While the worst is over and the global economy is slowly recovering, there is an ongoing perception among the export economies that they can no longer rely on the traditional markets such as US and Europe to sustain their long-term growth. Consequently, the focus of many policy-makers has been on increasing domestic consumption and looking for alternative markets for their exports.
ASEAN economies take this view seriously considering that 600 million people call the region home. The dynamism of the region where each economy complements one another provide another valid reason as to why ASEAN should not only look outward in sustaining its economic growth. Among the many proposals that are circulating around is one on the establishment of a one-stop trade & investment centre (TIC) in each economy who will liaise with its counterpart in the other economies. While the idea is good in theory and should definitely be assessed critically, it may encounter several roadblocks in the immediate short-run and this is ironically due to the region’s dynamism.
Let’s start with the more developed economies. It is unlikely that these economies will shoot down the idea due to ideological clash. Afterall, economies such as Singapore pride itself as an open economy. It is open to more foreign investments and concurrently, does not spare any efforts in getting their homegrown companies to internationalize. The issue is that having stayed true to this belief for a long time, Singapore already has well-established institutions with the same responsibilities as TIC albeit under different roofs. It may thus reject this idea on the ground of redundancy. We can of course argue that instead of establishing a new centre altogether, Singapore can try to re-structure its existing institutions so that it resembles the proposed TIC but why should it do so if it has done well based on the existing model. In other words, convincing these economies will not be an easy task if we want them to buy this idea beyond solidarity.
Moving on to the less developed economies, there is no disagreement that market access is a good thing for their homegrown companies but market access is based on reciprocity. The issue with these economies is that although they want to “take” (in terms of gaining more market access), they are less willing to “give” (in terms of opening their own market) for fear that their companies are unable to compete with others. The trick is then on how we can convince them that the long-term gains far outweighs the short-term losses.
ASEAN economies take this view seriously considering that 600 million people call the region home. The dynamism of the region where each economy complements one another provide another valid reason as to why ASEAN should not only look outward in sustaining its economic growth. Among the many proposals that are circulating around is one on the establishment of a one-stop trade & investment centre (TIC) in each economy who will liaise with its counterpart in the other economies. While the idea is good in theory and should definitely be assessed critically, it may encounter several roadblocks in the immediate short-run and this is ironically due to the region’s dynamism.
Let’s start with the more developed economies. It is unlikely that these economies will shoot down the idea due to ideological clash. Afterall, economies such as Singapore pride itself as an open economy. It is open to more foreign investments and concurrently, does not spare any efforts in getting their homegrown companies to internationalize. The issue is that having stayed true to this belief for a long time, Singapore already has well-established institutions with the same responsibilities as TIC albeit under different roofs. It may thus reject this idea on the ground of redundancy. We can of course argue that instead of establishing a new centre altogether, Singapore can try to re-structure its existing institutions so that it resembles the proposed TIC but why should it do so if it has done well based on the existing model. In other words, convincing these economies will not be an easy task if we want them to buy this idea beyond solidarity.
Moving on to the less developed economies, there is no disagreement that market access is a good thing for their homegrown companies but market access is based on reciprocity. The issue with these economies is that although they want to “take” (in terms of gaining more market access), they are less willing to “give” (in terms of opening their own market) for fear that their companies are unable to compete with others. The trick is then on how we can convince them that the long-term gains far outweighs the short-term losses.
.JPG)
