Search

Singapore’s inward and outward investments with industrialized countries in both manufacturing and service sectors were skill seeking while outward investments to developing countries were labor seeking. Applying the Knowledge-Capital model, it was found that services Foreign Direct Investment is sensitive to skill differences. A tenpercent decline in skill differences with industrialized countries resulted in a 4.25 percent rise in inbound manufacturing and 1.48 percent rise in inbound services investments. Meanwhile, a ten-percent increase in skill differences with developing countries resulted in a 30 percent rise in outbound manufacturing and 0.38 percent rise in services investments. Furthermore, when services are distinguished by skill-intensity, the impact of relative skill endowments on inbound Foreign Direct Investment in skill-intensive services is significantly different from the impact on other services. However, when services are disaggregated by “proximity” needs, we do not find any significant difference in the impact of relative skill endowments on Foreign Direct Investment.

East Asia, for long the epitome of successful engagement in trade, faces serious challenges: technological change that may threaten the very model of labor intensive industrialization and a backlash against globalization that may reduce access to important markets. The analysis in this article suggests that how East Asia copes with these global challenges will depend on how it addresses three more proximate national and regional challenges. The first is the emergence of China as a global trade giant, which is fundamentally altering the trading patterns and opportunities of its neighbors. The second is the asymmetric implementation of national reform – in goods trade and investment versus services – which is affecting the evolution of comparative advantage and productivity in each country. The third is the divergence between the relatively shallow and fragmented agreements that regulate the region's trade and investment and the growing importance of regional and global value chains as crucial drivers of productivity growth.

Small and poor countries pose a challenge for the World Trade Organization (WTO). These countries have acquired a significant say in WTO decision-making. However, they have limited ability to engage in the reciprocity game that is at the heart of the WTO, and have limited interests in the broader liberalization agenda because of their preferential access to industrial country markets. Accommodating the interests of the small and poor countries is desirable in itself, but would also facilitate expeditious progress in the Doha Round. The stark reality facing the system is that the desirable ways of addressing their concerns – providing them additional financial assistance and nonpreferential market access – is proving infeasible. As a result, the system is gravitating toward the less desirable option of relieving these countries of obligations, including those that might be welfare-enhancing for them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We are grateful to the commentators for their valuable observations. We cannot do justice to the full range of comments we have received. Below we respond briefly to some of the issues raised. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]