Regional Human Resource Development in ASEAN: An Institutional Theory Perspective

Abstract

With the growing influence of intergovernmental organizations such as the European Union and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the scope and complexity of human resource development (HRD) activities have expanded. Informed by an institutional theory perspective, we examined the evolution of HRD as well as HRD-related programs in ASEAN to illuminate the mechanisms and conditions shaping HRD in ASEAN. Our primary sources were archival data from ASEAN from 1967–2021 and relevant publications of international development agencies that feature HRD-related activities in the region. Our analysis suggests that the establishment of an intergovernmental organization (i.e., ASEAN), with its continuing efforts towards economic cooperation and community building among its member states, was central to the emergence and development of Regional HRD in Southeast Asia. This inquiry advances understanding of the role of intergovernmental institutions in influencing HRD activities. The study also showcases the critical role of HRD in furthering common interests around economic and socio-cultural initiatives in ASEAN.

Keywords

human resource development regional human resource development institutional theory Association of Southeast Asian Nations

With the rising influence of intergovernmental organizations such as the European Union and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the scope and complexity of human resource development (HRD) activities have expanded (Crocco & Tkachenko, 2022). Scholars have long recognized the European Union’s role in harmonizing education and training, improving lifelong learning opportunities, and recognizing vocational certificates (CEDEFOP, 2014; Dehmel & van Loo, 2014). Despite existing research on HRD-related issues in individual ASEAN member states (e.g., Cho et al., 2017; Tran et al., 2021), there is a lack of research related to HRD from a regional perspective in Southeast Asia. At the same time, there is a growing recognition of the importance of HRD in ASEAN as evidenced by the ASEAN Declaration on Human Resources Development for the Changing World of Work (ASEAN, 2020a; ASEAN, 2021). Furthermore, ASEAN’s population presents the world’s third-largest labor force of approximately 332 million (after China and India). To address this gap, we examined the evolution of HRD and HRD-related programs in ASEAN to illuminate the mechanisms and conditions shaping the development of human resources in the region.

Scholars have extensively explored HRD activities at the organizational level of analysis and substantively studied various topics related to developing human resources at the societal/national level (i.e., National HRD). With regard to the latter, Oh et al. (2013) proposed a global HRD competitiveness index that builds on the concept of National HRD. Collins et al. (2017) articulated the relationship between National HRD and Critical HRD. More recently, McLean and Jiantreerangkoo (2020) discussed the role of National HRD in the era of COVID-19. Furthermore, HRD researchers have called for multilevel investigations to advance National HRD research (Garavan et al., 2018) and elaborated on the concept of Regional HRD (Crocco & Tkachenko, 2022). Regional HRD was preliminarily defined as “a collective vision with corresponding activities for human resource development carried out by a group of countries for the benefit of their individuals, organizations, communities, nations, and the region as a whole” (Crocco & Tkachenko, 2022, p. 50). The term Regional HRD (uppercase r) was used to refer to a collection of countries (as in the case of ASEAN member states), whereas regional HRD (lowercase r) was proposed to refer to an administrative and/or geographical region of an individual country, for example, Northeast Thailand (Tkachenko et al., 2021).

In this inquiry, we build on National and Regional HRD perspectives and draw on institutional theory and historical institutionalism (Dacin et al., 2002; Scott, 2014; Suddaby et al., 2014) to explore the mechanisms and conditions shaping Regional HRD in ASEAN. Our analysis of the evolution of Regional HRD and review of HRD-related programs in ASEAN suggest that the establishment of an intergovernmental organization, i.e., ASEAN, with its continuing efforts towards economic cooperation and community building among its member states was central to the emergence and development of Regional HRD in Southeast Asia.

In the sections that follow, we first provide a brief introduction to ASEAN. Then, we elaborate on the institutional theory literature that informed our inquiry and discuss our methodological approach. In the findings section, we present an abridged timeline of key events and the main phases in the evolution of Regional HRD as well as elucidate the mechanisms and conditions shaping Regional HRD in ASEAN.

ASEAN: A Brief Introduction

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is comprised of 10 countries (member states) with a total population of about 653 million people. ASEAN was founded in 1967 by five countries: Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand. Since then, the following five countries joined: Brunei Darussalam (1984), Vietnam (1995), Lao PDR (1997), Myanmar (1997), and Cambodia (1999). Timor Leste (East Timor) is the only remaining Southeast Asian country not a full member state of ASEAN. Despite the abundant natural resources in the region, there are substantial disparities in socio-economic development among ASEAN member states (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Background Statistics of ASEAN Member States.

	Human Development Index	Population (in millions)	GDP per capita (current US$)	Labor Force (in millions)	Skilled Labor Force (% of Labor Force)
Brunei Darussalam	0.838	0.44	27,466	0.22	78.8
Cambodia	0.594	16.72	1512	9.16	14.3
Indonesia	0.718	273.52	3869	134.62	42.0
Lao PDR	0.613	7.28	2360	3.83	34.2
Malaysia	0.810	32.37	10,401	15.90	66.8
Myanmar	0.583	54.41	1400	22.95	28.1
Philippines	0.718	109.58	3298	43.72	29.9
Singapore	0.938	5.69	59,797	3.47	84.0
Thailand	0.777	69.80	7189	38.48	38.8
Vietnam	0.704	97.34	2785	56.54	39.4

Data according to World Bank (2020) and United Nations Development Program (2020).

The guiding principles of ASEAN clarified in the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in 1976 underscore mutual respect for the equality and national identity of all nations, non-interference in the internal affairs of other member states, and settlement of differences or disputes by peaceful means (ASEAN, 1976a). These principles have become known as the ASEAN Way and have been a key part of ASEAN’s identity formation as a regional organization (Acharya, 2021). With headquarters in Jakarta, Indonesia, ASEAN is led by a Secretary-General with a 4-year term on a rotating basis in alphabetical order among member states. The Secretary-General is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the ASEAN Secretariat. There is also an annual rotating chairmanship of ASEAN where each member state takes turns leading the region’s initiatives and implementing its strategic plans (blueprints) across ASEAN’s three communities: the Political-Security Community, the Socio-Cultural Community, and the Economic Community. These three communities are comprised of 43 sectoral ministerial bodies, including those that play a role in workforce development, such as the ASEAN Labour Ministers Meeting, the ASEAN Ministerial Meeting on Social Welfare and Development, and the ASEAN University Network (ASEAN, 2020b).

Institutional Theory and Historical Institutionalism

Institutional theory suggests that human activities are embedded and framed within larger institutional schemes (Morgan, 2010). HRD scholars have recognized the benefits of institutional theory to the field of HRD, as it can provide a vantage point “from the outside in” for HRD researchers (Kuchinke, 2000, p. 280). In particular, Kuchinke (2000) observed that institutional environments play “a decisive role in determining the identity and possible actions of the individual person, unit, organization, industry or professional field” (p. 280). Nevertheless, the application of institutional theory to HRD has been limited, with some notable exceptions. Scott and Meyer (1991) employed an institutional perspective to explain the increase of training in firms and agencies. The authors underscored the role of institutional agencies in creating legal requirements and professional ideologies that made training appear necessary and rational. Additionally, they highlighted the influence of institutional processes on the rise of training programs. In turn, Murphy and Garavan (2009) proposed a framework explaining the adoption and diffusion of National HRD standards employed by governments to promote training and development in organizations. Murphy and Garavan (2009) emphasized the role of normative and mimetic forces in the organizations’ environment that impact the adoption and diffusion of National HRD standards. More recently, Ismail and Rasdi (2016) employed an institutional theory perspective to explore National HRD in Malaysia and Singapore. The authors highlighted the role of the Human Resource Development Fund in Malaysia and the Workforce Development Agency in Singapore in developing human resources (Ismail & Rasdi, 2016).

In this study, we also drew on historical institutionalism and historical analysis of institutions, that is, analysis of “their origins, development, and relationship to policy and behavior” (Sanders, 2008, p. 40). Historical institutionalists underscore that human behavior occurs within particular social, political, economic, and cultural contexts (Steinmo, 2008). Additionally, historical studies of institutions are driven by an empirical phenomenon rather than a gap in theory and make localized and particularized claims rather than universal ones (Suddaby et al., 2014). The ASEAN member states’ joint efforts toward developing human resources in the region (ASEAN, 2020a) were the phenomenon that motivated us to undertake the study. Being attentive to the economic context in ASEAN, we adopted the Asian Development Bank’s (2010) typology of institutions with an economic mandate in Asia, including:

a) Overarching — umbrella arrangements with comprehensive purview;

b) Facilitating — institutions that bolster regional integration by providing advisory, administrative and technical, and financial support; and

c) Functional — specialized institutions with a narrower, often technical agenda (p. 14).

We were also guided by Scott’s (2014) call to shift the view from an organization-level activity to a field-level activity and recognize both the empowering and the constraining effects of institutions. Whereas HRD scholars in the West have long emphasized the roles of governments, professional societies, and educational institutions in influencing the development of human resources (McGuire & Cseh, 2006; Pace et al., 1991; Tkachenko, 2015), a conceptual framework for Regional HRD in ASEAN has only begun to emerge (ASEAN, 2021a; Crocco, 2021). Given institutional theory’s assumption that broader societal (and trans societal) systems—in our case ASEAN—“can shape and inter-penetrate field-level systems in complex and changing ways, affecting the structuration of a field itself” (Dacin et al., 2002, p. 51), we employed the institutional theory perspective to shed light on the mechanisms and conditions shaping Regional HRD in ASEAN.

Methodological Approach

The investigation of Regional HRD in ASEAN was possible due to the digital archives of ASEAN, publications of international and national development agencies, and the emerging literature on Regional HRD that we drew on (e.g., Crocco et al., 2021). It is also worth noting that our research team entailed researchers knowledgeable about the political and socio-cultural contexts in ASEAN due to substantial working experience in three ASEAN member states.

Our primary sources of data were publications from ASEAN archives dated from 1967 until January 2021 and relevant publications of international development agencies and think tanks (e.g., Asian Development Bank, Japan International Cooperation Agency) that feature HRD-related activities in Southeast Asia and/or factors that have influenced such activities. In addition to official ASEAN documents, we also reviewed relevant government websites and publications of ASEAN member states. When examining these sources, we were particularly interested in identifying and studying historical events that set the course and/or contributed to establishing a framework for Regional HRD. Specifically, we paid close attention to the events concerning HRD-related projects, activities, and programs, as HRD activities are typically organized into projects (Carden & Egan, 2008). Additionally, we were especially attentive to projects, activities, and programs involving two or more ASEAN member states as our focus was on Regional HRD.

Our review of ASEAN publications was exhaustive (totaling 372 official documents as of January 1, 2021), informed by our previous work where we employed qualitative data analysis software (ATLAS.ti) to examine ASEAN publications (Crocco & Tkachenko, 2022). We searched the ASEAN publications for the use of such phrases as “human resource development,” “human capital development,” “talent development,” “workforce development,” “skill development,” “training and development” as well as comparable grammatical iterations. The identified phrases were reviewed within the context of respective paragraphs, sections, and full documents. The search allowed identifying ASEAN publications with the most occurrences of HRD-related terms, which were further reviewed and analyzed given the purpose of the study.

We used an Excel document to categorize the identified relevant projects and programs by their objectives, implementing agencies, participants, and outcomes. As we started recognizing patterns (e.g., some of the identified projects were part of larger programs or initiatives), we further modified how we recorded the events. In our inquiry, we drew on Gorski’s (2018) approach to historical sociological research. When examining historical events, we sought not only to reconstruct the timeline of events, but to better understand the mechanisms and conditions shaping Regional HRD in ASEAN. We utilized retroduction as a mode of inference (Danermark et al., 2019). According to Gorski (2018), in the context of historical sociology, retroduction “attempts to describe the how and what of a change—how it occurred (process) and what set it in motion (structure and powers)” (p. 28).

To analyze our data, we first created an extended timeline listing key events that contributed to the emergence and development of Regional HRD. Using the timeline, we articulated the main phases in the evolution of Regional HRD in the context of ASEAN. Informed by our analysis of the identified HRD-related projects, activities, and programs, we then formulated four theses elucidating the mechanisms and conditions shaping Regional HRD in ASEAN.

Findings

In this section, we first present an abridged version of the timeline (see Table 2) and the main phases evident in the evolution of Regional HRD in ASEAN. Informed by our review of historical data, we then elaborate on the mechanisms and conditions shaping Regional HRD in ASEAN.

Table 2.

Abridged Timeline: Events Leading to Regional Human Resource Development in ASEAN*.

Year	Events Leading to Regional HRD in ASEAN
1967	The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) was founded by Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, and the Philippines
1981	ASEAN secretariat was established
1995	1^st ASEAN skills competition hosted by Malaysia - 6 skills areas
1998	• All 10 southeast Asian countries become members of ASEAN • ASEAN Framework Agreement on Mutual Recognition Arrangements
2000	The ASEAN Heads of State/Government adopted a special programme for narrowing the development gap, titled “Initiative for ASEAN Integration”
2002	The first initiative for ASEAN integration work plan (2002–2008) was endorsed at the 8th ASEAN summit with foci on four areas: Infrastructure, human resource development, information, and communications technology
2004	The first summit of leaders from Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, and Vietnam (CLMV) to narrow the gaps between CLMV and other ASEAN members
2008	ASEAN Charter entered into force on 15 Dec 2008
2009	The second initiative for ASEAN integration work plan (2009–2015) was endorsed at the 14th ASEAN Summit in 2009—comprised of 182 prescribed actions, out of which 85 are training programs, apprenticeships, and other capacity-building initiatives
2010	ASEAN leaders’ statement on human resources and skills development for economic recovery and sustainable growth
2014	ASEAN Qualifications Reference Framework
2015	• Kuala Lumpur Declaration on a People-Oriented, People-Centred ASEAN • Kuala Lumpur declaration on the establishment of the ASEAN community, 31 Dec 2015 (a three-pillared community to deepen regional integration: ASEAN political and security community, ASEAN economic community; and ASEAN socio-cultural community
2016	The third initiative for ASEAN integration work plan (2016–2020)
2020	• The ASEAN Declaration on Human Resources Development for the Changing World of Work was adopted by the 36th ASEAN Summit on 26 Jun 2020 • The ASEAN TVET council was officially launched on 16 Sep 2020 • The fourth initiative for ASEAN integration work plan (2021–2025)
2021	Human Resources Development Readiness in ASEAN—Regional Report
Forthcoming	ASEAN connectivity 2025

*Key events are indicated in italics.

An Abridged Timeline and Main Phases in the Evolution of Regional HRD in ASEAN

Phase 1 (1961–1967): Pre-ASEAN collaboration

The consideration of Southeast Asia as a region emerged most clearly with establishing the Southeast Asian Treaty Organization in 1954 (Emmerson, 1984). In 1956, the Association of Southeast Asian Institutions of Higher Learning was founded (ASAIHL, n.d.) and represented the earliest attempt at regional collaboration in an area related to HRD. As decades of colonialism in the region began ending in the mid-20^th century and fears of communism rose, leaders of Southeast Asian countries looked for ways to bolster regional security and generate a semblance of regional sovereignty. Early attempts at establishing an overarching regional organization included the Association of Southeast Asia in 1961, which was comprised of Thailand, the Philippines, and Malaysia and guided by “Asian culture and traditions” (ASA, 1962, pp. 27–28 as cited in Goh, 2003, p. 113). After the Association of Southeast Asia’s demise—mainly from failing to involve Indonesia—another attempt included the association MAPHILINDO (Malaysia, the Philippines, and Indonesia) (Jackson et al., 1986), which also dissolved, this time due to internal conflict between Indonesia and Malaysia.

In 1965, the Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization (SEAMEO) was founded with representatives from Lao PDR, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam (SEAMEO, n.d.). This meeting of ministers provided a framework for regional collaboration around the importance of supporting the development of the region’s people, and to this day it remains active and separate from ASEAN. These early attempts at regional collaboration set the stage for the rise of the most influential and comprehensive regional organization in Southeast Asia: The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).

Phase 2 (1967–1992): The founding of ASEAN and setting a framework for regional collaboration

ASEAN was founded in 1967 in Bangkok by representatives from Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand. Although its early years focused primarily on political-security, the vision for the region continued to expand. There were several important catalysts during this time that set the stage for collaboration in the context of HRD. First, in 1976, the Treaty for Amity and Cooperation honed ASEAN’s values and purpose. The treaty contained nine articles related to cooperation and stated the commitment to “provide assistance to one another in the form of training and research facilities in the social, cultural, technical, scientific and administrative fields” (ASEAN, 1976a, para 14). At that time, ASEAN member countries also agreed to establish a centralized ASEAN Secretariat to support the development and implementation of regional efforts (ASEAN, 1976b).

In 1992, the ASEAN Free Trade Area was established among the member countries, which then included Brunei Darussalam that joined ASEAN in 1984. The ASEAN Free Trade Area put economic cooperation on equal footing with security cooperation, creating favorable conditions for non-security cooperation and regional integration. This compelled organizations and governments to value the development of human resources in order to take advantage of the freer flow of goods and services in the region. Also, Vietnam accepted the Treaty for Amity and Cooperation in 1992, which began the expansion of ASEAN to an overarching regional organization (Nguyen, 2007).

Phase 3 (1993–2007): Equitable regional development and mutual recognition

The recognition that the region’s economic fate was becoming increasingly tied together brought about the agreement for an ASEAN Skills Competition in 1993 to support skill development in the region. Additionally, it was the time when enrollment in higher education in ASEAN member countries began expanding beyond elites (Crocco, 2018). In 1993, SEAMEO created the Regional Institute of Higher Education and Development. Soon after, ASEAN established the ASEAN University Network in 1995. These regional collaborations in higher education set the stage for further recognition of a regional workforce.

With only six member states, ASEAN lacked a complete regional identity. As ASEAN welcomed Vietnam in 1995, Lao PDR and Myanmar in 1997, and Cambodia in 1999, its membership grew to 10. After reeling from the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997, the Sixth ASEAN Summit held in Vietnam in 1998 led to the Ha Noi Declaration, which sought to support “equitable development” (ASEAN, 1998, para 1) in the region and called for “cooperation in human resource development” (ASEAN, 1998, para 21). A clear development gap between ASEAN’s original six members and newest four members (Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Vietnam) was evident, which became a focal point of the region’s collaborative efforts. In 2000, the Heads of State/Government of all 10 ASEAN member countries met and decided on the Initiative for ASEAN Integration, which would design mechanisms to support Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, and Vietnam (also referred to as CLMV countries) in four main areas: infrastructure, HRD, information and communications technology, and regional economic integration (ASEAN, 2000). During the first phase of the Initiative for ASEAN Integration (2002–2008), HRD efforts included training and capacity-building, the establishment of skills training networks throughout the region, and collaboration in higher education (ASEAN, 2000).

Most notable for this phase was the agreement on Mutual Recognition Arrangements for certain skilled professionals in the region. At the fifth ASEAN Summit in 1995, ASEAN leaders mentioned the need for HRD five times in relation to economic cooperation and standardization in the region (ASEAN, 1995). The summit laid the groundwork for the ASEAN Framework Agreement on Mutual Recognition Arrangements (ASEAN, 1998), which would allow certain skilled professionals from one member state to be employed in another.

Phase 4 (2008–2019): The ASEAN charter and one ASEAN community

The ASEAN Charter came into force in 2008. The charter explicated the purposes of ASEAN, including “to develop human resources through closer cooperation in education and lifelong learning, and in science and technology, for the empowerment of the peoples of ASEAN and for the strengthening of the ASEAN Community” (ASEAN, 2020b, pp. 4–5).

During this time, ASEAN also implemented the second Initiative for ASEAN Integration Work Plan (2009–2015), which included an additional 85 training programs and capacity-building initiatives to support HRD in the region (ASEAN, 2009; ASEAN, 2017a). Then, at the 17^th ASEAN Summit in Hanoi, ASEAN leaders agreed on a statement on “human resources and skills development for economic recovery and sustainable growth” (ASEAN, 2010, para 1). This statement sought to “encourage the development of national and regional human resource development plans or programmes” (ASEAN, 2010, para 11). This marked the first standalone regional position on HRD that would lay the groundwork for its collective vision of Regional HRD.

In 2015, the ASEAN Community was officially established under the Kuala Lumpur Declaration that brought about a more “people-centered” and integrated ASEAN Community (ASEAN, 2015, p. 2). Efforts to close the development gap between member countries continued with the third Initiative for ASEAN Integration Work Plan (2016–2020), which carried out additional HRD-related activities in Cambodia, Lao PDR, and Myanmar.

Phase 5 (2020–Present): A collective vision for regional human resource development and further regional integration

Up to this point, the 10 member countries of ASEAN demonstrated that HRD was a core component of the region’s efforts and focus. However, it was not until the 36^th ASEAN Summit, amidst the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, that ASEAN put forth the ASEAN Declaration on Human Resources Development for the Changing World of Work (ASEAN, 2020a). This represented a new phase of Regional HRD in ASEAN as it established a strategic vision for HRD in the region that included 15 actions, which entail aligning HRD policy frameworks in member countries; developing HRD infrastructure, such as internet and information technology; and coordinating among “relevant ASEAN sectoral bodies, [the] private sector, academia, tripartite partners and other stakeholders” (ASEAN, 2020a, p. 6). Following the declaration, the ASEAN TVET Council was established and the Human Resources Development Readiness in ASEAN—Regional Report was published (ASEAN, 2021a). The report elaborated on the role of HRD in the ASEAN context and contrasted it clearly with conceptually similar terms, such as human resource management. After an analysis of HRD readiness in ASEAN member states, the report concludes with six recommended areas regarding HRD (ASEAN, 2021a).

Human Resource Development continues to play an important role in sustained efforts at closing the development gap among ASEAN member countries with the fourth Initiative for ASEAN Integration Work Plan (2021–2025), which includes HRD-related activities focused on building regional competitiveness in ASEAN’s emerging economies (ASEAN, 2021b).

Mechanisms and Conditions Influencing Regional Human Resource Development in ASEAN

Informed by our analysis of the historical and HRD project data, we find that the intergovernmental organization ASEAN has played and continues to play an essential part in enabling and steering Regional HRD in Southeast Asia. We also observe that Regional HRD in ASEAN is carried out through multiple activities that often cross-cut organizational, national/societal, and regional levels. Additionally, we find that the recognized need for economic cooperation and integration among member states was an important condition for the emergence and development of Regional HRD in ASEAN. Also, that the embeddedness of ASEAN member states in a community logic, characterized by commitment to community values and norms, has been another condition shaping Regional HRD. Below we elaborate on these findings in detail.

Finding 1: Regional human resource development in ASEAN is shaped by overarching, facilitating, and functional institutions

The institutional environment in ASEAN is complex (Do et al., 2020). In the context of Southeast Asia, ASEAN is an overarching institution for its 10 member states as it plays a critical role in setting a vision and direction for building HRD capacity in the region. As our data indicate, over time, ASEAN has established institutional architecture to foster the development of human resources in the region. The ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community, which is one of the three pillars of the ASEAN Community, is specifically aimed at promoting ASEAN as a center for HRD and training in the region (ASEAN, 2016). The development of human resources in ASEAN is also supported through such institutions as the ASEAN University Network, ASEAN TVET Council, ASEAN Future Workforce, ASEAN Foundation, and ASEAN Resource Centre.

Our findings also point to the important role of international and governmental development agencies as facilitating institutions that contribute to Regional HRD in ASEAN. Regarding international development agencies, the roles of the World Bank, the International Labour Organization, and the Asian Development Bank are particularly noteworthy (Kim et al., 2019). For example, the International Labour Organization and the United Nations Development Program funded HRD-related projects implemented under the first Initiative for ASEAN Integration (Carpenter et al., 2013). Not only have these institutions assisted with bringing financial resources and know-how to ASEAN, but they also contributed to building human capacity within the region (McGillivray & Carpenter, 2013).

Regarding governmental development agencies, both the German Society for International Cooperation (GIZ) and the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) serve as illustrative examples. Our data indicate that GIZ has been supporting ASEAN through capacity-building as well as advisory and technical support. For example, improving HRD systems was a special focus of the GIZ’s project “Promotion of Competitiveness within the Framework of the Initiative for ASEAN Integration” (GIZ, n.d.). Many of JICA’s projects in ASEAN specifically target HRD, including a project aimed at enhancing educational and training capacity of the Malaysia Maritime Enforcement Agency (JICA, 2018) and HRD scholarship projects in the Philippines (JICA, 2020). More recently, the Japan-ASEAN Technical Cooperation Agreement was signed that sets out JICA’s direct assistance to ASEAN as an international organization, including technical training, provision of machinery, and mobilizing experts to ASEAN facilities such as the ASEAN Secretariat and educational and research institutes (ASEAN Information Center, 2019).

Among functional institutions that have been contributing to building HRD capacity in ASEAN, we underscored the role of the following sub-regional cooperations/programs: The Indonesia–Malaysia–Thailand Growth Triangle, the Greater Mekong Subregion Program, and the Brunei–Indonesia–Malaysia-the Philippines East ASEAN Growth Area, to name a few. Various initiatives in the region carried out under the purview of these sub-regional programs often target aspects of HRD and use the ASEAN competency standards as a benchmark (Asian Development Bank, 2018).

Finding 2: Regional human resource development in ASEAN is carried out through multiple activities across regional, national/societal, and organizational boundaries

Regional HRD in ASEAN entails multiple activities that cross-cut organizational, national/societal, and regional boundaries. Various HRD-related projects and programs under the Initiative for ASEAN Integration are clear examples of the activities that we associate with Regional HRD. In Table 3, we provide a selection of HRD-related projects in Phases I-III of the Initiative that demonstrate how ASEAN member states support one another with expertise and funding.

Table 3.

Selection of HRD-related Projects under the Initiative for ASEAN Integration (Phases 1–3).

Training Area(s)	Projects	Donor(s)
Phase 1 (2002-2008)
Irrigation	Irrigation system management training programme for CLMV* countries	Malaysia and Japan
Construction	International course on building construction and maintenance for CLMV supervisors	Malaysia
International relations	Course on international politics and economics for CLMV diplomats and administrators	Malaysia
Public sector capacity building	IAI joint project: Seminar for executive policy makers	Thailand
Phase 2 (2009-2015)
Trade in goods and services	Customized training in tourism marketing for IAI	Singapore
Investment and finance	Compliance activities for CLMV countries	Malaysia
Labor	Occupational safety and health for CLMV	Malaysia
Infrastructure	Successful operationalisation of the ASEAN Framework agreement on multimodal transport	Thailand
Human resource development	Educational leadership and management for CLMV	Malaysia
Phase 3 (2016-2020)
Food and agriculture	Training course on building food security for CLMV countries	Singapore
Micro, small and medium enterprises	Training course on micro, small and medium enterprises for CLMV countries	Singapore
Enabling action	Training courses on administration and public policy for CLMV countries	Singapore
Enabling action	Training course on sustainable development and urban planning for CLMV countries	Singapore

*CLMV stands for Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Vietnam.

Source: ASEAN (2017a; 2017b), ASEAN Business Advisory Council (2020).

Regional HRD activities also include the biennial ASEAN Skills Competition designed to support workforce development in ASEAN, particularly as it relates to regional model competency standards (ASEAN, 2012a). In addition to members of each ASEAN country competing in certain skills areas, new skill areas are also demonstrated during the competition. Thus, at the 11^th ASEAN Skills Competition participants competed in 23 skills areas, including welding, web design, mobile robotics, and IT network system administration, whereas aircraft maintenance and painting and decorating were the two new skill areas demonstrated at the competition (ASEAN Information Center, 2016).

Another example of Regional HRD is the training and development activities carried out by the ASEAN Resource Centre. For instance, the ASEAN Resource Centre in Singapore conducted training programs for over 350 participants from other ASEAN member states during 2011–2014 (ASEAN, 2018). Furthermore, the ASEAN Foundation has implemented programs and initiatives in cooperation with various partners, including governmental development agencies and for-profit organizations. Among others, the Future Ready ASEAN program has provided a platform for online training on digital skills for ASEAN youth. As of 2020, the program has benefited more than 34,500 underserved youth and 1000 educators and non-profit trainers in ASEAN (ASEAN Foundation, 2021).

Finding 3: The need for economic integration and cooperation among member states is an important condition for the emergence and development of regional human resource development in ASEAN

Scholars submit that ASEAN appeared mainly as an attempt to strengthen security and maintain sovereignty in the region (Acharya, 2009; Hagiwara, 1992). At the same time, our inquiry suggests that it was the recognized need for economic cooperation and integration among the ASEAN member states that led to a more targeted and systematic approach towards HRD. In particular, our findings point to Mutual Recognition Arrangements (ASEAN, 1998) and the ASEAN Qualifications Reference Framework (ASEAN, 2014) as representative examples of this targeted approach.

The enactment of the ASEAN Charter and the adoption of the ASEAN Economic Community Blueprint provided the basis for further economic cooperation and integration among ASEAN member states (ASEAN, 2007). Specifically, the ASEAN Economic Community Blueprint called for facilitation of the free flow of services as well as harmonization and standardization, including the recognition of professional qualifications (ASEAN, 2007). In 2009, ASEAN member states signed Mutual Recognition Arrangements (MRAs) in the fields of engineering, nursing, architecture, surveying, medical services, dental services, accounting services, and tourism. These MRAs articulate competencies and requirements in these professions according to the ASEAN Qualifications Reference Framework. The MRAs also allow for the free flow of certified professionals in the respective fields throughout the region.

According to an Asian Development Bank report on MRAs in ASEAN (Mendoza & Sugiyarto, 2017), ASEAN member states have achieved progress in (a) the creation of offices and bodies to implement MRAs and (b) the incorporation of MRA principles into national legislation. At the same time, there has been a delay in realizing the full potential of MRAs due to the lack of specific procedures and mechanisms that professionals could utilize.

Finding 4: The embeddedness of ASEAN member states in a community logic has been and remains an important condition for shaping regional human resource development in ASEAN

Our findings echo scholars who recognize that, from the beginning, the development of institutions in ASEAN was highly influenced by ideas that were shaped by cultural values and norms in the region (Crocco, 2021; Rattanasevee, 2014). As ASEAN matured, the ideas of (a) the importance of neutrality, (b) sovereignty and territorial integrity, (c) informal, non-confrontational negotiations, and (d) the promotion of social harmony became at the core of ASEAN’s approach to the development of regional and international relations (Stubbs, 2008). This unique set of norms and practices shaping regional cooperation in ASEAN is known as the ASEAN Way (Acharya, 2004).

We find that the commitment of ASEAN member states to community values, which is explicated in multiple documents including the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (1976a) and the ASEAN Declaration on the Establishment of the ASEAN Community (ASEAN, 2016), points to ASEAN’s embeddedness in a community logic (Thornton et al., 2012). This embeddedness can be found in such symbolic carriers as ASEAN’s motto, emblem, and anthem. For example, ASEAN’s motto is “One Vision, One Identity, One Community” (ASEAN, n.d., para 10). ASEAN’s emblem depicts 10 bound stalks of rice representing the 10 member states in friendship and solidarity. The circle around the stalks represents the unity of ASEAN (ASEAN, n. d.). The ASEAN anthem is titled “The ASEAN Way” (ASEAN, n. d.), which recalls the guiding principles of the regional organization. The Initiative for ASEAN Integration through which some ASEAN member states provide support to other member states is further evidence of a community logic. The community logic suggests a sense of common identity and common purpose for ASEAN people based in the notion that ASEAN is “people-oriented” and “people-centered” (ASEAN, 2015, p. 2) and serves as the foundation for Regional HRD in ASEAN.

Discussion

Whereas past literature employed an institutional perspective to highlight the role of state institutions and professional associations (Scott & Meyer, 1991) as well as governments (Murphy & Garavan, 2009) in impacting HRD, our study underscores the role of intergovernmental organizations such as ASEAN in shaping Regional HRD in Southeast Asia. Our study also suggests that the development of human resources in ASEAN goes beyond statements and policies on HRD; there are structures and mechanisms in place that support Regional HRD in ASEAN. Our inquiry also indicates that the evolution of Regional HRD in ASEAN has been conditioned by the need for economic integration and cooperation among ASEAN member states as well as the embeddedness of ASEAN member states in a community logic.

Institutional theory scholars have amply documented the role of social institutions in furnishing the schemata, cognitive models, and guidelines for behavior that provide organizations with frameworks and relational systems to guide their development (Almandoz, 2012; Scott, 2014; Thornton et al., 2012). With respect to ASEAN, our study findings point to the important role of normative systems (values and norms) in impacting the adoption and diffusion of Regional HRD standards in ASEAN (Scott, 2014). Whereas a more regulative institutional environment as in the European Union relies on rules via legally binding mechanisms, ASEAN relies on normative systems based on social obligation and expectations for what is appropriate as the basis for compliance (Scott, 2014). In this respect, our study echoes those historical institutionalists who particularly regard the role of regional norms in ASEAN as one of the explanations of the association’s achievements and failures (Acharya, 2004; Stubbs, 2008).

Institutional theory encompasses a wide range of theoretical perspectives that support an interactive and reciprocal view of institutional processes, including Giddens’s (1984) theorizing on the duality of social structure (Scott, 2014). Specifically, Scott (2014) observed that social structures often exhibit a dual role in that they are “both the medium and the outcome of the practices they recursively organize” (p. 25). Our study bolsters Scott’s (2014) observation in the sense that ASEAN’s initiated standards, routines, and governance systems to support Regional HRD are both the outcome and the medium. In particular, the study findings indicate that the established schemas, routines, standards, and governance systems of Regional HRD in ASEAN (the outcome) serve as the medium for developing human resources in ASEAN.

Therefore, our study illustrates a critical distinction between the National HRD and Regional HRD perspectives. Whereas the literature on National HRD discusses the scope of National HRD within a nation state (McLean, 2006; Oh et al., 2013), ASEAN’s perspective on developing human resources is broader: it concerns “the development of national and regional human resource development plans or programmes” (ASEAN, 2010, para 11). Additionally, ASEAN’s HRD efforts are aimed at “the empowerment of the peoples of ASEAN and … strengthening of the ASEAN Community” (ASEAN, 2020b, p. 5). An illustrative example of the distinction is the Initiative for ASEAN Integration aimed at narrowing the development divide within ASEAN. As we reported in Table 3, the Initiative for ASEAN Integration has entailed various HRD-related projects in Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, and Vietnam supported and implemented by other ASEAN member states.

Implications for Human Resource Development Research and Practice

As this study explored the development of Regional HRD in the context of ASEAN, the inquiry provides a framework for examining Regional HRD in comparable contexts, including the European Union. Although the European Union and ASEAN are both regional organizations, scholars recognize that they present profoundly different forms of regional integration (Pero, 2019). The idiosyncrasies in regional integration in the European Union and ASEAN suggest that different institutional arrangements may employ distinctive mechanisms to plan and implement HRD activities at the regional level. Once we better understand the mechanisms and conditions affecting Regional HRD in ASEAN and in comparable contexts, future research could investigate the patterns of convergence and divergence in Regional HRD practices. We propose that convergent patterns are attributed to converging economic forces and divergent patterns to socio-cultural differences. We also submit that other influencing factors warrant further investigation.

In this study, we utilized institutional theory, which provided an important lens to explicate the mechanisms and conditions shaping HRD in ASEAN. At the same time, as Poggie (1965) notes, “A way of seeing is a way of not seeing” (p. 284). We suggest that other theoretical perspectives such as cultural-historical activity theory (Tkachenko & Ardichvili, 2017; Yamazumi, 2020) and an ecosystems perspective (Crocco, 2021; Garavan et al., 2019) may provide HRD scholars with additional lenses to explore main actors and relationships among them in the context of Regional HRD. As our findings suggest, Regional HRD is complex, dynamic, and involves various stakeholders. Therefore, these theoretical perspectives could offer different vantage points and vocabulary to shed light on the phenomenon of Regional HRD.

Despite its nascent progress, ASEAN is working through challenges in facilitating Regional HRD. One ongoing challenge has been facilitating skilled labor movement in the region via MRAs. Scholars note that when certified professionals decide to relocate to another member state, they must consider immigration costs, loss of social and family networks, and wage differentials in their decision to work in another ASEAN member country (Paweenawat & Vechbanyongratana, 2019; Pruetipibultham, 2019). In member states with lower socio-economic status, such as Lao PDR, where workers would be more motivated by wage differentials, only 1.3% of workers are even employed in one of the MRA-approved professions (Phoumilay, 2019).

Human Resource Development professionals are well-positioned to address many of the challenges ASEAN faces. To do so, the Human Resources Development Readiness in ASEAN—Regional Report (ASEAN, 2021a) put forth the following recommendations: (a) increase collaboration in HRD among ASEAN member countries, (b) ensure all ASEAN member countries have coherent HRD policy and adequate funding, (c) incorporate a future skills mindset in general education, TVET, and higher education curricula, (d) develop competencies of trainers and teachers throughout the region, and (e) foster further partnerships between educational institutions and businesses.

We propose that the role of HRD practitioners in combating the challenges also needs to be reassessed. Moving forward, ASEAN member states should prioritize opportunities for networking among HRD practitioners and further partnerships between education and training institutions in the region. Additionally, efforts should be taken to enhance data collection and analysis of existing HRD efforts to establish more evidence-based HRD (ASEAN, 2021a; Hamlin, 2007). Thus, the inquiry can be seen as a contribution to the emerging discourse on the role of HRD and HRD professionals in ASEAN.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Oleksandr Tkachenko

Oliver S. Crocco

Loi Nguyen

Victoria Jonathan

Author Biographies

Oleksandr Tkachenko is an Assistant Professor in the Organization, Information & Learning Sciences program at the University of New Mexico, USA. Oleksandr holds a Ph.D. in Human Resource Development with a minor in Business Administration from the University of Minnesota, USA. His research interests include positive organizational behavior, leadership, and international HRD. He published articles in such journals as Human Resource Development Review, Journal of Management & Organization, European Journal of Training and Development, Journal of Workplace Learning, and Human Resource Development International.

Oliver S. Crocco is an Assistant Professor of Leadership and Human Resource Development at Louisiana State University. After living in Thailand for four years beginning in 2009, he has remained active throughout the region conducting research, teaching, and giving presentations. His research focuses on HRD in Southeast Asia, global mindset in university and work contexts, learning experience design, and adult development.

Loi A. Nguyen is an Assistant professor at Metropolitan State University. She holds a Master of Arts in International Relations from the University of Nottingham, a Master’s degree in Human Resources and Industrial Relations, and a Ph.D. in Human Resource Development with a minor in Business Administration from the University of Minnesota, USA. Her research has been published in books and journals, such as Management Learning, Journal of Economics and Development, and Journal of Organisational Studies and Innovation.

Dr. Victoria Jonathan is a senior lecturer of Human Resource Development (HRD) at Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (UNIMAS), Malaysia. Her research interests include workplace learning, employee engagement, and international HRD. She holds a Ph.D. in HRD from the University of Minnesota, USA.

References

Acharya

(2004). How ideas spread: Whose norms matter? Norm localization and institutional change in Asian regionalism. International Organization, 58(2), 239–275. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818304582024

Acharya

(2009). Constructing a security community in Southeast Asia (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Acharya

(2021). ASEAN and regional order: Revisiting security community in Southeast Asia. Routledge.

Almandoz

(2012). Arriving at the starting line: The impact of community and financial logics on new banking ventures. Academy of Management Journal, 55(6), 1381–1406. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.5465/amj.2011.0361

ASEAN Business Advisory Council (2020). IAI work plan III (2016-2020): Activities. http://aseanbac.com.my/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/1-saft-project.pdf.

ASEAN Foundation (2021). Future ready ASEAN. https://www.aseanfoundation.org/futurereadyasean.

ASEAN Information Center (2016). ASEAN promotes competitive workforce through skills competition. http://www.aseanthai.net/English/ewt_news.php?nid=1541&filename=index.

ASEAN Information Center (2019). ASEAN, Japan agree to step up technical cooperation. http://www.aseanthai.net/English/ewt_news.php?nid=2816&filename=index.

Asian Development Bank (2010). Institutions for regional integration. Toward an Asian economic community. https://aric.adb.org/iri/index.php.

10.

Asian Development Bank (2018). The Ha Noi action plan 2018–2022. https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/institutional-document/409086/ha-noi-action-plan-2018-2022.pdf.

11.

Association of Southeast Asian Institutions of Higher Learning (n.d.). Home. https://asaihl.stou.ac.th/.

12.

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (n.d.). About ASEAN https://asean.org/about-us/.

13.

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (1976b). Agreement on the establishment of the ASEAN Secretariat. https://asean.org/agreement-on-the-establishment-of-the-asean-secretariat-bali-24-february-1976/.

14.

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (1976a). Treaty of amity and cooperation in Southeast Asia. https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/20131230235433.pdf.

15.

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (1995). Fifth ASEAN summit. https://asean.org/5th-asean-summit/.

16.

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (1998). Ha Noi declaration of 1998. https://asean.org/ha-noi-declaration-of-1998-16-december-1998/.

17.

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (2000). IAI work plan I (2002–2008). https://asean.org/iai-work-plan-i-2002-2008/.

18.

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (2007). ASEAN economic community blueprint. https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/images/archive/21083.pdf.

19.

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (2009). Initiative for ASEAN integration (IAI) strategic framework and IAI work plan 2 (2009–2015. https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/images/archive/22325.pdf.

20.

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (2010). ASEAN leader’s statement on human resources and skills development for economic recovery and sustainable growth. https://asean.org/asean-leaders-statement-on-human-resources-and-skills-development-for-economic-recovery-and-sustainable-growth/.

21.

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (2012a). Work plans of the subsidiary bodies of the ASEAN senior Labour officials meeting (SLOM). https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Work-Plans-of-the-ASEAN-Senior-labour-Officials-Meeting-SLOM.pdf.

22.

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (2014). ASEAN qualifications reference framework. https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/ED-02-ASEAN-Qualifications-Reference-Framework-January-2016.pdf.

23.

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (2015). 2015 Kuala Lumpur declaration on the establishment of the ASEAN community. https://asean.org/kuala-lumpur-declaration-on-the-establishment-of-the-asean-community/.

24.

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (2016). ASEAN socio-cultural community blueprint 2025. https://asean.org/book/asean-socio-cultural-community-blueprint-2025/.

25.

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (2017a). List of projects for IAI work plan I & II. https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/List-of-Projects-for-IAI-Work-Plan-I-and-II.pdf.

26.

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (2017b). ASEAN Labour ministers’ (ALM) work plan programme 2016–2020 and work plans of the subsidiary bodies. https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/UPDATED_ASEAN-Labour-Ministers-Work-Programme-2016-2020-and-Work-Plans-of-the-Subsidiary-Bodies.pdf.

27.

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (2018). ASEAN Resource Centre’s directory (2nd Ed.). https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/ASEAN-Resource-Centre-Directory-2018.pdf.

28.

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (2020b). The ASEAN charter (28^th reprint). https://asean.org/about-asean/asean-charter/.

29.

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (2020a). ASEAN declaration on human resources development for the changing world of work. https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/ASEAN-Declaration-on-Human-Resources-Development-for-the-Changing-World-of-Work.pdf.

30.

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (2021a). Human resources development readiness in ASEAN - regional report. https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/TVET_HRD_readiness_ASEAN_regional_report_29-Apr-2021.pdf.

31.

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (2021b). Initiative for ASEAN integration (IAI) work plan IV. https://asean.org/book/initiative-for-asean-integration-iai-work-plan-iv-2021-2025/.

32.

Carden

L. L.

Egan

T. M.

(2008). Human resource development and project management: Key connections. Human Resource Development Review, 7(3), 309–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484308320577

33.

Carpenter

Alavi

Zulkifli

(2013). Regional development cooperation and narrowing the development gap in ASEAN. In McGillivray

Carpenter

D.D.

(Eds), Narrowing the development gap in ASEAN: Drivers and policy options (pp. 134–177). Routledge.

34.

Cho

Ghosh

Sun

J. Y.

McLean

G. N.

(Eds), (2017).Current perspectives on asian women in leadership: A cross-cultural analysis. Springer.

35.

Collins

J. C.

Zarestky

Tkachenko

(2017). An integrated model of national HRD and critical HRD: Considering new possibilities for human resource development. Human Resource Development International, 20(3), 236–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2016.1258913

36.

Crocco

O. S.

(2018). Thai higher education: Privatization and massification. In Fry

(Ed), Education in Thailand: An old elephant in search of a new mahout (pp. 223–255). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7857-6_9

37.

Crocco

O. S.

(2021). Developing human resources in Southeast Asia: A holistic framework for the ASEAN community. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79697-6.

38.

Crocco

O. S.

Nguyen

L. A.

Tkachenko

(2021). Vietnam and regional human resource development in ASEAN. In Tran

H. T.

Phuong

T. T.

Van

H. T. M.

McLean

G. N.

Ashwill

M. A.

(Eds), Human resource development in Vietnam: Research and practice (pp. 97–117). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51533-1_4

39.

Crocco

O. S.

Tkachenko

(2022). Regional human resource development: The case of Southeast Asia and ASEAN. Human Resource Development International, 25(1), 40–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2020.1858261

40.

Danermark

Ekström

Karlsson

J. C.

(2019). Explaining society: Critical realism in the social sciences. Routledge.

41.

Dehmel

van Loo

(2014). Human resource development in the European Union. In Poell

R. F.

Rocco

T. S.

Roth

G. L.

(Eds), The Routledge companion to human resource development (pp. 505–518). Routledge.

42.

Patel

Budhwar

Katou

A. A.

Arora

Dao

(2020). Institutionalism and its effect on HRM in the ASEAN context: Challenges and opportunities for future research. Human Resource Management Review, 30(4), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2019.100729

43.

Emmerson

D. K.

(1984). Southeast Asia”: What’s in a name? Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 15(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022463400012182

44.

European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP) (2014). Policy handbook: Access to and participation in continuous vocational education and training (CVET) in Europe. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED560867.pdf.

45.

Garavan

Wang

Matthews-Smith

Nagarathnam

Lai

(2018). Advancing national human resource development research: Suggestions for multilevel investigations. Human Resource Development International, 21(4), 288–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2018.1429171

46.

Garavan

McCarthy

Carbery

(2019). An ecosystems perspective on international human resource development: A meta-synthesis of the literature. Human Resource Development Review, 18(2), 248–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484319828865

47.

German Society for International Co-operation (GIZ) (n.d.). Promotion of competitiveness for ASEAN Integration. https://www.giz.de/en/worldwide/82767.html.

48.

Giddens

(1984). The Constitution of Society. University of California Press.

49.

Goh

C. L.

(2003). The ‘ASEAN way’: Non-intervention and ASEAN’s role in conflict management. Stanford Journal of East Asian Affairs, 3(1), 113–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-55706-4_27

50.

Gorski

P. S.

(2018). After positivism: Critical realism and historical sociology. In Rutzou

Steinmetz

(Eds), Critical realism, history, and philosophy in the social sciences (pp. 23–45). Emerald. https://doi.org/10.1108/s0198-871920180000034002

51.

Hagiwara

(1992). The formation of ASEAN. In Sandhu

K. S.

Siddique

Jeshurun

Rajah

Tan

J. L. H.

Thambipillai

(Eds), The ASEAN reader (pp. 35–37). Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

52.

Hamlin

R. G.

(2007). An evidence-based perspective on HRD. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 9(1), 42–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422306294494

53.

Ismail

Rasdi

R. M.

(2016). Human resource development in Malaysia and Singapore. In Garavan

T. N.

McCarthy

A. M.

Morley

M. J.

(Eds), Global human resource development: Regional and country perspectives (pp. 104–127). Routledge.

54.

Jackson

K. D.

Paribatra

Djiwandono

J. S.

(Eds.). (1986). ASEAN in regional and global context. Institute of East Asian Studies.

55.

Japan International Cooperation Agency (2018). JICA’s cooperation with Malaysian Maritime enforcement agency. https://www.jica.go.jp/malaysia/english/office/topics/181220.html.

56.

Japan International Cooperation Agency (2020). Maps of JICA major projects in the Philippines. https://libportal.jica.go.jp/library/Data/PlanInOperation-e/SoutheastAsia/012_Philippines-e.pdf.

57.

Kim

C. J.

Sioson

E. P.

Kainth

Jeon

(2019). Building development capacities in Asia and the Pacific: Good practices and ways forward for ADBI’s capacity building programs. Asian Development Bank Institute.

58.

Kuchinke

K. P.

(2000). Debates over the nature of HRD: An institutional theory perspective. Human Resource Development International, 3(3), 279–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678860050128474

59.

McGillivray

Carpenter

(Eds), (2013). Routledge.Narrowing the development gap in ASEAN: Drivers and policy options

60.

McGuire

Cseh

(2006). The development of the field of HRD: A Delphi study. Journal of European Industrial Training, 30(8), 653–667. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090590610712304

61.

McLean

G. N.

(2006). Human capital theories and practices: Gaining a competitive advantage through national HRD. : Presentation at Junkasem University and Ratchapat Universities.

62.

McLean

G. N.

Jiantreerangkoo

(2020). The role of national HRD in an era of COVID-19. Human Resource Development International, 23(4), 418–426. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2020.1780066

63.

Mendoza

D. R.

Sugiyarto

(2017). The long road ahead: Status report on the implementation of the ASEAN mutual recognition arrangements on professional services. Asian Development Bank.

64.

Morgan

(2010). The Oxford handbook of comparative institutional analysis. Oxford University Press.

65.

Murphy

Garavan

T. N.

(2009). The adoption and diffusion of an NHRD standard: A conceptual framework. Human Resource Development Review, 8(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484308330019

66.

Nguyen

V. T.

(2007). Vietnam’s membership of ASEAN: A constructivist interpretation. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 29(3), 483–505. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/25798849

67.

Ryu

H.-H.

Choi

(2013). How can we assess and evaluate the competitive advantage of a country’s human resource development system? Asia Pacific Education Review, 14(2), 151–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-012-9237-6

68.

Pace

R. W.

Smith

P. C.

Mills

G. E.

(1991). Human resource development, the field. Prentice Hall.

69.

Paweenawat

S. W.

Vechbanyongratana

(2019). Will ASEAN mutual recognition arrangements induce skilled workers to move? A case study of the engineering labor market in Thailand. In Gentile

(Ed), Skilled labor mobility and migration: Challenges and opportunities for the ASEAN Economic Community (pp. 241–266). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788116176.00016

70.

Pero

D. M. S.

(2019). Leadership in regional community-building: Comparing ASEAN and the European union. Palgrave Macmillan.

71.

Phoumilay

(2019). Vocational education and training in Lao PDR. In Bai

Paryono (Eds), Vocational education and training in ASEAN member states (pp. 81–108). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6617-8_4

72.

Poggi

(1965). A main theme of contemporary sociological analysis: Its achievements and limitations. British Journal of Sociology, 16(4), 283-294. https://doi.org/10.2307/589157

73.

Pruetipibultham

(2019). Cultural adjustment for working and living in the Mekong Sub-region countries (Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Vietnam) . [การปรับตัวในวัฒนธรรมลุ่มน้ำโขง CLMV (กัมพูชา สปป.ลาว เมียนมาร์และเวียดนาม)] National Institute of Development Administration Publishing. (in Thai).

74.

Rattanasevee

(2014). Towards institutionalised regionalism: The role of institutions and prospects for institutionalisation in ASEAN. SpringerPlus, 3(1), 556. Article 556 https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-3-556

75.

Sanders

(2008). Historical institutionalism. In Binder

S. A.

Rhodes

R. A. W.

Rockman

B. A.

(Eds), The Oxford handbook of political institutions (pp. 39–55). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199548460.003.0003

76.

Scott

W. R.

(2014). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities (4th ed). Sage.

77.

Scott

W. R.

Meyer

J. W.

(1991). The rise of training-programs in firms and agencies: An institutional perspective. Research in Organizational Behavior, 13, 297–326.

78.

Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization (n.d.). About. https://www.seameo.org/Main_about/.

79.

Steinmo

(2008). Historical institutionalism. In Porta

D. D.

Keating

(Eds), Approaches and methodologies in the social sciences: A pluralist perspective (pp. 118–138). Cambridge University Press.

80.

Stubbs

(2008). The ASEAN alternative? Ideas, institutions and the challenge to ‘global’ governance. The Pacific Review, 21(4), 451–468. https://doi.org/10.1080/09512740802294713

81.

Suddaby

Foster

W. M.

Mills

A. J.

(2014). Historical institutionalism. In Bucheli

Wadhwani

R. D.

(Eds), (pp. 100–123). Oxford University Press.Organizations in time: History, theory, methods

82.

Thornton

P. H.

Ocasio

Lounsbury

(2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford University Press.

83.

Tina Dacin

Goodstein

Richard Scott

(2002). Institutional theory and institutional change: Introduction to the special research forum. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2002.6283388

84.

Tkachenko

(2015). Recognizing Eli Ginzberg and Human resources: The wealth of a nation (1958): Where are the seeds of (national) HRD? Human Resource Development International, 18(1), 105–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2015.1017925

85.

Tkachenko

Ardichvili

(2017). Cultural-historical activity theory’s relevance to HRD: A review and application. Human Resource Development Review, 16(2), 135–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484317696717

86.

Tkachenko

Crocco

O. S.

Nguyen

L. A.

Jonathan

(2021, February 17–19). Regional human resource development: A critical realist case study. Academy of Human Resource Development 28^th International Research Conference in the Americas, Online.

87.

Tran

H. T.

Phuong

T. T.

Van

H. T. M.

McLean

G. N.

(Eds), (2021). Springer Nature.Human resource development in Vietnam: Research and practice

88.

United Nations Development Programme (2020). Human development reports. http://hdr.undp.org/en.

89.

World Bank (2020). World Bank open data. https://data.worldbank.org

90.

Yamazumi

(2020). An interview with Annalisa Sannino and Yrjö Engeström on Fourth-Generation Activity Theory. Actio: An International Journal of Human Activity Theory, 4, 1–16. http://kandai.sakura.ne.jp/jarat/wordpress_katsudo/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/ACTIO-4-01_yamazumi.pdf