Towards sustainable integration: The role of government in facilitating ASEAN integration through education cooperation

Abstract

Economic integration is undoubtedly at the top of the agenda for the ASEAN Community. To pave the way for such integration, serious consideration should also be given to sociocultural aspects of the integration initiatives, especially education cooperation among member states, as such cooperation can act as a stepping stone to a heightened awareness of a regional integration and a growing sense of connectedness to the initiatives. The fact is, however, that ASEAN countries devote little attention to education cooperation compared with other aspects of cooperation. This paper critically examines the development of ASEAN integration by investigating the way in which ASEAN education cooperation arrangements are actualised for the benefit of regional integration. Through the examination, the paper discusses major theories of regional integration, using them to conceptualise ASEAN integration. It also discusses the concepts of government and governance vis-a-vis education, applying them to the ASEAN case.

Keywords

ASEAN ASEAN Community ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community regional integration education cooperation

Introduction

Southeast Asia is home to various cultures and political systems. Through the signing of the Bangkok Declaration in 1967, however, five countries in the region (Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines) agreed to put aside some of their differences and created the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) with a view to working in collaboration for the common good (Prateeppornnarong, 2018). The 1980s and 1990s witnessed an enlargement of ASEAN by five new member states (Brunei in 1984, Vietnam in 1995, Laos in 1997, Myanmar in 1997 and Cambodia in 1999) (Gilson, 2005).

To promote more concrete cooperation in the region, heads of member states, via ratification of the ASEAN Charter in 2007 (ASEAN Secretariat, 2007), have given a pledge to build the so-called ‘ASEAN Community’, emphasising three community pillars: ASEAN Economic Community (AEC), ASEAN Political–Security Community (APSC) and ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community (ASCC) (Moorthy and Guido, 2012; Yukawa, 2018a). Boosting the regional economy is undoubtedly at the top of the agenda for regional integration in Southeast Asia (Yukawa, 2018b). In this regard, it is arguable that raising a regional awareness, developing a sense of connectedness and building a regional identity are of necessity because they would:

[S]mooth the path to regional economic integration by cultivating mutual trust and, thereby, building conﬁdence in regional institutions, arrangements and understandings. Many of the hopes for and obstacles to the ASEAN enterprise lie in the mind, the minds of ASEAN’s people. (Severino, 2006: 368)

One of the ways in which a regional awareness and a sense of connectedness could be built is through enhancing education cooperation. As Feuer and Hornidge (2015: 327) pointed out:

[Education cooperation] . . . is increasingly becoming a platform for regional and international agenda setting. The broader goals of this agenda, however, are not limited to improving and standardising the academic experience, but typically now extend to fostering cultural and political ties and complementing processes of cultural integration, development, and peace-building.

While education cooperation can play an important role in regional integration initiatives, the fact is that education cooperation receives scant attention from the governments of ASEAN countries compared with other aspects of cooperation (Feuer and Hornidge, 2015). In addition, to date, there is little research-based literature on ASEAN education cooperation that helps reflect the extent to which this type of cooperation contributes to the integration initiatives.

For the above reasons, this paper critically examines the development of ASEAN integration from the aspect of education cooperation. It contributes to the existing literature on regional integration in the following ways. The study of this paper deviates from previous studies on ASEAN integration as it examines the way in which ASEAN education cooperation arrangements are actualised for the benefit of regional integration. In doing so, it looks into the main challenges of actualising the existing arrangements and analyses what can be done by the government to address those challenges. In addition, this paper discusses major theories of regional integration, using them to conceptualise ASEAN integration. It also discusses the concepts of government and governance vis-a-vis education, applying them to the ASEAN case.

Research methods

This paper adopted archival research methods. According to Ventresca and Mohr (2002: 805):

Archival research methods include a broad range of activities applied to facilitate the investigation of documents and textual materials. . .In its most classic sense, archival methods are those that involve the study of historical documents. . .However, archival methods are also employed by scholars engaged in non-historical investigations of documents and texts. . .

Timothy (2012: 403) also elaborated the following to show the nature and the use of archival methods in social research:

[A]rchival research entails the use of data which the investigators did not collect themselves; the data already existed when the study was started. The researcher’s role is to select which information to use and how to analyse it.

The following reasons account for the use of archival methods in this research. First and foremost, there is a rich accumulation of studies of ASEAN in recent years; hence, the adoption of archival research methods works to the advantage of this research as a wide variety of documents, which are already accessible to the public, provide a large quantity of data available for analysis. In addition, it is apparent that archival research is a cost-cutting and time-saving approach.

The author was also mindful of the limitations of the method in question. For example, data analysis was based on secondary materials, which are inflexible as the researcher has no control over them. Moreover, the selection of data for analysis may be biased (Timothy, 2012). However, the researcher has endeavoured to circumvent these limitations. In so doing, the selection of data for analysis was carefully planned. As a result, official documents such as regulations, reports and academic research produced on behalf of the ASEAN Secretariat or by government agencies, as well as research articles in peer-reviewed journals, were given priority among various types of publication, while publications based on individual opinions such as newspaper articles were excluded.

Notably, archival methods can match with both quantitative and qualitative research. Considering that a sound understanding of the development of ASEAN integration, the arrangements for education cooperation and the role of government are vital for answering the research question, qualitative research, which focuses on interpreting rather than measuring the social world (Bryman, 2012), is more suitable for this study than quantitative research, and was therefore adopted. With respect to analytical techniques, content analysis, which ‘focuses on the characteristics of language as communication with attention to the content or contextual meaning of the text’ (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005: 1278), was employed in this research to decipher the meaning and also concepts manifesting in documents used in the research (Ventresca and Mohr, 2002).

Regional integration: Theoretical frameworks

Following the end of the Second World War, innumerable theories (e.g. neo-functionalism, see Haas (1958); liberal intergovernmentalism, see Moravcsik (1993); multi-level governance, see Marks et al. (1996); historical institutionalism, see Pierson (1996)) had been developed to expound European integration. Even though ASEAN, as an intergovernmental body, is second only to the EU, as yet little progress has been made in trying to theorise its development and integration initiatives (see Kim, 2014). This paper does not seek to develop a theoretical framework for a regional integration in Southeast Asia, it only aims to see whether such progress can be conceptualised through the lens of some major theories of European integration.

Neo-functionalism (NF) versus liberal intergovernmentalism (LI): A concise summary

When it comes to examining European integration, NF and LI proved to be major theories. Initially developed by Haas (1958), and subsequently refined by many other scholars (e.g. Lindberg, 1963; Nye, 1968), NF permeated theoretical discourse on European integration for a quarter of a century (1955–1975). NF is centred on the concept of ‘spillover’, which can be categorised into ‘functional spillover’ and ‘political spillover’. Functional spillover is concerned with economic integration. Kim explains it as:

the process in which activities in [economic] sectors initially integrated spill over into neighbouring functionally related but not yet integrated sectors, making them the focus of demands for more integration. (Kim, 2014: 379)

while political spillover is:

the process whereby political actors in several distinct national settings are persuaded to shift their loyalties, expectations and political activities toward a new centre, whose institutions possess or demand jurisdiction over the pre-existing national states. (Haas, 1958: 16)

NF holds that societal actors and political authorities (i.e. supranational institutions) occupy a pivotal role in the integration process, as regional integration takes place when:

societal actors, in calculating their interests, decided to rely on the supranational institutions rather than their own governments to realize their demands. These institutions, in turn, would enjoy increasing authority and legitimacy as they became the sources of policies meeting the demands of social actors. (Haas, 1958: xiv)

It can be seen that the integral components of the integration process comprise political process, the power and the ability of technocrats at a supranational level to drive the agenda and to broker deals (Caporaso, 1998). As for the second major theory, LI, Moravcsik (1993: 480) explained the following to show where the theory arose from:

[LI] builds on an earlier approach, ‘intergovernmental institutionalism’, by refining its theory of interstate bargaining and institutional compliance, and by adding an explicit theory of national preference formation grounded in liberal theories of international interdependence.

To explain the process of integration, LI portrays national states as rational self-interested actors (Caporaso, 1998) and comprises a two-stage analytical framework, namely ‘national preference formation’ influenced by liberal theories, and ‘intergovernmental negotiation’ shaped by ‘intergovernmentalist theories’ (Moravcsik, 1993).

At stage one, national preference formation, national states realise the demands of society, which, through domestic pressures, become national preferences (interests). Next, at stage two, intergovernmental negotiation, governments bargain with one another over differences and beneficial exchanges in the interstate arena, bringing about interaction and cooperation between them (Moravcsik, 1993). It should be noted that LI assumes that a driving force for regional integration is economic interests generated by international economic interdependence but not by political and security reasons. More importantly, it is held that national governments, rather than supranational organizations, are regarded as central actors for integration; in this regard, national states are willing to pool some of their sovereignty to intergovernmental bodies, principally to ensure that commitments are honoured, but not to embrace political ideologies (Kim, 2014).

Conceptualising ASEAN integration: A brief analysis

When it comes to ASEAN, the question can be raised as to whether NF and/or LI can be theoretical frameworks for its development and integration initiatives. De Lombaerde et al. (2010) pointed out that as NF and LI were formulated on the experience of European integration, it is thus inappropriate to apply them to theorise regional integration schemes elsewhere as they apparently introduce Eurocentric bias, which will give rise to a distorted understanding of the development of integration in other regions.

NF and LI emphasise democratic pluralism as fundamental values in formulating policy for regional integration. Why does democratic pluralism matter? In a democracy, societal actors are able to make their voices heard. Empirical findings from many pieces of research also suggest that democratic governments are more inclined to engage with regional integration policies compared with other types of regimes (de Mesquita et al., 2003; Mansfield et al., 2008; Milner with Kubota, 2005). In a sharp contrast, some national states in Southeast Asia (e.g. Myanmar, Vietnam, Brunei) are not democracies, while some others are apparently flawed democracies (e.g. Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines); in this region, social demands are frequently suppressed by authoritarian or autocratic regimes (Case, 2009).

At the core of NF, the determination to integrate the economy would result in pressure for the creation of supranational institutions as regulatory bodies, which implies that ‘politics would follow economics’ (Rosamond, 2000: 60); however, Kim (2014) argued that, in the case of ASEAN, the reverse is true. As he explained:

Indeed, major developments in ASEAN Summits integration have been made in ASEAN summit, where authoritarian ASEAN leaders strived to secure their own regime survival in the face of external shocks, such as the end of the Cold War and the Asian financial crisis, or external pressures, such as a new wave of regionalism. . . . (Kim, 2014: 381)

This implies that the concept of functional spillover is of little avail when NF is applied to the context of ASEAN integration. In addition, the principle of non-interference in each other’s domestic affairs is well adopted among ASEAN member states and is indicative of the sensitivity of the issue of sovereignty in this region (Jones, 2010; Loh, 2015; Yukawa, 2018a); therefore, the concept of political spillover could hardly be applicable to ASEAN. In the same vein as NF, LI has little value for ASEAN. LI claims that the economy is a driving force for regional integration but, as noted, ASEAN integration is based on the geopolitical agenda. More importantly, the core of LI is economic interdependence of member states of the integrated region; notwithstanding, the evidence indicates that the share of extra-ASEAN trade is three times more than that of intra-ASEAN trade. It can be seen that economic interdependence of ASEAN member states is at relatively low level (ASEAN Secretariat, 2019).

Judging from the above analysis, another question is prompted as to whether the integration initiatives of Southeast Asia can be conceptualised via the theoretical lens of NF and/or LI. Considering it from a different angle, acquisition of theoretical insights from the analysis of these two major theories, at least, could be helpful for conceptualisation of the development of ASEAN. Basically, NF underlines the process of learning and socialising of technocratic elites from each member state over the course of striking deals. This insight could help conceptualise how and under what circumstances ASEAN integration progresses, given its member states are, on the one hand, unwilling to pool their sovereignty to supranational institutions while, on the other hand, they are also eager to strengthen their cooperation (Kim, 2014). In addition, the way in which ASEAN moves forward on its integration initiatives, which is in line with the non-interference doctrine, is also in compliance with the apolitical strategy stressed by NF as an effective means of economic integration (Burley and Mattli, 1993; Risse-Kappen, 1996). This particular insight could also help conceptualise the development of ASEAN integration.

In terms of LI, the fact that it emphasises the role of government in negotiating regional integration in the international arena could lay a foundation for theoretical explanation of ASEAN integration. Let it not be forgotten that, in Southeast Asia, it is national governments, as opposed to societal actors or supranational organizations, that are in the driving seat of the integration project. For these reasons, their roles in maximising national interests via interstate cooperation are of vital importance to the understanding of the integration process of ASEAN (Kim, 2014).

In sum, while it is clear that NF and LI have limitations making them unfit for theorising a regional integration in Southeast Asia, this paper argues that it is imprudent to discard NF and LI as theories that are completely irrelevant to the context of ASEAN. Theoretical insights from the analysis of NF and LI, at least, could help conceptualise the development and integration progress of ASEAN in a more theoretical way. This paper argues that these insights may become a sound base for scholars wanting to construct theoretical frameworks for ASEAN.

Integration through education cooperation

In this section, ‘education’ under review covers three stages: primary education, secondary education and higher education (HE). That said, source material for discussion in this section comes primarily from scholarly work on HE. In the following subsections, this paper examines the role of government¹ in education through the conceptual framework of education governance. In addition, it also presents ASEAN’s arrangements for education cooperation and analyses the main challenges of enhancing the cooperation.

The role of government in education

In discussing the role of government in education, this paper begins by clarifying a distinction between the two concepts ‘governance’ and ‘government’. In the existing literature, governance is referred to somewhat differently based on the dimensions (e.g. politics, polity, policy) from which scholars see it (Treib et al., 2007). In this paper, however, it is defined as coordination of a constellation of policy actors during the formulation and the implementation of policies aimed at dealing with collective problems (Capano, 2011; Jordan and Schout, 2006; Kooiman, 2003). On the contrary, government is solely one of the policy actors in systematic governance; in this respect, its role therefore varies according to different modes of governance (Capano, 2011).

Governance in relation to education policy can be categorised into four different modes: hierarchical governance, procedural governance, steering-from-a-distance governance and self-governance. Under hierarchical and procedural modes of governance, the government takes a traditional role of commanding and controlling the way education is conducted. Based on hierarchical governance, educational institutions play no role in goal-setting and the arrangements for achieving the goals, while, under procedural governance, the institutions are given some leeway to establish their own goals; in the meantime, they are still subjected to procedural frameworks enforced by the government. Steering-from-a-distance mode of governance, as its name suggests, refers to governance whereby the government carries a strategic role in the way education is organised. The government may introduce some incentive plans to attract education institutions to comply with its objectives. Self-governance mode, based on the market-driven principle, reflects substantial freedom enjoyed by educational institutions when designing the way in which education should be conducted. Noting that, under the modes of steering-from-a-distance and self-governance, government intervention may take place if it is deemed necessary (Capano, 2011).

Typically, hierarchical and procedural modes of governance are relevant to public schools at primary and secondary stages while steering-from-a-distance and self-governance modes are more relevant to HE. It is apparent that, no matter what modes of governance, the government still assumes a responsible role in steering a policy direction on education. The role of government is especially inevitable when it comes to education cooperation in the context of strengthening regional integration.

ASEAN education cooperation arrangements

Following the 14th ASEAN Summit in Cha-Am and Hua-in, Thailand in 2009, education cooperation seemed to be high on the agenda of ASEAN integration as the Blueprint for Development of ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community 2009–2015 was launched to pave the way for strengthening the ASEAN Community. Even though the Blueprint under implementation now is the 2016–2025 version, significant strategic objectives and action plans for education cooperation were detailed in the 2009–2015 version. In this subsection, therefore, much of the discussion on the arrangements for education cooperation will be drawn from the 2009–2015 Blueprint.

In the Blueprint, many strategic objectives and action plans have been set out for enhancing the ASCC. This paper, however, discusses only key strategies and action plans for education cooperation among member countries of ASEAN.

Advancing and prioritising education

Ensuring the integration of education priorities into ASEAN’s development agenda and creating a knowledge-based society; achieving universal access to primary education; promoting early child care and development; and enhancing awareness of ASEAN to youths through education and activities to build an ASEAN identity based on friendship and cooperation. (ASEAN Secretariat, 2009: 2).

Key action plans of this strategic objective are as follows:

1) Improve the quality and adaptability of education, including technical/vocational/ skills training education in the ASEAN region by developing a technical assistance programme including training for teaching staff and staff exchange programme at higher education level for this purpose by 2009, in particular Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam (CLMV);

2) Undertake periodic reviews of the various ASEAN scholarship programmes for the purpose of rationalizing and consolidating them in order to increase their impact;

3) Promote education networking in various levels of educational institutions and continue university networking and enhance and support student and staff exchanges and professional interactions including creating research clusters among ASEAN institutions of higher learning, in close collaboration with the Southeast Asia Ministers of Education Organization (SEAMEO) and the ASEAN University Network (AUN);

4) Include the teaching of common values and cultural heritage in school curricula and develop teaching materials and capability for this purpose starting in 2008;

5) Develop and offer courses on ASEAN studies, both in the primary, secondary and higher education levels;

6) Support learning of ASEAN languages and promote exchanges of linguists;

7) Establish ASEAN university games, ASEAN youth peace corps, ASEAN computer games and ASEAN Science Olympiad to promote greater interaction and understanding among the youths in the region;

8) Promote the options of university placements in an institution of higher learning in a second ASEAN member state through a ‘semester abroad’ or a ‘year abroad’ programme;

9) Support the citizens of member states to become proficient in the English language. . . (ASEAN Secretariat, 2009: 2–3)

Promoting sustainable development through environmental education and public participation

Establish a clean and green ASEAN, rich in cultural traditions where the values and practices of the people are in accordance with the rhythm and harmony of nature, with citizens who are environmentally literate, imbued with the environmental ethic, and willing and capable to ensure the sustainable development of the region through environmental education and public participation efforts. (ASEAN Secretariat, 2009: 15)

Key action plans of this strategic objective are as follows:

1) Implement the ASEAN Environmental Education Action Plan (AEEAP) 2008–2012;

2) Promote research on EE/ ESD issues to ensure continuing development in formal education;

3) Promote sustainable schools (for example, eco-schools/ green schools) concept and practice throughout ASEAN. (ASEAN Secretariat, 2009: 15)

Promotion of ASEAN awareness and a sense of community

Create a sense of belonging, consolidate unity in diversity and enhance deeper mutual understanding among ASEAN Member States about their culture, history, religion, and civilisation. (ASEAN Secretariat, 2009: 21)

Key action plans of this strategic objective are as follows:

1) Support school activities promoting ASEAN awareness. . .

2) Include the studies on ASEAN arts and culture as well as their values in school curriculum. (ASEAN Secretariat, 2009: 22)

While the strategies and action plans described above have been translated into a number of concrete programmes (e.g. student exchange programmes, ASEAN studies curricula, English learning), the institutional bodies were also formed to oversee and facilitate such programmes.

One of the highlights of the cooperation is student mobility in the region. Student mobility proves to be an effective channel for building bridges between countries for future cooperation; as a result, student exchange and scholarship programmes can therefore enhance regional integration in Southeast Asia. To date, the ASEAN International Mobility for Students (AIMS) Programme is being implemented and overseen by the Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization – Regional Centre for Higher Education and Development (SEAMEO RIHED) (Wongsothorn, 1997). The ASEAN University Network (AUN) also contributes significantly to student mobility through scholarship schemes within and outside the Southeast Asia region, such as Airlangga Development Scholarship, Universitas Airlangga, TF LEaRN Programme, National University of Singapore etc. These programmes arguably bear resemblance to the Erasmus student exchange programme that aims to improve integration cooperation via building a sense of European identity and citizenship (Van Mol, 2018).²

Educating children and adolescents on regional cooperation can be a stepping stone to promoting a regional awareness. Curricula on ASEAN studies designed specifically for primary education and secondary education have the added advantage of promoting a sense of regional connectedness to ASEAN in the long run. In 2011, Thailand’s Office of the Basic Education Commission (OBEC) launched a pilot project entitled ‘Spirit of ASEAN’ and involved 54 schools at primary and secondary levels nationwide. The objectives of this project are twofold: to raise ASEAN awareness and enhance a sense of regional identity through teaching and learning activities; and to develop students’ foreign language proficiency, particularly in English (Somphong and Isarankura Na Ayudhaya, 2014).

Quality assurance is another important area of cooperation in education, not least for HE. Currently, the AUN Quality Assurance network (AUN-QA) became a household name for numerous universities in the region. Some ASEAN member states (e.g. Vietnam) even incentivise universities to have their study programmes certified by the AUN-QA in exchange for extra financial aid from the government. The AUN-QA team has already assessed 401 study programmes throughout Southeast Asia. Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines are major countries in the region that have great involvement with the AUN-QA assessment (AUN-QA, 2019). The key contribution of the assessment is that universities in the region not just learn from one another but also help improve the quality of education in the region as a whole.

Education cooperation in Southeast Asia: Main challenges

In Southeast Asia, regional cooperation initiatives are no stranger to undue delays. It is claimed that the progress of most initiatives has been barred by the traditional approach of the ‘ASEAN way’³ (Yukawa, 2018a) and a lack of mechanisms for facilitating regional cooperation in a concrete way (Jetschke and Rüland, 2009). Interestingly, the ASCC Blueprint 2025 points out that:

[The ASCC Blueprint] was shown to be effective in developing and strengthening the coherence of policy frameworks and institutions to advance Human Development. . . ASEAN Awareness, and Narrowing the Development Gap. (ASEAN Secretariat, 2016a: 1)

For these reasons, this subsection discusses the progress of delivering education cooperation programmes and identifies the main challenges of doing so in a number of ASEAN member states.

In 2018, a workshop entitled ‘Measures of the Implementation of Mobility’ was organised by the AUN to gather views on student exchange programmes. The findings revealed that personal preference to study in the West, a sense of misgiving about the benefits from the programme and the question of the quality of study programmes are the fundamental challenges of conducting student mobility programmes in ASEAN countries (AUN, 2018). On this point, it is understandable as the education offered in many Western universities, particularly in the United States and Europe, is generally regarded as being of better quality compared to that in Southeast Asian countries. In Southeast Asia, graduates from Western countries are likely to succeed in finding employment and also tend to benefit from remuneration packages that are above the national average. Furthermore, as Sirat (2017: 77) pointed out:

It appears that there is a tendency for flagship universities⁴ in ASEAN to look beyond ASEAN, primarily to establish vertical collaboration, which is important to image-making and the enhancement of reputation.

The fact that prestigious universities in the region have paid scant attention to fostering active and fruitful collaboration with one another arguably influences students’ perception of universities in ASEAN countries.

In addition, a number of shortcomings on the implementation of student exchange programmes were also reported in the Master Plan on ASEAN Connectivity 2025 (ASEAN Secretariat, 2016b: 66); for instance:

[T]here is a gap in the information for prospective participants on the benefits and opportunities available for student exchange within ASEAN Member States; this could be tackled by raising awareness through social media. There is also a need to understand and assess the various visas that are available for such student exchange programmes; this is an instance where DGICM⁵ could help facilitate student mobility by enhancing visa regulations.

Without a doubt, a lack of sufficient information (e.g. student experience and satisfaction) needed for effective management of the programme also hinders future progress. Added to this, limited understanding of regulations can constitute obstacles to student mobility; indeed, the findings of the workshop on ‘Measures of the Implementation of Mobility’ also highlighted students’ concern over immigration law and other administrative regulations relevant to studying abroad (AUN, 2018). Moreover, running student exchange programmes with finite financial support is more of a hindrance than a help. In the AUN annual report of 2016–2017, financial constraints on student and staff exchanges were noted as another fundamental challenge for ASEAN student mobility initiatives. Wide discrepancies in curricula and standards, the language barrier included, among ASEAN universities also pose serious challenges to ASEAN cooperation in education (AUN, 2016).

In terms of ASEAN-focused knowledge, the lessons from Thailand show that the ‘Spirit of ASEAN’ contributes positively to the overall level of understanding of ASEAN among students. The ASEAN Knowledge Centre was created in the Spirit of ASEAN schools. In the schools, ASEAN-focused curricula are delivered while the English language and one more ASEAN language are also taught with a view to ensuring that students are educated properly about ASEAN and regional cooperation. On the other side of the coin, research findings revealed that the schools have been constrained by the issue of human resources. First and foremost, there is a shortage of teaching staff. Second, current staff are found to possess relatively superficial knowledge and understanding of ASEAN, making them unqualified for the job; more importantly, there is a lack of professional development programme for them. Leaving aside human resources, constraints on government funding is another key challenge of the project. This particular constraint created direct impacts on hiring English and other foreign language teachers (Somphong and Isarankura Na Ayudhaya, 2014; Thaijongrak, 2017).

Apart from Thailand, the findings of research that looked into the delivering of ASEAN-focused courses for undergraduate students from Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta (UMY), Indonesia and the University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus (UNMC) also reflected some practical constraints; for example:

[O]btaining primary materials for teaching is ‘really hard’; and the documents provided by the Secretariat are often at too technical a level for students, let alone ‘ordinary people’, to understand. (Azmawati and Quayle, 2017: 10)

The lecturers also pointed out that data accessibility is another fundamental challenge for them in obtaining secondary materials that will be used for teaching (Azmawati and Quayle, 2017). Even worse, the findings suggested that the ASEAN Secretariat shows little responsiveness to the common people, as this interview reflected: ‘the ASEAN Secretariat doesn’t open up to people’ (Azmawati and Quayle, 2017: 10).

In short, ASEAN has made encouraging progress in education cooperation, and strategic objectives and action plans are relatively comprehensive, constituting a strategic framework for cooperation. Notwithstanding, the analysis in this subsection apparently indicates that ASEAN member states are facing serious challenges when putting such strategic framework into practice.

Discussion and conclusion

It is apparent that raising regional awareness and building a sense of connectedness are key to sustainable regional integration. This paper also argues that education cooperation is an important milestone to bring sustainable integration to a reality. It appears that ASEAN member countries are determined to enhance such cooperation as the strategic objectives and action plans have already been put into practice. By and large, it seems that the drive towards closer cooperation in education in Southeast Asia is now on the right track. However, the findings indicate that ASEAN has a long way to go in actualising such cooperation in a meaningful and effective way. It is found that the current arrangements for education cooperation as well as the implementation of education programmes in many countries are facing practical challenges.

From now on, there is an obvious need for careful scrutiny of the implementation of cooperation programmes. This paper argues that it is necessary to address a lack of data and information on education cooperation programmes (e.g. student exchange programmes). Even though some contributions have already been made by the AUN, it remains insufficient for a thorough analysis of the implementation of the programmes. Dealing with an unclear understanding of the benefits of student mobility is also high on the list of priorities. While the management of many universities in Southeast Asia are not ignorant of the idea of cooperation among universities in the region, as Sirat (2017) outlined, the goals of prestigious universities are far beyond ASEAN. This partly accounts for the fact that students normally fail to realise the benefits of studying in other universities in the same region. Last but not least, financial resources are of paramount importance. As research findings indicated, government funds are needed to improve the quality of education in various respects including qualified teaching staff, suitable teaching and learning resources etc.

To tackle all the challenges, governments of member countries have an active role to play. This paper suggests that governments should reach out more to prestigious universities in their countries in order to set the objectives and the direction for regional-based contributions. The government may facilitate cross-cultural/national research projects aiming at bringing the end products (research outputs) to solve issues between countries or to improve people’s lives in different countries. In addition, the government may support short-term training between countries in order to share knowledge and expertise as well as lay a foundation for any possible multi-country degree programmes. Universities may allow undergraduate and/or postgraduate students to take part in these types of collaboration. The increase in collaboration between universities does not just help to deal with the perception that student mobility in the region yields too few benefits, but can also help close the educational gap in the region. Equally important, the ASEAN Secretariat and governments of member states should all come together to sort out bureaucratic barriers (i.e. regulations) to enable students and academic staff to travel more easily in the region.

In addition to HE, student and academic mobility would also be advantageous to primary and secondary education in member countries, especially neighbouring countries. However, the most serious question for education at these levels seems to be the availability of financial support. Unlike universities, primary and secondary schools are normally dependent upon government funding. Financial constraints therefore play a key role in degrading the quality of education. The case of Thailand apparently demonstrated how the Spirit of ASEAN schools could not fully achieve their goals. This paper suggests that, while government should invest more in these schools, it could also incentivise local universities to be of practical assistance. In sum, to actualise education cooperation among ASEAN member countries, the government should assume the role of a facilitator and a provider.

Footnotes

Author’s note

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Wenzao International Conference on Southeast Asia Studies, Kaohsiung, TAIWAN, 17–19 October 2019.

Funding

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

ORCID iD

Dhiyathad Prateeppornnarong

Notes

References

ASEAN Secretariat (2007) ASEAN Charter. Jakarta: The ASEAN Secretariat.

ASEAN Secretariat (2009) ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community Blueprint 2015. Jakarta: The ASEAN Secretariat.

ASEAN Secretariat (2016a) Surveys on ASEAN community building effort 2012. Jakarta: The ASEAN Secretariat.

ASEAN Secretariat (2016b) Master plan on ASEAN connectivity 2025. Jakarta: The ASEAN Secretariat.

ASEAN Secretariat (2019) ASEAN statistical yearbook 2019. Jakarta: The ASEAN Secretariat.

AUN (ASEAN University Network) (2016) Annual report 2015–2016. Bangkok: ASEAN University Network Secretariat.

AUN (ASEAN University Network) (2018) Annual report 2017–2018. Bangkok: ASEAN University Network Secretariat.

AUN-QA (ASEAN University Network-Quality Assurance) (2019) AUN-QA factsheet. Bangkok: AUN-QA.

Azmawati

Quayle

(2017) Promoting ASEAN awareness at the higher education chalkface. Contemporary Southeast Asia 39(1): 127–148.

10.

Bryman

(2012) Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

11.

Burley

Mattli

(1993) Europe before the court: A political theory of legal integration. International Organization 47(1): 41–76.

12.

Capano

(2011) Government continues to do its job: A comparative study of governance shifts in the higher education sector. Public Administration 89(4): 1622–1642.

13.

Caporaso

(1998) Regional integration theory: Understanding our past and anticipating our future. Journal of European Public Policy 5(1): 1–16.

14.

Case

(2009) Low-quality democracy and varied authoritarianism: Elites and regimes in Southeast Asia today. The Pacific Review 22(3): 255–269.

15.

De Lombaerde

Fredrik

Luk

, et al. (2010) The problem of comparison in comparative regionalism. Review of International Studies 36(3): 731–753.

16.

De Mesquita

Smith

Siverson

, et al. (2003) The Logic of Political Survival. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

17.

Feuer

Hornidge

(2015) Higher education cooperation in ASEAN: Building towards integration or manufacturing consent? Comparative Education 51(3): 327–352.

18.

Gilson

(2005) New Interregionalism? The EU and East Asia. European Integration 27(3): 307–326.

19.

Haas

(1958) The Uniting of Europe: Political, Social, and Economic Forces 1950–1957. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

20.

Hsieh

Shannon

(2005) Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research 15(9): 1277–1288.

21.

Jetschke

Rüland

(2009) Decoupling rhetoric and practice: The cultural limits of ASEAN cooperation. The Pacific Review 22(2): 179–203.

22.

Jones

(2010) ASEAN’s unchanged melody? The theory and practice of ‘non-interference’ in Southeast Asia. The Pacific Review 23(4): 479–502.

23.

Jordan

Schout

(2006) The Coordination of the European Union: Exploring the Capacities of Networked Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

24.

Kim

(2014) Integration theory and ASEAN integration. Pacific Focus: Inha Journal of Internationa Studies 28(3): 374–394.

25.

Kooiman

(2003) Governing as Governance. London: SAGE.

26.

Lindberg

(1963) The Political Dynamics of European Economic Integration. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

27.

Loh

DMH

(2015) ASEAN’s norm adherence and its unintended consequences in HADR and SAR operations. The Pacific Review 29(4): 549–572.

28.

Nye

(1968) International Regionalism. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

29.

Mansﬁeld

Helen

Jon

(2008) Democracy, veto players and the depth of regional integration. World Economy 31(1): 67–96.

30.

Marks

Hooghe

Blank

(1996) European integration from the 1980s: State-centric v. multi- level governance. Journal of Common Market Studies 34(3): 341–378.

31.

Moravcsik

(1993) Preferences and power in the European Community: A liberal intergovernmentalist approach. Journal of Common Market Studies 31(4): 473–524.

32.

Milner

with Kubota

(2005) Why the move to free trade? Democracy and trade policy in the developing countries. International Organization 59(1): 107–143.

33.

Moorthy

Guido

(2012) Is an “ASEAN community” achievable? A public perception analysis in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore on the perceived obstacles to regional community. Asian Survey 52(6):1043–1066.

34.

Pierson

(1996) The path to European integration: A historical institutionalist analysis. Comparative Political Studies 29(2): 123–163.

35.

Prateeppornnarong

(2018) Brexit in hindsight and the future direction for ASEAN. Journal of Public and Private Management 25(1): 183–203.

36.

Risse-Kappen

(1996) Exploring the nature of the beast: International relations theory and comparative policy analysis meet the European Union. Journal of Common Market Studies 34(1): 53–80.

37.

Rosamond

(2000) Theories of European Integration. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

38.

Severino

(2006) Southeast Asia in Search of an ASEAN Community. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

39.

Sirat

(2017) ASEAN’s flagship universities and regional integration initiatives. Higher Education Evaluation and Development 11(2): 68–80.

40.

Somphong

Isarankura

Ayudhaya

(2014) The operation of pilot secondary schools under the Spirit of ASEAN project of the Office of the Basic Education Commission. OJED 9: 28–41.

41.

Thaijongrak

(2017) Factors affecting the application of policies to promote multiculturalism in ASEAN: Teachers in the Spirit of ASEAN school. Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 8: 95–121.

42.

Timothy

(2012) Archival research. In: Larry

Alison

Neelu

(eds) Handbook of Research Methods in Tourism: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, pp.403–416.

43.

Treib

Bähr

Falkner

(2007) Modes of governance: Towards a conceptual clarification. Journal of European Public Policy 14(1): 1–20.

44.

Van Mol

(2018) Becoming Europeans: The relationship between student exchanges in higher education, European citizenship and a sense of European identity. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 31(4): 449–463.

45.

Ventresca

Mohr

(2002) Archival research methods. In: Joel

ACB

(ed.) The Blackwell Companion to Organizations. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd, pp.805–828.

46.

Wongsothorn

(1997) A Southeast Asian initiative in higher education SEAMEO-RIHED. International Higher Education 8: 18–19.

47.

Yukawa

(2018a) The ASEAN Way as a symbol: An analysis of discourses on the ASEAN Norms. The Pacific Review 31(3): 298–314.

48.

Yukawa

(2018b) European integration through the eyes of ASEAN: Rethinking Eurocentrism in comparative regionalism. International Area Studies Review 21(4): 323–339.