rel="nofollow" href="#fb3_img_img_fff466d3-e17b-52bb-8ecc-c73bc1389ad9.jpg" alt="Image"/> At the regional level, five out of the nine regional bodies the MRAs envisioned have been created and are fully functioning. The coordinating committees in the seven occupations meet regularly between 2 and 4 times per year with the assistance of the ASEAN Secretariat, while the registries for engineering and architecture are also currently active with more than 1,000 professionals already in the system.
For the MRAs to be fully implemented, however, the laws must be translated into a clear working process of mutual recognition and registration. Progress in this area remains painfully slow and uneven across countries and for all occupations.
A. CHALLENGES TO FULL IMPLEMENTATION
ASEAN Member States face several key challenges as they transform the ambitious goals of the MRAs into practice, among them significant technical hurdles. More remains to be done in creating and revising domestic policies, regulations, and processes to make them consistent with the spirit of the MRAs: to facilitate recognition of qualifications and facilitate mobility. Professionals also face hurdles when seeking to practice in another ASEAN country, including:
Among the three health occupations (dentistry, medicine, and nursing), nurses face the most restrictive domestic regulations. Nine countries require nursing professionals to pass national licensure exams, and all 10 ASEAN countries have language requirements.
Some of these additional requirements are also present in the accountancy, architecture, and engineering services, leading stakeholders to question whether the MRAs have led, in practice, to “double recognition” rather than mutual recognition. Many professionals are essentially going through the qualification process twice, first at the ASEAN level and then again with the destination-country regulatory authority.
A second key challenge is that many governments lack the institutional capacity to implement the MRAs. Some national regulatory authorities have yet to be created, while others that already exist do not have the financial and technical resources to fulfill their growing and increasingly complex mandates. Developing countries in the region face real spending and allocation constraints due to limited financial resources. Governments must also navigate a highly complex system with a wide range of stakeholders responsible for various aspects of the recognition process. Implementation becomes even more difficult as many countries suffer from poor coordination between government agencies—a shortcoming that has even led to situations in which multiple government agencies provide the same applicant with multiple certifications. The frequent turnover of government personnel has also delayed implementation, hindered data collection and sharing, and resulted in incomplete legislative and regulatory frameworks.
Third, core development issues in the region affect whether professionals choose to seek recognition and take up practice in another ASEAN country. MRAs do not exist in a vacuum. Even if the technical and institutional challenges of implementation are fully addressed, there is no guarantee that professionals and employers will utilize MRA systems. Wage disparities and poor working conditions in some areas have generally discouraged professional movement.
B. OPPORTUNITIES FOR COOPERATION
Finding the way forward in MRA implementation requires policymakers to take into account the diversity of the region and draw guidance from the principles that underpin the “ASEAN Way”: a diplomatic approach distinct to ASEAN and centered on consensus building and incremental progress driven from the bottom up. ASEAN governments and stakeholders would do well to focus on two areas ripe for regional cooperation.
First, real progress cannot be made without first addressing the restrictive domestic regulations that limit the ability of MRAs to facilitate mobility. Countries in the region may consider testing ways to lower barriers and bringing them to scale if proven effective. Such pilot programs might aim to build flexibility into the system (e.g., by offering professionals the opportunity to prove their skills through