EU enlargement and the rise of Asian FTAs: Implications for Asia-Europe relations

  Over the past few years, there has been resurgence in regionalism and preferential trade across the global economic system. The European Union has taken steps at enlargement of their economic community to include countries in Central and Eastern Europe. Bilateral trade arrangements are proliferating in Asia involving the region's largest economies Japan and China. These arrangements mirror similar initiatives in the Americas. These developments have profound implications on the world trading system, in general, and to Asia-Europe relations in particular. The rise of preferentialism runs the risk of heightened discrimination, trade diversion and the fragmentation of the multilateral trade order. This prospect will have a direct impact on the future relations between Asia and Europe. Both Europe and Asia should remain outward oriented, open to reciprocal arrangements with non-member economies, and supportive of the multilateral trading system.     

The emergence of post-crisis regional financial institutions in Asia—with a little help from Europe

Faced with the negative impact of regional and global financial crises, Asian countries have established joint-solution mechanisms over the last two decades in order to better protect themselves from short-term outflows of capital and from currency speculation. Despite some progress being made in regional financial cooperation, especially by the countries of the ASEAN+3 grouping, the overall degree of financial integration within the region remains surprisingly low, however. This contrasts sharply with the keen interest of many Asian countries in gaining a stronger voice within the multinational finance institutions (MFIs), and especially within the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Unable to initiate major governance reforms of the MFIs, Asian countries have not only set up regional support liquidity arrangements but also their own multilateral development banks (MDBs). While the USA and to some extent Japan have tried to prevent a rebalancing of power within the global financial architecture, major European countries have actively supported these changes by becoming founding members of the China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). Taking a New Institutional Economics (NIE) perspective, the paper aims to explain why some regional financial institutions are more attractive for Asian countries than others and why European countries are supporting Asia’s attempt to gain more weight in global financial governance (GFG)—and, thus, contribute to the acceleration of the power shift away from the USA toward emerging Asian economies in general and China in particular.     

构建大湄公河次区域争端解决机制的思考——以区域贸易争端解决机制模式为鉴

大湄公河次区域经济合作（以下简称GMS）于1992年由亚洲开发银行发起，涉及流域内中国、缅甸、老挝、泰国、柬埔寨和越南等6个国家。对任何贸易体制而言，无论是全球性的多边贸易体制，还是区域性的双边或周边贸易体制，争端解决机制是其贸易规则中必不可少的内容。对GMS来说同样如此。因为，无论GMS贸易自由化规则设计得如何科学合理，若没有一套有效的争端解决机制作为其实施的后盾，6国之间的贸易纠纷就无法得到及时有效的解决，     

东亚各国经济周期同步性发展的现实条件分析

伴随着东亚地区生产要素的加速流动和区域经济一体化的进程,各经济体之间相互依存和互为影响的关系愈益显现。本文从区域产业内贸易、对外直接投资流动、区域金融发展与合作、区域贸易安排的视角分析东亚经济周期同步性发展的现实条件,并认为东亚各国经济周期同步性逐渐形成。     

“上海合作组织”框架下的中国与中亚国家金融合作目标及途径

金融合作是“上海合作组织”各国经济合作的重要领域,也是实现区域经济一体化的前提条件。在金融合作尚处于初级阶段的情况下,确定合理科学的金融合作目标,探索切实可行的金融合作途径,对于推动“上海合作组织”的金融合作进程具有十分重要的意义。根据《上海合作组织成员国多边经贸合作纲要》的原则,“上海合作组织”框架下的金融合作应分阶段进行,目标规划也应该划分为近期、中期和远期三个阶段。当前的工作重点是,积极推动成员国之间双边或多边的功能性金融合作。合作的具体进程要采取“双轮驱动”策略:既要开展以银行业务和功能完善为特征的金融合作;又要开展以金融组织和机制创新为特征的金融合作。     

Whither East Asian economic integration? Korea��s regionalization cum globalization strategy

The recent regionalization in East Asia can be defined in terms of regionalization cum globalization. In the case of Europe, regionalization was originally intended to create a preferential and protected area. From its inception, however, regionalization in East Asia emphasized open membership and global liberalization. This so-called open regionalism was then adopted as a fundamental principle of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). Given that APEC is an inter-regional institution, however, the concept of open regionalism is not applicable to characterize exclusively Asian integration process that gained momentum on the basis of the ASEAN + 3 framework. For many East Asian countries, a regionalization initiative, especially after the 1997 financial crisis, was a natural response to cope with globalization. Indeed, although East Asian economies are increasingly regionalized, the global market remains crucial and exclusively Asian arrangements are still rare. Globalization and regionalization processes are mutually reinforcing. Singapore is one example that developed into a regional economic hub through the regionalization cum globalization strategy. Given that Korea concluded recently two important free trade areas with the USA and the EU, Korea is also capable of building such a regional economic hub. The first step is to strengthen a cooperation network between the three Northeast Asian countries, China, Japan, and Korea. This network, together with ASEAN, is expected to catalyze the regional integration in East Asia and shape its future evolution.     

Trade liberalization and the new regionalism in the Asia-Pacific: taking stock of recent events

In the aftermath of the regional financial crisis of 1997–98,many Asian economies have underscored the need consciously andaggressively to explore alternative liberalization paths or‘fallback positions’. This is where the ‘newregionalism’ or new regional trade agreements (RTAs) becomerelevant. This paper explores some of the primary rationalebehind, and main concerns regarding, the proliferation of bilateraland plurilateral trade pacts in the Asia-Pacific region. Italso considers the ‘dynamic time path’ of AsianRTAs. Do they facilitate or hinder multilateral trade liberalization?     

Salvaging the Trans-Pacific Partnership: building blocks for regional and multilateral trade opening?

The high hopes that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) would open up trade across the Pacific were dashed by the decision of the new US Government under President Trump to withdraw from the agreement in January 2017. Despite being controversial, the TPP had been recognized as an agreement that substantially updates and extends international trade rules responding to new technological developments and economic realities. It was thus lauded by some as the first true twenty-first century trade agreement. The United States’ withdrawal from TPP gives the agreement an uncertain future. Yet, we argue in this paper that some achievements of the TPP might not be lost. The TPP offers important lessons for other ambitious regional trade deals both in terms of process and content. Furthermore, several chapters of the TPP can become blueprints for ongoing and upcoming negotiations at the multilateral level. A one-to-one transposition of TPP provisions into the multilateral trade agreement is unlikely, yet certain provisions could serve as valuable inspiration for future multilateral trade talks.     

全球区域经济一体化新趋势与中国的FTA策略选择

进入21世纪以来,以自由贸易协定(FTA)为主要形式的区域经济一体化浪潮在全球风起云涌并呈现出新的发展趋势。在此背景下,中国应当进一步顺应区域经济一体化发展的潮流,采取多维灵活的FTA战略,积极稳妥渐进地开展自由贸易区工作,逐步形成全球自由贸易区合作网络,在地区双边和多边贸易自由化进程中发挥更积极作用。     

Are Free Trade Areas Good for Multilateralism? Evidence from the European Free Trade Association

Do free trade agreements (FTAs) help or hinder multilateral trade liberalization? This question, though much debated, remains unanswered because (1) there has been scant attention to the conditions under which FTAs have either effect, and (2) extant hypotheses have not been rigorously tested. In this article I identify conditions under which FTAs help and hinder broader trade liberalization: they do the former when members' intra– and extra–FTA comparative advantages are similar and the latter when the opposite is true. I test these hypotheses using trade, output, and tariff data from the European Free Trade Association. The trade data indicate that members with similar intra– and extra–FTA comparative advantages liberalized trade more rapidly than those with dissimilar comparative advantages. The output and tariff data suggest that these differences among members reflect hypothesized economic and political processes. My research implies that scholars should abandon universalistic arguments concerning the effects of regional arrangements and devote more attention to the conditions governing the relationship between regionalism and multilateralism.     

Learning geoeconomics: China’s experimental financial and monetary initiatives

China’s rise is increasingly impacting on the global financial and monetary order. To manage its growing centrality in global financial flows and its new relevance for patterns of currency usage, Beijing has been creating a set of new institutional arrangements in three crucial fields: the provision of crisis liquidity, development financing, and a global infrastructure to internationalize its currency. In contrast to the dominant power political interpretation of such developments, this article highlights the strong linkages of Beijing’s new initiatives with the changes in China’s capitalist development path and stresses their experimental character that serves to manage the economic and political risks of China’s accelerating financial internationalization. With a distinct learning attitude regarding its rising geoeconomic prominence and engagement, Beijing’s risk-averse strategy involves a very careful linking, layering, and nesting of new arrangements.     

Global Economic Governance between China and the EU: the case of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank

The recent establishment of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), the initiative launched by the People’s Republic of China in 2013 underpins Beijing’s intensions to promote its own narrative about global economic governance (GEG) as well as China’s readiness to play a far more proactive role at the international level. In the age of global power shifting and with 14 EU member-states part of the AIIB, the European Union (EU) necessitates to engage further with China, in particular, within the context of multilateral institutions. This article analyses the impact of China’s evolving global governance policies on the EU. China’s and EU’s approaches to the reform of global governance present both differences and similarities, yet, the article highlights EU’s needs to make sense to what extent China’s growing ascent in the realm of global governance is reshaping world’s regional and global architectures vis-à-vis financial multilateral cooperation.     

全球安全倡议的文明基底、理论逻辑与实践路径

全球安全倡议根植于中华文明的连续性、创新性、统一性、包容性与和平性，并因此展现出以合作安全、开放安全、共同安全与多边安全为特征的理论逻辑。美国出于维护其全球霸权的动机，对亚太地区施加以竞争安全、封闭安全、分割安全和单边安全为特征的传统安全范式，导致该地区大国战略博弈日益加剧、安全阵营化趋势加快、安全困境螺旋上升和非传统安全竞争日趋升温，破坏了该地区的和平与稳定。全球安全倡议提供了一个新的安全范式，即以合作安全应对竞争安全、以开放安全对抗封闭安全、以共同安全替代分割安全、以多边安全超越单边安全。针对美国推行遏制中国的“印太战略”，全球安全倡议为实现亚太地区的普遍安全和持久和平提供了实践路径，包括促进地区大国良性互动、完善以东盟为中心的地区安全机制、塑造地区国家间的相互信任，以及强化地区非传统安全合作。     

The European Union’s trade and investment policy in Asia: new challenges and opportunities in a changing global environment – or: following individual roadmaps

Asia is Europe’s largest trading partner and EU-Asia trade relations have undergone a rapid change since the global financial crisis. On a global scale, the new multilateral trade agreements such as the now stalled Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) involving European Unions’ (EU) major trading partners such as Japan, Singapore and Vietnam also have the potential to change the trade equations. In this paper, we evaluate the new EU trade policy which has been designed to ensure that the EU benefits from the changing global trade scenario and also look at the steps which have been taken by the EU to promote trade relations with its major trading partners in Asia in the predicted ‘Asian century’. We look into the Free Trade Agreements, which are being negotiated with its Asian partners and seek to understand the reasons which have resulted in delays in their signing and negotiations. We evaluate new policies pushed forward by its Asian partners such as the One Belt One Road policy by China and Japan’s policy of securing a large number of trading agreements in the America. Moving ahead, we also shed light on the indirect factors that may influence the success of EU trade negotiations in Asia such as the EU policy on granting China market economy status and the commencement of the ‘Brexit’ process. Lastly, we try to present a list of immediate priorities for EU in Asia, which will ensure that it secures a toehold in trade with the region. All in all, it is shown that the EU has not one and the same approach for all Asian countries but it negotiates flexibly and individually country by country. Because of this “country by country approach” the EU is also not ready to enter into general EU-ASEAN trade negotiations again.     

Comparing regional organisations in global multilateral institutions: ASEAN, the EU and the UN

Structural change brought about by the end of the Cold War and accelerated globalisation have transformed the global environment. A global governance complex is emerging, characterised by an ever-greater functional and regulatory role for multilateral organisations such as the United Nations (UN) and its associated agencies. The evolving global governance framework has created opportunities for regional organisations to participate as actors within the UN (and other multilateral institutions). This article compares the European Union (EU) and Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) as actors within the UN network. It begins by extrapolating framework conditions for the emergence of EU and ASEAN actorness from the literature. The core argument of this article is that EU and ASEAN actorness is evolving in two succinct stages: Changes in the global environment create opportunities for the participation of regional organisations in global governance institutions, exposing representation and cohesion problems at the regional level. In response, ASEAN and the EU have initiated processes of institutional adaptation.     

Securitising proliferation, failing security governance: the European Union’s role in India and Pakistan’s nuclear rivalry

In 2003, the European Union declared the threat of weapons of mass destruction ‘potentially the greatest threat to our security’ and increasingly called for the issue of nuclear proliferation to be managed within its preferred multilateral security governance frameworks. In spite of this, and the increased securitisation of proliferation, the EU has fundamentally continued its historical record of failing to engage with India and Pakistan’s nuclear rivalry, and has not been able to move significantly beyond a relationship with South Asia based on trade and aid. This is deeply problematic given the regional instability posed by the Indo-Pakistani enduring rivalry, and the fact that Pakistan is not only an unstable nuclear weapons state, but has been known to harbour international terrorists and nuclear proliferators. Given these conditions, as the EU acknowledges, the stakes of failing to engage could not be higher. A deeper analysis of EU engagement, however, demonstrates that EU security governance is limited, ineffectual, inconsistent and largely perceived as neo-colonial in what is the world’s most likely nuclear flashpoint. If the EU is to be considered a global actor in security governance, a key objective of the Treaty of Lisbon, then this needs to be redressed.     

进一步加强中印在国际金融危机之下的经贸合作

2008年始发于美国的国际金融危机给世界经济造成了普遍影响并使之遭受严重衰退,尤其在＂后危机时代＂加增了其复苏的困难,但世界最大的两个发展中国家中国和印度却在危机中一直表现出色,不仅率先恢复了自身经济的活力与增长,而且继续保持了地区及全球＂经济增长引擎＂的地位,这充分凸显出两国进一步加强经贸合作的必要性和重要性。     

清朝前期海南与越南的大米贸易

海南与越南之间的贸易往来历史悠久。由于海南和越南在地理环境、经济社会发展、政府优惠政策等多方面的原因,即使在清朝前期海禁期间,海南和越南之间的贸易特别是大米贸易仍然得到迅速发展,在南海区域多边贸易史上占有特殊的地位。     

The ambivalent influence of the domestic industries on India’s meandering foreign economic policies

Most of the Indian government’s bi- and multilateral trade initiatives are stuck in political deadlock. At the same time, the unilateral measures are lurching between trade restricting and liberalizing policies. By conducting detailed investigations into the process of the trade policy formulation in three industries, this article seeks to discern the societal pressures that are driving the government’s trade preferences and policies. The empirical results show that the government’s tortuous dealings can be explained by two impulses of the domestic industries that have been emanated by the opening of the economy in the 1990s. Most of the domestic industries—grappling with competition from abroad—will call for some form of protection from the global markets. These compulsions, however, endanger the benefits that other domestic industries derive from the global markets—through the access to intermediate goods, foreign investments or export opportunities. This is why they will militate against protectionist interventions. The outcome is an overall consolidation of the open trade regime, which is, however, frequently upset by spats between different domestic industries over the formulation of trade policies.     

Responses to Financial Crises: An Evolutionary Perspective

As the world currently faces the ever-deepening sub-prime crisis, we are reminded that the process of globalisation can cause significant disruptions in global markets and political systems. This article focuses on the evolution of financial crisis responses to gain a better understanding of the dynamics affecting current responses. By using a focused comparison of case studies it argues that the development of crisis response and the dominance of the current multilateral actors is a result of an evolutionary process. This process privileges learning and innovation within a complex political economic system. The crises of each era, born of many of the same problems, generate a variety of responding actors, a few of which are adopted. These actors help to address the immediate problems and even work well for a while. Eventually, they are overwhelmed by the tendency of financial interactions to grow. Another set of crises generates another round of actors and mechanisms. As time goes on, crisis response requires more formal institutions that can deal with more complex systems. The article concludes that response actors are becoming more public, multilateral and global in scope. Understanding this pattern of response should help to shed light on the potential for reform of the financial architecture and help to explain the dominance of multilateralism as a crisis response.