全球金融危机下东亚货币金融合作的路径选择

当前的"美元体制"在今后相当长时期内具有可持续性.正是在布雷顿森林体制和"美元体制"下,东亚各经济体的工业化和经济发展取得了巨大成功,成为"美元体制"的主要受益者和支撑者,也自然成为全球金融危机的主要受害者.现阶段的东亚货币金融合作巴经取得了一定进展,但东亚各经济体尚不具备推进国际货币体系改革的能力;同时,东亚货币金融合作应改变应对危机的实用主义哲学,以促进区域经济的持续、稳定增长为目标进行更加长远的路径设计,在区域整体层面和局部层面两个层次上加快货币金融合作的深化发展.在此过程中,人民币国际化战略的实施将使中国在区域货币金融合作中占据较为有利的地位,但其能否成功一方面取决于中国经济结构能否进行顺利的调整,使中国成为能够替代美国的区域内最终产品市场的提供者,另一方面也取决于中日两国能否比较顺利地开展汇率政策的协调与合作.东亚地区复杂的历史、文化、政治和社会背景等因素,决定了该地区难以出现"一家独大"式的货币合作模式.因此,中日两目的协调与合作在很大程度上决定着东亚货币金融合作的未来.     

东亚货币合作的现状与开展

20世纪90年代世界经济的主要热点之一就是货币与金融问题。自1997年东亚金融危机后 ,东亚地区一直在寻求货币合作 ,以防止危机的再次爆发。本文从危机中各经济体和IMF的作用以及各经济体的现状出发 ,通过分析发现在东亚实行货币一体化还为时过早 ,但可实行一些较低层次的货币合作 ,如联盟性质的协调合作机制 ,分阶段实现建立AMF的目标。     

论东亚货币基金的创建

亚洲金融危机使得东亚地区的货币合作提上日程。《清迈协议》的达成 ,即“10 +3”(东盟 10国加中、日、韩 )框架下的双边货币互换协议的陆续签定 ,标志着东亚区域货币合作迈出了具有历史意义的第 1步。然而 ,货币互换只是货币合作的最初形态 ,随着东亚区域经济一体化的进展 ,货币互换合作必将向更高层次的货币基金合作的方向发展。东亚货币基金的创建不仅是必要的 ,也是可行的。不久的将来EAMF一定会展现在世界人民面前     

奥巴马的东亚政策与地区构建

奥巴马政府上台后的东亚政策不仅显示了美国对东亚地区的重视,还表明了美国在与东亚地区发展关系中将更注重政治、经济、外交等软实力的运用。其思路也逐渐清晰,即以保持美国在东亚地区的战略主导权为核心。而围绕这个核心有三条主线:一是整个战略继续以日美同盟为主轴的军事同盟体系和伙伴国为依托,保持美国在东亚的军事地位;二是加强与东盟等区域合作组织的联系,引导其发展方向符合美国利益;三是以对话方式与中国进行战略博弈,以免中国挑战美国的霸权。东亚地区构建也将出现新的形势:美国跨太平洋区域构建面临多重挑战;东亚合作更加开放与包容;东亚区域合作更加倚重东亚核心国家合作的深入。     

美国与东亚经济失衡及东亚区域合作构想

美国与东亚经济失衡与摩擦对东亚区域经济一体化的影响巨大而复杂。一方面,为应对与美国的经济摩擦,东亚先进经济体往往通过对外直接投资将国内失去比较优势的产业转移到区内后进经济体,将其作为自己的出口平台,从而促进东亚地区产业分工与国际生产网络等经济一体化的形成;另一方面,作为东亚区域经济一体化进程中最重要的外部因素,美国对东亚经济一体化的立场、东亚对美国市场和美国货币的非对称依赖都在一定程度上限制了东亚地区一体化的发展。     

东亚货币区的可行性分析

亚洲金融危机之后,为防止金融危机的再次发生和蔓延,东亚国家一直在探计地区货币合作的方式,同时,欧元的正式启动又启发人们思考能否在东亚地区也建立共同货币区以共同防范金融风险.本文试以最优货币区理论,结合东亚地区经济发展现状来论述东亚货币联盟的可行性.     

中国—东盟贸易模型的演进和变迁——从亚洲金融危机到东亚一体化加深（1997～2004年）

过去10年间，东亚经历灾难性的亚洲金融危机和之后的蓬勃发展的区域经济一体化加深两个完全不同的阶段，对东亚地区的经济发展以及世界经济格局都产生了迥异而深远的影响。亚洲金融危机导致东南亚国家和除中国外的东亚国家货币大幅贬值，股票价格和资产价格下跌，许多国家多年的经济繁荣毁于一旦，不仅破坏了东亚乃至全球的金融体系，而且对世界经济增长以及贸易流量产生了严重的消极影响。     

东亚外汇储备的变动及其影响

近年来,外汇储备的增长成为世界范围内的一个普遍现象,而东亚地区外汇储备的急剧增长则尤其引人注目。东亚外汇储备的大幅增加,有其特殊的全球和区域经济背景,也与本地区弹性缺乏的汇率制度有关,同时它也对东亚各经济体的宏观经济调控与管理造成了新的影响。一、近年来东亚地区     

美国金融危机阴影下的东南亚经济

美国金融危机引发全球性经济衰退，对东南亚各国的虚拟与实体经济同样产生严重影响。由于东南亚国家在经历了1997年金融危机之后执行了较为审慎的宏观经济与金融改革，国家层面、地区和泛地区层面的危机应对举措得力，2008年大部分国家的经济基本良好，金融体制依然健康，资本和外贸市场的动荡仍在可控范围内。但随着美国金融危机“溢出”效应的加强，2009年东南亚的实体经济还会受到进一步损害，金融和经济增长仍面临更为严峻的挑战和考验。     

近年中国学界关于东亚一体化的研究述评北大核心CSSCISSCI

东亚一体化进程于1997年亚洲金融危机后正式启动,而当前东亚地区的经济一体化被认为发展"迟滞"甚至陷入"停滞"。中国学界主要用"互信不足论"、"贸易结构差异论"、"经济发展水平差异论"、"三心二意论"、"美国阻挠论"、"主导缺位论"等对其进行解释。2008年全球金融危机后诞生的"跨太平洋伙伴关系协定"(TPP)和"区域全面经济伙伴关系"(RCEP)使东亚经济一体化呈现出多重框架并存的格局,其对东亚一体化的影响以及中国的政策应对是中国学者们关注的焦点,并折射出学者们对"开放的地区主义"理念的不同理解。与此同时,东亚地区的政治和安全合作同样步履蹒跚,在几种合作模式间争论与博弈,学者们为此提出了许多新的东亚安全架构和设想。在不断地翻译和推介西方一体化知识之后,中国学术界应该用自己的话语构建中国或亚洲知识,以"互联互通"构建中国特色的区域合作概念和理论或许是一种不错的尝试。     

Regional and multi-level governance: East Asian leadership after the global financial crisis

Although the economies of East Asia emerged from the global financial crisis of 2008 in comparatively strong positions, they remain structurally embedded within global markets. The degree of regional integration that has occurred within East Asia is thus predicated on the on-going interdependence with the economies of Europe and North America. Moves to advance East Asian regional cooperation in the wake of the crisis reflect this global interdependence, as well as intra-regional differences in interests and a lack of strong leadership within the region. Modest cooperation on an East Asian basis has continued since 2008 but the region is very far from realising a substantive regional governance model on economic and financial issues and does not appear to be pursuing a distinctive governance agenda. This article examines recent developments in East Asian regional cooperation, with a view to assessing the significance of current achievements and explaining the mixed and sometimes contradictory nature of initiatives for regional governance in East Asia.     

Leadership, decision-making and governance in the EU and East Asia: crisis and post-crisis

The global financial crisis of the late 2000s has affected the EU and East Asia differently. The EU has seen its economic, political and social structures undermined by the problems derived from the global crisis and subsequent eurozone sovereign debt crisis. In contrast, East Asia has gone through the global crisis relatively unscathed and has seen its standing at the global level reinforced. As a result, there has been a reconfiguration of leadership, decision-making and governance structures in both regions. In the case of the EU, Germany has emerged as the clear leader of European efforts to solve regional economic problems. Meanwhile, intergovernmentalism has replaced supranationalism as the decision-making and even implementation procedure of choice. Differently, there is no single leader in East Asia. China has become one of the most important powers at the global level, but at the regional level, different countries have shaped East Asia’s response to the crisis. Concurrently, there has been some move towards increasing integration, even though intergovernmentalism still defines governance structures in the region. Thus, the global financial crisis of the late 2000s has helped to shape new leadership, decision-making and governance structures in both regions.     

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。     

东亚共同体:路径、机制与挑战

基于东亚金融危机的体制性原因,东亚一体化提上了议事日程,应该说,这是区域合作的政治构想。然而,作为政治构想的东亚一体化是一种"经济增长型政治"的意图,它走出了一条与欧盟完全不同的路径。首先,在欧洲,以"欧洲人"为核心的欧洲主义成为地域统合的原动力,可是,东亚经济统合缺乏"欧洲人"那种主体性意识,这是一种地域结构性的差异。其次,东盟"10+3"模式是东亚共同体的推进机制,然而,与欧盟比较,东亚缺少一个既有共同政治基础、又有法律约束力的推进机构。再次,冷战从欧洲全面退却,但是,在东亚,"冷战"呈进攻态势,"亚洲主义"成为东亚一体化进程中难以跨越的障碍。最后,文章指出,应以自由贸易协定推进东亚机构建设,以机构推进东亚一体化进程,并推动东亚共同的经济政治制度建设。     

Monetary policy and overinvestment in East Asia and Europe

The paper analyzes the role of monetary policy for cyclical movements of investment and asset markets in East Asia and Europe based on a Mises-Hayek overinvestment framework. It is shown how the gradual global decline of interest rates has triggered wandering overinvestment cycles in Japan, Southeast Asia, and China. Similarly, it is shown how a one-size monetary policy within the European Monetary Union has not preserved the European Monetary Union from idiosyncratic economic development and crisis because of uncoordinated fiscal policies. With monetary policy crisis management being argued to impede financial and economic restructuring, a timely exit from ultra-expansionary monetary policies is recommended for both East Asia and Europe to reconstitute economic stability and growth.     

东亚与美国经贸关系演变与新的发展出路

本文从贸易地位、出口商品结构、贸易结合度梳理了东亚与美国经贸关系的演变。结果显示,源于国际分工模式的改变,中美经贸关系逐年紧密,东亚其余经济体与美国经贸紧密度逐年下降,而对东亚区域内部的依赖远超过对美国的依赖。金融危机带来的全球经济格局和结构的重大调整使东亚出口急剧萎缩,而后危机时期发达国家"无就业复苏"和重振制造业的动向,更使东亚须通过内部经济循环寻求新的发展出路。     

The challenge of institution-building in Asia and its implications for Asia-Europe relations

  East Asia, including Northeast Asia and Southeast Asia, has developed tightly-linked production/distribution networks through globalizing corporate activities. The vertical chain of production in East Asia has been even more sophisticated than economic integration in East Europe or Latin America. However, the political environment of East Asia for trade and investment has been far from borderless. The integration effort at the policy level has been very much limited so far, due to the historical background as well as geopolitics surrounding East Asia. The Asian currency/financial crisis provided these countries a historical turning point. After the burst of the crisis, East Asians realized that they have to take care of themselves in their difficulties, not depending on outside forces. A natural choice for them was to step into the realm of regionalism. In 1998, Japan and Korea officially announced that they would discard the long-lasting GATT/WTO-only approach and adapt the multi-layered approach, including both regionalism and multilateralism. The ultimate goal of regionalism would be a region-wide integration including ASEAN+3. As a steppingstone, Japan signed the Japan-Singapore Economic Partnership Agreement (JSEPA) in January 2002. In a parallel move, the ASEAN and China Leaders announced in November 2001 the establishment of an ASEAN-China Free Trade Area (ACFTA) within 10 years. This article will follow up the most recent advancement of regional institutional building in East Asia with the emphasis on peculiar characteristics of economic integration in the region and discuss its implications for Asia-Europe relations. This paper is heavily drawn from Kimura (2002, 2003).     

金融动荡背景下的中日韩合作及东亚一体化

2007年爆发于美国的次贷危机已扩散和转化为全球性的金融动荡.金融动荡对世界各国、包括中日韩等东亚国家的影响,尤其是短期影响,已有大量研究论及,本文不再重点讨论,而是拟从中日韩合作及东亚一体化的意义上,分析此次金融动荡的效应①.金融动荡、中日韩合作、东亚一体化三者之间的逻辑关系如下:首先,在当前国际环境下,国家维护经济安全必须通过国际合作实现,维护经济安全的紧迫性加快了国际合作的步伐,包括中日韩3国在内的东亚国家亦然;其次,不论是从欧盟的经验还是从当前东亚合作的现状来看,东亚一体化必然从经济领域起步,而维护经济安全的国际合作(主要是金融货币合作)能够提升经济合作层次,为一体化提供政治动力,推动合作的机制化;最后,中日韩3国的合作对东亚地区金融安全起着决定性作用,在现有的东亚合作框架下,中日韩合作也必然扩展为整个地区的合作.     

Invisible Linkages: A Regional Perspective of East Asian Political Economy

This article studies East Asian political economy from a regional perspective. The Asian financial crisis showed that East Asian economies are highly regionalized. However, the linkages among Asian economies, mostly informal in nature, often appear "invisible" to many in the West, who focus more on the states and formal institutions. Drawing on a broad set of literature mostly in Asian languages, this paper provides a systematic study of informal integration in East Asia, which consists of not only regional production networks, but also ethnic Chinese business networks and subregional economic zones. It finds that the three informal mechanisms have formed an interrelated pattern of regional integration in East Asia. The nature of the economic networks is very useful in explaining the Asian crisis and the different performances of East Asian economies in the crisis. The crisis has also resulted in profound changes in informal integration. While the Japanese–led production networks have been greatly weakened, the Chinese Economic Area is rising, driven by the ethnic Chinese business networks and subregional economic zones. As a result, the Japan–dominated "flying geese pattern" has been broken. The connections between Greater China and the United States have also been enhanced and are out–competing the Japanese production networks. Many of the new developments have been ignored in the West but they are key factors that will shape the future of Asian and World political economy.