아세안 경제협력의 진화와 평가

박번순 ( Bun Soon Park ) 한국동남아학회 2013 동남아시아연구 Vol.23 No.2

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (hereafter ASEAN) was established in 1967 in order to manage the conflicts of member states and to collectively deal with the changes of international order. Its main priority at the inception was political solidarity; but economic cooperation also became paramount since the mid 1970s. It is true that the efforts for economic integration within ASEAN evolved with time but the most definitive form that has emerged out of these is an ``ASEAN Community``, promoted since 2000s. The ASEAN Community is made up of ASEAN Political Community, ASEAN Economic Community, and ASEAN Socio-cultural Community. This study aims to assess the progress made in forming ASEAN Economic Community due to be completed by 2015. Rather than using specific indicators for its definition, the ASEAN Economic Community is defined to exist when 4 objectives in the ASEAN community blueprint are met: a single market and production base; a highly competitive economic region; a region of equitable economic development; and a region fully integrated into the global economy. This study focuses on the achievements made to meet the first and the third objectives in order to analyse the extent to which ASEAN has moved closer to creating the ASEAN Economic Community. This study finds that both the level of intra-regional trade and integration have been falling since 2008 and thus it is difficult to say that the efforts to create a single market and achieve economic integration have been successful. For instance, the level of intra-regional direct investment has remained below 20%; the investment to the less developed countries within ASEAN has remained scarce; and lastly the investments of multinational corporations (MNCs) have concentrated on service industry rather than manufacturing industry. All of these confirm that the creation of a single market has a long way to go. This study also looks at the changes of income per capita of member countries as well as the differences in national income at specific time intervals to find out whether or not there has been any significant progress made to reduce the development gap within ASEAN. It finds that, as a result of economic growth and social development, the quality of life for advanced countries has improved dramatically whereas that of CLMV countries has still remained at low-level.

아세안 경제공동체 탄생에 대한 기대와 현실

이충열 ( Choong Lyol Lee ) 한국동남아학회 2014 동남아시아연구 Vol.24 No.3

We review the recent development of ASEAN Economic Community and try to evaluate it. At first, we check the historical background of ASEAN economic community and later examine what ASEAN did to build its economic community for the past decade. For this purpose, we investigate score card of ASEAN integration and several economic indicators including intra-trade volumes. In addition, we reviews the several survey result done by various economic agents across the country. From this comprehensive analysis, we support the view that the building procedure of ASEAN economic community by 2015 is behind the schedule and that this view is also quite widely acknowledged by many economic agents. To find the reasons for this problem, we investigate the detailed integration process of several sectors. We think that it may be caused by fundamental problems of ASEAN member countries such as wide disparity of economic size or personal income of each member country. At the same time, idealistic and unrealistic and less concrete plan also can be another reason for it. Despite all these problems, we cannot deny that ASEAN builds a very remarkable achievement for advancing its economic integration and cooperation for the past decade and that it should be evaluated very positively.

아세안의 경제통합: 투자협정 발전 측면에서의 고찰

김관호 서울대학교 국제학연구소 2009 국제지역연구 Vol.18 No.3

The development of ASEAN investment agreements can be seen as an aspect of the deepening process of ASEAN economic integration. ASEAN Investment Guarantee Agreement (1987), which was adopted in the early stage of economic cooperation, is noteworthy in that ASEAN Member Countries accepted common standards towards investment protection. Framework Agreement on the ASEAN Investment Area (1998), which was adopted as a part forming the ASEAN Free Trade Area, provided investment liberalization schemes and identified ASEAN as a single investment area. Now ASEAN is in the process of transitioning from an FTA stage to the stage of Economic Community which has features of a common market. ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement, which was signed on Dec. 2008, is a building block for the ASEAN Economic Community. Compared with the former investment agreements, ACIA is an instrument of higher level in many respects. ACIA's provisions on investment protection and investor-state dispute settlement are not so different from those of the U.S. model investment treaty. The provisions on investment liberalization and prohibition of performance requirements, on the other hand, are considerably different. Service industry, excluding some sectors, is not subject to liberalization obligations. Backtracking of commitments is allowed if compensatory adjustment is made. Prohibited performance requirements are not beyond those of WTO TRIMs. The scope of general exception is also wide. In short, ACIA is still a flexible investment instrument which allows considerable discretion to member countries. Flexibility has been one of the main features of ASEAN economic integration. ACIA implies that this feature will remain at the stage of ASEAN Economic Community. 아세안의 투자협정의 발전 과정은 아세안의 경제통합의 심화 과정의 한 단면이라 할 수 있다. 본 논문에서는 아세안의 경제통합 과정에서 체결된 투자협정들의 성격과 내용에 대한 고찰을 통해 아세안의 경제통합 문제에 접근하고 있다. 아세안의 초기의 경제협력 단계에서 체결된 아세안투자보장협정은 비록 낮은 수준이지만 투자보호에 관해 회원국들이 공통된 기준을 수용했다는 점에서 의의가 있다. 아세안의 자유무역지대 단계에서 체결된 아세안투자지역협정은 외국인투자에 대한 자유화의 계획을 수립하고 아세안을 하나의 외국인투자 입지지역으로 정립함으로서 보다 심층적인 경제통합체로서 아세안의 성격을 발전시켰다. 현재 아세안은 자유무역지대에서 공동시장의 성격을 지니는 아세안 경제공동체로 발전되는 과정에 있으며, 아세안은 경제공동체의 성격을 담고 있는 투자협정으로서 아세안 포괄적 투자협정을 2008년 12월에 체결하였다. 이 투자협정은 이전의 협정들에 비해 여러 측면에서 발전된 내용을 담고 있는 협정으로 평가될 수 있다. 투자보호에 관한 국제적 기준을 채택하고 있으며, 투자자 대 정부 간 분쟁해결절차에 있어서도 국제적 수준에 상당히 수렴된 모습을 보이고 있다. 그러나 투자 자유화의 범주와 방식, 그리고 이행의무의 부여 금지 등과 같이 개도국에 민감한 내용에 있어서는 각 회원국들이 상당한 재량권을 행사할 수 있는 유연성을 부여하고 있다. 이는 아세안이 추진하고 있는 경제공동체가 개도국들의 특수성을 고려한 유연한 경제통합체로서의 성격을 유지할 것임을 시사한다.

Material Interests and Social Norms : Regional Economic Integration in Southeast Asia

Yoshimatsu, Hidetaka 이화여자대학교 국제통상협력연구소 2005 Asian International Studies Review Vol.6 No.2

Ever since the early 1990s, the members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations(ASEAN) have deepened regional economic integration, advancing the main programs from the creation of an ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) to the formation of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC). This article identifies underpinning factors that have qualified ASEAN's such efforts for regional economic integration. In particular, it highlights the evolving perception of material interests due to external environments and socially shared norms as factors influencing ASEAN's efforts to promote economic integration. I argue that external threats deriving from moves towards stronger regionalism in other parts of the world or the rapid economic growth of the neighboring countries induced ASEAN members to strengthen their own regional economic cohesion. In addition, ASEAN's particular set of norms, such as consensus-building, flexible incrementalism, and informality, were effective in drawing willingness from members with divers differences to participate in cooperative programs. However, in the process of shifting from AFTA to the AEC, ASEAN members reconsidered some of these norms by adopting more formal implementation methods, including stronger dispute settlement mechanisms.

EAVGⅡ 이후의 대 아세안+3 협력

박번순 ( Bun Soon Park ) 서강대학교 동아연구소 2013 東亞 硏究 Vol.32 No.2

With the continuous economic growth in the last several decades, East Asia has emerged as an important economic region. The population of the ASEAN +3 in 2011 reached 2.1 billion which was more than 30% of the total world population. Its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was around 25% of the world`s entire GDP. However, due to an export-oriented growth, East Asia has relied on the developed market rather than the regional market. Furthermore historical and political conflict among countries made it difficult to cooperate each other in East Asian countries. EAVGⅠ which was initiated by Korea government after 1997 financial crisis in East Asia has contributed to formation of East Asia as a regional entity. In addition, in order to continue to paly the same role, Korea suggested to launch EAVGⅡ which will study the future vision of East Asia for the 2011-2012. EAVGⅡ reflecting the changing environment surrounding East Asia, proposed the establishment of the East Asian Economic Community(EAEC) as the new vision of cooperation in East Asia. EAVGⅡ submitted to ASEAN+3 summit in 2012 Vision report which faithfully reflects a reality, rather than the visionary report due to the major stakeholder`s intention of status quo such as China, Japan and ASEAN. Nevertheless, establishment of the EAEC will be depending on the future efforts of the ASEAN+3. In this regard, role of South Korea in the future is important. As a medium sized country with no intention of weilding power, Korea which is relatively neutral in conflicts in East Asia is in a good position to bridge the conflicting parties. As Korea in the past played a role of idea bank for EAVG, it should continue to play a crucial role in the process of the creation of the EAEC. Korea should lead the negotiation of RCEP in order to liberalize trade and investment in ASEAN+3 and at the same time should promote trilateral FTA of Korea, China and Japan. In addition, the economic cooperation with ASEAN which would play an important role in establishment of the EAEC should be strengthened. Korea should be a true friend of ASEAN. To do this, Korea should formulated and promote a long-term strategy for ASEAN.

AEC 내 태국의 산업 정책과 기업 진출 - 생산·물류 허브를 꿈꾸는 태국

이요한 한국태국학회 2017 한국태국학회논총 Vol.23 No.2

The ASEAN Economic Community (AEC), launched in 2015, gives both Thailand and ASEAN member countries both opportunities and challenges. In view of the ASEAN economic development stage and geopolitical status, Thailand can play a role as a link between the ASEAN countries and the latter ASEAN countries, and is favorable to lead the Southeast Asian connectivity of the weak infrastructure. This study examines economic and industrial policies that are promoting Thailand's industrial positioning following the acceleration of ASEAN economic integration, namely maximizing profits from Thailand's economy. In addition, It analyzes the instability of Thai politics and the factors of economic and socio-cultural change. 2015년 출범한 아세안경제공동체(AEC)는 태국을 비롯한 ASEAN 회원국에게 기회와 도전이라는 양면성을 부여한다. 태국은 ASEAN 경제발전 단계와 지정학적 위상을 볼 때 선발 ASEAN국과 후발ASEAN국의 연결고리의 역할이 가능하며 인프라가 취약한 대륙부의 동남아 연계성(Connectivity)을 주도하는데 유리한 입장에 있다. 본 연구는 ASEAN 경제통합 가속화에 따른 태국의 산업적 포지셔닝 즉 태국이 아세안 경제통합에 따른 이익의 극대화를 추진하고 있는 경제 및 산업정책을 고찰하고자 한다. 또한 태국 정치의 불안정과 이에 따른 경제와 사회문화적 변화 요인을 분석하고자 한다.

AEC 내 태국의 산업 정책과 기업 진출 - 생산·물류 허브를 꿈꾸는 태국

이요한 ( Lee Yo-han ) 한국태국학회 2017 한국태국학회논총 Vol.23 No.2

2015년 출범한 아세안경제공동체(AEC)는 태국을 비롯한 ASEAN 회원국에게 기회와 도전이라는 양면성을 부여한다. 태국은 ASEAN 경제발전 단계와 지정학적 위상을 볼 때 선발 ASEAN국과 후발 ASEAN국의 연결고리의 역할이 가능하며 인프라가 취약한 대륙부의 동남아 연계성(Connectivity)을 주도하는데 유리한 입장에 있다. 본 연구는 ASEAN 경제통합 가속화에 따른 태국의 산업적 포지셔닝 즉 태국이 아세안 경제통합에 따른 이익의 극대화를 추진하고 있는 경제 및 산업정책을 고찰하고자 한다. 또한 태국 정치의 불안정과 이에 따른 경제와 사회문화적 변화 요인을 분석하고자 한다. The ASEAN Economic Community (AEC), launched in 2015, gives both Thailand and ASEAN member countries both opportunities and challenges. In view of the ASEAN economic development stage and geopolitical status, Thailand can play a role as a link between the ASEAN countries and the latter ASEAN countries, and is favorable to lead the Southeast Asian connectivity of the weak infrastructure. This study examines economic and industrial policies that are promoting Thailand's industrial positioning following the acceleration of ASEAN economic integration, namely maximizing profits from Thailand's economy. In addition, It analyzes the instability of Thai politics and the factors of economic and socio-cultural change.

Industrial Relations Values

최병목 한국사회학회 2013 한국사회학회 사회학대회 논문집 Vol.2013 No.12

The objectives of this paper are to compare a set of industrial relations values (IRV) and practices (IRP) in Western countries with values and practices in Thailand, an ASEAN community (AC) member country and in Korea, an ASEAN+3 member country. In many countries industrial relations (IR) is a major component of the human resource management (HRM) system. It has become a driving force for economic and social development in many countries. An Industrial relations system (IRS) operates under the overall national cultural system thus IRV becomes an important background of any IRS. The integration of the 10 countries under the Association of South East Asia Nations (ASEAN) to become a single ASEAN Community (AC) will take effect in 2015. The ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) is one of the major pillars of the AC. It is a major force to drive economic cooperation in the AC which will lead to a single market and jointly-based production. There will ultimately be a free movement of products, services, investment, financial aspects and of skilled labour. The free flow of labour will lead to more diversity of the workforces in AEC member countries in terms of nationality and cultural values in addition to other types of diversity already in existence. In addition, ASEAN+3 countries (China, Japan and Korea) play a pivotal role in investment and employment in AEC. AEC member countries and many ASEAN+3 member countries have adopted Western IRS and IRV into their IRS and IRP. Values are an important factor impacting the implementation of IRP. Each different nation has its own cultures and values which are different from each other. This review paper focuses on a comparative study of Western IRV with Thai IRV and Korean IRV.

Industrial Relations Values: A Comparative Study of Western and ASEAN+3 Countries Values – Thailand and Korea

최병목,Jamnean Joungtrakul,Brian Sheehan,주인숙 한국보건사회학회 2014 보건과 사회과학 Vol.0 No.36

The objectives of this paper are to compare a set of industrial relations values(IRV) and practices (IRP) in Western countries with values and practices inThailand, an ASEAN community (AC) member country and in Korea, an ASEAN+3member country. In many countries industrial relations (IR) is a major componentof the human resource management (HRM) system. It has become a driving forcefor economic and social development in many countries. An Industrial relationssystem (IRS) operates under the overall national cultural system thus IRV becomesan important background of any IRS. The integration of the 10 countries under theAssociation of South East Asia Nations (ASEAN) to become a single ASEANCommunity (AC) will take effect in 2015. The ASEAN Economic Community (AEC)is one of the major pillars of the AC. It is a major force to drive economiccooperation in the AC which will lead to a single market and jointly-basedproduction. There will ultimately be a free movement of products, services,investment, financial aspects and of skilled labour. The free flow of labour will leadto more diversity of the workforces in AEC member countries in terms of nationalityand cultural values in addition to other types of diversity already in existence. In addition, ASEAN+3 countries (China, Japan and Korea) play a pivotal role ininvestment and employment in AEC. AEC member countries and many ASEAN+3member countries have adopted Western IRS and IRV into their IRS and IRp.Valuesare an important factor impacting the implementation of IRp.Each different nation hasits own cultures and values which are different from each other. This review paperfocuses on a comparative study of Western IRV with Thai IRV and Korean IRV.

동남아와 아세안 2016: 기대와 혼돈 속에 커져가는 불확실성

신윤환 ( Shin Yoon Hwan ) 한국동남아학회 2017 동남아시아연구 Vol.27 No.1

이 글은 2016년 한 해 동안 동남아 각국들과 아세안이 정치, 경제, 국제관계의 영역에서 보여 준 변화를 살펴보고, 그 변화가 민주화, 경제발전, 지역통합에 미치는 영향을 분석해 보고자 했다. 나아가 2016년에 대한 분석을 바탕으로 2017년 이후의 변화 가능성과 방향도 나름대로 가늠해 보았다. 아울러 2016년에 전개된 한-아세안관계를 전반적으로 살펴보고, 한국의 대아세안외교가 드러내는 문제점을 지적하였다. 2016년의 동남아 정치는 연초의 기대와 달리 대다수 나라에서 민주화 전망은 더 나빠지고 권위주의화는 더 강화되는 양상을 보였다. 태국, 말레이시아, 캄보디아는 권위주의적 집권세력이 야당을 더욱 약화시켰고, 필리핀, 베트남, 라오스에 들어선 새 지도부는 인권 상황을 되레 악화시켰다. 미얀마도 소수민족에 대한 군부의 탄압이 지속되고, 선거에 의해 들어선 민간정부는 첫해부터 내분, 부패, 무능을 드러내며 삐걱거리고 있다. 출범 이틀 째 새해를 맞은 아세안경제공동체(AEC)는 각 국의 내정에 밀려 관심과 주목을 받지 못했다. 경제는 2015년에 이어 뚜렷한 회복세를 보였으나, 중국과 미국등 경제대국들에서 기인하는 세계경제의 불확실성이 커지고 있어, 앞날을 점치기 힘들게 되었다. 마지막으로 이 글은 한국의 대아세안외교가 경중심, 국가주도, 비밀주의, 냉전적 경쟁외교의 덫에 빠져 있다고 비판하고, 지금이 바로 사고의 전환과 과감한 개혁이 필요한 때라고 주장한다. This study surveys and reviews political change, economic performance, and regional cooperation that were carried out in 2016 by Southeast Asian countries and ASEAN. This paper reports that what has followed the inauguration of new governments in Myanmar, the Philippines, Vietnam, and Laos fails to live up to the expectation and optimism that arose in the aftermath of elections and party congresses that took place in the first half of the year. In other countries such as Malaysia, Thailand, and Cambodia, where authoritarian regimes are faced with strong oppositions, the prospects for democratic change worsened to a substantial degree, as schisms and internal strives complicated the opposition camp as a result of instigation and intervention by the authoritarian leaders and their followers. In stable political systems, both democratic and authoritarian, no significant changes that may entail serious political implications were noticed. In 2016, the national economy of almost each and every country continued its slow but steady recovery that had started in 2014 and grew by 5% on the average. For 2017 onward, however, the earlier optimism that it would grow at least as fast dimmed down as uncertainty about the world economy looms larger due to the unexpected win by Donald Trump as U.S. president and the expected `hard landing` of the Chinese economy around 2018. ASEAN declared the launch of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) only one day before the New Year, but its track record looked already bad and unpromising by the end of 2016. ASEAN leaders were tied up by their domestic politics and affairs too tightly to take time off to work seriously to observe the schedule as laid out in the AEC Blueprint 2025. Korea`s relationship with Southeast Asian countries and ASEAN was “as good as it gets” in 2016 as ever but could become subject to tough review in the near future, if the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is found out to have been implicated in the ongoing Choi Sun Sil scandal and if the opposition wins the next presidential election to be held by this year.