The 1980 base population classified by sex and quinary age group up to age 85 and over is obtained from the population census conducted in June 1980. The figures are given in Census of Population 1980, Release No. 1, published by the Department of Statistics, Singapore.

The survival ratios are obtained from the 1979-81 Abridged Life Tables prepared by the author and published in “Increasing Life Expectancy in Singapore During 1969-1981”, Singapore Medical Journal 24 (1983). The values of the survival ratios, known as Px, for the various quinary age groups for each of the two sexes are computed from the values of the Lx column of the Abridged Life Tables.

The age-specific fertility rates and the gross reproduction rates are based on population data published in the above census report and on birth data published in the Report on the Registration of Births and Deaths for the year 1980. The female population by quinary age group and the births by similar age group of mothers are utilized to compute the age-specific fertility rate and the gross reproduction rates. The former rates are applied to the future female population in the reproductive ages to estimate the births that will occur in every five-year period.

The detailed results of the computation for Projection A and Projection B are presented in Tables 1 to 6. The figures for Projection A given in Table 1 show that if fertility measured by the gross reproduction rate increases from 0.841 in 1980 to 0.939 in 1985 and then to 1.025 in 1990 and thereafter, the population of Singapore is expected to increase from 2,413,945 in 1980 to 3,087,303 in 2000 and to 3,499,822 in 2020. It continues to increase to 3,599,540 in 2035, and after this it declines to 3,582,173 in 2050. Thereafter it increases again but very slowly, reaching 3,604,089 in 2070. In fact, in broad terms the population is seen to remain constant at about 3.6 million from 2025 onwards.

The figures for Projection B given in Table 4 reveal that a completely different path would be followed by the population in the future if the gross reproduction rate remains constant at the 1980 level of 0.841. In this case the population is expected to grow from 2,413,945 in 1980 to 2,945,060 in 2000 and to the peak of 3,129,313 in 2020, after which it follows a downward trend all the way. From the peak of 3,129,313, the population will decline to 2,990,138 in 2035, to 2,703,184 in 2050, and finally to 2,361,677 at the end of the period in 2070.

In preparing the two sets of population projections it is necessary to make certain assumptions regarding the future course of migration, mortality, and fertility. The following assumptions were adopted for Projection A and Projection B:

Projection A

Migration

It is assumed that the population in Singapore is a closed population not subjected to international migration.

Mortality

It is assumed that the 1979–81 mortality level with a life expectancy at birth of 68.4 years for the males and 74.3 years for the females will improve over time to a life expectancy of 72.6 for the males by 2040 and a life expectancy of 75.2 by 200b for the females.

Fertility

It is assumed that the gross reproduction rate will rise from 0.841 in 1980 to 0.939 in 1985 and to 1.025 in 1990, after which it will remain constant at this replacement fertility level until 2070.

Projection B

Migration

It is assumed that the population in Singapore is a closed population not subjected to international migration.

Mortality

It is assumed that the 1979-81 mortality level with a life expectancy at birth of 68.4 years for the males and 74.3 years for the females will improve over time to a life expectancy of 72.6 for the males by 2040 and a life expectancy of 75.2 by 2005 for the females.

Fertility

It is assumed that the gross reproduction rate will remain constant below the replacement fertility level at the 1980 rate of 0.841 throughout the whole period of projection.

The projections were prepared by what is known as the component method which consists of the separate projections of the number of males and females in each age of the population. As a matter of convenience we project the population by time-intervals equal to the age-intervals into which it has been divided. Since the 1980 base population has been divided into quinary age groups, the projections are most easily made for five-year intervals of time which implies that at the end of the five-year period all the survivors of one age group would have moved into the next higher age group. Each cohort of the 1980 sex-age group is diminished to account for mortality with the passage of time. This step requires a set of five-year survival ratios which are deemed to represent mortality in each cohort during specific periods of time subsequent to 1980. A multiplication of the original number in each sex-age group by the relevant ratio will yield the estimated number of persons five years older at a date which is five years later, namely, 1985. A repetition of the procedure will furnish the estimated population age ten years older than those at the base date and for the ten years later.

The second step involves the estimation of the future number of children born in each five-year time-interval subsequent to the base date in order to fill in the vacuum in the first age group 0-4 at periods of time every five years later. To begin with, it is essential to formulate a set of plausible assumptions regarding the future course of fertility in terms of the gross reproduction rates with their equivalent age-specific fertility rates. Having worked out these rates, they are then utilized in conjunction with the female population in the relevant reproductive age groups to derive the estimated number of births for the various five-year periods. The number of births surviving to the end of a given five-year period can be estimated by multiplying the number of births during the period with the appropriate survival ratio.

INTRODUCTION

The main part of world trade in manufactures is concentrated within the group of OECD countries. For non-OECD market economies, the markets of high-income countries are the main outlets for their export manufactures. During the more than two and a half decades in the post-war era, up to 1973, the OECD countries experienced high rates of growth in per capita income. Growth, international specialization and international trade were stimulated by successive rounds of trade liberalization measures. Indeed, the share of imports in domestic demand and the share of exports in production increased gradually, especially in the EC member states. During this period, labelled by Herman Kahn ‘La Deuxieme Belle Epoque’, the developing countries too experienced a steady growth in their exports of manufactures to the OECD countries, in spite of the fact that the trade liberalization rounds had favoured intra-OECD trade over imports from developing countries. General Schemes of Preference were not yet in force before the seventies. Although OECD imports from developing countries increased by about 15 per cent a year during the sixties, the share of these countries in total OECD imports decreased during this period.

After 1973, the international economic situation changed drastically and many a trend was reversed. Per capita income growth in developing countries, and especially in middle-income countries, exceeded the growth performance of OECD countries. The export growth rates of especially some so-called ‘Newly Industrializing Countries’ (NICs) far surpassed the average growth of manufactures in world trade, and consequently the share of developing countries in world trade in manufactures increased, and so did their share in OECD imports of manufactures. Governments and economic agents in the OECD countries became increasingly reluctant towards further liberalization attempts, especially with respect to ‘sensitive industries’ that faced strong competition from new competitors.

Notwithstanding the deterioration of the economic situation in the OECD countries since 1973 and the reversal in the trends mentioned above, the OECD markets are still the main outlets for developing countries' exports in the seventies, and will continue to be so throughout the eighties.

INTRODUCTION

The European Community (EC) is one of the largest foreign investors in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). A significant by-product arising from the EC investment is the transfer of technology to the ASEAN countries. Indeed, the transfer of technology constitutes one of the critical issues in EC-ASEAN relations. This is why there has been so much interest in this subject in recent years. In spite of the interest however, only one study has been done on the topic. This study, entitled “The Transfer of Technology from European to ASEAN Enterprises: Strategies and Practices in the Chemical and Pharmaceutical Sectors” was carried out by Philippe Lasserre and Max Boisot for the Commission of the EC in 1980.

The above study was based on 33 cases concerning 28 European corporations and 15 ASEAN companies in the chemical and allied industries. Three main areas of investigation were explored:

1. the strategies followed by the transferors and the transferees;

2. the characteristics of the technology transferred and the way it was transferred; and

3. the results of the transfer as perceived by transferors and transferees.

From the above it is clear that a lot of ground has already been covered in the investigation. In order not to duplicate the work which has already been done, this study has been confined to certain aspects of the technology tranfer issue. Furthermore, in view of time and budget constraints, the study is restricted to Malaysia, one of the ASEAN countries. Despite the limited scope of the study, it is hoped it will provide a useful supplement to the comprehensive study undertaken by Lasserre and Boisot.

DEFINITION

Simply defined, technology is the knowledge and machinery needed to run an enterprise. It is both software, which includes skill and know-how, and hardware, which includes machinery and equipment. Thus, technology transfer includes not only the transfer of machinery but also the transplant of skill.

The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of EC protection, its problems and possible future evolution, from the point of view of developing countries, particularly the members of ASEAN. The EC is one of ASEAN's chief markets, accounting for 14.1 per cent of ASEAN's exports in 1979, and 13.7 per cent of its imports. In developing countries there is some concern that the markets of developed countries might in future become more protected. Is there a risk of this happening in the EC?

The paper is organized as follows. The first part describes the mechanism of EC decision-making, the EC's control of the instruments of trade policy, and its attempt to meet developing countries' demands for “special and differential treatment”. The second part describes the systems which have evolved for the protection of a number of sectors which are, or may become, important to ASEAN. The last section draws together the conclusions of the analysis.

EC DECISION-MAKING AND THE COMMON COMMERCIAL POLICY

Decision-making in Brussels

As is well known, the European Community is unique among international institutions because of the “supra national” powers with which it was endowed by the treaties which established it. One must however resist the temptation of thinking of the European Community as a more autonomous decision-maker than it really is. The roots of Brussels decisions are very much to be found in the capitals of the member states.

To carry out its mission of organizing the Common Market, the EC issues directives and regulations which are a source of law, and to which national legislations must conform. The Community may carry out international negotiations and conclude agreements and treaties. The Luxembourg Court, which judges disputes between the Community, the member states, and the citizens of those states, has played a major role in consolidating and extending the authority of the Community. A democratically elected parliament has the power to reject the Community budget and to revoke the Commission.

Economic relations between the countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the countries of the European Community (EC) have a long history as well as great future potential. Merchant adventurers, colonialists, traders, and foreign investors from Europe have in the last two centuries brought about a continuous exchange of goods, interests and ideas with Southeast Asia. In more recent times, mutual co-operation among the Southeast Asian countries of Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand on the one hand and the European countries of Belgium, Denmark, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, and the U.K. on the other have led to the creation of two economic groupings, ASEAN and the EC, dedicated to the idea of mutual benefits through trade. The EC is ASEAN's third most important trading partner, and, although the proportion of ASEAN's trade with the EC is declining slightly, the exchange of goods and services between the two groupings is still increasing rapidly both in terms of volume and value. ASEAN is important for EC investors as the fastest growing area of the Pacific rim. The political stability that has emerged in ASEAN is an important factor contributing to this attraction as well as an important reason why ASEAN as a grouping can expect to achieve more at the economic bargaining table than may be commensurate with the relatively low importance of ASEAN trade for the EC.

Although trade is likely to be beneficial for both sides it does not always develop automatically according to comparative advantage or investment potential. Lack of knowledge about available opportunities, methods of operation and styles of negotiation are frequent causes of missed chances. Dissemination of information, exchange of views and ideas and the analysis of potential opportunities are therefore important factors for trade expansion and consequent welfare increases. It is for this reason that research and academic exchange and co-operation have an important role to play.

ASEAN-EEC Conference on Industrial Co-operation. 2d, Jakarta, 1979. Information book. Jakarta, 1979. 96 pp.

“ASEAN-EEC Cooperation Agreement”. In ASEAN Business Quarterly 4, no. 2 (1980): 38-40.

“ASEAN-EEC: discrimination in trade relations”. In Novosti Press Agency [Press release] 6R10/ob 104.

“THE ASEAN-EEC Forum in Brussels”. In Indonesia's World Star 1, no. 14 (May 1977): 12-15.

“ASEAN-EEC Joint Declaration”. In Bangkok Bank. Monthly Review 20 no. 1 (January 1979): 17-19.

“ASEAN-European Communities Ministerial Meeting, 20-21 November 1978, Brussels”. In ASEAN Digest 1 (1979): 1-10.

BELL, Roger. “Is ASEAN a Southeast Asian EEC?” In ASEAN Business Quarterly 3, no. 3 (1979): 37-38.

“THE BRUSSELS declaration: joint declaration of the ASEAN-EC Ministerial Meeting.” In Domingo, Benjamin B., ASEAN-European community relations, pp. 138-49. Bonn: P. Wegener, 1979.

CHEE, Peng Lim. “ASEAN-EEC external relations: cooperation, trade and investment.” Paper presented at the Fifth Conference of Federation of ASEAN Economic Associations, Singapore, Oct. 30-Nov. 1, 1980.

CHIA, Siow Yue. “ASEAN trade with the European Economic Community.” Paper presented at the ARC-Times Seminar on ASEAN Trade, Singapore, June 26-27, 1980.

DELEGATION of the Commission of the European Communities for South and South-East Asia. Press and Information Office, ASEAN and the European Community. Bangkok, 1980.

DOMINGO, Benjamin B. ASEAN-European Community relations. Bonn: P. Wegener, 1979. 172 pp.

DRURY, Michael. “The European Economic Community: its relations with South and South-East Asia.” In Asian Affairs 10 (old series v. 66), no. 1 (1979): 9-19.

“EEC and ASEAN '79.” In Far Eastern Economic Review 103, no. 8 (1979): 35-80.

FEDERATION of ASEAN Economic Associations Fifth Conference, [Papers]. Mimeographed. Singapore, 1980.

GOH, Chok Tong. “ASEAN-EEC cooperation.” In Speeches 2 no. 9 (1979): 61-63.

HAFERKAMP, Wilhem. “Towards closer industrial cooperation between ASEAN and EEC: an interview with Wilhelm Haferkamp, Vice President of EEC.” In Prisma, English ed. (1979): 49-50.

HANSEN, John. “ASEAN-EC cooperation on firm footing.” In Europa 2, no. 1 (1980): 2-3.

JENKINS, Peter. “ASEAN sees the EEC as a counter-weight to Japan”. In Far Eastern Economic Review 96, no. 21 (27 May 1977): 66-67.

With the exception of Thailand, the ASEAN countries were previously under the control of European or American colonial powers and this, inter alia, led to the rapid opening up of these countries to international trade and investment. In spite of political independence, Thailand underwent similar colonial type economic development. The dominant type of foreign investment in colonial times was in plantations and mineral development for the export market. There were also investments in physical infrastructure, commerce and finance, but little in manufacturing.

During the 1950s and early 1960s the ASEAN countries became committed to transforming their large alien-dominated economies into national entities, with greater national ownership and control of both the traditional and the nascent modern sectors, and to ensuring that the fruits of economic development led to social development and rising standards of living of their people. Although the ASEAN countries (excepting Singapore) were well endowed with natural resources, the emphasis was on industrialization. There was a perceived need for private direct foreign investment for an industrial take-off and to keep foreigners away from the ownership and control of national natural resources. During this import substitution phase, foreign investments, especially from non-traditional sources, flowed into Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines and Thailand to produce consumer manufactures for the domestic market. In the current export oriented phase, pursued most vigorously by Singapore and least by Indonesia, foreign investors produce labour intensive manufactures for the export market. The resource development motive is more prevalent among foreign investors in Indonesia, while the low-cost export base motive is more dominant among investors in Singapore. The other three ASEAN countries have a mix of all types of investments.

The following section outlines the foreign investment policies of the ASEAN countries, while the next surveys the motives of foreign investors in ASEAN and the overall pattern of foreign investment in the region. EC investments in ASEAN are then examined, while the conclusion highlights some of the issues pertaining to foreign investments in the region.

This essay provides an overview and a framework within which detailed discussion on trade relations between the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the European Community (EC) may be carried out. The emphasis will be more on ASEAN's point of view of the trade relations.

The EC is ASEAN's major trading partner after Japan and the United States. The EC accounts for about 14 per cent of the total ASEAN trade on both the export and the import sides. This proportion has remained fairly constant over the last few years, implying that ASEAN's trade with the EC has been increasing in line with total ASEAN trade, which has been growing very rapidly by world standards. Since trade is a very important component of the ASEAN economies, it follows that ASEAN's trade with the EC has significantly contributed to the development of ASEAN.

On the other hand, to a very large economy like the EC, ASEAN appears insignificant. The EC's exports to and imports from ASEAN have never exceeded two per cent of its total exports and imports. However, ASEAN's exports to the EC are highly specialized and the EC relies heavily on ASEAN for such items as rubber, timber, tapioca, tin, palm oil, and cattle feed. The pattern of trade becomes even more specialized when broken down according to country. Thailand and the Philippines are the major sellers of tapioca and copra respectively to the EC. Indonesia and Malaysia are more important to the EC as importers, but they are also major suppliers of rubber, timber, tin and palm oil. Singapore exports manufactured goods and electronics to the EC. More recently ASEAN textiles have made a breakthrough in the European market with such success that the EC has set limits on textile imports from ASEAN. Other ASEAN manufactured goods are also beginning to appear in the European market.

INTRODUCTION

Foreign investment is an important vehicle to development, and Thailand, like most developing countries, has been keen to attract more of it. The virtues supposedly associated with foreign investment are many: foreign investment can help generate new jobs which is important in developing countries where unemployment is often a seemingly intractable problem; foreign investment can serve as a useful medium to help raise the technological levels and the management skills of the host country; foreign investment can make a positive contribution to the balance of payments of the host country because export-oriented investments can help earn much needed foreign exchange while investments for import substitution purposes can help save what little foreign exchange reserves there are in most developing countries. Deficits in the balance of trade have become particularly acute in the case of Thailand. In 1970, the deficit in the balance of trade was close to 10 billion baht and increased more than three times to nearly 38 billion baht in 1979. It is not the purpose of this paper to present all the arguments in favour of or against foreign investments. The point to be made is that most developing countries are convinced that foreign investment is good and every effort is made to attract as much investment as possible. Thailand is no exception. The setting up of the Board of Investment in 1959 and the promulgation of the Investment Promotion Act of 1977 – the latest in a series of laws designed to attract foreign investment to Thailand – all manifest the importance attached to foreign investment by the Thai Government.

EEC INVESTMENT IN ASEAN AND THAILAND

Using share in total registered capital of all promoted firms as an indicator, Japan has led all other countries in investing in Thailand in the two decades from 1960-80. During this period, about 77 per cent of total registered capital were from local sources while close to 8 per cent were held by Japanese investors.