To date, it is the development of the economic pillar that has principally characterised ASEM. The Trade Facilitation Action Plan (TFAP) and the Investment Promotion Action Plan (IPAP) have been finalised and launched at ASEM 2 in London in 1998. ASEM 3 in Seoul in 2000 further re-iterated the active implementation of both Plans as the flagships of ASEM's economic cooperation. The rapid development of the economic pillar of ASEM reflects today's global rush towards free market economics, and policies that tend to benefit powerful elites at the expense of worker$, communities, the environment and human rights.

Since ASEM 1 in Bangkok there has been an intensive institutionalization of structures and facilitating mechanisms at the inter-government level, with a regular schedule of Senior Official Meetings (SOMs) which interface with Ministers meetings - from Economic, Trade and Investment and Foreign Affairs Ministries. The business sector is officially recognised as a partner and holds regular meetings within the framework of ASEM through the AsiaEurope Business Forum (AEBF). Likewise, through the Asia-Europe Foundation (ASEF), some young leaders in business and politics and selected academe and experts are also recognised in the official ASEM process.

However there has been no realization for civil society participation nor the inclusion of a social dimension to ASEM. The fall-out from this narrow focus of the official process results in a severe marginalisation of key concerns such as human rights, equitable development, democratisation and environmental protection. While some progress was made in access to the official ASEM process during the preparatory period to ASEM 4, the Copenhagen Summit did not advance to a new stage of civil society - government dialogue on ASEM. The proposal for a Social Forum by the AEPF was not accepted for ASEM 4 discussions. The Asia Europe People's Forum perceived this as a failure at the side of ASEM to engage substantively on core civil society concerns in the ASEM process.

Besides the exclusion of civil society in the official process, there is also no provision for parliamentarians to participate or contribute their analysis to ASEM. This is detrimental to the integrated development of Asia-Europe relations and has resulted in the almost complete absence of policy debate in national parliaments in ASEM countries. .