TLDR: The 2025 Southeast Asia Eleven Nations Influence Index (SAII v3) introduces a novel, fully data-driven methodology to measure national influence across 11 Southeast Asian countries. Developed by Asst.Prof.Dr.Wei Meng, this index integrates economic, military, diplomatic, and socio-technological indicators with algorithmic weighting (EWM, CRITIC, PCA) and robust standardization. Key findings reveal a ‘one strong, two medium, three stable, and multiple weak’ power structure, with Indonesia leading, Singapore and Malaysia in the mid-tier, and Thailand, the Philippines, and Vietnam forming a competitive band. The report offers detailed dimensional performance, sensitivity analysis, and actionable policy recommendations for regional nations and external partners, emphasizing objectivity and reproducibility in international relations research.
A new study introduces the 2025 Southeast Asia Eleven Nations Influence Index (SAII v3), offering a fresh, data-driven perspective on the power dynamics within the region. This groundbreaking report aims to move beyond traditional, often subjective, methods of measuring national influence by employing a fully algorithmic approach. The research, led by Asst.Prof.Dr.Wei Meng from Dhurakij Pundit University, Thailand, provides a transparent and reproducible framework for understanding the complex interplay of economic, military, diplomatic, and socio-technological factors that shape a nation’s standing in Southeast Asia.
The core challenge addressed by SAII v3 is how to scientifically quantify national influence without relying on expert opinions or subjective weighting. Previous methods often emphasized ‘hard power’ like GDP and military spending, or ‘soft power’ like cultural appeal, but struggled with comprehensive, quantifiable, and reproducible metrics. SAII v3 tackles this by aggregating authoritative open-source indicators across four key dimensions: economic, military, diplomatic, and socio-technological. To ensure fairness and accuracy, the data undergoes a rigorous three-tiered standardization process (quantile–Box–Cox–min–max) to reduce outliers and skewness.
A significant innovation of this index lies in its weighting methodology. Instead of relying on expert judgment, SAII v3 integrates three distinct algorithmic methods: the Entropy Weighting Method (EWM), CRITIC, and Principal Component Analysis (PCA). This multi-method approach ensures that the final weights are robust and reflect the inherent information content, distinctiveness, and overall variance structure of the indicators. The integrated weights reveal that the economy holds the largest share (approximately 35%–40%), followed by military (20%–25%), diplomacy (around 20%), and socio-technology (around 15%).
The empirical findings paint a clear picture of the regional power structure, characterized as a “one strong, two medium, three stable, and multiple weak” pattern. Indonesia consistently emerges as the dominant power, primarily due to its vast economic scale and strong diplomatic presence. Singapore and Malaysia form the ‘medium’ tier, with Singapore excelling in diplomatic networks and socio-technological advancement despite its smaller economic size, and Malaysia demonstrating balanced performance across all dimensions.
The mid-tier competitive band includes Thailand, the Philippines, and Vietnam. These nations show minimal gaps in their composite scores but possess distinct strengths and weaknesses. For instance, Thailand performs well in military strength and cultural exports, while the Philippines benefits from high internet usage and a demographic dividend. Vietnam showcases robust economic growth and military modernization. The study’s robustness tests, including Kendall’s Tau rank correlation and Bootstrap resampling, confirm the stability of the top rankings but highlight the inherent uncertainty and competitive fragility among these mid-tier countries, suggesting potential for shifts in their positions.
Further insights from the sensitivity analysis reveal that for the ASEAN-11 average, military and socio-technological dimensions have the greatest marginal effects on overall influence. However, individual country sensitivities vary significantly. Indonesia’s influence is structurally dominated by its economic performance, while Singapore exhibits a balanced sensitivity across all dimensions. Malaysia’s influence is highly dependent on its military dimension, and the Philippines and Cambodia are most sensitive to socio-technological factors. Vietnam’s composite score is most sensitive to the diplomatic dimension, underscoring the critical role of international relations for its national influence.
The SAII v3 offers crucial policy implications for both ASEAN nations and external partners. For Indonesia, the recommendation is to consolidate dominance by investing in technology and diplomacy. Singapore should continue leveraging its diplomatic and technological strengths to expand its agenda-setting capabilities. Mid-tier nations like Thailand, the Philippines, and Vietnam are advised to identify breakthrough areas based on their unique strengths and address weaknesses. Peripheral nations are encouraged to pursue ‘leapfrog pathways,’ such as investing in digital infrastructure for Cambodia and Laos, or enhancing diplomatic influence for Brunei through financial and energy cooperation.
External powers like China, the United States, Japan, and India can also utilize SAII v3 to refine their engagement strategies. For example, China is advised to strengthen partnerships with Indonesia and Singapore and diversify cooperation among middle-income nations. The United States can enhance ties with the Philippines and Vietnam through military cooperation and leverage soft power. Japan and India can invest in digital infrastructure and human capital to address regional deficiencies.
Also Read:
- Unveiling Cultural Nuances: A New Benchmark Challenges AI in Visual Reasoning
- Analyzing Energy Disparities: An XAI Approach to Understanding Energy Equity
In conclusion, the SAII v3 represents a significant methodological advancement in quantitative international relations research. By providing a data-driven, reproducible, and transparent framework, it offers a nuanced understanding of Southeast Asia’s power dynamics and serves as a valuable tool for policymakers and researchers alike. For more detailed information, the full report can be accessed here.
