDP with almost half of the world population) are considered to be the pillars of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC). In turn, the ASEAN Economic Community along with ASEAN Political-Security Community and the ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community are considered to be 3 pillars of the ASEAN Community. These regional integration programs are monitored by a scorecard which also acts as a non-binding compliance tool.

Setting up an economic community requires great effort from all member countries, but also long-term planning and efficient use of resources ready to be deployed by ASEAN. That is why in this chapter, strategic management models and frameworks such as the SAFe criteria of evaluation, deliberate and emergent strategies, elements of strategic change such as leadership, diagnosis, levers for change and types of strategic change, the change kaleidoscope and other tools such as PEST framework and FDI drivers framework are employed to analyze the current status of ASEAN with regard to the AEC plans, and the likely future course of the implementation activities. Under suitability, key opportunities and threats for AEC are discussed; while acceptability of AEC is elaborated on the basis of expectations, risks, returns and reactions, and some others issues are raised for feasibility. Secondly, time, scope, preservation, diversity, capability, capacity, readiness and power of change in ASEAN are presented from the perspective of the change kaleidoscope. Thirdly, political/legal, economic, socio-cultural and technological factors are delineated for AEC progress under PEST framework, in addition to FDI drivers framework which is adapted in this chapter to be applicable for AEC. The chapter concludes with a set of strategic directions built on the strategic analysis of ASEAN and its potentially most fruitful offshoot: The ASEAN Economic Community.

JEL Classification: P48, R11, R58 

Keywords: ASEAN, ASEAN Economic Community, strategic management, strategic change and change strategy.

1. Introduction: ASEAN (The Association of Southeast Asian Nations)

ASEAN is a major attempt at regional integration that will hit the global agenda more often in the years to come. The union is set to establish an economic community, ASEAN Economic Community (AEC), comprising 10 Southeast Asian countries. Thus, this hotly debated organization needs further inquiry from a scholarly perspective.

The population of ASEAN is nearly 616 million with a 5.7% growth rate and a total GDP exceeding USD$ 2 trillion (ASEAN Secretariat, 2014b), while the projection for 2030 is USD$10 trillion. ASEAN as a single region can be considered as the 9th largest economy of the world in terms of GDP (Wailerdsak, 2013, p.1). ASEAN GDP per capita is US$3,748.4 (as of 2012) which means more than tripling compared to 2000 with a tripling GDP (US$ 2.3113 trillion) (ASEAN Secretariat, 2014a).  ASEAN corresponds to 3.2% of the global GDP (ASEAN Secretariat, 2014b) which is far below its economic capabilities that are expected to be more fully utilized by AEC. Intra-ASEAN imports and exports increased within the last decade (ASEAN Secretariat, 2013, p.2). ASEAN’s top trade partners are intra-ASEAN partners (24%), China (13%), the EU (10%) and the USA (8%) (ASEAN Secretariat, 2014b).

Table 1 shows the ASEAN top 20 export commodities:

Table 1. ASEAN top 20 export commodities

 Source: ASEAN Secretariat, 2013c, p.25.

Table 2 shows ASEAN top 20 import commodities:

Table 2. ASEAN top 20 import commodities

Source: ASEAN Secretariat, 2013c, p.26.

The top 5 intra-ASEAN trade commodities are “oil (not crude) from petrol & bituminous minerals etc.” (19%), “electronic integrated circuits & micro-assemblies; parts thereof”, “petroleum gases & other gaseous hydrocarbons propane, butane, ethylene”, “crude oil from petroleum and bituminous minerals”, “parts and accessories of office machines” etc. (ASEAN Secretariat, 2014c, p.19).  Average tariff rates on intra-ASEAN imports are declining (ASEAN Secretariat, 2014c, p.15), consistent with the AEC program. The total land area of ASEAN member countries is 4,435,617 km2 (ASEAN Secretariat, 2014b) which is larger than India but smaller than half of China. ASEAN members’ total population which is 616 million (ASEAN Secretariat, 2014b) makes it the world’s third most populous after China and India (ASEAN Secretariat, 2014b) if the region is considered to be a single country. ASEAN comprises 8.9% of the world population again following China and India.

While ASEAN emerges as a slow but a successful organization of regional integration, it is also a region of contrasts in terms of economic indicators, demographics, poverty rate, urbanization and a set of other points. Singapore has the highest GDP per capita in ASEAN followed by Brunei (McClanahan et al, 2014, p.11). Lao People’s Democratic Republic is the smallest ASEAN economy (McClanahan et al, 2014, p.33) followed by Myanmar (McClanahan et al, 2014, p.42).

Demographically speaking, Singapore has the lowest percentage of the 0-19 age group and Lao PDR has the highest followed by the Philippines and Cambodia. For people older than 55, this is reversed where Singapore is the top while Lao PDR, Cambodia and the Philippines are the lowest (ASEAN Secretariat, 2013c, p.48). Brunei has the smallest population (400,000) while Indonesia has the largest (245,425,000) (ASEAN Secretariat, 2014d, p.2). Indonesia is the largest ASEAN country also in terms of total land area that covers more than a third of the ASEAN geography while Singapore is the smallest one (ASEAN Secretariat, 2013c, p.1). Indonesia is nearly 2600 times larger than Singapore.

Singapore is the most urbanized (100%) while Cambodia is the least (20.4%) (ASEAN Secretariat, 2014b). The most agricultural ASEAN country is Myanmar (34.9% of the GDP); while the least is Singapore (0% of the GDP). The most industrial ASEAN country is Thailand, while the least is Myanmar (27.4% of the GDP). Finally, the most service-oriented ASEAN country is Singapore (61.8% of the GDP), while the least is again Myanmar (37.7% of the GDP) (ASEAN Secretariat, 2013b). The poverty rate declined in ASEAN within the last decade owing to the improvements in CLMV[1] (ASEAN Secretariat, 2013a, p.3).  As of 2012, ASEAN poverty rate is announced to be 15.3% (ASEAN Secretariat, 2014a), with Myanmar having the highest poverty rate (32%)  (McClanahan et al, 2014, p.42).

ASEAN Economic Community, ASEAN Political-Security Community and ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community are considered to be 3 pillars of the ASEAN Community (ASEAN Secretariat, 2012b, p.vi; Wailerdsak, 2013, p.2). In the next section, we present ASEAN Economic Community.

2. Asean Economic Community (AEC)

Single market and production base, competitive economic region, equitable economic development and ASEAN’s integration into the global economy are considered to be the pillars of ASEAN Economic Community (ASEAN Secretariat, 2014, pp.3-4; 2008, pp.5-6). ASEAN Secretariat (2014) lists the following five core elements under single market and production base: free flow of goods, free flow of services, free flow of investment, freer flow of capital, and free flow of skilled labor (ASEAN Secretariat, 2014, p.4; 2012a, p.1; 2008, pp.5-6).  Secondly, a competitive economic region necessitates ASEAN Highway Network, ASEAN Power Grid, trans-ASEAN Gas Pipeline, and ASEAN Open Skies Policy which are in progress (ASEAN Secretariat, 2014, pp.8-12).  Thirdly, equitable economic development refers to reducing economic inequalities across ASEAN countries and regions in the long term (ASEAN Secretariat, 2014, p.12; 2008, pp.5-6). Finally, ASEAN’s integration into the global economy refers to various free trade areas under negotiation including RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership) which involves the negotiations with ASEAN and 6 FTA partners (India, China, South Korea, Japan, Australia and New Zealand) that comprise 30% of global GDP with almost half of the world’s population (ASEAN Secretariat, 2014, pp.14-15).

The ASEAN Secretariat (2008) document which is the AEC Blueprint signed by all ASEAN countries discusses elimination of tariffs and non-tariff barriers, rules of origin (ROO), trade facilitation, customs integration, ASEAN single window, and standards and technical barriers to trade (pp.6-10). Under free flow of investment, investment protection, facilitation and cooperation, promotion and awareness and liberalization are discussed (ASEAN Secretariat, 2008, pp.12-14). The section for freer flow of capital presents issues related to strengthening ASEAN capital market development and integration and allowing greater capital mobility (pp.14-15). Among the points discussed under Competitive Economic Region are competition policy, consumer protection, intellectual property rights, infrastructure development, taxation and e-commerce (pp.18-23). SME development and initiative for ASEAN integration (IAI) are considered under equitable economic development (pp.24-25).  It appears that one of the longest discussed topics is infrastructure development which covers transport cooperation, land transport, maritime and air transport, information infrastructure, energy cooperation, mining cooperation, and financing of infrastructure process (pp. 20-23). Likewise, “seven key programme areas of cooperation” for “energy security, accessibility and sustainability” needs further planning which are “(i) ASEAN Power Grid; (ii) Trans-ASEAN Gas Pipeline; (iii) Coal and Clean Technology; (iv) Renewable Energy; (v) Energy Efficiency and Conservation; (vi) Regional Energy Policy and Planning; and (vii) Civilian Nuclear Energy” (ASEAN Secretariat, 2012a, p.10).  “Political will, coordination and resource mobilisation, implementation arrangements, capacity building and institutional strengthening and public and private sector consultations” are considered to be keys to ASEAN Economic Community (ASEAN Secretariat, 2012a, p.16).

AEC Scorecard is designed as a monitoring mechanism and compliance tool for ASEAN member countries (ASEAN Secretariat, 2012a, p.1). 12 sectors are listed as Priority Industry Sectors: “agro-based goods, air transport, automotive products, e-ASEAN, electronics and electrical goods, fisheries, health care services, rubber-based goods, textiles and clothing, tourism, logistics services and wood-based products” (ASEAN Secretariat, 2012a, p.7).

ASEAN regional trade agreements have had a slower pace compared to other regional integration efforts such as EU and NAFTA (Wattanakul, 2010). One of the factors that contribute to this slow pace is the economic gap between CLMV and others. On the other hand, Chia (2013) points out that the comparison of AEC and EU is ill-founded, as “the AEC is neither a customs union (with common external commercial policy) nor a full common market (with free mobility of capital and labor and some policy harmonization)” (p.11). It can still be stated that so far ASEAN is on track. As of 2014, most of the tariff lines among ASEAN countries have been eliminated (ASEAN Secretariat, 2014, p.4). With ATiGA (ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement) which was signed in 2010, all import duties for intra-ASEAN trade are expected to be lifted except some special goods within a couple of years, and this is considered to be a major step for the ASEAN Economic Community (McClanahan et al, 2014, p.6).

3. Strategic Management Models and Frameworks as Applied to ASEAN and AEC

Strategy “is the long term direction of an organization” (Johnson, Whittington, Scholes, Angwin & Regner, 2014, p.3). The establishment of AEC requires both strategic changes and change strategies. With regard to AEC, the strategic models and frameworks that refer to SAFe criteria of evaluation, deliberate and emergent strategies, elements of strategic change such as leadership, diagnosis, levers for change and types of strategic change, the change kaleidoscope and other tools such as PEST framework and FDI drivers framework are the most relevant. The SAFe criteria are about the suitability of the strategy (how to address key opportunities and threats), acceptability of the strategy (which refers to expectations of stakeholders, the level of risk, the likely return and stakeholder reactions), and feasibility of the strategy (the strategy in practice, finance, people and skills and integration of the required resources) (Johnson et al., p.372).

As for strategic management models and frameworks, Johnson et al. (2014) lists PESTEL, scenarios, five forces, strategic groups, strategic capabilities, value chain and cultural web to evaluate the “suitability of strategic options in relation to strategic position” (p.373) and other strategic management tools to be employed for other strategic purposes.

Secondly, realized strategy consists of deliberate strategy and emergent strategy. The former involves “strategic leadership, vision and command, strategic planning” and “externally imposed strategies” while emergent strategy corresponds to “logical incrementalism, political process, continuity” and “organization systems” (Johnson et al., p.403). Thirdly, “key elements in leading strategic change” are “leadership and change, levers for change, types of strategic change” and “diagnosis” (Johnson et al., p.466). Likewise, the change kaleidoscope revolves on a set of factors such as time, scope, preservation, diversity, capability, capacity, readiness and power of change (Johnson et al., p.472). The other strategic management tools to be applicable for AEC are PEST framework (political/legal, economic, socio-cultural and technological factors) (Rugman & Collinson, 2012, p.466) and an adapted version of FDI drivers framework (Rugman & Collinson, 2012, p.477) which help us to delineate a comprehensive portrait of AEC as an offshoot of ASEAN. Unlike PESTEL which is essentially similar, PEST analysis starts with a list of factors under each category in interaction with each other such as “FDI, trade regulations/incentives” (Political/legal factors), “GNP trends” (Economic factors), “population demographics” (Social-cultural factors) and “government R & D” (technological factors) (Rugman & Collinson, 2012, p.466). Finally, FDI drivers framework relies on “the strategic objectives of MNEs, host-country attractiveness and host-government requirements” (Rugman & Collinson, 2012, p.477).

4. SAFe

In terms of acceptability, it can be stated that since ASEAN and AEC processes are slow-paced, they are less risky, returns are high and reaction of the stakeholders are positive. Finally, as stated above, the notion of feasibility taps finance, people and resource integration. So far ASEAN and AEC are customarily under-resourced as to finance and people, and the pair needs to do more for resource integration.

Deliberate and emergent strategies

Realized strategy consists of deliberate strategy and emergent strategy. The former involves “strategic leadership, vision and command, strategic planning” and “externally imposed strategies” while emergent strategy corresponds to “logical incrementalism, political process, continuity” and “organization systems”. Logical incrementalism refers to “environmental uncertainty, general goals and experimentation” (Johnson et al., 2014, p.411) which characterizes ASEAN and AEC. In “the political view of strategy development”, “strategies develop as the outcome of bargaining and negotiation among powerful interest groups (or stakeholders)” (Johnson et al., 2014, p.413) which is equally applicable for ASEAN and AEC.

It appears that ASEAN through the process of setting up AEC utilizes both deliberate and emergent strategies. As the name implies, deliberate strategy is intentional; it is based on organizational decisions. Among the four possibilities for deliberate strategy, strategic planning is the most applicable for ASEAN and AEC as the pair is not the blueprint of a strong leader or external imposition. The influence of emergent strategy over ASEAN and AEC is stronger as logical incrementalism, political process and continuity are the trademarks of the ASEAN way which is considered to be ASEAN’s consensus-based decision-making procedure. In contrast to deliberate strategy, emergent strategy is more spontaneous. Logical incrementalism is the most deliberate and the product of organizational systems is the least deliberate within the “continuum of emergent strategy development processes” while political processes (more deliberate) and continuity (less deliberate) are in the middle (Johnson et al., 2014, p.410).

“Key elements in leading strategic change”: the change kaleidoscope

Leadership and change, levers for change, managing types of strategic change and diagnosis are the “key elements in leading strategic change” (Johnson et al., 2014, p.466). The change kaleidoscope is used for diagnosis within this context. Let’s see how the components of the kaleidoscope are applicable for ASEAN and AEC.

Time: ASEAN and AEC are criticized for their slow progress. However, the results are built on consensus which is more effective than rapid changes. On the other hand, the fact that it was not set up as a response to a regional or global crisis slows down its development. 

Scope: Although three pillars of AEC (ASEAN Economic Community along with ASEAN Political-Security Community and ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community) are proposed, the scope to take place is not clear, but expected to be clear. The time will tell the scope of changes brought by AEC and ASEAN. On the other hand, it can be stated that the pillars of AEC in particular (single market and production base, competitive economic region, equitable economic development and ASEAN’s integration into the global economy) are clearer than the others, in contrast with the other pillars of ASEAN.

Preservation: Change also means preservation as change strategy is not identical with demolishing all past built-in aspects. “Organizational resources and characteristics” to preserve should be decided (Johnson et al., p.472), as a result of the regional integration efforts by ASEAN and AEC.

Diversity: AEC and ASEAN are expected to bring a more diversified and heterogeneous human resource.  The “unity in diversity” principle needs to be the motto of ASEAN to maintain an optimal mix of the macro ASEAN identity as well as intra-ASEAN, regional, provincial and personal identities.

Capability: Capability refers to “the managerial and personal capability to implement change” (Johnson et al., p.473). ASEAN is sufficiently experienced to undertake the challenge although the resources available for the secretariat are limited.

Capacity: Capacity corresponds to the resources deployable for the strategic change. This is one of the weakest points of AEC, as the ASEAN Secretariat tries to lead the change with insufficient resources. Finances can be raised with the contribution of ASEAN member countries.

Readiness: It is significant to see that no major group opposes ASEAN and AEC, unlike the other regional integration programs. It can be stated that the region is ready for AEC, although adjustments will take time.

Power: It is positive to see that so far ASEAN and AEC have not evolved into Brussels-type centralization which would alienate the members. Secondly, no apparent hierarchy of ASEAN members are observed, with the ASEAN way, a slow, but soft decision making method based on consensus.

Overall, the change kaleidoscope shows that although the scope, preservation and diversity components are not clear, and capacity and capabilities are unfavorable, the region exhibits a higher level of readiness for ASEAN and AEC with the deployment of less hierarchical forms of political power. 

5. PEST framework

Political/legal factors: Rugman & Collinson (2012) lists the following as political/legal factors for strategic analysis: “FDI, trade regulations/incentives, monopolies legislation, taxation, employment laws, environmental protection” and “political stability” (p.466). AEC is moving towards favorable FDI and trade regulations/incentives, however the member countries need to streamline the other points listed here. The pillar of equitable economic development will hopefully focus on these. Finally, the differences in political stability among ASEAN member countries can hinder the development of AEC. However, the receptiveness of all governments in the region regardless of political differences is an asset.

Economic factors: Rugman & Collinson (2012) lists the following as economic factors: “GNP trends, productivity, energy and supply infrastructure, interest rates, capital markets, local markets, disposable income” and “economic stability” (p.466). As stated before, GNP trends are favorable for AEC. The productivity differences across member countries are a challenge. ASEAN infrastructure programs will fortunately ease the process. For capital markets, there are some plans. Interest rates would be based on a common monetary policy which is unlikely for the current state of ASEAN and AEC. The widespread popularity of ASEAN among citizens will partially depend on how AEC will translate to the declines or rises in disposable incomes, which was one of the reasons for the emergence of anti-EU attitudes in the Euro zone. Finally, measures should be in place to avoid a new Asian financial crisis. Export-dependence should be reduced as well with intra-ASEAN demand policies, as it is a risky model.

Socio-cultural factors: Rugman & Collinson (2012) lists the following as socio-cultural factors: “population demographics, income distribution, social mobility, lifestyle, attitudes towards work, leisure” and “education” (p.466). Low income ASEAN countries have a younger population and labor force. Income distribution and social mobility issues need to be addressed with the pillar of equitable economic development. Lifestyle changes are expected as a result of the development of AEC. Finally, ASEAN-wide education initiatives are set up which are promising (cf. Umboh, 2013).

Technological factors: Rugman & Collinson (2012) lists the following as technological factors: “government research & development, science & technology infrastructure, technology transfer channels, technological capabilities” and “national “system of innovation”” (p.466).These key terms will turn out to be the major factors behind the sustainability of AEC.

FDI drivers framework

As to FDI drivers, Rugman & Collinson (2012) states that MNEs may want “access to raw materials, cheaper products/manufacturing base, access to technology/expertise, market access” and “investment in growing firms (including equity in privatized firms)”; host country may involve factors such as “natural resources, physical infrastructure, labor costs, human capital-productivity, support industries/services, science and technology infrastructure, domestic market (size of market, per capita GNP (buying power), potential future growth, policies toward FDI (openness, liberalization, incentives to attract FDI), economic stability and political stability (risk)”, while host government may want “employment, technology transfer training (knowledge transfer), capital investment, local multipliers and increased exports (forex earnings)” (p.477). These three lists are highly applicable for ASEAN and AEC. By the first list, the movement of production bases is expected from high and middle income ASEAN countries to lower ones analogous to relocation of US and EU companies to Asia and particularly China. Although the ASEAN lowest income countries (CLM - Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar) may be targeted, their disadvantage will be their small market size. The cost of production in CLM can still be sufficiently low to allow companies from other ASEAN countries to set up production bases. However, the likely target of intra-ASEAN FDI would be Indonesia with its large population and consumer base, despite the fact that disposable income and purchasing power levels are not yet conducive to secure a high consumption rate for Indonesia.

6. Strategic Management of ASEAN Economic Community

In addition to the points presented in the previous section, the following can be added as to the opportunities and threats for the ASEAN Economic Community:

Opportunities

Extra-ASEAN exports: It can be stated that AEC is a project to set intra-ASEAN trade and consumption as the base of the ASEAN economies which are usually dependent on their trading partners as a result of the export-oriented character of the ASEAN economies. While exports are the driving force for ASEAN economies, they are also the Achilles’ heel in case of global crises as seen in 2008 (cf. CEBR, 2013).

Labor productivity: Differences in labor productivity among ASEAN countries can be a challenge for AEC (cf. Wailerdsak, 2013, p.4). The ASEAN countries are hoped to move towards the level of Singapore in that respect which has the highest labor productivity in the region. This requires a move from cheap labor advantage or labor-intensive production towards capital-intensive production.

Young population and labor force: ASEAN low income countries have higher rates of population growth and labor growth which provides favorable conditions for economic growth in the region as contrasted with the demographic stagnation in China (Wailerdsak, 2013, p.2). Labor shortages in the ageing higher income ASEAN countries are expected to be matched by the young labor force asset of the lower income ASEAN countries in the long-run.

Threats

‘Doing Business’ rankings: There are differences in ease of doing business rankings among ASEAN countries (World Bank Doing Business Rankings, 2014). Singapore is globally ranked the first, Malaysia as the 6th, Thailand as the 18th, while Cambodia, Lao PDR and Myanmar ranked among the lowest globally. Although this can be considered to be a weakness of the past rather than a threat for the future, the current conditions can also hijack the future of doing business in the region.

Mass exodus: The forming of AEC can lead to the mass movement of migrant workers from the low-income ASEAN countries towards high-income (Singapore and Brunei) and middle-income (Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines and Indonesia) countries (Hoang, 2013), although AEC is based on skilled labor force only. The fact that the population growth rate and the percentage of youth in CLMV are higher than others (Hoang, 2013) would be another factor in this movement in addition to the economic disparities. Thus, young labor force can be considered as both an opportunity and a threat.

The ASEAN way: ASEAN way and ASEAN minus X which refers to the case that “(...) two or more ASEAN countries can start to negotiate services trade liberalization for specific sectors and/or subsectors, while other members could join later” (Chia, 2013, p.19) can be a threat as it slows down the decision making processes and enforcement. The decision making processes may be modified in the future, if the need arises. Let us also note that the ASEAN way as one of the unique properties of ASEAN can be considered as an opportunity as it eases differences between ASEAN member countries.  

Language barriers: In ASEAN, Bahasa Indonesian is the majority language, but the ASEAN working language is English. Considering the fact that the percentage of English-speaking ASEAN citizens is low and study of another ASEAN language as the second language is rare, more efforts need to be directed towards intra-regional language policies. 

Other challenges: Losari & Koesnaidi (2014) lists 5 challenges for Indonesia through the process of ASEAN integration which may completely or partially be applicable for the other member countries: Low capital endowment, limited infrastructure, corruption, decentralization and counter-productive investment regulations (Losari & Koesnaidi, 2014). Additionally, natural disasters can be a major threat to AEC, as the region is notorious for hurricanes, flooding, earthquakes, tsunami and volcanic eruptions etc.

7. Conclusion

In this chapter, ASEAN is delineated in the first section before the presentation of ASEAN Economic Community. A set of strategic management models and frameworks are discussed accordingly as applied to ASEAN and AEC such as SAFe, deliberate and emergent strategies, the change kaleidoscope, PEST framework and FDI drivers framework. In the fourth section, additional points are listed such as extra-ASEAN exports, labor productivity and young population and labor force as opportunities, and doing business rankings, mass exodus, ASEAN way, and language barriers etc. as threats. As ASEAN progresses towards the goal of ASEAN Economic Community, more scholarly works and policy papers are required to fill the gaps between the current situation and the ideal situation.  

References

ASEAN Secretariat (2014a). Thinking Globally, Prospering Regionally – ASEAN Economic Community 2015. Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat. Retrieved from http://www.asean.org/images/resources/2014/May/AECKeyMessagesBooklet_FINAL30Apr2014.pdf [Accessed: 25th May 2015].

ASEAN Secretariat (2014b). ASEAN Statistics Leaflet: Selected Key Indicators 2013. Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat. Retrieved from http://www.asean.org/images/resources/2014/May/2.%20Feb%202014%20-%20ASEAN%20Statistics%20Leaflet%20-%20Selected%20Key%20Indicators%202013.pdf [Accessed: 25th May 2015].

ASEAN Secretariat (2014d). ASEAN Statistical Yearbook 2013. Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat. Retrieved from http://arc.asean.org/Book_Detail/?ID=1517 [Accessed: 25th May 2015].

ASEAN Secretariat (2014c). ASEAN Economic Community Chartbook 2013. Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat. Retrieved from http://www10.iadb.org/intal/intalcdi/PE/2014/14222.pdf [Accessed: 25th May 2015].

ASEAN Secretariat (2013a). Statistics to Track Progress: ASEAN Integration Inched up to 2015. Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat. Retrieved from http://www.asean.org/resources/2012-02-10-08-47-55/statistical-publications [Accessed: 25th May 2015].

ASEAN Secretariat (2013b). ASEAN GDP Growth, Backed by Services. Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat. Retrieved fromhttp://www.asean.org/images/2013/resources/statistics/statistical_publication/aseanstats_gdp_snapshot_21oct13.pdf [Accessed: 25th May 2015].

ASEAN Secretariat (2013c). ACIF (ASEAN Community in Figures) 2013. Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat. Retrieved from http://www.miti.gov.my/storage/documents/17f/com.tms.cms.document.Document_5a1465e5-c0a81573-448b1ca0-1f3fd7b0/1/ASEAN%20Community%20in%20Figures%202013.pdf [Accessed: 25th May 2015].

ASEAN Secretariat (2012a). ASEAN Economic Community Scorecard. Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat. Retrieved from http://www10.iadb.org/intal/intalcdi/PE/2012/10132.pdf [Accessed: 25th May 2015].

ASEAN Secretariat (2012b). ASEAN Economic Community Handbook for Business 2012. Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat. Retrieved fromhttp://www.asean.org/images/2013/resources/publication/ASEAN_Economic_Community_Handbook_for_Business_2012.pdf [Accessed: 25th May 2015].

ASEAN Secretariat (2008). The ASEAN Economic Community Blueprint. Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat. Retrieved from http://www.asean.org/archive/5187-10.pdf [Accessed: 25th May 2015].

CEBR (The Centre for Economics and Business Research) (2013). Economic Insight South East Asia Quarterly Briefing Q4 2013. Singapore: CEBR.Retrieved from http://www.icaew.com/~/media/Files/About-ICAEW/What-we-do/economic-insight/2013/se-asia-q4-2013-web.pdf [Accessed: 25th May 2015].

Chia, S. Y. (2013). The ASEAN Economic Community: Progress, Challenges, and Prospects. ADBI Working Paper 440. Tokyo: Asian Development Bank Institute. Retrieved from http://www.adbi.org/working-paper/2013/10/25/5916.asean.economic.community.progress.challenges/ [Accessed: 25th May 2015].

Hoang, N. H. (2013). Toward an Integrated ASEAN Labor Market Prospects and Challenges for CLMV Countries. VNU Journal of Economics and Business, 29(5), 34-42. 

Johnson, G., Whittington, R., Scholes, K., Angwin, D., & Regner, P. (2014). Exploring strategy. Harlow, England: Pearson. 

Losari, J. J. & Koesnaidi, J. W. (2014). Indonesia and the Establishment of The Asean Economic Community in 2015: Are wethere yet? Asian Development Bank Policy Brief, No.10. March 2014. Retrieved from http://aric.adb.org/pdf/policy_brief/indonesia-establishment-asean-economic-community-in-2015.pdf [Accessed: 25th May 2015].

McClanahan, P., Chandra, A., Hattari, R., Vis-Dunbar, D. (2014). Taking Advantage of ASEAN's Free Trade Agreements: A guide for small and medium-sized enterprises. International Institute for Sustainable Development. Retrieved from http://www.iisd.org/publications/taking-advantage-aseans-free-trade-agreements-guide-small-and-medium-sized-enterprises [Accessed: 25th May 2015].

Rugman, A. M. & Collinson, S. (2012). International business. Harlow, England: Pearson.

Umboh, P. (2013). Education for the ASEAN Community – The Case ofIndonesia. Journal of ASEAN Studies, 1(1), 83-89.

Wattanakul, T. (2010). The Global Crisis and Economic Integration: Implications for ASEAN Economic Community. Journal of Business and Economics, 1(1), 29-41.

Wailerdsak, N. (2013). Impacts of The Asean (Association Of South East Asian Nations) Economic Community on Labour Market and Human Resource Management in Thailand. South East Asia Journal of Contemporary Business, Economics and Law, 2(2), 1-10.

World Bank Doing Business Rankings (2014). World Bank Doing Business Rankings. Retrieved from http://www.doingbusiness.org/rankings [Accessed: 25th May 2015].

---

[1] This is the abbreviation for Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam.

Source: Gezgin, U. B. (2017).  When the Dragon Reigns the World: On Asian Society, Politics and 

Education.  

WHEN THE DRAGON REIGNS THE WORLD: ON ASIAN SOCIETY, POLITICS AND EDUCATION Prof.Dr. Ulaş Başar Gezgin ASIAN SOCIETY & POLITICS 1. Strategic Management of ASEAN Economic Community: An Analysis of Strategic Change and Change Strategy 2. The Role Model for the Muslim World: A Shift from Turkey to Indonesia? 3. Trump and Slump: Implications for Chinese Ascendancy. 4. Policy Prescriptions Based on Faulty Premises. 5. Delusions of an 'Asian Century': The Asian Century and the Social Problems of Asia  6. Human Development in Asia-Pacific: Challenges and Opportunities. 7. The Applicability of Sustainable and Green Business Models for Vietnam: The Case of Recycling 8. On the Seas, the Rivers, and the Mountains... ASIAN EDUCATION 9. Potential Problems of Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET) in Off-shore Campuses in Southeast and East Asia and suggestions. 10. Implications of East Asian Perspectives on Critical Education for Turkish Educational Policies: Culturalism Revisited. 11. The Currents and Trends in the Vietnamese Education System within the International(ized) Context: A Comparative Perspective 12. Các Trào Lưu Và Xu Thế Của Hệ Thống Giáo Dục VN Trong Bối Cảnh Quốc Tế: Từ Góc Độ Nghiên Cứu So Sánh  ASIAN HISTORY 13. Agent Orange: A Calamity That Never Ends (with Değirmencioğlu) 14. Khmer Rouge and The Killing Fields: To Whom Can It Be Attributed? Bio