Understanding the ASEAN way of regional qualification governance: The case of mutual recognition agreements in the professional service sector

Abstract

Existing studies on Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRAs) are mostly based on the European experience. In this paper, we discuss the ongoing attempt of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to establish very unique MRAs, using professional service qualifications, particularly engineering, as a case study. Several ASEAN professional service qualification MRAs employ a “hub‐and spoke” model, wherein neither the hub (regional mechanism) nor the spokes (national authorities) are more powerful than the other. This model features both harmonization of professional qualifications led by regional mechanisms and the recognition of partner countries’ qualifications granted by national authorities. Why does ASEAN need unique MRA governance that features both harmonization and mutual recognition? We find several valid practical explanations, such as limitations of supranational power, confidence building among members, and capacity development. More fundamentally, neither simple harmonization nor simple mutual recognition functions well in ASEAN, where three types of gaps exist among member states. The diversity in legal backgrounds suggests that the combination of harmonization preferred by civil law countries and mutual recognition preferred by common law countries is suitable. The variety in social norms ranging from market mechanisms to social safety implies that the combination of harmonization and mutual recognition is also suitable. Gaps in the price and quality of professional services across ASEAN member states requires the unique approach to facilitate and control the movement of professionals and to promote the joint practice between foreign and local professionals in both high and low income countries to create a win‐win situation.

Legal Traditions as Economic Borders

“…On international agreements, Duina (2016) reports a comparative case analysis of FTAs and argues that civil law states prefer international harmonization of laws and permanent courts to solve international disputes, whereas common law states prefer recognition of foreign laws and technical ad hoc mechanisms for international dispute resolution. For domestic systems, based on their case analysis of professional qualifications, Hamanaka and Jusoh (2018) argue that both common and civil law states have developed distinct types of domestic qualification systems that are in line with the fundamental values of each legal tradition. They posit that civil law states, which rely heavily on written laws, tend to rely on paper-based examinations for the governance of professional qualifications.…”

Forecasting the Competition of International Standardization Preoccupation

“…China's digital yuan, DCEP, is similar to a blockchain-based cryptocurrency; however, the subject is not the private sector, but a centralized power group. The system operates as follows: rather than issuing and exchanging digital currencies directly to people by the Central Bank of China, it is instead permitted for them to exchange DCEPs at designated operating institutions and then convert them [27]. As many customers are already familiar with Alibaba's Alipay and Tencent's WeChat Pay, the spread of the digital yuan in China is expected to be rapid.…”

Domestic legal traditions and international cooperation: Insights from domestic and international qualification systems

“…The title of ASEAN Engineer does not automatically mean that an engineer may provide engineering services in other ASEAN member states. With the ASEAN Engineer status, professional engineers may obtain the status of Registered Foreign Professional Engineer (RFPE) in other ASEAN states (Hamanaka and Jusoh, 2018).…”

“…As illustrated in Figure 4, the ASEAN Engineer scheme is a mixture of harmonization and mutual recognition (Hamanaka and Jusoh, 2018). First, it has elements of harmonization.…”