Search

A salient feature of the East Asian region is the persistent discrepancy between the progress in de facto and de jure economic integration. East Asia has long been said to be the champion of loose regional economic integration, with deepening intra-regional trade and investment linkages in the absence of any formal cooperative scheme. However, an oft-heard claim is that East Asia has been shifting recently towards an institution-based form of regional economic cooperation, primarily as a result of the 1997–98 financial crisis. Next to post-crisis financial cooperative schemes under the ASEAN+3, the surge of Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs) involving East Asian countries is thought by some to further substantiate this claim. The objective of the paper is twofold; first, to assess the validity of the aforementioned claim; and second, to examine the links between de facto and de jure economic integration in East Asia compared to other regions of the world. In the process, the sequencing between trade and monetary cooperation is also addressed. The paper starts by providing a candid assessment of the current state of play of economic cooperation in East Asia (de jure integration), both from the trade and the financial/monetary perspective, and highlights the limitations of the formal regional integration movement in East Asia to date. As a next step, it explores the changing nature of intra-regional trade and investment linkages, contrasts it to the situation in other parts of the world such as Europe and examines to what extent this new form of interdependence may be instrumental in making formal regional economic schemes more attractive. A major conclusion is that de facto trade integration may not automatically lead to deeper regional trade cooperation de jure and that its impact is likely to be stronger on monetary cooperation projects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper argues that East Asian regionalism is fragile, since (i) each nation's industrial competitiveness depends on the smooth functioning of "Factory Asia" — in particular, on intra-regional trade; (ii) the unilateral tariff-cutting that created "Factory Asia" is not subject to WTO discipline (bindings); (iii) there is no "top-level management" to substitute for WTO discipline, i.e., to ensure that bilateral trade tensions — tensions that are inevitable in East Asia — do not spillover into region-wide problems due to lack of cooperation and communication. This paper argues that the window of opportunity for East Asian "vision" was missed; what East Asia needs now is "management", not vision. East Asia should launch a "New East Asian Regional Management Effort", with a reinforced ASEAN + 3 being the most likely candidate for the job. The first priority should be to bind the region's unilateral tariff cuts in the WTO. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We examine statistical importance of a number of institutional factors, which have been alleged by market investors and policy commentators as significant barriers on cross-border portfolio investment in East Asian economies, but never been put to empirical tests yet. Taking advantage of the novel data set constructed by the ABMI-GoE, we empirically investigate the explanatory power of such institutional factors as market access-hindering regulations, foreign exchange controls, credit controls, taxation and inefficient post-trading infrastructure. We find that these alleged barriers indeed have significantly negative impacts on cross-border portfolio investment in East Asian economies. In addition, we find some support for the "pecking order" hypothesis in barriers on cross-border portfolio investment in the sense that barriers on post-trading efficiency and cost barriers are not effective unless barriers on market access are significantly lowered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We develop indicators to measure the degree of economic integration and cooperation among East Asian economies and compare these with similar measures for other regions. Our indicators cover regional integration in trade, investment, financial assets, and people-to-people exchange. We also analyze measures of regional cooperation such as the density of free trade agreements and official policy dialogues. We find that in various Asian groupings, and especially in a group of 16 integrating Asian economies, interdependence in trade, direct investment, financial flows, and other forms of economic and social exchange has increased significantly over time, and now approaches that in the European Union. Nonetheless, Asia's official cooperation remains weak and formal regional institutions remain relatively underdeveloped. To provide insight into the causes of this discrepancy, we also develop quantitative measures of political and cultural similarity of nations, and find that Asian countries have relatively low levels of political and cultural proximity compared to regions such as Europe. The diversity of political interests and cultural values may have hindered more intense cooperation among Asian economies in the past. But if regional economic and social interactions continue to grow, requirements for joint decision-making are also likely to expand, leading to stronger frameworks of official cooperation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]