Report

186 QUANTIFICATION OF BENEFITS FROM ECONOMIC COOPERATION IN SOUTH ASIA
accreditation, licensing and MRAs. The fact that MRAs
negotiated by bodies with no governmental authority
are most likely non-binding on states, does not mean
that the requirements and other initiatives taken by such
entities do not have an impact on the market. On the
contrary, they usually are powerful tools to regulate
market entry (Zarrilli 2005:16). If applied in the South
Asian context and as noted in Tables 5.1 and 5.2, no
country should insist on having a statutory body for
each and every profession. In fact in the case of India,
though the engineering profession is not regulated by
a statutory body, there are two important professional
associations working for many years to take care of
this profession. Either of these two or both national
professional bodies may be authorised to function as a
regulatory body. Despite not having a legal body in
place, India has received a provisional signatory status
in the Washington Accord – an agreement between the
bodies responsible for accrediting professional engineering
programmes in each of the signatory countries.
Similarly though Bangladesh does not have a statutory
regulatory body for architects, the country has an institute
of architects Bangladesh which is a professional
institution engaged in the development of the profession
of architecture in Bangladesh. Moreover, the Institute
of Architects Bangladesh is affiliated with the UIA,
CAA, and the architects regional council for Asia and
the SAARCH.
As regards licensing there are some professions such
as architecture, medical, accountancy, etc., that require
a license before practicing. In such cases, the relevant
regulatory bodies need to have a common South Asian
body which could set minimum criteria for smooth
movement of professionals in all seven countries.
However, care has to be taken for those countries where
such bodies do not exist. In such cases the concerned
government department can act as regulatory bodies.
The available literature suggests that regulatory bodies
exit in India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, and Bhutan.
Although construction and related engineering
services is the most important sector to have various
MRAs to facilitate movement of professional and
workers in all South Asian countries, the efforts to
develop MRAs should not be limited to this sector
Table 16.1 Architectural Services
Restrictions in South Asia
Expected to be removed by having MRAs
Non-recognition of qualifications In architectural services there are various qualifications like bachelor of architecture, 4
year/3 year diplomas in architecture, BA (Hons) in architecture in Pakistan; 5 year bachelor
of architecture in India, etc.MRAs among the regulatory bodies in these countries will
recognise equivalent degrees/diplomas and facilitates movement of architects in the
region.
Non-recognition of standards Even in one country all the institutes imparting education in architecture do have the
same standard and for India there cannot be one benchmark with regard to the standard
all institutes follow. Hence architects from the best institutes in India may like to be
equivalent to their counter parts in other South Asian countries. Thus ranking of institutes
like A, B, and C, etc., may appear to be a solution to the problem of non recognition of
standards.
Non-issue of license to practice In view of the fact that if a profession is regulated, no one can practice it without a
license, the profession of architecture is a regulated one in countries like India, Pakistan,
and Sri Lanka and in these countries an architect can practice only when s/he obtains a
license from a body like the Council of Architecture in India, the Pakistan Council of
Architects and Town Planners in Pakistan and the Institutes of Architecture in Sri Lanka.
Once such bodies develop MRAs architects from these countries will become eligible to
obtain license for practice.
Modal restrictions other than Mode 4 Though Mode 4 is affected most in the absence of MRAs, other modes are also somehow
affected. A company may feel more comfortable to offshore (Mode 1) its architectural
services to professionals whose academic and/or professional qualifications are in
adherence with international standards or have been scrutinised during the process of
negotiation of an MRA. A similar situation may arise when a client would like to receive
architectural services abroad from such architects whose credentials are recognised. In
Mode 3 also MRAs can be helpful. However, in the case of professionals providing
services through foreign commercial presence (Mode 3), mutual recognition issues seem
to be less relevant than for Mode 4, considering that in most cases the requirement
imposed by the host country is that a local professional sign or certify the final output of
a professional activity, though professional from different origins and backgrounds may
have contributed to it.