22 November 1994
Brussels, Belgium

THE SOCIAL DIMENSION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN ASIA

The European Institute for South and South-East Asian Studies (EISSEAS)
held a seminar on 'The Social Dimension of Economic Development in Asia' on
November 22, 1994. This examined a crucial issue that currently needs to be
addressed as Asian economies industrialize, while traditional family
structures break down. Most traditional societies are caring societies,
where care is provided through the extended family structure, village
community, or local religious foundations. However, as traditional
societies breakdown, these forms of support disappear and others have to be
put in their place. If this is not done, then the emergence of social
problems will undermine the performance of these market economies.

By Deepa Mann-Kler

We were proud to welcome speakers from the ILO, ICFTU, EC, academics, and
representatives from Asia. We had George Matthew, Director of the Institute
of Social Sciences in New Delhi from India and Nikom Chandravithun, Chief
Advisor to the Minister of Labour & Social Welfare in Thailand.
Unfortunately our opening speaker Shah Kibria, Former Executive Secretary
of ESCAP, was unable to participate in the seminar at the last moment, due
to serious political developments in Bangladesh.
The seminar opened by examining the general environment of events that are
forcing these changes in Asia today and also introduced the scope of the
points that would be examined during proceedings of the day. We began with
how social security, labour conditions, and trade union rights are being
tackled across these regions as a whole; then examined these problems from
an international and European perspective, looking at how a social
dimension affects international economic relations; what the EU is able to
do to develop this social dimension in its co-operations with South and
Southeast Asia today; and finally discussing two case-studies, to see how
the challenge of developing a social dimension is being met or failing to
be met, in Thailand and India.
Michael Sebastian, from the Bureau for Workers' Activities, ILO, examined
the conditions necessary for social change, which he diagnosed as
discontent, awareness of discontent, and the capability to mobilize the
discontent. One of the methods for building social consensus favoured by 
Stephen Pursey, head of the Economic & Social Policy Department in the
ICFTU, is through tri-partite discussion. The method favoured by the ILO in
its technical cooperation agreements has been one of engagement, as opposed
to sanctions. However, of late there has been disenchantment with the
alarming increase in cases brought before the 'Committee of the Freedom of
Association'. The mood now is to strengthen the supervisory mechanism to
promote effectiveness of the ILO.
The two case studies from Asia essentially confirmed the dangers of
economic growth without a social dimension. In both countries, not only is
the poverty incidence very high but income disparity between groups has
increased. Hence, only a small minority has benefitted from economic
growth. Thailand, for instance, did not initially include any social
objectives in its development plans and when it did, it failed to provide
the necessary budgetary support. This implied that the governments had
failed to value human resources and acknowledge this as a vehicle and goal
of development. In India, Kerala provided an example, where the situation
is significantly better. The reason for this being that 59% of state
revenue goes on salaries and pensions, with state distribution reaching
every household. The situation remains bleak for India's poor.
Any conclusions to be drawn can only be ones of warning, summarized by
Professor Chandravithun, who said that industrialization and modernization
do not automatically result in a developed economy. Therefore, personal
models of development, based on social and cultural foundations need to be
developed, to create the balance between economic and human resource
development.