Introduction

The topic “What can ASEAN do to address rising poverty levels and social unrest” is especially pertinent if the current global economic crisis is prolonged or worsens further. Even if the crisis abates during the next year, various forecasts point to a slower rate of growth in the ASEAN national economies. Continuing ripple effects on various economic sectors, socioeconomic groups and local areas already badly hit as a result of the worsening economic conditions during the past eighteen months can be expected for some time to come. To ensure that economic distress does not translate into sharply rising poverty levels and social unrest, policy-makers in the region will need to be more proactive than they have been to date — both at the regional and national levels.

Unfortunately, at the regional level, the outcome of the most recent meeting of the Heads of State/Government of the ASEAN member states in Cha-am Hua Hin on 1 March 2009 to discuss the global economic and financial crisis — has provided little evidence or assurance that the governments at the regional level are focused on addressing the poverty and social impacts of the crisis. The press communiqué arising out of the meeting mainly affirmed “the necessity of proactive and decisive policy actions to restore market confidence and [to] ensure continued financial stability to promote sustainable regional economic growth”. Emphasis was placed on “expansionary macroeconomic policies, including fiscal stimulus, monetary easing, access to credit including trade financing, and measures to support private sector, particularly small and medium enterprises (SMEs) undertaken by each ASEAN Member State to stimulate domestic demand”. Although the importance of “coordinating policies and taking joint actions that would be mutually reinforcing at the regional level” was mentioned, this was more focused on the regional grouping's “determination to ensure the free flow of goods, services and investment, and facilitate movement of business persons, professionals, talents and labour, and freer flow of capital” rather than on alleviating the regional poverty and social impacts arising from the crisis.

In all, the meeting appears to have taken a hands-off approach in terms of a regional approach to the challenge of worsening poverty in the region arising from the global crisis, preferring — or at least it seems to the public — to opt for the national governments to deal with the impact in their own ways.