In the last few years, The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has become an economic entity that most other countries want access to. ASEAN comprises of ten countries in the southeast region of Asia, namely Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines, Vietnam, Brunei, Cambodia, Myanmar and Laos. These ASEAN nations are characterised by a common desire to promote regional security and economic integration through trade. Several issues plague ASEAN – such as human rights abuses in certain countries, low implementation rates of ASEAN agreements, territorial disputes, etc. However, one major issue that seeks to threaten both regional security and effective trade is the growing economic inequality in these nations.
Current Economic Inequality
While economic growth has certainly been witnessed in the region, the growth has been worryingly unequal. Recently, with the growth of digitalisation and improvements in technology, while productivity has increased, there has been a trend to favour capital over labour. This has contributed to income equality, which is exacerbated by another trend of favouring skilled labour over unskilled labour. Most ASEAN countries are currently stuck in a middle-income trap.
The data from ASEAN countries is surprising – they all score highly on the Gini Index, which is used to measure economic inequality. Among all ASEAN countries, Thailand scores the worst. According to the Bank of Thailand’s research institute – the Puey Ungphakorn Institute for Economic Research – Thailand’s 36 per cent of corporate equity is held by just 500 people, while they have a population of about 69,625,582 people. The average yearly household income of these people is around US$10,000. But in stark contrast to this meagre amount, the aforementioned 500 reap around 3.1 billion baht (US$102 million) per year in company profits.
Economic Inequality and Political Instability
Economic inequality can lead to political turmoil and therefore threaten the peace and security of the region. Unmet expectations can lead to a lead to a dissatisfied voters’ base. Such a voters’ base is likely to vote for populist governments or cause civil unrest. Rattana Lao, lead author of a study by the Asia Foundation called Thailand’s Inequality: Myths and Reality of Isan said that “Research has shown that one of the leading indicators that pushed people toward political turmoil and protest is the fact that they are not satisfied with their economic condition and the uneven treatment that they receive.”
A crucial realisation that fails to be accounted for in most discussions surrounding economic inequality is that regional disparities also constitute as a worry. Specifically, when talking about political instability, people from poorer regions rely more on government supports and can have unrealistic expectations from their governments. These people are more likely to be engaged in politics and hence can determine voting outcomes. The dissatisfaction of electors can turn into a series of protests, as witnessed in the case of the Arab Spring.
Thomas I. Parks, the Country Representative for Thailand at The Asia Foundation writes in regard to the aforementioned report, “The challenge now for Thai leaders is to find the best mix of programs and policies and stick to them. In the coming years, the government must carefully monitor and evaluate the results of its policies and programs, and the lessons learned, and then make adjustments whenever needed.” Regional disparities and the level of income inequality has to dictate policies if governments want to avoid civil unrest.
Economic Inequality and Hindrance to Trade
Unfortunately, income inequality goes beyond political instability. Persistent-income inequality can significantly impede growth and weaken demand, therefore affecting trade and ASEAN’s goal of economic integration. Believers of trickle-down economics are proven wrong if we look at the experience of ASEAN countries. According to the International Monetary Fund, if the income share of the top 20 per cent increases by 1 per cent, we witness an associated 0.08 percentage point decrease in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth in the next 5 years.
There is a clear correlation between economic equality and sustainable economic growth. Policy measures need to strive for equal access to resources and opportunities, otherwise, we may witness some sort of economic growth, but it will only be limited and unsustainable. Economic development, which is what countries should strive for, includes sustainable growth – and it is only possible when there is an overall economic upliftment of everyone in society.
Moreover, ASEAN’s goal of promoting trade in the region is affected when we look at the driving factors of income inequality. Factors that have been identified as contributors include globalisation and warped fiscal policies of governments. For example, Multinational Companies (MNCs) do not pay proper taxes which helps them retain profits but also indirectly takes away crucial funding from government schemes, and therefore this help never reaches the poor. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Chief Economist, Laurence Boone said: “At the global level, we must ensure that firms pay their fair share of taxes to create value and employ people.” On the one hand, it is impossible to reject globalisation due to the adverse damage it would do to trade, but on the other hand, it is crucial to make sure the benefits of globalisation are reaped by everyone. Similarly, fiscal policies of countries cannot seek to just remove income inequality – they need to be in line with ASEAN’s policies of economic integration (and therefore, globalisation). In these aspects, ASEAN needs to make sure that it’s member countries remain in tune with its agenda, while at the same time make sure that income inequality is eradicated.
Conclusion
Both the main objectives of ASEAN are put in jeopardy with the context on economic inequality. In fact, having one objective threatened also affects the other – for example, political instability also disincentivizes people to invest and drives down economic growth. Similarly, slow trade and economic growth leads to resentment amongst the people, and therefore political instability. Ultimately a dangerous cycle can form.
Political instability reduces the likelihood of proper collaboration on an effective economic agenda and trade policies. Frequent regime changes and different leaders might essentially make ASEAN’s goal of proper and effective economic integration difficult to achieve. This, in turn, will lead to poor economic policies, followed by low and unsustainable growth fuelling economic inequality. Economic inequality and hindered trade by creating dissatisfaction amongst citizens will again lead to continued political instability and fragmentation.
In order to make sure that officials’ capacity to implement proper trade policies is not undermined, it becomes crucial to recognise the real-life impact of income inequality and understand the disastrous affects it can have on just numbers and figures of growth, but in lifting people’s social class and living standard. ASEAN’s objective of a better region is threatened by the security risks that economic inequality poses. For example, the recent coronavirus pandemic also disproportionately will affect the poor. In situations such as these, economic equality and consequently equitable access to resources (healthcare, information, a steady source of income etc.) becomes a priority. Poverty and economic gaps don’t just make it tougher for people on the lower end to recover, it also makes every situation tougher for a nation to escape from, and therefore also makes it tougher for a regional entity such as ASEAN.
