Historically, primary commodities from the region have been exported to developed country markets. Countries such as India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Malaysia were under Western domination till the end of World War II, and they were suppliers of cheap raw materials to the colonial masters. This trade pattern continued even after their independence. Even now a good proportion of the region's primary commodities are exported to them. The only new additions are Japan and the newly industrialized countries. However, as the economic upheavals during the last two decades would have shown, reliance on only the traditional developed markets may be disadvantageous.

An alternative is to concentrate on trade among primary commodity producer countries themselves. Countries of South Asia and ASEAN taken as a unit comprise a huge market. Their total population of about 1.33 billion in 1987 makes it a viable unit for concentrated marketing activities. Moreover, the populations of most of these countries are increasing. Although per capita GNP of some countries such as Bangladesh and Bhutan are low. with the ongoing development plans, they are expected to increase. Their income elasticity of demand for most primary commodities except for essentials such as rice is high. In other words, demand for the commodities is expected to grow fast as incomes increase. The close proximity of these countries could result in transport being cheaper and quicker. Moreover, consumer habits and tastes in these countries are uniform. The sophisticated packaging and health requirements which exporters need to comply with in developed markets are relatively unknown here. Hence countries in the region could realize these advantages inherent among themselves and endeavour to increase trade. Increased trade could be either bilateral or multilateral. Bilateral deals and special trading arrangements for primary commodities or otherwise are nothing new to these countries. Therefore, as a matter of policy, at the highest levels of government, they could grant priority to primary commodity trade between regional countries.

However, present trade in primary commodities among countries in the South Asia-ASEAN region is not at encouraging levels.

The Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation (SAARC) are two Asian regional groupings striving for the speedy development of member countries. The ASEAN member states, Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand, are economically better off compared to their SAARC counterparts — Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. A late starter, the SAARC is organizationally less mature than ASEAN.

As in the case for most regional groupings, fast changing global economic scenarios have prompted these Asian economies to form a group to help absorb the occasional shocks and enhance their economic capabilities. Even though free trade is obviously the best policy from the point of view of world welfare, preferential trading within a group to promote intra-regional trade is regarded as a “second best” policy inherent in customs union theories.

Tariff reduction — considered as one of the many aspects of preferential trading — is generally aimed at achieving greater competition within the region, as well as increasing the size of markets, and using economies of scale eventually to lower costs. Preferential Trading Arrangements (PTA) have been adopted as one of the measures to promote intra-regional trade in ASEAN.

This paper highlights the operation of ASEAN PTA, and identifies issues which could be of relevance to SAARC that has yet to incorporate trade co-operation in its sphere of activities.

This article has examined the scope of ASEAN-South Asia regional co-operation in the development of trade in primary commodities as a component in South-South co- operation. The first section of the analysis examined what countries in the region could attempt to achieve within the global institutional framework. The active support of the North is mandatory; otherwise the attempt would be mere rhetoric. The second section focused on the improvement of the production-marketing process of the commodities. It's success would depend on the willingness to help a competitor or ability to compete. The third section was on the intra-regional trade within the group, which is limited mostly because of the complementary nature of the commodities. In addition to these factors, low productivity and regular production shortfalls in certain primary commodities could impede co-operation among countries in the region. Although promising on the surface, as a component in the South-South co-operation, this has its own drawbacks.

Overview

The development ideology prevalent during the 1970s called on the state to play a more active role in the development process. The influence of this ideology is more apparent in developing countries such as those in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) than in developed countries as their governments have established various state enterprises to correct perceived market failures, rationalizing that the market mechanism is unable to provide both collective and merit goods. Moreover, the private sector's inability to invest in sectors or industries with unusually high commercial and non-commercial risks became natural conduits for government assistance and direct economic participation. In the Philippines, the government took the responsibility for providing most public utilities, including public transport services. Transport per se formed part of a new ideological package called the “eleven basic needs of man.” Conceived by Mrs Ferdinand Marcos, the ideology rationalized the existence of the Ministry of Human Settlements in the early 1970s, and made it imperative for government to provide facilities, or access to it. to satisfy people's “basic needs”. Thus, government built and managed infrastructure requirements (for example housing and recreation facilities) and provided direct services (for example the operation of the Food Terminal, Inc. and the Metro Manila Transport Corporation [MMTCj) whenever applicable. In Malaysia and Singapore, similar inclinations were apparent in government efforts to institutionalize and improve the delivery mechanism for public utilities and the different modes comprising the transport system.

Specifically, the initiative and more importantly, the push to “marketize” stateowned enterprises (SOEs) in the Philippines, particularly utilities, have been selective. Among the public utilities which the government either fully owns, or maintains a majority ownership of, only a few are expected to be in the hands of the private sector in the next few years. More notable among these are the Manila Gas Corporation, a subsidiary of the National Development Company, and the Metro Manila Transport Corporation. In the water utilities sector, there is no similar tendency to privatize, or at least create a contestable environment to promote greater efficiency in such firms as the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System and the Local Water Utilities Administration.

National and International Developments

Privatization as a National Phenomenon

The modern state in Europe, developed out of the national consciousness of its citizens, is by its very nature a national state. This does not mean that we cannot find different forms of public life in a country or congruence between governments in different countries. Belgium may serve as an example; after establishing a new constitution, the Walloon and the Flemish parts of the public administration have developed in different directions. The nature of public law, which is quite similar on the whole continent, confirms the second statement. However, the administrative practice of the European Community (EC) highlights what in administrative science is classified as the difference between classical administration — such as in France, Germany, etc. — and civic culture administration — for example Great Britain.

Despite such distinctions, the line between public and private functions is drawn by the political-administrative culture of the national state. This can clearly be seen by the different meanings for the term “privatization”. Even within the European context, it is difficult to discuss privatization under this term as different approaches are subsumed according to the various national experiences. For some, extending the autonomy of a public enterprise or introducing profit orientation constitutes privatization. For others the term privatization is restricted to a transfer of ownership either in the formal sense of changing the legal structure, or in the material sense of an actual transfer of ownership. Taking into consideration the situation outside Europe, including the developing countries, means adding more problems to the understanding of the term privatization. Often, the only solution is to specify the respective politico-economic problem.

The distinction between public and private functions in the first place determines which instruments can be applied later to change this distinction in favour of the private sector. This is obvious in the case of the United States of America. In accordance with the distinctive administrative culture there the discussion on privatization centres on certain instruments such as contracting-out, franchise, voucher system and self-service arrangements.

Public enterprises (PEs) are one of the major factors in the world economy. Their share of the national product in industrialized and developing countries is estimated at half that of multinational enterprises (Ramamurti 1985). In most developing countries, PEs share in the gross domestic product (GDP) ranges between 7 and 15 per cent (Hafsi et al. 1987). Public enterprises are set up and used as one of the instruments by government to achieve multiple socio-economic and political goals (Priebjrivat 1986). For example, PEs may, among other things, be expected to promote industrialization, to advance technology, to create jobs, to defend national interests, to reduce regional disparities, and to save declining industries (Vernon 1984). The 1980s, however, have witnessed a market reversal of the roles played by the public and private sectors in the industrialized economy. Instead of government control and centralized planning, there has been a renewed emphasis on markets and competition. Privatization then came into fashion. “Markctization”, as used here, refers to making the market more efficient through various forms such as changes in ownership, policy, governance, and management of the PE sector. Thus, it does not mean privatization in the narrow sense, although it does involve inviting greater participation by the private sector in providing competition or performing functions including investment and management which were previously the government's domain. Here, if the autonomy of management is extended or if methods of business and profit orientation are introduced into the operation of specific PE, it is regarded as marketization (Konig 1989).

Likewise in Asia, a remarkable economic growth has been experienced recently especially in ASEAN member countries. The private sector is becoming more efficient and its role as the engine of growth is notably increasing. The public sector meanwhile begins to reconsider its role in the economy. Together with the deficit problems, the governments of ASEAN countries are now considering the restructuring of various economic sectors (Ng and Wagner 1989). Yet, some empirical evidence both in Europe and in some Asian countries have led to the question whether privatization is the only means to improve public sector efficiency and profitability (Bishop and Kay 1989; and Ng 1989).

The year 1989 probably marked the culmination of a period of significant changes in perceptions of the role of the state. The revolutionary changes and upheavals in the Communist world and the concomitant crumbling of many (communist or non-communist) dictatorial regimes in Europe and in Asia are unmistakable indications that these states have simply not delivered the goods, material and immaterial, which were promised. The romantic idea of creating a “new” or “socialist” man has proved to be a complete failure. After decades of experimentation and repeated promises, disillusionment is spreading.

It is not only in (formerly) socialist countries with their strong tradition of centralized decision making, and government interference and involvement in the economy that the role of the state in general, and of the government in particular, as an agent of political and economic development is being increasingly questioned and disputed. In fact, it can be argued that the movement for less government interference and more individual decision making originated in the late 1970s and early 1980s within the industrialized countries with already more or less open societies and economies.

Interventionist policies, restrictive regulations, and state involvement in economic activity in the industrialized countries failed to achieve low unemployment, low inflation and high economic growth when external shocks were felt in the 1970s and 1980s. Quite to the contrary, interventionism and state involvement hampered structural adjustment and, thus, made the unavoidable changes even more painful in the long run.

Whilst these observations and interpretations are valid generally and few would arguably dispute them, there must, however, be some logic and reasons behind the state's greater involvement in the production of goods and services in particular, and its interference in the economy in general earlier on.

Traditionally there have been various rationale and objectives for the state's involvement in the economy: one rationale and objective is related to macroeconomic stabilization and the realization of a certain level of economic growth. Another important rationale and objective is to achieve a, by whatever definition, “fair and just” distribution of income and/or wealth among the various socio-economic groups of society. The third major objective of economic policy making is to secure the efficient use and allocation of scarce resources. In addition, the state is often expected to play an important role as an agent of development.

ASEAN'S Economic Features

The total population of ASEAN member states reached 314.9 million in 1988. Extreme di sparity exists in the level of income among these countries. The lowest per capita Gross National Product (GNP) was US$490 for Indonesia while Brunei was placed at the top with US$17,000 mainly due to its abundant oil resources. Singapore, recognized as a Newly Industrializing Economy (NIE), had the second highest per capita income with US$10,450 and has since attained developed country status (Table 2.1). Indonesia and Malaysia, both rich in natural resources, are fast expanding their manufacturing capabilities. Thailand is also rapidly developing as an exporter of manufactures with a solid agricultural base; it has registered the highest growth rate in the region. The situation is not similar for the Philippines which is constrained with a host of socio-economic and political problems.

The region as a whole was considered a high-growth area during 1971–80 and has carried the momentum into the nineties. GDP growth in Thailand in 1990 was the highest in ASEAN — at 10 per cent — and is expected to be maintained in 1991. The GDP growth rate of the Philippines on the other hand was 2.5 percent in 1990, the lowest in the region, together with highest inflation rate at about 15 per cent. However, the average growth rate in the region is well above that of many developing economies outside the region. Singapore has been maintaining the economic pace with its usual role as an “entrepôt” for trade and a centre of production and investment with increased emphasis on high-technology activities.

A look into the sectoral share of GDP shows an increasing role of the industrial and service sector implying a continuing transformation of the economy from a primarily agricultural base to an industrial and service sector base. In 1989 the agricultural sector in the Philippines contributed 26.9 per cent to its GDP with the domination of the service sector (40%) and industry (33.1%).

Over the last 30 to 40 years, the limited purpose, underloaded states of earlier times have evolved, or been moulded, into the multi-institutional, multi-purpose states which are so much a distinctive feature of the present era. The stimulus for this remarkable development has come, in part, from the relevant communities in the form of numerous public demands for various kinds of state action; and also, in part, from the desires or perceived needs of governments to become directly involved in all manner of social and economic activity within their societies. In the process, the institutional machinery of many states has inevitably become large and complex in terms of both the number and variety of components, and the range of functions performed. Indeed, the situation in most of these states is now such that the capacity of governments to govern is actually being seriously eroded by the effects of structural and functional overload. The main effects are sizeable budget deficits and foreign debts, the problems of which are frequently exacerbated by organizational inefficiencies and waste.

The significance of this last remark is particularly apparent in respect of state enterprises, or public enterprises as they are normally called: that is, those organizations within government which, although often variously structured, all have established business or commercial responsibilities of one kind or another and, thus, constitute the main means by which a government is directly involved in the development and operation of an economy. These enterprises tend, in many countries of the world, to be over-staffed, underproductive, inadequately responsive to market forces, and unprofitable. Of course, there are important exceptions, including, for example, the system as a whole in Singapore; however, the situation, in general, is that which has just been indicated. Hence, it is not surprising that many governments in the last few years have been keen to consider, and often to adopt, a variety of means of transforming selected enterprises. An underlying and continuing objective is obviously to enhance the performances of the enterprises concerned and/or to relieve the state of organizational and financial burdens which really can no longer be carried.