Bringing the notion of place into AEC debate Dana Hasibuan  ;   A lecturer in Sociology at the Gadjah Mada University in Yogyakarta

JAKARTA POST,  22 Desember 2014

                                                                                                                       

As we approach the inception of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC), it is wise to take a step back, observe and listen to various opinions that try to make sense of what the AEC will look like and how it will affect our lives. There are at least three major opinions to be highlighted. The first opinion is championed by the liberal perspective. This perspective argues that the AEC serves the interest of every individual currently residing in any of the ASEAN countries. There are myriad factors that have been raised to support this opinion. Two of the most important ones are economic growth and resilience to economic crises. Firstly, it is believed that the creation of a single market among ASEAN countries will encourage the movement of goods, capital and high-skill workers. For instance, the AEC will generate a combined GDP worth US$3 trillion and include 600 million consumers (ASEAN, 2014). As a result of this rise in economic productivity, the welfare of society in general will improve as profits increase. Secondly, it is critical to build a single market to protect ASEAN countries from an economic crisis. Now, with an economic buffer at the regional level, it is expected that ASEAN countries could be more resilient to any economic shock, as their economy has become a single giant force, thus making it robust. The second perspective is the moderate opinion. This perspective perceives that there are individuals that are not ready to compete in an open market as the liberal opinion endorses. They are unprepared mostly because of broader structural factors such as low educational background and work skills, insufficient amount of capital and networks, and because they do not possess the most advanced technological tools. As a result, there is a high probability that these people will be outcompeted if they do not improve, and therefore experience dispossession. This perspective, moreover, supports state intervention to protect these individuals from further impoverishment. Intervention can take various forms, starting from providing training to upgrade workers’ skills and prepare them for competition all the way to providing loans for micro entrepreneurs. This opinion can be regarded as the populist perspective, as it does not actually challenge the overarching structure. The third perspective, the left perspective, argues that the establishment of an open, competitive single market will produce a dystopian reality; a situation that can be characterized as a “race to the bottom”. It is a global condition where nation states compete with each other in attracting investment through promoting their pool of cheap labor and low taxation instead of upholding their human resources. This occurs as high-skilled professionals are no longer tied to a particular country as they are allowed to move freely across boundaries, thus making it difficult for origin countries to promote these workers as their national assents. In addition, from this perspective, inadequate health systems, absence of public housing, and even low educational attainment can be seen as a concerted action to create or sustain a mass of cheap labor by pushing individuals into a precarious life, hence having low security in their lives. The three perspectives above have been competing to convince readers and gain support regarding the future of AEC. And while they might appear to be in conflict with each other, they all share one thing in common: their arguments are founded and shaped on the basis of political economy. What I mean by political economy here is that the logic behind the reasoning of each opinion is determined by economic variables. And while these perspectives are legitimate, it can be argued that they oversimplify social complexity. It is critical to analyze the AEC not only from an economy dimension, but from other dimensions as well. In this context, the concept of space and place proves to be valuable to expanding our conversation regarding the AEC. As Lefebvre (1991) elaborated the concept of production of space almost 40 years ago, a growing amount of literature is beginning to recognize that when we discuss social interaction or inequality, it is important to acknowledge the role of territory. And this is because the meaning of lives and values are produced and experienced in a specific place or locality, not in some abstract space at a regional level. This is why although we are told that the AEC is inclusive for everyone who is a citizen of one of the ASEAN countries, for a lot of people, this idea sounds trite and far-fetched. What gives people’s lives meaning is their house, job, neighbors, local market and school. Put simply, place is the center of felt value (Yi Fu, 1977), not some ideal flowing space. Undervaluing the role of place and local experience may create a feeling of displacement and anxiety. The question that is imperative to be asked, then, before we celebrate the upcoming AEC, is can we still feel attached to a particular place after the inception of the AEC?  ●