Asia Pacific Perspectives: APEC

Showing posts with label APEC. Show all posts

Monday, September 21, 2015

Inclusive Global Value Chains

George Manzano and Kristine Joy Martin

Inclusiveness is a big word in the development community. Given the increasing ubiquity of global value chains (GVCs), policy attention has turned towards making these more 'inclusive.' APEC, for one, is promoting inclusiveness of GVCs through international cooperation.

APEC is interested in GVC because it is perceived to be a game changer, i.e. a new paradigm that will increasingly define the patterns of international trade. Indeed, GVC has shaped the current global business environment in more ways than one. It has shifted the focus of the unit of trade from trade in goods to trade in tasks. Secondly, GVC encourages firms and countries to specialize in specific tasks and business functions based on their comparative advantages in order to ratchet up efficiency in production. GVCs provide potential mechanisms for all countries - whether these countries are large or small, developed or developing - to improve their income, employment, and productivity.

The emergence of GVCs thus raises many important trade policy questions, which can be discussed and for which a consensus for collective policy action can be drawn out in APEC.

Why does APEC have to raise inclusiveness in GVCs as a policy objective?

APEC raises the issue of inclusiveness for a number of reasons. Firstly, inclusiveness is at the very heart of development, i.e. what development is for, if not for people. Secondly, because participation in GVCs does not automatically lead to inclusive outcomes, there is a groundswell for a policy stance. In addition, as GVCs, by nature, reaches beyond borders, there are avenues for cooperation. APEC is thus, an appropriate forum to discuss and initiate policy responses, either at the collective level or at the level of individual APEC members, to promote inclusiveness in GVCs.

Inclusiveness at the extensive margin

Inclusiveness can be understood in various ways. One way is to consider inclusiveness across countries, i.e. getting more countries to participate. Different countries, of course, have different initial capacities to participate in GVCs. Such differences may be due to different factors that are fixed, such as, country's geographic location and resource endowment. Conversely, the differences can also be due to public policy, such as, a country's human capital, physical infrastructure, and overall investment climate. Thus, to facilitate the entrance of developing countries into the GVC, proper trade and investment policies that aim to liberalize exchange of goods and services worldwide should be encouraged and implemented. We call attempts to broaden inclusiveness across countries as the extensive margin.

Because of the nature of GVCs, where parts and components necessarily cross borders multiple times, countries with low trade barriers have better chances of participating. It also has been observed that GVCs tend to propagate in industries or product groups that have been subject to global trade liberalization. The passage of the 1997 Information Technology Agreement (ITA), which calls for the liberalization of IT products on an MFN basis by many countries, has been credited with the blossoming of GVCs in the electronics sector. To the extent that sectoral liberalization such as the ITA has promoted the participation of many countries - developed and developing alike - in the electronic GVC, it can be said that such initiatives foster inclusiveness across countries.

Thus, inclusiveness at the international level could be fostered if APEC could take the lead in promoting more sectoral liberalization on an MFN basis. APEC has a role because the sheer size and economic weight of its members is likely to give it the critical mass which is needed to push for sectoral liberalization. In addition, APEC is a forum for cooperation, which makes it an appropriate venue to gather consensus and support for sectoral liberalization in different sectors.

It is, however, not easy for APEC to negotiate for more sectoral liberalization because of the 'free rider' problem. Free riding entails that the countries which are not signatories to a sectoral liberalization agreement will also enjoy additional market access even without having to offer tariff concessions of their own. To lessen the possibility of free riding on the trade liberalization efforts by APEC, the challenge is to identify those areas in which the benefits of trade liberalization would redound mostly on APEC members rather than on non-members. These product groupings would be the promising candidates for sectoral trade liberalization. Wonnacott suggested a trade liberalization scheme on a selective product-by-product basis wherein countries choose the commodities for early liberalization based on a pre-defined criteria1.[1]

Inclusiveness at the intensive margin

Inclusiveness in GVCs could also be enhanced among the elements of the value chain within a country. Inasmuch as there are lead countries at the international level, there are also lead firms that coordinate production across a series of producers, each with different tasks, along a domestic supply chain. The lead firms, which could be producers or traders, thus act as the nexus between the international and the domestic supply chain. By and large, policies aimed at promoting inclusiveness within countries deal with getting more small and medium establishment (MSMEs) and fostering more linkages especially between foreign firms with local firms. We call policy actions directed to promote inclusiveness within the country as the intensive margin.

Making GVCs more inclusive can be achieved through many means. In this article we focus on (1) intensifying existing participation of Micro Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) and (2) developing linkages of lead firms with local firms.

MSMEs

Because GVCs are export-oriented, the firm-actors are operating under a very competitive environment. They are agile enough to modify products to suit the changing tastes and to adopt technology and production practices to remain cost effective. For these reasons, MSMEs that join GVCs are likely to enjoy positive spillovers of production technology as well as best managerial practices. However, the literature is replete with accounts of the many barriers that MSMEs face as they attempt to join, deepen and widen their GVC participation. These barriers are usually related to trade costs which could have structural or policy induced origins.

Thus, government plays a big role in lessening trade costs for MSMEs. For example, it can provide financial aid to help companies access credit for more efficient operations. More importantly, it can also facilitate MSMEs compliance to international standards, especially since MSMEs find it difficult to adjust to global standards and regulations at public, private, and civil society levels. Note that the GVCs, standards and certifications are at the heart of a firm's ability to participate and compete.

Linkages

The linkages of MSMEs and other local firms - especially those outside the special export processing zones (SEZs) - with lead firms or large multinational enterprises (MNEs) can also promote GVC inclusiveness. SEZs do not necessarily help in creating spill-over if the participating firms engage in processing activities with very little interaction with the local supplier firms. Thus, enclaves with little connection with the local firms are created.

An opportunity to make GVCs more inclusive is through forging partnerships among lead firms and local firms outside SEZs. Local firms can be suppliers of manufactures while the lead firms can be the buyers. This would increase the smaller partner's market and capabilities which can eventually hook them to the GVCs [2].

Policy should be directed at strengthening the linkages between the lead and the supplier firms in the GVC model that have the weakest link. APEC, being a body that supports economic and technical cooperation can consider initiating capacity-building programs or advocacy where linkages can be deepened in pursuit of inclusiveness, in the following areas:

On standards and international certification: Participation of firms in a GVC is conditional on their ability to meet the product or process standards of the lead firms. APEC can spearhead initiatives such as designing capacity building initiatives in certification compliance so as to facilitate the ability of small local firms to participate meaningfully in the production chain.
Entrepreneurship: In certain industries, supplier firms may have started as informal subcontract suppliers. However, transitioning towards formal status could be problematic. Given this difficulty, it is recommended that policy attention be directed towards facilitating the transition of informal establishments to the formal sector by reducing red tape and enforcing of property rights [3]. In addition, company programs where managers in lead firms could be trained and 'spun off' to head supplier firms could be explored.
Trade facilitation: Trade costs act as tax on supplier firms or as a fixed cost to internationalization. Trade costs need not necessarily be monetary in nature (tariff, taxes, etc). Delays can be particularly debilitating to the tight process flows of GVCs, thus any policy that improves export-import procedures at the border could encourage local firm participation. Programs to cluster service suppliers can create economies of agglomeration, lower transaction costs, and diminish the enclave behavior of lead firms.

Final Remarks

The advent of the GVCs, on the crest of network economics, is an important development to warrant keen policy attention. APEC, for one, has taken an interest in GVCs, because fostering this mode of integration raises many policy issues that can be discussed in the context of economic cooperation. Missing out on the policy questions surrounding GVCs would make APEC less relevant. Furthermore, APEC desires to imbue regional integration with an inclusive character for developmental purposes.

We suggest two broad areas to promote inclusiveness in APEC. The first deals with increasing the potential for GVCs. The proliferation of GVCs could only increase the possibilities for developing countries to participate. APEC, as a collectivity, could engage in initiating sectoral liberalization. The second avenue addresses fostering linkages between lead firms, which are usually foreign, with local suppliers (small businesses or otherwise) within the country. The idea is to prevent enclaves of foreign led GVCs. Though there is a host of complementary policies that could improve linkages, we highlight those that will help local supplier firms acquire the necessary standards, deepen entrepreneurship and benefit from trade facilitation measures.

References:

1. Wonnacott, P. (1994) "Merchandise trade in the APEC region: Is there scope for liberalisation on an MFN basis?" The World Economy, Special Issue on Global Trade Policy: 33-51
2. Ibid.
3. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), World Trade Organization (WTO) and UNCTAD. "Implications of Global Value Chains for Trade, Investment, Development and Jobs." Prepared for the G-20 Leaders Summit Saint Petersburg (Russian Federation), August 6, 2013

APEC Growth Strategy and Beyond

Wayne Chen

APEC, as a premier forum to facilitate economic growth, trade and investment in the Asia-Pacific region, has been promoting cooperation on issues beyond its traditional agenda. Through economic and technical cooperation (ECOTECH), APEC is dynamic in narrowing development gap and enhancing capacity building among its member economies across the region. In so doing, APEC has improved economic growth in terms of both quantity to quality, and this feature demonstrates that APEC, a non-binding organization, significant in leading regional integration in the globe.

The APEC Leaders' Growth Strategy announced in 2010, by following which all the 21 member economies achieved consensus on objectives of their pursuit of economic growth, was a milestone for APEC carry on its ECOTECH activities. In 2015, APEC is drafting the second framework to continue the collective endeavor for common prosperity for another 5 years. The essay views the 1st phase APEC Growth Strategy and beyond.

Emergence of Growth Strategy

After 2000, APEC has been extending its Trade and Investment Liberalization and Facilitation (TILF) agenda by incorporating a wide range of capacity building activities as well as issues not directly related to trade. As shown by the three pillars of APEC's agenda--Trade and Investment Liberalization; Business Facilitation, and; Economic and Technical Cooperation-- announced in 1994, APEC has been focused on capacity building and APEC was achieving growth and prosperity for a common future through narrowing development gap.

Emergence of Growth Strategy

In this context, anthropocentric issues, such as health, welfare, inclusiveness, and social safety net, have gradually involved in the agenda. The health working group was establish in response to the increasing risk of epidemic diseases in 2007, and the Emergency Preparedness Working Group was built in 2009 after the hit of tsunami and earthquake in the South Asia, South-East Asia, and Chile.

Climate Change, Energy Security and Forestation, and other ecology related issues were later introduced to APEC. The Sydney APEC Leaders' Declaration on Climate Change, Energy Security, and Clean Development recognized that "economic growth, energy security and climate change are fundamental and interlinked challenges for the APEC region," therefore, Leaders are "committed... to ensuring the energy needs of the economies of the region while addressing the issue of environmental quality and contributing to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions." 2 goals were revealed in the Declaration: 1) to increase forest cover in the region by at least 20 million hectares by 2020, and; 2) to reduce energy intensity of at least 25% by 2030, with 2005 as the base year.

Given the long history of expanding the APEC agenda, it is not surprising that the APEC Growth Strategy soon served as a comprehensive framework upon which various APEC issues were coordinated and integrated after the Strategy came in place in 2010.

In 2009, APEC was seeking to develop a new growth paradigm for the changed post-crisis landscape considering that "growth as usual" is not realistic anymore. The Growth Strategy drafted in 2010 was comprised of 5 attributes, namely: Balanced Growth, Inclusive Growth, Sustainable Growth, Innovative Growth and Secure Growth.

The Balanced Growth refers to growth across and within economies that will unwind imbalances and raise potential output through macroeconomic policies and structural reforms. The Inclusive Growths emphasizes that economic growth needs to take social inclusiveness into account by promoting equity, human resources, employment and welfare of vulnerable groups. The Sustainable Growth or Green Growth urges the use of natural resources and economic activities to be ecological friendly and its applications are often technology oriented in the APEC context. Innovation is crucial to the development of other growth attributes given that ICT is such powerful tools for transition to knowledge based economy. The Secure Growth accommodates issues of emergency preparedness, health, food security, anti-corruption and anti-terrorism.

Applications of the APEC Growth Strategy

Since 2010, the Growth Strategy has been supervising capacity building activities across the APEC region by shaping annual priority areas. Through the lens of Growth Strategy, member economies could also be categorized by their development progress. For example, developing economies are supportive to social inclusiveness and infrastructure investment which are crucial for narrowing development gap and disparity with the society. Developed economies that are of advantage in R&D are focused more on innovative growth and sustainable growth which lead to cutting-edge technologies, IPR and energy saving devices. The USA and Russia are in particular active in this regard.

In practice, the Growth Strategy has been utilized intensively in evaluating projects and initiatives within APEC, and therefore, the Growth Strategy was implemented from a top-down manner, from the Leaders to the Working Groups. However, on the other hand, the Strategy was not fully used in evaluating the outcome of initiatives or assessing the performance of working groups due to the lack of qualitative goals. In 2015, while APEC member economies reviewed the first Growth Strategy and working collectively on the new one, it was suggested to involve clear goal or quantitative objective as G20 does, but such comment was not much echoed particularly by developing economies.

Looking Forward

The 2nd phase of the Growth Strategy-- APEC Strategy for Strengthening Quality Growth--- was drafted by all member economies during the 3rd Senior Officials' Meeting in Cebu and is being submitted to Leaders for endorsement in November. in the new Strategy, 3 Key Accountability Areas (KAA), namely: Institution Building, Social Cohesion, and Environmental Impact were newly added for examining and prioritizing APEC initiatives and meanwhile the 5 growth attributes remain. It is not clear yet what changes the addition of KAAs is bringing up, APEC Leaders may not elaborate address priority works of the Growth Strategy in detail. Instead, the new Growth Strategy can be linked and interpreted in line with UN ongoing tasks, such as the Millennium Development Goals and the Sustainable Development Goals to highlight its significance accelerating regional integration and development. APEC still needs to further elaborate the Strategy to member economies, APEC fora and subfora. Similarly, the APEC working groups will need to study the comprehensive Strategy and translate it into strategic plans and work plans for implementation.

Strengthening the APEC-G20-OECD Relationship

Chen-Sheng Ho

Background

In 2015, Turkey serves as the Chair of the G20. Next year, Mainland China will become the Chair of the G20. Therefore, it is important to know more about the priorities of the G20. At the same time, APEC has had a productive year and has also worked on several priorities. As a matter of fact, APEC is seeking to work closely with the G20 and has cooperated with the OECD. From the perspective of cooperation, the focus on issues that are of importance to APEC, G20 and OECD is necessary. Thus Chinese Taipei's contributions in APEC can serve as the most important way to link Chinese Taipei with the international community, as APEC continues to strengthen its cooperation with the G20 and OECD.

2015 G20 Priorities

As the Chair of G20 this year, Turkey has chosen the theme of: "Collective Action for Inclusive and Robust Growth." In addition, Turkey is focusing on the following three pillars: 1) Strengthening the Global Recovery and Lifting the Potential; 2) Enhancing Resilience; and 3) Buttressing Sustainability (G20 2015).

In Session 2, the main topic of discussion was "Connectivity through Services." The main point was that efficiency in services had increasingly been associated with higher labor productivity and competitiveness in manufacturing. Moreover, services had been recognized as the facilitator of global value chains and logistics chain in particular. The main challenge was that the services sector continued to be highly restrictive in many parts of the world as well as the APEC region. Furthermore, the difficulty of changing domestic regulations had led to the reluctance of economies to liberalize their services sector. It is suggested that economies should promote knowledge sharing and the development of a knowledge community for promoting regulatory reforms (PIDS 2015).

2015 APEC Priorities

The host of APEC in 2015 is the Philippines. The main theme is: "Building Inclusive Economies, Building a Better World." The priorities are: 1) Enhancing the Regional Economic Integration Agenda; 2) Fostering SMEs' Participation in Regional and Global Markets; 3) Investing in Human Capital Development; and 4) Building Sustainable and Resilient Communities (APEC 2014).

Seeking Closer APEC-G20-OECD Cooperation

From examining the 2015 priorities of the G20 and APEC, it can be seen that the two organizations are seeking to advance inclusiveness. This means that an economy should have inclusive growth in which all segments of society enjoy the economic benefits. Moreover, other related issues that are important to the G20 and APEC are SMEs, agriculture, trade, anti-corruption, energy and other economic issues.

Most importantly, several members of the G20 are also members of APEC, such as Australia, Canada, Mainland China, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Russia, and the United States. Therefore, they are in a good position to ensure that the G20 and APEC are working on the same issues. It is suggested that APEC members should actively seek closer cooperation with the G20. The closer cooperation is not only beneficial for the Asia- Pacific region but also for the whole world. The reason is that the G20 and APEC can learn from each other. APEC members that are also members of the G20 should assist with promoting the G20-APEC cooperation in the G20. As a matter of fact, a representative of the G20 has attended the APEC SOM3 meeting. Furthermore, the G20 Leaders Summit will be held on November 15-16, 2015. The APEC Economic Leaders' Meeting will be held on November 18-19, 2015. There is great certainty that the G20 Leaders and the APEC Leaders will discuss similar economic issues and will focus on inclusive growth.

Moreover, APEC's enhancement of cooperation with G20 can also be enlarged to include the participation of OECD. The advancement of the triangular relationship would strengthen the work on various economic issues. Presently, the OECD has contributed to several G20 issues: 1) Agriculture; 2) Anti-corruption; 3) Development; 4) Employment and social policy; 5) Energy, environment and green growth; 6) Financing for investment; 7) Financial sector reform; 8) Framework for strong, sustainable and balanced growth; 9) Taxation; 10) Trade and investment (OECD 2015).

APEC has also worked closely with the OECD. For example, APEC and the OECD have developed the APEC-OECD Integrated Checklist on Regulatory Reform (APEC 2015). Another example is the cooperation between APEC's Anti-Corruption and Transparency Experts' Working Group (ACT) and the OECD which has resulted in the holding of the ACT-OECD High-Level Anti-Corruption Workshop on Combating Business Bribery (APEC 2015a).

Thus APEC has cooperated with the OECD and APEC is beginning to seek cooperation with the G20. The optimal outcome is for the strengthening of the triangular relationship among APEC, OECD and G20 as soon as possible. A suggestion is that the APEC Sectoral Ministerial Meetings could include the participation of G20 and OECD. Furthermore, it is also suggested that APEC could join existing OECD-G20 work. APEC projects could encompass the contribution by OECD and G20 in terms of involvement by experts and the holding of workshops.

From Chinese Taipei's standpoint, the participation in APEC has enabled Chinese Taipei to be linked with the international community. Particularly, Chinese Taipei's contributions in APEC through the implementation of projects, such as projects relating to agriculture and SMEs are greatly appreciated by APEC members. APEC can request the OECD and G20's participation in the APEC projects by providing speakers and sharing information. For example, Chinese Taipei is implementing the APEC Food Losses Multi-Year Project that seeks to address food loss and waste. In the statement of the G20 Agriculture Ministers Meeting that was held on May 7-8, 2015 in Istanbul, the G20 Ministers stated that minimizing food loss and waste is important (G20. 2015a). As for the OECD, agricultural issues are advanced through the Trade and Agriculture Directorate.

Therefore, once the G20, OECD and APEC have strengthened their cooperation with each other, the three organizations can focus on developing and implementing joint projects. Chinese Taipei will certainly have an important role to play, as Chinese Taipei has been implementing capacity building projects that assist APEC developing economies. These experiences are also beneficial to the G20 developing economies.

References:

1. APEC. 2014. APEC 2015 Priorities. <http://mddb.apec.org/Documents/2014/SOM/ISOM/14_isom_008_r.pdf>
2. APEC. 2015. "APEC-OECD Integrated Checklist on Regulatory Reform." <http://www.apec.org/Groups/Economic-Committee/Toolkit-for-Structural-Reform/ APEC-OECD-Integrated-Checklist.aspx>
3. APEC. 2015a. "Summary Record - 20th Anti-Corruption and Transparency Experts' Working Group Meeting." <http://mddb.apec.org/Documents/2015/ACT/ACT2/15_act2_002.pdf>
4. G20. 2015. "Turkish G20 Presidency Priorities for 2015. <https://g20.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/2015-TURKEY-G-20-PRESIDENCYFINAL. pdf>
5. G20. 2015a. "G20 Agriculture Ministers Meeting Final Communique." <https://g20.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/G20-Agriculture-Ministers-Final- Communique.pdf>
6. OECD. 2015. "The Issues." <http://www.oecd.org/G20/>

Monday, June 22, 2015

Overview of the 2015 APEC Study Centers Consortium Conference

Chen Ho

Introduction

The APEC Study Centers throughout the APEC region have been meeting with each other every year. This year, the APEC Study Centers Consortium Conference was held in Boracay Island, Philippines on May 12-13, 2015. The main hosts of the Conference were the Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS) and the Philippine APEC Study Center Network (PASCN).

Main Points of the Sessions

The Conference primarily consisted of six sessions. In Session 1, the focus was on "Pathways to FTAAP." The participants agreed that APEC should provide the strongest support for realizing the FTAAP. Specifically, APEC should serve as the platform for communication, exchange of best practices, and capacity building. In addition, APEC should maintain its support for the principle of open regionalism and the World Trade Organization. Another important point was that the participants believed that in any pathway to FTAAP, the role of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) should be emphasized and that concrete actions to advance SMEs should be developed (PIDS 2015). Most importantly, APEC should ensure that all APEC members can become members of the FTAAP. The reason was that the FTAAP was a product of APEC and APEC members had reached consensus to achieve the FTAAP. The economic benefits to APEC would be substantial when all APEC members could participate in the comprehensive FTAAP.

Session 3 was about "Trade and Investment Patterns and Supply Chain Connectivity." It was mentioned that the extent of gains from regional integration would depend greatly on the volume and quality of trade and investment patterns, infrastructure, and connectivity in the region. The experiences of Thailand and Viet Nam indicated that factors such as real interest rate, degree of openness, and exchange rate could significantly affect and explain foreign direct investment (FDI) trends and patterns. Another important point was that policies that promoted investments and lowered trade transaction costs were considered crucial to FDI inflows (PIDS 2015).

With regard to Session 4, the emphasis was on "Fostering SMEs' Participation in the Regional and Global Economy." It was related that SMEs could be a major driver for economic growth. SMEs had contributed by creating a stable economy given their flexibility and capacity to easily absorb both skilled and unskilled labor. The viability of SMEs is important for developing competitive and efficient markets. Presently, SMEs had faced the greatest difficulty in borrowing money from banks. The reason was that most SMEs did not have credit data and the perceived risks in lending to SMEs. A suggestion was made that stronger financial cooperation must be advanced and a credit rating system for SMEs should be developed. In addition, with trade being integrated by production and supply chains, natural disasters can cause serious problems for SMEs. It was estimated that only 25 percent of SMEs had re-opened following natural disasters. APEC should enhance the resilience of SMEs (PIDS 2015).

Session 5 was about "Investing in Human Capital Development." It was mentioned that education, training, and human resource development could raise the output and productivity of workers. However, several issues continued to be important, such as developing 21st century workforce, aligning education and training to industry needs, and strengthening the productivity of SMEs through skills training. Another suggestion was that it would be necessary to create an environment that would encourage academic and technical exchanges. APEC economies could send at least five percent of the students enrolled in their leading universities to universities in other APEC economies to stimulate cross-border education. It was also suggested that an APEC Qualification Framework could be created. The Framework would function as a standard for comparing the training, qualifications, skills, and competencies of various semi-skilled workers (PIDS 2015).

The focus of Session 6 was on "Building Sustainable and Resilient Communities." With regard to climate change, it was suggested that there was the need to enhance the supervision of change by adopting an integrated approach, given the wide-ranging impacts of climate change. Intersectoral and inter-agency collaboration would be necessary and further multidisciplinary research to understand climate change would be needed. Moreover, fiscal risks arising from natural disasters were a concern shared by most APEC member-economies. Individual governments often shoulder a large part of the cost of disasters, particularly in developing economies. A suggestion was the promotion of insurance and other risk-sharing schemes. In addition, APEC could contribute to the mitigation of the adverse effects of environmental degradation. Since these were cross-border issues, solutions must be derived through international cooperation. A suggestion was that APEC could liberalize a number of environmental goods in the APEC list, so as to contribute to global efforts to foster sustainable development (PIDS 2015).

Comments and Suggestions

The annual APEC Study Centers Consortium Conference has been an important event for the Centers to gather together and discuss major APEC issues for that year from the perspective of researchers. From the Conference, valuable suggestions have been presented that could be further developed. In order to enhance the linkage between APEC and the APEC Study Centers as well as to strengthen the linkage among the APEC Study Centers, it is suggested that APEC provides funding for one research project each year to the APEC Study Centers. The APEC Study Centers would choose the topics for research, so as to ensure that the APEC Study Center are able to undertake outstanding research.

It is also suggested that the APEC fora and the APEC Study Centers could collaborate on examining APEC issues. This means that the APEC fora could request comments and suggestions from interested APEC Study Centers. In doing so, the APEC fora would have access to good quality research. The APEC Study Centers would enhance their knowledge of APEC issues and the views of the APEC fora.

Reference

PIDS. 2015. "Summary Report of the APEC Study Centers Consortium Conference 2015." Manila: PIDS.

MERS Outbreak and APEC Health Cooperation

Tzu-ying Chen

An outbreak of Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) has affected South Korea since May this year. As of June 10th , there had already been 108 cases and caused 9 deaths in South Korea. In order to stop the spread of MERS, the Korean government temporarily shut down more than 2,208 schools and kindergartens. Despite the World Health Organization has not issued a travel advisory against travel to Korea, the tourism industry in Korea has still been hit by MERS. The Korea Tourism Organization has estimated that more than 20,000 tourists have cancelled plans to visit Korea in July and August, which is at a time for the summer peak season.

In addition, the MERS crisis also threatens Korea's local industries. Korea's fashion and cosmetics industries have lost their customers mostly come from China which altogether comprises about 30 percent of global luxury consumption. Before the MERS epidemic, it is predicted that 7.2 million Chinese tourists will visit Korea this year, which is half of a total estimated 15.5 million foreign visitors. However, MERS has slowdown the number of travelers and reduces the domestic consumption as well. Even though Korean retails would survive by depending on local consumption, Koreans are choosing to avoid populated outdoor areas for fear of becoming contaminated.

In order to prevent the spread of emerging infectious diseases, APEC members have been paying attention on the impact of emerging infectious diseases on economy and trade activities since the SARS outbreaks in 2003. To monitor the epidemic situation, APEC-Emerging Infections Network (EINet) has been established for providing timely and reliable information via the internet of emerging infectious diseases in the Asia-Pacific region. However , the function of the surveillance system is constrained for stopping the spread of emerging infectious diseases which come after rapidly since 2003.

APEC economic Leaders responded on the issue of the emerging infectious diseases and reaffirmed their commitment to build regional capacity for these potential threats of human health in 2009. APEC economic leaders recognized the significance of health security for economic and trade activities in the region. In addition, they also committed to improve secure growth by strengthening preparedness for and effective management of emerging and re-emerging infectious disease.

In response to the commitment, APEC economic leaders instructed Senior Officials to foster enhanced cooperation and coordination within APEC to reduce threats and disruption to business and trade, including directing relevant sub-fora to cooperate in developing a consolidated strategy on health security. Senior Officials were also expected to collaborate with industry, academia and international organizations for preparedness against emergencies. Furthermore, Senior Officials were responsible for supervising their own economies to develop appropriate procedures for public reporting on their progress in implementing APEC Leaders' commitments on secure growth.

To develop more "APEC way's" health issues which means reducing the impact of the health threats on economic and trade activities and not duplicating the work of the World Health Organization (WHO). China addressed an initiative of "Healthy Asia Pacific 2020" 6 in 2014, which promoted APEC economies focus on the issues of health and economy such as prevention and control of non-communicable diseases, strengthening universal health coverage and improving health emergency preparedness as well. Particularly, implementing multi-sectoral action in health through "Health in All Policies" and a "Whole-Government" approach was encouraged in this initiative.

Regard to the MERS outbreak in Korea, there are several suggestions for APEC economies to take actions. Firstly, APEC should continue to support its work on surveillance and timely information exchange for noticing in APEC members. Secondly, APEC economies should enhance their capacity building by drawing lessons among APEC economies through the implemented APEC projects. For the MERS outbreak this year, APEC economies have learned lessons from SARS experiences in 2003 through participating in the APEC conference for memorizing the SARS epidemic 10 years ago conducted by Chinese Taipei in 2013. Lastly, APEC members should consider how to use the "Health in All Policies" and "Whole-Government" approach for multisectoral cooperation. Since the spread of disease affects not only health sector but also other sectors, how to prevent the epidemic should be of concern in every policies and decisions made by the government. In addition, APEC should also facilitate the cooperation between Health and Emergency Preparedness Working Groups to jointly confront the threats and share resources and information.

Last year, APEC Leaders committed to intensify the cooperation with African nations to confront the Ebola Virus Disease epidemic. The political commitments brought much attention and substantial contribution from APEC economies. This year, APEC members are confronting the MERS outbreak in the Asia-Pacific region. APEC should do more than commitments to prevent the spread of the disease.

References:

1.2009 Leaders' Declaration, Singapore Declaration – Sustaining Growth, Connecting the Region. 14-15 Nov 2009.
2.The APEC Leaders' Growth Strategy, 14 Nov 2010.
3.China, Concept Note for Public Risk Communication and Rumors Surveillance: Building Capacity in Health Hotline Response to Public Health Emergencies and Emerging Public Health Issues. 2013/SOM3/HWG/008.
4.Singapore, Concept Note on Building Capacity in Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2013/SOM3/HWG/019.
5.China, Healthy Asia Pacific 2020, 2014/SOM3/HWG/009. 1.2009 Leaders' Declaration, Singapore Declaration – Sustaining Growth, Connecting the Region. 14-15 Nov 2009

Internet Economy: a Revolutionary Manufacturing Paradigm

Wayne Chen

China proposed to list the Internet Economy as a new priority in APEC under the New Economy annual priority in 2014 and was endorsed by APEC Leaders and Ministers by the end of the year. In 2015, an Ad Hoc Steering Group was established in February to carry forward the Chinese APEC Initiative of Cooperation to Promote Internet Economy. According to the conclusion of the Second APEC Senior Officials Meeting, a Chair and a Vice Chair will be selected to lead the Steering Group and its first meeting will be held before the Third APEC Senior Officials Meeting in September.

The Steering Group will be focused on advancing the growth of the Internet Economy by strengthening cooperation on 1) regulatory environment and 2) innovation and entrepreneurship. The former includes utilizing and securing data in cross-border flows, promoting SME-friendly e-commerce policies, facilitating the cross border flow of ICT-enabled services and achieving universal access to broadband. The latter is more related to holding skill training activities, establishing enabling environment to enhance inclusive economic participation by using ICT, and promoting internet finance and internet of things.

One major reason why China is so enthusiastic about Internet Economy was that the internet is a powerful tool to stimulate its economy for big, for long and highly likely will reinforce its leading role in the world economy. The initial public offering (IPO) of the Alibaba Group Holding, worth of US$25 billion, was not only the largest IPO ever, but revealing a new era of internet economy to the world leaders. The e-commerce is only part of the new economy but has already been a significant driver of economic activities. The market scale of e-commerce is enormous and growing significantly in recent years. In 2013, the turnover of global e-commerce grew by 17% and the market of e-commerce in China came to US$248 billion and received 11.3 billion orders. The internet substantially increases market access by linking individual consumers to retailers or even wholesalers, improves communication with providers of logistic services, financial services and customer management, as well as facilitates SMMEs to enjoy more public media exposure, all these were beyond imagination before and the future even looks more promising.

According to the World Bank, more than 60% enterprises in high income countries used internet for business operations in 2003, but in 2012 mostly enterprises used the internet in daily operations. In middle and low income countries, the figure is 35% for 2003 and 70% in 2012. Developing countries have higher growth rate, and the market prospectus is commonly bigger due to their population base.

A wide range of innovative business models are emerging and performing creative destruction in practice, sometimes industries not merely companies were wiped out in the new chapter of internet economy. Kodak, for example marked the rise and fall of the photographic film industry. Founded in 1888, Kodak had focused on photographic film products, and had a 90% market share in 1970s in the US. Its workforce peaked at 145,300 in 1988, but reduced to 13,100 in 2012 due to the severe competition in the digital photography market. In January 2012, Kodak filed for bankruptcy protection and in December sold its imaging patent for over $500 million. On the other hand, Instagram, the photo-sharing phone app which employed 13 people, was acquired by Facebook for $1 billion. In other words, the value of individual employee created by Instagram reached $77 million, 15 times more than Apple of Google.

Internet economy has also become a hot issue in APEC where China, Russia and the United State are competing to lead in the discourse, although China proposed the Internet Economy Initiative first back in 2014. At the 2015 APEC Second Senior Officials Meeting, the US tabled the initiative of "Enabling Inclusive Growth Through the Digital Economy", and proposed 4 deliverables for APEC 2015, namely: 1) conduct an APEC Digital Economy Agenda to be endorsed by AELM; 2) conduct a Digital Economy Action Plan for connecting MSMEs into global and regional markets; 3) conduct an independent Digital Economy assessment in 2016, and; 4) identify 'facilitating Digital Trade for Inclusive Growth' as a Next Generation Trade and Investment issue.

Different from the Chinese Internet Economy initiative, the US Digital Economy is more related to the MSMEs and trade. The Statement to Implement APEC Policies on Trade and the Digital Economy, for example, is listed as an important APEC reference documents by the Digital Economy Initiative which urges APEC economies "take a collective leadership role in the WTO negotiations to pursue market openness in areas related to trade in the digital economy".

I argue that US attempted to redirect discussion on Internet/Digital Economy towards the Trade and Investment Liberalization and Facilitation (TILF) pillar while China has been addressing related issues in the domain of Economic and Technical Cooperation (ECOTECH). In this context, related deliberation was linked and shadowed by the disagreement on ITA2 between big powers. Not surprisingly, hot debates occurred at SOM2 where China and Russia emphasized that "Digital Economy" has no clear definition and the objective to identify it as the next generation issue requires further discussion for consensus. After informal discussion facilitated by the host economy, China, Russia and US agreed to return the Digital Economy Initiative back to the Committee of Trade and Investment (CTI) and incorporate the actions proposed by US into mandate of the Steering Group. In return, China invited US to join the leadership of the Ad Hoc Steering Group but not yet received positive response at the place. Taiwan has been long known as a high tech island and its industrial development is greatly related to the Internet Economy. However, considering the contest between China and US, Taiwan needs to be careful and elaborate while speak up for the interests of the private sector, and meanwhile avoid involving the political disagreement between China and US.

References:

1.APEC (2015), "Draft Terms of Reference on the Ad Hoc Steering Group on the Internet Economy", 2015/S OM2/021_rev1

2.APEC (2015), "Enabling Inclusive Growth Through the Digital Economy", 2015/ SOM2/028

3.Associate Press (2012), ""Kodak Sells Digital Imaging Patents For $525m", http://bigstory.ap.org/article/kodak-receive-525m-patent-sale, 19 Dec

4.Atlantic (2012), "Instagram Is Now Worth $77 Million Per Employee", http://www. theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/04/instagram-is-now-worth-77-millionperemployee/255640/, 9 April

5.OECD (2014), "Skills and Jobs in the Internet Economy", http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1787/5jxvbrjm9bns-en

6.OECD (2012), "OECD Internet Economy Outlook 2012", http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/oecd-inte rnet-economy-outlook- 2012_9789264086463-en

7.Norbhu, T. (2014), "Internet and Business Model Innovation", World Bank, October.

8.Koske, I. et al. (2014), "The Internet Economy - Regulatory Challenges and Practices", http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jxszm7x2qmr-en

9.Nam, S. (2014), "Promoting Innovative Development in the Asia-Pacific Region throughout the Internet Economy", KIEP, APEC Study Series 14-02.

Friday, March 20, 2015

The Year of Promising Economic Integration in the Asia-Pacific

Eric Chiou

The year of 2015 is going to be indicated as a remarkable year for economic integration in the Asia-Pacific region. Not only the negotiation of Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) is scheduled to be concluded by the end of this year, but also the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), after a series of intensive and difficult negotiations, aims to reach a principle framework agreement in this year. In addition, an ambitious vision of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) is planned to be fulfilled within this year, which will make it one of major global player in the world, and become the seventh largest economy as well as the most consolidated trade bloc in Asia.

Furthermore, foreseeing robust demands of infrastructure financing in developing countries in Asia, China initiated the proposal of Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), in order to provide sufficient financial support to bridge the gap of financial needs for infrastructure development in the region. The Bank is expected to operate by the end of this year and its establishment has been considered positive contribution to deepening regional economic integration and spurring economic momentum by strengthening physical connectivity in the Asia-Pacific region. Based on these favorable factors, the year of 2015 is likely to be a promising watershed in the history of Asia-Pacific economic integration.

As the most vibrant and long-standing locomotive in promoting economic integration, APEC has been one of the most dynamic forums and a critical incubator for cultivating various ideas toward a common goal of facilitating free and open trade and investment in the Asia-Pacific region. Meanwhile, it has also played as the most persistent advocate and assiduous actor in carrying out numerous policy measures to enhance regional trade and investment.

For example, APEC has adopted the global Trade Facilitation Agreement and also set a goal of increasing 10 percent from 2009 levels in regional supply chain performance by the end of this year. This initiative targets at reducing customs bottlenecks for goods at borders by enhancing custom cooperation among APEC members, which expects to improve efficiency, lower operation costs, and facilitate trade flows across APEC countries.

To continue the efforts and progress made in 2014, one of APEC's priorities in this year is "Enhancing Regional Economic Integration." As a host member in 2015, the Philippines has laid out a plan to organize a task force and launch a two-year collective strategic study on issues related to the realization of a Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP), in order to ensure the fruitful results of the Beijing Roadmap for APEC's Contribution to the Realization of the FTAAP to be maintained and carefully implemented.

Moreover, from a geopolitical aspect, heightened tensions over territorial disputes in recent years have gradually lessened since last fall, while the forecast of moderate economic growth for most countries in the region in 2015 has also played a positive role for allowing national leaders to keep cool head and concentrate on the issues of how to stimulate economic growth, instead of augmenting their existing political frictions. Last year, the lukewarm, but symbolic meeting between Chinese leader Xi Jinping and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe signified a historical turning point and showed deliberate efforts to turn down their rising suspicion and hostility in recent years.

In a word, an overall geopolitical environment in 2015, so far, provides a fairly constructive and peaceful milieu in fostering economic integration. Nevertheless, despite various advantageous elements being depicted above, some critical hindrances to the final achievement of regional integration remain challenging in the coming months of this year. Here are possible challenges worthy of further discussion.

First, despite the latest TPP negotiation just taking place in Hawaii in March, some thorny issues, such as intellectual property rights (IPR), have not been solved, which cast a shadow over the prospect of successfully concluding the TPP this year. Furthermore, with the upcoming presidential election in the United States in 2016, the chance for the Obama administration to obtain the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) from US Congress seems gloomy.

If the United States could not attain the TPA to complete the final stage of negotiation, the TPP may eventually turn out to be a failed attempt. At this juncture, Abe's visit to Washington in late April becomes crucial. If two leaders from Japan and the US can effectively narrow their differences and reach consensus in the meeting, this breakthrough may generate sufficient political momentum to compel US Congress to grant the TPA to the Obama administration. Then, the TPP will be more likely to be concluded within this year, given that two largest TPP members are able to settle their differences.

Second, compared with intensive negotiations among TPP members, the progress and pace of RCEP seem relatively limited and slow. Although these indications do not necessarily suggest that the RCEP may become an illusion in the end, this tepid development certainly invokes some concerns over its quality and future implementation, even if RCEP members eventually reach a deal this year.

It is estimated that the RCEP accounts for 28 percent of world economy and its implementation will produce income gains of $240-644 billion to the world economy in a decade. However, these inspiring figures are likely to be illusionary, if the final agreement of RCEP fails to live up to its original objectives of being a high quality regional free trade bloc.

A similar predicament can be applied to the AEC, since it is exactly a product and also a victim of so-called "ASEAN Way." The characteristics of ASEAN Way have highlighted consensus-building, flexibility, mutual respect for differences, etc. The outcome and effectiveness of AEC will be dubious, if it fully abides by and operates in accordance with the ASEAN Way. Hence, what matters is not whether the AEC can be established or not, but to what extent the contents of the AEC can be faithfully implemented by ASEAN members.

Despite some possible weaknesses, the formation of AEC will certainly generate a big boost to regional economic integration in the Asia-Pacific. At least, it will consolidate its pivotal role as a center of regional integration and spur the interests of its trading partners to further strengthen economic ties with the AEC. This outcome is likely to induce a virtuous circle of competition and accelerate the completion of other regional trade deals.

In short, the year of 2015 will be a critical juncture for the Asia-Pacific economic integration as a whole. If the above trade initiatives are fully realized as promised, this year will be a historical turning point in the history of Asia-Pacific integration. Then, the question of how to efficiently converge those diverse regional integration initiatives will be a crucial task in the next stage, in which APEC will continue to take a leading role in facilitating discussion and guide a better way to the future.

Enhancing SMEs Participation in Global Value Chains

Wayne Chen

Under the theme of "Building Inclusive Economies, Building a better World", the Philippines, the host economy of APEC 2015, announced that Fostering SMEs' Participation in the Regional and Global Economy is centered as one priority areas for this year.

SMEs have been recognized as a significant dual engine of employment and economic growth after the financial crisis. Similarly, in the APEC context, SMEs are highlighted for its contribution mainly for the Inclusive Growth, one of the five attributes of the APEC Growth Strategy announced in 2010. Inclusive Growth implies that APEC should pursue economic growth and meanwhile improve quality of industrial development and livelihood by a more integrated regional economy. In this light, SMEs is an indispensable pathway to ensure economic prosperity last longer and benefit people's livelihood in a more inclusive manner.

Reducing Barriers to SMEs Trading in the Region

One remarkable move was initiated in 2011, where APEC Ministers Responsible for Trade and the APEC Ministers Responsible for Small and Medium Enterprises announced a joint statement to recognize SMEs' contribution to economic growth and job creation in the Asia-Pacific as well as consider SMEs as a source of innovative business models and new technologies.

Consequently, Ministers identified top 9 barriers to SMEs trading in the region and urged collective actions of APEC economies addressing the 9 barriers, namely: 1) lack of access to financing; 2) lack of capacity to internationalize and difficulty in identifying foreign business opportunities; 3) need for open and transparent business environments; 4) high transportation and related costs; 5) Customs clearance delays caused by difficulties in navigating overly complex customs requirements and documentation; 6) problems navigating differing legal, regulatory, and technical requirements; 7) difficulty with intellectual property acquisition, protection, and enforcement; 8) inadequate policy and regulatory frameworks to support cross-border electronic commerce; 9) difficulty in taking advantage of preferential tariff rates and other aspects of trade agreements. Barriers 1-4 were investigated by SMEWG and barriers 5-9 were studied by CTI. Later in the year, the findings and policy recommendations were published as guidelines for APEC in fostering the development of SMEs.

Fostering SMEs' Participation in the Regional and Global Economy

For the first time, SMEs are listed as annual priority area in APEC 2015. Continuing ongoing works and in an attempt to create new agenda for APEC SMEs, the Philippines announced three sub priorities, namely Removing Barriers to SMEs; Promoting Inclusive Growth through Sustainable and Resilient SMEs, and; Advancing Modernization and Standards Conformance among SMEs in the region. The sub themes reflect a firm belief of the Philippines that SMEs are the backbone of local economy and they are in need of stronger dynamism. Furthermore, as one of ASEAN countries suffering from natural disasters, the Philippines is associate SMEs work with strengthening resilience of communities against natural catastrophes, including earth quakes and typhoons common in places. Promoting SMEs' business continuity plans, therefore, is accented as a significant cross-cutting issue, between the SMEs priority and another priority of Building Sustainable and Resilient Communities, and deliverable for APEC leaders this year.

Nevertheless, ongoing initiatives which were primarily promoted by SME working group may not seem adequate to support the SME priority as an annual pillar. Recognizing that creating new pages for the APEC SME agenda is necessary, the "Towards an APEC Action Plan to Foster SMEs' Participation in Regional and Global Markets" (Action Plan) was tabled at the 1st Senior Official Meeting in February. In short, the Action Plan proposed to establish an Overall Goal of improving SMEs' share of exports by 2020, and addition of 4 new priority actions for APEC economies' consideration, namely:

a.Increasing the de minimis threshold or waiver for the issuance of certificates of origin. Economies should consider waiving the certificate of origin requirement for shipments of US 2,000 or less.

b.Providing trade and tariff information for SMEs. Timely and accurate information on tariffs, trade and business procedures are essential to support SMEs in getting their products and services abroad.

c.Enhancing SME participation in authorized economic operator (AEO) and trusted trader programs. AEO and trusted trader programs should be designed in a way that SMEs can participate and be recognized as safe, secure and compliant business partners in international trade. d.Setting appropriate labeling requirements for SMEs. As rules and regulations vary widely between economies as well as between importers and distributors, information on appropriate labeling requirements will assist SMEs in the food sector with a view towards establishing a mechanism for recognizing labeling requirements across APEC economies.

The Action Plan demonstrates the ambition to expand current boundary of APEC SME works which is more in the Economic and Technical Cooperation (ECOTECH) domain by merging more intensively and broadly with the pillar of Trade and Investment Liberalization and Facilitation (TILF), including custom procedures and food safety issues.

However, the discussion was not smooth. The Action Plan did not receive enough deliberation as it should have for wining agreement on its proposals. Japan, one of few economies spoke up, suggested APEC economies to incorporate more SME related works, rather than limited to the 4 proposed, in the Action Plan. No comment was shown on the Overall Goal, and hardly could we conclude that a consensus was found among senior officials in this regard.

At present, the Philippines is doing an APEC-wide stocktaking on SME plans, initiatives and projects implemented/conducted/planned since 2011. How the Action Plan can support the SME priority and consolidate concrete deliverables for APEC Leaders need further elaboration. Moreover, how APEC fora and sub fora should cooperate once the 4 new priority actions of the Action Plan endorsed can be another challenge to APEC and member economies.

References:

1.APEC, "APEC Leaders' Growth Strategy", 18th APEC Economic Leaders' Meeting, 2010/AELM/DEC/3, 2010/11.

2.APEC, "Enhancing SMEs Participation in Global Production Chains", 2011/ CSOM/026app10, 2011/11.

3.APEC, "Joint Statement of APEC Ministers Responsible for Trade and Ministers Responsible for Small and Medium Enterprises", 2011/SMEMM/JMS, 2011/5

4.APEC, "Towards an APEC Action Plan for Cooperation to Foster SMEs' Participation in Regional and Global Markets", 2015/SOM1/009, 2015/2.

The APEC Beijing FTAAP Roadmap and the Collective Strategic Study

Chen-Sheng Ho

Introduction

APEC's realization of the FTAAP has accelerated with the inclusion in the 2014 APEC Leaders' Declaration of "The Beijing Roadmap for APEC's Contribution to the Realization of the FTAAP." In addition, the CTI's REI FotC Group has formed a task force in early 2015 to undertake the FTAAP collective strategic study. In light of APEC's desire to work seriously to advance the FTAAP, the analysis of APEC's thinking on the FTAAP are warranted. The article's purpose is to examine the Beijing FTAAP Roadmap and its relevance for the collective strategic study. Finally, the article will offer suggestions to advance the FTAAP.

The APEC Beijing FTAAP Roadmap

From the 2014 APEC Economic Leaders' Meeting, the APEC Leaders have finally generated a clear roadmap for realizing the FTAAP. The document summarizes APEC's views regarding the FTAAP over the years. It mentions that APEC agreed to examine the FTAAP idea as a long-term prospect in 2006. Furthermore, in 2010, APEC Leaders had generated the notion of "Pathways to FTAAP." The 2010 idea was that an FTAAP should be realized as a comprehensive free trade agreement that will be built through regional undertakings, such as ASEAN+3, ASEAN+6 and the TransPacific Partnership (TPP). Thus APEC will make important contribution as an incubator of the FTAAP (APEC 2014).

In addition, the Beijing Roadmap has stated the latest APEC Leaders' views on the FTAAP (APEC 2014):
● The FTAAP will support and complement the multilateral trading system.
● The FTAAP should be comprehensive, high quality and address "next generation" trade and investment issues.
● APEC will attain the Bogor Goals by 2020. The Bogor Goals will advance APEC's contribution to the eventual realization of the FTAAP.
● The FTAAP will be realized outside of APEC, parallel with the APEC process. APEC should maintain its non-binding and voluntary cooperation principles.
● The FTAAP should aim to minimize any negative effects resulting from the proliferation of regional and bilateral RTAs/FTAs. Greater efforts should be made to concluding the possible pathways to the FTAAP, including the TPP and RCEP.
● APEC will assist APEC economies with participating in ongoing regional undertakings and preparation for the realization of the FTAAP.

Analyzing the APEC Beijing FTAAP Roadmap

Supporting the Multilateral Trading System

Leaders have stated that the FTAAP will be capable of supporting and complementing the multilateral trading system. APEC has always expressed support for the multilateral trading system. The open regionalism idea of APEC is the result of APEC's desire to strengthen APEC's regional economic integration and the WTO. Therefore, it is important for APEC Leaders to continue to express their backing for the WTO. However, there is the need for APEC to relate how the FTAAP will support the multilateral trading system. The present way is to state APEC's support for the WTO and that the FTAAP will support the multilateral trading system. Another way would be for APEC to announce that APEC would be willing to add more WTO members to APEC. In doing so, the FTAAP would become larger and the FTAAP would be able to promote the inclusive and trade liberalizing spirit of the multilateral trading system.

Negotiating Outside of APEC

The idea that the FTAAP will be negotiated outside of APEC but will remain parallel with the APEC process is understandable. Leaders have stated that APEC will continue to adhere to the non-binding and voluntary principles. Since a free trade agreement (FTA) is binding in nature, it is only logical that the FTAAP will be negotiated outside of APEC. Leaders are implying that the FTAAP could be a FTA, so that the FTAAP is to be negotiated outside of APEC. With regard to the idea that the FTAAP will be paralleled with the APEC process, Leaders are conveying the message that APEC will continue to provide guidance to the FTAAP. In order to show that APEC will play a major role in the realization of the FTAAP, APEC will need to ensure that all APEC members are also members of the FTAAP. All APEC members have reached the consensus to promote the FTAAP, so that the development of the FTAAP, as a FTA, should also entail the participation by all APEC members.

Advancing the Pathways to the FTAAP

The Leaders' view that greater efforts must be made to advance the pathways to the FTAAP, consisting of the TPP and the RCEP, is valid. The reason is that the TPP and the RCEP are the two most viable pathways to the FTAAP. Thus the conclusion of the current TPP and the RCEP negotiations would push forward the advancement of the FTAAP. The APEC members of the two pathways could play the major role of ensuring the TPP and the RCEP are the pathways to the FTAAP. There is the possibility that a race would take place between the TPP and the RCEP to see which one of them is more suitable to be the only one pathway to the FTAAP. The reason is that the TPP and RCEP could be interested in enlarging their membership in the future, so as to attain greater economic benefits from a larger free trade area.

Another possibility is that both the TPP and the RCEP would be considered by APEC to be viable pathways to the FTAAP. The fact that APEC has stated that the TPP and the RCEP are pathways to the FTAAP implies that APEC would like to include both FTAs in the advancement of the FTAAP. Therefore, it may not be a race between the TPP and the RCEP. If the FTAAP would be negotiated as a FTA, one way for the FTAAP to incorporate both the TPP and the RCEP would be for APEC to choose some parts of the TPP and some parts from the RCEP. APEC could develop the guidelines for the selection process. For example, one guideline would follow the Bogor Goals spirit of having two different deadlines for achieving free trade, one for developed economies and another one for developing economies. Another guideline would state that all of the Chapters in the TPP and the RCEP would be included in the FTAAP. In addition, a guideline for implementing capacity building programs to assist developing economies would also be developed.

Suggestions

An important suggestion is that the FTAAP collective strategic study should ensure that it considers the APEC Leaders' views on the FTAAP that are stated in the 2014 APEC Beijing FTAAP Roadmap and are aforementioned. In doing so, APEC's position on the FTAAP will become clearer, so that the realization of the FTAAP will be advanced.

Specifically, it is suggested that the FTAAP collective strategic study incorporates the suggestions that are stated below:
● APEC would need to add more WTO members to APEC. In doing so, the FTAAP would become larger and the FTAAP would be able to promote the inclusive and trade liberalizing spirit of the multilateral trading system. Furthermore, the new APEC members would be WTO members that touch the Pacific Ocean or share borders with APEC members.
● APEC would need to state clearly that the FTAAP would be realized in the form of a FTA. The Beijing FTAAP Roadmap has mentioned that the FTAAP will be negotiated outside of APEC. In doing so, APEC members could begin to make preparations. In addition, APEC must ensure that all APEC members are also members of the FTAAP, since APEC has reached the consensus to achieve the FTAAP. The economic benefits to APEC would be substantial when all APEC members are participating in the FTAAP.
● APEC would ensure that the TPP and the RCEP are pathways to the FTAAP. APEC's FTAAP agreement could take some parts from the TPP and some parts from the RCEP. Some guidelines could be developed. One guideline could state that the developed economies and developing economies would have different deadlines, just like the Bogor Goals. Another guideline could relate that the FTAAP would include all of the chapters in the TPP and the RCEP. Furthermore, a guideline for the implementation of capacity building programs to assist developing economies would be developed.

References:

1.APEC. (2014). "Annex A - The Beijing Roadmap for APEC's Contribution to the Realization of the FTAAP." Singapore: APEC Secretaria

Monday, December 22, 2014

Analyzing ''The Beijing Roadmap for APEC's Contribution to the Realization of the FTAAP''

Chen-Sheng Ho

Introduction

After a year of concerted efforts by APEC to develop a meaningful plan for advancing the Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP), the APEC Economic Leaders have finally generated a clear map for realizing the FTAAP in the 2014 APEC Economic Leaders' Meeting (AELM) in Beijing, People's Republic of China. The purpose of this article is to analyze the main points of the document that is attached to the 2014 APEC Leaders' Declaration called ''The Beijing Roadmap for APEC's Contribution to the Realization of the FTAAP.''

Analyzing the Roadmap

       The document begins with the summarization of APEC's views regarding the FTAAP over the years. It states that APEC agreed to examine the FTAAP idea as a long-term prospect in 2006. In 2010, APEC Leaders had generated the notion of ''Pathways to FTAAP.'' The idea is that an FTAAP should be realized as a comprehensive free trade agreement that will be developed and built through regional undertakings, such as ASEAN+3, ASEAN+6 and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Thus APEC will make important contribution as an incubator of the FTAAP (APEC 2014).

       Even though it is not stated in the document, it is important to note that the APEC Business Advisory Council (ABAC) had initiated the FTAAP idea back in 2004. The views of ABAC are significant because it is the businesses in the APEC region that have played a significant role in advancing economic development and regional economic integration (REI) through the building of global value chains (GVCs). Therefore, businesses are the main supporters of trade and investment liberalization and facilitation. The creation of the FTAAP will certainly provide a business-friendly environment in the Asia- Pacific region, so that GVCs can be strengthened.

       According to the ''2014 ABAC Report to APEC Economic Leaders,'' ABAC is appreciative of APEC's effort in being an incubator of the FTAAP and for providing leadership and intellectual input in developing the FTAAP. Furthermore, ABAC believes that Leaders should impart ''top down'' direction. In addition, APEC should identify the needs of business. ABAC also suggests that APEC develops a roadmap and undertakes analytical work on realizing the FTAAP. At the same time, ABAC urges APEC to ensure the broadest participation in pathways to the FTAAP (ABAC 2014).

       We can infer from the ABAC suggestions that ABAC is hoping that APEC will take greater steps in achieving the FTAAP. Undoubtedly, businesses in the APEC region would like to see freer trade of goods and services. The APEC members are also willing to discuss ways to advance trade and investment liberalization and facilitation. The challenge is to seek the best ways to enhance REI through trade liberalization and the enhancement GVCs. The FTAAP idea is certainly a great way to strengthen REI, as the FTAAP would be a manifestation of trade liberalization and would deepen GVCs in the APEC region.

       With the strong support from ABAC for the FTAAP, APEC Leaders may have been convinced that there is the need to show greater interest in 14 realizing the FTAAP. Thus in the 2014 APEC Leaders' Declaration, Annex A of the Declaration is about the FTAAP. APEC Leaders have stated in the document that the FTAAP should support and complement the multilateral trading system. The FTAAP will be achieved outside of APEC but will be paralleled with the APEC process. This means that APEC will continue to promote its non-binding and voluntary principles as well as to serve as an incubator of the FTAAP. In addition, Leaders have related that the FTAAP should seek to minimize any negative effects from the proliferation of FTAs. The FTAAP will be built on existing and developing regional architectures. Furthermore, Leaders have said that more efforts should be exerted to conclude the pathways to the FTAAP, such as the TPP and the RCEP (APEC 2014).

       Let us now examine the Leaders' views regarding the FTAAP. First, the FTAAP would be capable of supporting and complementing the multilateral trading system, because the FTAAP would be composed of twenty-one APEC member economies. The free trade area would be large, so that it would be able to promote the inclusive and trade liberalizing spirit of the multilateral trading system.

       Second, the concept that the FTAAP will be negotiated outside of APEC but will remain parallel with the APEC process is understandable. The reason is that Leaders have stated that APEC will continue to adhere to the nonbinding and voluntary principles. Since FTAs are binding in nature, it is only logical that the FTAAP would be negotiated outside of APEC. However, the Leaders have also said that APEC will continue to provide guidance to the FTAAP. Thus the FTAAP will be paralleled with the APEC process.

       Third, the Leaders' notion that greater efforts must be made to advance the pathways to the FTAAP, consisting of the TPP and the RCEP, is valid. The reason is that the TPP and the RCEP are the two most viable pathways to the FTAAP. Thus the conclusion of the current TPP and the RCEP negotiations would push forward the advancement of the FTAAP. If the members of the TPP and RCEP are truly interested in ensuring that they are the pathways to the FTAAP, they would seek to make sure that they are attractive to the FTAAP members or APEC. There is the possibility that a race would take place between the TPP and the RCEP to see which one of them is more suitable to be the only one pathway to the FTAAP. Another possibility is that both the TPP and the RCEP would in the end be considered by APEC to be equal pathways to the FTAAP. This means that APEC members would be able to join both the TPP and the RCEP or to join just one of the two. The two FTAs will be considered to be the FTAAP.

Suggestions

In order to advance the achievement of the FTAAP, Leaders have also called for actions to do so in the Annex A of the 2014 APEC Leaders' Declaration. Leaders have said that a collective strategic study will be conducted. A suggestion for the study is that APEC should clarify the meaning of the FTAAP to be negotiated outside of APEC but will be paralleled with the APEC process. Since APEC has developed the FTAAP idea, it will be more beneficial to APEC members if APEC can play a major role in realizing the FTAAP.

In addition, it is suggested that the study analyzes the issue of the TPP and the RCEP to be pathways to the FTAAP. It is valid to say that both the TPP and the RCEP are viable pathways to the FTAAP, since they are expected to be concluded sooner or later. Therefore, the fastest way to realize the FTAAP would be when the TPP and the RCEP members as well as APEC members all agree that APEC members could join both the TPP and the RCEP or only one of the two.

References:

1. APEC. 2014. ''Annex A - The Beijing Roadmap for APEC's Contribution to the
Realization of the FTAAP.'' Singapore: APEC Secretariat.
2. ABAC. 2014. ''2014 ABAC Report to APEC Economic Leaders.'' Manila: ABAC
Secretariat.

Following Silk Roads to a Consolidated Asia: Chinese New Diplomatic Strategy

Wayne Chen

Against the ''APEC Blue'' appeared surprisingly in the clear Beijing sky during the APEC Leaders' Week, by hosting APEC 2014, China demonstrated its rising leadership in the Asia-Pacific and determined actions in consolidating partnership in the neighborhood. From the First Island Chain to the west, China is rapidly transforming into a geopolitical big power dramatically following its ''One Belt, One Road'' strategy, which is continuously advanced by a series of infrastructure investment in developing countries. In an APEC context, China is strengthening regional cooperation from the Pacific Ocean to the Baltic Sea by improving cooperation on physical connectivity among neighbor states. Through the set-up of a network of transportation that connects Eastern, Western and Southern Asia, China is emerging in the center of the continent which plays as a new economic engine.

One Belt, One Road as a Two-Way Blueprint

       One Belt, One Road, the ambitious strategy was revealed for the first time during Xin Jinping's visit in Indonesia before the APEC Leaders' Week in 2013 where he called for the establishment of a new maritime silk road between China and Southeast Asian neighbors, particularly the 10 member Following Silk Roads to a Consolidated Asia: Chinese New Diplomatic Strategy Wayne.Chen states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Xi also proposed to establish the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) to accelerate the realization of the One Belt, One Road strategy. Borrowing the ancient commercial route: the 21st century maritime silk road (the One Road), through which ancient Chinese merchants transported silk and commodities from other countries, China emphasized the significance of Southeast Asian states as hubs and partners to Chinese economic development and diplomatic policy. While the One Road strategy is strengthening the tie with ASEAN, South Asian and African countries through the sea, the land-based New Silk Road Economic Belt (the One Belt), starts from central China and goes through Central Asia, Iran, Turkey before reaching Moscow and Rotterdam in Europe, aims to engage with neighbor states on the continents.

       At current stage in promoting the One Belt, One Road diplomacy policy, China is working intensively in a wide range of regional and international arenas, namely the APEC, ASEAN++, and Shanghai Cooperation organization (SCO), while the former two involves members in the Road and the later includes economies in the Belt. A series of consolidation started in August when Xi paid a state visit to Mongolia that shares a long border with China and depends greatly on natural resources exports, especially coal and copper. After Xi's visit, 24 Memoranda of Understanding and Agreements were signed and ties between the two countries were upgraded to a comprehensive strategic partnership. These agreements facilitate transport across the Mongolian-Chinese border; increase access to 6 sea ports, including Tianjin, Dalian, and Jinzhou, in China for Mongolian exports, and; provides potential access to Chinese financing, specifically for mineral resource and infrastructure development in Mongolia.

      Soon after in September, Xi attended the 14th Council of Heads of State of SCO in Dushanbe, followed by state visits to Tajikistan, Maldives, Sri Lanka and India. Xi's 9-day trip drove two ''wheels'' of security and economy simultaneously for the development or relations with Eurasian countries, and extended invitation to member states for their active participation in the joint construction of the Silk Road Economic Belt as well as the establishment of an SCO development fund and an SCO development bank.

Fuelling Infrastructure Development with Financial Resources

       A remarkable leap was made on 24th October when 21 Asian countries, including Bangladesh, Brunei, Cambodia, China, India, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Laos, Malaysia, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, Oman, Pakistan, the Philippines, Qatar, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Uzbekistan and Vietnam, signed the Memorandum of Understanding on Establishing AIIB. The Memorandum of Understanding specifies that the authorized capital of AIIB is 100 billion U.S. dollars and the initial subscribed capital is expected to be around 50 billion dollars. Beijing will be the host city for AIIB's headquarters and AIIB will be formally established by the end of 2015.

       AIIB functions as a new inter-governmental regional development institute in Asia and thus could be considered as an alternative to the Bretton Woods institutions, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, and the Asian Development Bank which is current premier institute on infrastructure development in the East Asia. Nevertheless, AIIB has won China great support of neighbor states. 8th November, 3 days before the APEC Economic Leaders Meeting, China hosted the Dialogue on Strengthening Connectivity Partnership joined by heads of Bangladesh, Cambodia, Laos, Mongolia, Myanmar, Pakistan and Tajikistan, along with representatives of the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific and the SCO. At the Dialogue, Xi announced the creation of the Silk Road Fund and that China would contribute US$40 million as the first input. The fund is expected to scale up to $40 billion for financing construction of infrastructure across Asia linking China with three continents over land and sea, with railroads, pipelines and roadways.

       On the other hand, the Marine Silk Road Bank was also created and would have a minimum in paid-in capital of 5 billion yuan ($816.23 million) funded by the Marine Silk Road Investment Management Fund and ASEAN member countries.

Skepticism and Resistance

Facing the rapid progress of infrastructure investment along the One Belt, One Road the international community has responded in both appreciation and concern. Some believe the economic belts demonstrates a win-win approach by simply building a transportation corridor, wrapping up economic aid programs in achieving China's goals, and every participant states will benefit from it. Others are cautious that China will use its economic strength to change the geopolitical power situation in Eurasia. Moscow, for example, is watching and at the same time cooperating with China closely considering that the China-led Silk Road may divert the momentum needed by the multi-billion-dollar infrastructure projects in Siberia, including a $47 billion upgrade of the Trans-Siberian Railway and the Baikal-Amur route, and creating a northern sea route over the Arctic. Meanwhile, the United States probably represents the strongest opposition viewing the One Belt, One Road is consolidating allies and foes behind the First Island Chains and can be competitive if not rivalry at all to the ''Rebalancing Asia'' strategy led by the US.

Saturday, September 20, 2014

Strengthening APEC's Role in Regional Economic Integration

Chen Ho

Introduction

In recent years, APEC has begun to consider the realization of a Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP). The FTAAP goal is more ambitious than the Bogor Goals. The development indicates that APEC is seeking to enhance regional economic integration (REI) through deeper trade and investment liberalization and facilitation as well as economic and technical cooperation. At the same time, APEC members are also forming free trade agreements (FTAs) in the form of Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). APEC has regarded RCEP, TPP and other regional undertakings to be pathways to an FTAAP. The main purpose of the article is to provide suggestions for APEC to enhance REI through the building of the trilateral relationship among FTAAP, TPP and RCEP.

Development of an FTAAP

In the "2004 ABAC Report to Leaders," ABAC suggested the development of an FTAAP. ABAC called for APEC Leaders to show strong political commitment to negotiate a region-wide agreement that would bring economic benefits to members. An FTAAP would accelerate the achievement of the Bogor Goals and minimize the negative effects from the proliferation of complex web of FTAs (ABAC 2004).

Subsequently, the views of APEC on the creation of an FTAAP were stated in the various annual APEC Leaders' Declarations. The 2004 Leaders' Declaration mentioned that ABAC had presented a relevant proposal regarding the need to study the feasibility of an FTAAP (APEC 2004). In 2006, the Leaders' Declaration said that difficulties in negotiating an FTAAP existed but APEC should undertake studies on ways to promote REI and FTAAP. The creation of an FTAAP will be a long-term prospect (APEC 2006). By 2008, Leaders had mentioned in the Declaration that an FTAAP could bring economic benefit to the region but challenges existed. The Leaders called on Ministers to examine the prospects of an FTAAP through analyzing the economic impact of an FTAAP as well as discussing the capacity requirements that would be needed for negotiations in the future (APEC 2008).

The most important milestone for the FTAAP idea was reached in 2010 when the APEC Leaders stated in their Declaration that APEC will take concrete steps to realize an FTAAP. The Leaders further said that an FTAAP should be a comprehensive free trade agreement that will build on regional undertakings, such as ASEAN+3, ASEAN+6 and the Trans- Pacific Partnership. In addition, APEC will serve as an incubator of an FTAAP through the provision of leadership and intellectual input into its development (APEC 2010).

Afterwards, the support for attaining an FTAAP seems to lose momentum without mentioning a free trade agreement. In the 2012 Leaders' Declaration, Leaders mentioned that they recognized FTAAP to be an important instrument to advance APEC's REI. In addition, they noted that the various regional undertakings could serve as a way towards an FTAAP. The Leaders also maintained that APEC will continue to be an incubator of an FTAAP and will also provide leadership and intellectual input (APEC 2012). APEC Leaders mentioned in the 2013 Declaration that they reaffirmed their commitment to realize an FTAAP. APEC will continue to offer leadership and intellectual input into the REI process (APEC 2013).

With China as the 2014 APEC host, the APEC's work towards achieving an FTAAP is showing signs of renewed vigor. One of the priorities for APEC in 2014 is: "Advancing Regional Economic Integration." Specifically, APEC will pursue the realization of an FTAAP through the creation of favorable conditions for FTAAP (APEC ISOM 2013).

During the 2014 SOM1 Meeting in Ningbo, China presented a proposal titled "APEC Framework of Strengthening Regional Economic Integration." The proposal seeks to enhance the realization of an FTAAP. The framework consists of four elements: 1) Enhance transparency of RTAs/FTAs; 2) Strengthen capacity building activities to achieve an FTAAP; 3) Formulate a work plan to realize an FTAAP; and 4) Launch an FTAAP feasibility study (APEC SOM1 2014).

Most importantly, the proposal calls for the development of a work plan or roadmap. Essentially, the roadmap will identify the steps toward an FTAAP. In addition, the roadmap will clarify major principles focusing on the relationship between the pathways and an FTAAP as well as the relation between an FTAAP and the Bogor Goals. Furthermore, the proposal suggests the year 2025 to be the deadline to realize an FTAAP (APEC SOM1 2014).

Analyzing the FTAAP-TPP-RCEP Relationship

The APEC Leaders' support for ensuring that an FTAAP will be built on regional undertakings was clearly stated in the 2010 Declaration, as mentioned in the literature review. In the 2013 APEC MRT Meeting Statement, Ministers agreed that APEC will analyze the convergence of TPP and RCEP within the APEC framework (APEC MRT 2013). Specifically, there is a need to study ways to converge TPP and RCEP with an FTAAP.

In theory, one way to enhance the convergence of TPP and RCEP with an FTAAP would be to ensure that the rules of the TPP and RCEP are as similar as possible. After doing so, APEC could state that the two FTAs have led to the realization of an FTAAP in which an FTAAP is define to be a free trade area with loose meaning and not a formal agreement. In addition, if an FTAAP is regarded to be a formal free trade agreement, an FTAAP agreement could be composed of rules from the TPP and RCEP.

If an FTAAP is an idea and not a formal agreement, another way to converge the two major FTAs in the Asia-Pacific region would be the enabling of open membership for APEC members. This way can be called membership convergence. From a technical standpoint, this method is feasible in that the two FTAs can develop their own rules. The APEC members will be able to join the two FTAs, as long as they are willing to accept the rules. At the same time, the members of the two FTAs will become APEC members. Thus the TPP and RCEP are linked with an FTAAP through membership convergence. The benefit is that businesses in the Asia-Pacific region will be able to choose the FTA that satisfies their needs the most.

Suggestions

First, it is suggested that APEC continues to support the open regionalism idea. APEC's realization of an FTAAP should include the support for the WTO and ensure that non-APEC members are not discriminated. APEC should show to the world that the creation of a free trade area will also be beneficial to non-APEC members.

Second, APEC membership in the future should be enlarged to further advance an FTAAP. The expansion of APEC membership would increase the size of an FTAAP. Economies that touch the Pacific Ocean should be able to join APEC. Furthermore, economies that border the economies touching the Pacific Ocean should also become APEC members. The outcome is the building of a seamless regional economy and the generation of greater benefits from an enlarged FTAAP.

Third, APEC should work to ensure that TPP and RCEP can be joined by APEC members, as long as their rules are followed. In doing so, the FTAAPTPP- RCEP relationship will be strengthened. At the same time, APEC will consider an FTAAP to be a free trade area and not a formal agreement. The TPP and RCEP will jointly serve as an informal FTAAP without a formal agreement. Additionally, members of RCEP and TPP can become APEC members. The benefit is that APEC will not need to spend tremendous amount of resources to negotiate a formal free trade agreement to realize an FTAAP.

References:

1.ABAC. 2004. "2004 ABAC Report to Leaders." Manila: ABAC Secretariat.

2.APEC. 2004. "2004 APEC Leaders Declaration." Singapore: APEC Secretariat.

3.APEC. 2006. "2006 APEC Leaders Declaration." Singapore: APEC Secretariat.

4.APEC. 2008. "2008 APEC Leaders Declaration." Singapore: APEC Secretariat.

5.APEC. 2010. "2010 APEC Leaders Declaration." Singapore: APEC Secretariat.

6.APEC. 2012. "2012 APEC Leaders Declaration." Singapore: APEC Secretariat.

7.APEC. 2013. "2013 APEC Leaders Declaration." Singapore: APEC Secretariat.

8. APEC ISOM. 2013. "Theme and Priorities of APEC 2014." Singapore: APEC Secretariat.

9. APEC MRT. 2013. "2013 APEC MRT Meeting Statement." Singapore: APEC Secretariat.

10. APEC SOM1. 2014. "APEC Framework of Strengthening Regional Economic Integration." Singapore: APEC Secretariat.

Pages

Monday, September 21, 2015

George Manzano and Kristine Joy Martin

Why does APEC have to raise inclusiveness in GVCs as a policy objective?

Inclusiveness at the extensive margin

Inclusiveness at the intensive margin

MSMEs

Linkages

Final Remarks

References:

Wayne Chen

Emergence of Growth Strategy

Emergence of Growth Strategy

Applications of the APEC Growth Strategy

Looking Forward

Chen-Sheng Ho

Background

2015 G20 Priorities

2015 APEC Priorities

Seeking Closer APEC-G20-OECD Cooperation

References:

Monday, June 22, 2015

Chen Ho

Introduction

Main Points of the Sessions

Comments and Suggestions

Reference

Tzu-ying Chen

References:

Wayne Chen

References:

Friday, March 20, 2015

Eric Chiou

Wayne Chen

Reducing Barriers to SMEs Trading in the Region

Fostering SMEs' Participation in the Regional and Global Economy

References:

Chen-Sheng Ho

Introduction

The APEC Beijing FTAAP Roadmap

Analyzing the APEC Beijing FTAAP Roadmap

Suggestions

References:

Monday, December 22, 2014

Chen-Sheng Ho

Introduction

Analyzing the Roadmap

Suggestions

References:

Wayne Chen

One Belt, One Road as a Two-Way Blueprint

Fuelling Infrastructure Development with Financial Resources

Skepticism and Resistance

Saturday, September 20, 2014

Chen Ho

Introduction

Development of an FTAAP

Analyzing the FTAAP-TPP-RCEP Relationship

Suggestions

References: