Table of Contents

APEC- Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum

WTO- World Trade Organization

GATT- General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

G-20- Group of 20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors

SOM- Senior Officials Meeting

CTI- Committee on Trade and Investment

ECOTECH- Economic and Technical Cooperation

BMC- Budget and Management Committee
EC- Economic Committee

CEO- Chief Executive Officer

IPA- Individual Plan of Action

CPA- Collective Plan of Action

FTAAP- Free Trade Area for the Asia-Pacific

ODA- Official Development Assistance

TFAP- Trade Facilitation Action Plan APEC Business Travel Card (ABTC

ADOC- APEC Digital Opportunity Centers

ICT- information and communication technology

KEY TERMS

APEC, GATT, Technology, Bogor, Bilateral, Multilateral, Development, Goals, Organization, Institution, Cross Border, Seoul Declaration, Trade, Investment, Liberalization, Economy.

ABSTRACT

Regional integration is a procedure in which states go into a regional agreement and harmony in order to enhance efficient and effective regional cooperation and mutual consensus through regional institutions and rules which are legally binding after ratification is made. Most regional institutions just like the APEC has basic aim and objective mostly including promoting regional economy, transportation sector, proper and improved market organization and trading activities, and building political, economic and socio-cultural structures of the region. Most times these institutions are faced with issues or challenged such as fear of regional hegemony, language barriers, technological and infrastructural setbacks etc.

INTRODUCTION

The Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation was created in 1989 as a convention with the aim of protecting free trade and economic cooperation across the Asia-Pacific region. It consists of 21 members, who act as a representation of the Pacific Rim State economies (Higgott, 1998). This intergovernmental grouping operates on the basis of non-binding commitments, open dialogue and equal respect for the views of all participants. APEC has no treaty obligations required of its participants; decisions made within APEC are reached by consensus and commitments are undertaken on a voluntary basis.

It was created for many reasons, such as (Howard, J. 2007, April – August);

· Growing interdependence of Asia-Pacific economies.

· The advent of regional trade bloc in other parts of the globe.

· To counter Japanese industrialization that would dominate economic activity in the Asia-Pacific region.

· To establish new markets for agricultural products and raw materials beyond Europe. (Barro, R. J., & Lee, J. 2011).

APEC seeks to find mechanisms for raise living standards and education levels through sustainable economic growth as well as nurturing a sense of community and an acknowledgement of the common interests amid the Asia-Pacific countries (Aggarwal, V. K., & Urata, S. 2006). It consists of newly industrialized economies, and aims to enable the Association of Southeast Asian Nations state economies to consider new export market chances for their natural resources such as natural gas. It also advocated for regional economic integration through foreign direct investment.

Statistics show that ‘members account for approximately 40% of the world’s population, approximately 54% of the world’s gross domestic product and about 44% of world trade (World Bank & ed, 2012).

HISTORY

The conception of APEC was originally publicly mentioned by former Prime Minister of Australia, Robert Hawke, during a speech in Seoul, Korea in January 1989.Later that year, twelve Asia-Pacific economies met in Canberra, Australia, to establish APEC. The founding members were: Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and the United States (Janow & E, 1996)

Initially, APEC met as an informal senior official and Ministerial level dialogue between 1989 and 1992. In 1993, former United States President, William Clinton, established the practice of an annual APEC Economic Leaders' Meeting. The first annual meeting of APEC leaders was held at Blake Island, Washington 1993, to give trade liberalization and economic cooperation further incentive and high level guarantee, to develop the essence of community, and promote viable growth (Downing & Sandra L., 2003).

APEC continued to accept new members and in November 1991; China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan joined. Mexico and Papua New Guinea followed in 1993; and they later accepted Chile as a member in November 1994. Finally, in November 1998, Peru, Russia, and Vietnam were the latest economies to join the organization (Janow & E, 1996).

Even more, in 1999 APEC launched the APEC Open Skies Agreement, the first multilateral air services liberalization agreement in the world (Downing & Sandra L., 2003). Progress continued and in 2001, Leaders endorsed the U.S.-proposed "Shanghai Accord" that emphasized implementation of APEC's commitments to open markets, structural reform, and capacity building.

FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES

APEC fundamental principles are underlinedon the basis of enhancing competition and regulatory reform. It supported open and competitive markers as the key drivers of economic productivity and consumer welfare (Drexl & Ed), 2012).

These principles include (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum 1996):

· Endorsing the vital significance of trade facilitation in achieving a free and open trade and investment in the Asia-Pacific, by producing major benefits for both governments and business, as well as in producing welfare gains for the entire economy;

· Identifying that APEC's trade facilitation work plays a paramountpart in developing business conditions in the region through the creation of a climate which will increase trading opportunities and helps businesses save time and moderate costs (Barro, R. J., & Lee, J. 2011);

· Distinguishing that in assisting trade there should be adequate, and no longertaxing or restrictive than necessary, compliancetoauthentic policy aimsfor instance protection of health and safety, and protection against unlawful activities, for instance commercial fraud and trafficking in illegal goods(Barro, R. J., & Lee, J. 2011);

· Observing APEC's unique approach in developing trade facilitation goals on a voluntary basis and in a cooperative routine with the business sector through the process of individual and collective actions;

· Recognizing and drawing upon the developments already made by different opportunities and sub-opportunities of APEC on trade facilitation, and taking into account trade facilitation work elsewhere (e.g. the World Trade Organization) with anopinion to avoid duplication(Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum 1996).

· Remarking that the progress of a set of general principles on trade facilitation can provide a stronger focus for APEC's future work on trade facilitation, add value to trade facilitation initiatives elsewhere, and assist policy makers and implementers of APEC member economies in pronouncing and applying trade measures which are support businesses(Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum 1996).

· Noting that trade facilitation largelyrepresents the generalization, coordination, use of new technology and other measures to address procedural and administrative weaknesses to trade.

· Recognizing that the development of trade facilitation principles is guided by the general principles of APEC in the Osaka Action Agenda;

· Recognizing that the main beliefs are non-binding and their application by each member economy is voluntary, taking into account the assorted levels of economic and technological growth among APEC economies, and their diverse situations, including different legal frameworks, initial points and growth objectives (APEC 2010).

· Recognizing the significance of technical aid and collaboration in APEC and their importance in the submission of the principles by individual member economies in view of their diverse levels of development, and recognizing APEC's role in making accessiblesuitable capacity building programs to supportemerging members in establishing a more beneficial business environment (APEC 2010).

· Recognizing that nearlyprecisefundamentalsinvolving to trade facilitation is also revealed in the existing WTO framework (Barro, R. J., & Lee, J. 2011).

OBJECTIVES OF APEC

APEC member-economies have vividly outlined four (4) main objectives for their members and in recognition of the international system. APEC envisages complete trade and investment liberalization or freedom and facilitation by 2010 for industrialized or core economies and 2020 for developing, periphery and semi periphery members. With respect to tariffs, the objective is zilch tariffs in 2010 and 2020 for developed and developing countries, respectively.

There are several objectives of the APEC which must be met within this organization and within states jurisdiction. These are set goals which member states aim to achieve within a span of time (Peter Drysdale et al December 2012). In order to achieve these goals, these guiding principles must be strictly adhered to: The standard of mutual assistance, taking into consideration the differences in the levels of economic development and expansion and in the socio-political classification, and giving due thoughtfulness to the needs of developing economies. More so, it has a commitment to open discourse and consensus-building, with equivalent esteem for the views of all participants (From the Seoul APEC Declaration of 1991).

APEC’s major aim is to maintain the growth and development of the area and member states for the widespread good of its peoples and, in this way, to contribute and add to the augmentation and development of the world economy and the international system. That is, to sustain the growth and development of the region for the common good of its people thus contributing to the growth of world economy (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum, 1996). The existing member economies correspond to the prosperous multiplicity of the region as well as inconsistent levels of economic growth and enlargement. Notwithstanding such differences there is a growing intellect of common rationale and collaboration aimed at sustained and continuous regional and world growth (As agreed in the 1991 Seoul APEC Declaration);

To improve the constructive gains, both for the region and the world economy, resulting from escalating economic interdependence and union, including by encouraging the surge of goods, services, wealth and technology;

Thirdly, it aims to expand and strengthen the open multilateral trading organism in the interest of Asia-Pacific and all other economies in the global system;

Finally, it goal is to diminish barriers to buying and selling of goods and services and investment amongst participants in a manner unswerving with GATT principles, where pertinent, and without damage to other economies in the international system.

Further and broad explanation of APEC’s four fundamental objectivesshows that it aims to reinforce regional economic incorporation by removing obstructions to trade and investment at the border, improving supply procession connectivity across the border and enhancing the production surroundings behind the border(Drysdale, Yunling, & Song, December 2012). It endeavors to advance the functioning environment for business by reducing the price of cross-border trade, improving contact to trade information, knowledge and making simple regulatory and administrative procedures (Duff, 2002). APEC also assists member economies construct the institutional competence to put into operation and take benefit of the possible available advantage(s) of trade and investment modification. APEC supports the multilateral trade dialogues in progress in the World Trade Organization and harmonizes the goals of the G-20 framework and agenda for sturdy, Sustainable and Balanced expansion in the Asia-Pacific Region.

The pronouncement also recognized the significant involvement of the private sectors or groups to the dynamism and vitality of APEC economies. The ministers staunched APEC to improve and promote the responsibilities of the private sectors and the relevance of free market principles or market liberalization in taking full advantage of the benefits of regional cooperation and integration (Drysdale, Yunling, & Song)

The Seoul Declaration set forth an obligation among APEC ministers to meet once a year and hold informal dialogue to strengthen and reaffirm the agreed objectives, and to comprehend the goals of free and open trade and investment in the region. The successions of annual economic leaders’ informal meetings started in 1993 and still exist till date.

On 20 November 1993, APEC economic and state leaders, hosted by U.S. President Clinton, met for the first occasion at Blake Island, Seattle, Washington to hold an informal discussion about progress, achievements, rising issues and possible recommendations to the deterring problems of the association. Their apparition was for an Asia-Pacific that harnesses and creates the energy of its diverse economies, strengthens collaboration, and promotes wealth, in which the spirit of ingenuousness and partnership intensify and vibrant growth continues, contributing to an escalating world economy and supporting an open worldwide trading organism (Howard, 2007).

They envisioned continued decline of trade and investment obstructions so that trade inflates within the region and across humanity, and goods, services, capital, and investment move freely among APEC economies. Members of the APEC economies would distribute the benefits of economic growth and development throughout higher incomes, high skilled and scarce talents and high profit jobs and increased movement. Improved education tutoring and training would create rising literacy level, provide the skills for retaining economic growth and support the dissemination of knowledge that add to the arts and science (Mckay, 2002). Progress in telecommunications would shrivel time and distance obstacles in the region and connect APEC economies so that goods and people move quickly, effectively and efficiently. Finally, they picture an Asia-Pacific in which the setting is improved as APEC economies shield the quality and eminence of air, water, and green spaces and supervise energy supply and renewable resources to warrant sustainable growth and provide a more protected opportunity, potentiality and future (Drysdale, Yunling, & Song, December 2012).

Therefore, the fundamental purpose of APEC creation and till date goals is to diminish the amount of obstacles in trade and also to trim down tariffs across Asia Pacific nations. This in turn will create domestic and foreign efficient and effective economies. It also gave an enhancement to trade across borders and trade related activities in all the APEC countries. The APEC has lay down its eye on maintain and achieving the “Bogor Goals” by the year 2010 for economies, which are modern, mechanized and industrialized. It has also put in place its intention for fulfilling the “Bogor Goals” by the year 2020 in case of developing and underdeveloped economies therefore helping them to be developed (Duff, 2002).

STRUCTURE AND ACTIVITY IN APEC

The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) carries out its administration through the policy and working levels. At the top of the policy level is the leader of the economic group, followed by a Senior Officials Meeting (SOM) as well as several meetings for ministers. The working level complements the work of the policy level through activities that are carried out throughout the year by some committees. The committees include the Committee on Trade and Investment (CTI), the SOM steering committee on Economic and Technical Cooperation (ECOTECH), the Economic Committee (EC), and the Budget and Management Committee (BMC) (Aggarwal, 2006).

Every committee has a broad workload which is achieved with the help of task forces, committee of experts, and work groups. The working level develops the agenda for yearly meetings, creates plans of action, selects projects, and conducts seminars, expert meetings and workshops for the involved member states (Howard, J. 2007, April – August). The activities of the policy and working levels are coordinated by the SOM and the secretariat. The secretariat of the APEC is based in Singapore. The APEC has a dedication to involve individuals from all the state economies in its membership. For instance, the executive directors are rotated after which new candidates are chosen by the APEC members (APEC, 2010).

The APEC usually conducts an annual summit for five days. SOM and meetings for ministers are designated a day each, while the economic leaders meet for two days. At the end of each, reports by ministers and declaration by economic leaders are presented. Through the presentations, APEC makes the public aware about the agreements that will govern the policy and working levels and the expected actions by member economies in the following year (Howard, J. 2007, April - August). Among the summit importance is the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) meeting from businesses across the APEC region. It offers advice and guidance to businessmen and businesswomen. The inputs by the CEO meeting are included in domestic and foreign economic activities that are carried out by state economies (APEC, 2011).

The meetings for ministers involve finance ministers where there is collective deliberation, sharing of ideas, provision of information, and suggestion of policies that deal with financial policy issues like collection of revenue, expenditure, accumulation, and servicing of debts. The member economies have to make choices concerning policies and finance through their finance ministers (Janow, & E, M. (1996). The SOM is important since it shifts items of the agenda between the policy and working levels. At the annual APEC summit, the SOM officers, who hold responsible office in the member economy government, play an important function to develop the agenda. As they do so, they liaise with the outcomes of the Individual Plan of Action (IPA) and Collective Plan of Action (CPA) that are submitted yearly by the member economies. The SOM officials usually meet three times a year and serve on a rotational basis. During the meeting, they liaise with the hosting member economy for the annual summit (Barro& Lee, 2011).

The secretariat is the recipient of the IPA and CPA reports. It is the one that makes these reports accessible by the SOM. The IPA highlights the development of member economies on various sectors like tariffs, non-tariff barriers, services, and investment (Janow, & E, M. (1996). The CPA identifies the collective action pursued by member economies on matters to do with regional cooperation. The workload of the committees is based on their insight towards the IPA, CPA, seminars, reports, and method used to form choices concerning the projects to be supported. Their work is limited to APEC’s structure to boost free investment and trade liberalization and improve regionalism so as to achieve sustainable progress, to offer a conducive business environment so as to improve market performance, as well as to transfer and apply technical and scientific knowledge on matters like safety and food security, institutional reform, sufficiency of energy, and equality (Choi, 2004).

The work of the trade and investment committee is drawn upon the summit that was held in Indonesia in 1994 which set up the Bogor aims. The aims were to remove barriers to trade across the Asia-Pacific, in particular, for industrialized economies by 2010 and for industrializing economies by 2020. The objectives were based on the perception of a positive link between progress and open markets. There was the belief that cooperation at the regional level increases the advantages of the economies of member countries, the regional economy, and the world economy (Kesavapany, K., & Hank, L. 2009). The committee has an obligation of advocating for Free Trade Area for the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP). The FTAAP has improved trade via reducing trade barriers, improved transport procurement by governments, simplified settlement of disputes, facilitated and standardized electronic commerce, encouraged competition and formation of policy and simplified regulation of food safety (Estevadeorda, 2011). The member economies have tended to reduce barriers to trade and investment. This is because, apart from being members of the APEC, they also participate in the Americas and Southeast Asia associations.

The work of the economic committee extends the Bogor aims. It handles micro- and macro-economic problems. Under the macro-economic level, the committee operates on several characteristics. One of them is that there should be inclusive development of all people in terms of creating employment and activities to generate income (Barro, R. J., & Lee, J. 2011). The other characteristic is that there should be balanced development among the member economies externally, while internally, the member economies should have a balanced geographical economy as well as a balance among the labor, production, and consumption so that inequalities in distribution and poverty levels are reduced (Mckay, J. 2002). Apart from that, development should be in line with conservation of the environment rather than its destruction. Also, development should promote safety of all economic sectors against physical and social threats. Moreover, development should be based on creativity and innovation to encourage modern products that meet safety requirements including in production. The member economies consider these model features in their development (Hugo &Soogil, 2008).

The work of the economic and technical cooperation committee is to liaise with the economic committee to provide information on the economy, science, and technology as well as skills that are important to projects of development (Barro, R. J., & Lee, J. 2011). The committees jointly support the development of early warning systems to minimize the effects of disastrous calamities and propose ways of improving the availability of the infrastructure for investment and trade, especially to those in poverty. This is especially relevant to uplift potential small and medium businessmen and businesswomen who often need available financial markets to get capital to start their businesses and be flexible with the unequal flow of revenue (Kesavapany, 2009).

Therefore, the economic and ECOTECH committees help the member economies to design, implement, administer, and manage projects of development across the Asia-Pacific. The APEC does not provide Official Development Assistance (ODA) to the member economies. But, it offers help to the member economies and donor organizations via the provision of technical experts and skilled personnel (Barro, R. J., & Lee, J. 2011). The project success is paramount since they boost the physical and social infrastructure in place. Such development projects pay attention to security of transport, supply chain protection especially where cross-border trade is involved, improving food security, and providing ideas on the institutional reforms of the macro-economy. In terms of the micro-economy, the development projects focus on improving water and power supply as well as transport and communication networks (Miranti& Haw, 2004).

The work of the budget and management committee is to collaborate with the SOM steering committee and the secretariat. It is to ensure that the managers and technical experts oversee the development projects as well as to ensure smooth operation of the APEC (Morrison &Pedrosa, 2007).

ACHIEVEMENTS OF ASIA-PACIFIC ECONOMIC COOPERATION (APEC)

Trade and Investment Liberalisation

When APEC was established in 1989 average trade barriers in the region stood at 16.9%; by 2010 barriers had been reduced to 5.8%. As a consequence, intra-APEC merchandise trade (exports and imports) has grown from $1.7 trillion in 1989 to $9.9 trillion in 2010, nearly a six-fold increase; now accounting for 67 percent of APEC’s total merchandise trade (Barro, R. J., & Lee, J. 2011).

Similarly, APEC’s total trade (goods & services) has increased from $3.1 trillion in 1989 to $16.8 trillion in 2010, over a fivefold increase (Choi, S. 2004). In the same period, total trade by the rest of the world has gone from $4.6 trillion to $21.1 trillion (a multiple of 4.6 times). By June 2011, 48 FTAAPs had been signed between APEC members; there are currently 42 FTAAPs in force between APEC member economies (APEC 2011).

APEC is also pursuing trade and investment liberalization through its Regional Economic Integration agenda (Choi, S. 2004). Progress to date includes: Investigating the prospects of and options for a Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific, the development of 15 model measures for FTAAPs that serve as a reference for APEC members to achieve comprehensive and high-quality agreements and APEC has also acted as a catalyst in the advancement of World Trade Organization multilateral trade negotiations over the past 20 years (APEC 2011).

Trade Facilitation

Submits that as a result of the APEC Trade Facilitation Action Plan (TFAP I) the cost of business transactions across the region was reduced by 5% between 2002 and 2006. A second trade facilitation action plan (TFAP II) reduced transaction costs by a further 5% in real terms between 2007 and 2010, representing total savings for business of $58.7biillon (APEC 2011). APEC initiatives that help facilitate trade include, the introduction of electronic/paperless systems by all member economies, covering the payment of duties, and customs and trade-related document processing, the Single Window Strategic Plan, adopted in 2007, provides a framework for the development of Single Window systems which will allow importers and exporters to submit information to government once, instead of to multiple government agencies, through a single entry point (Downing, & Sandra L. 2003).

The APEC Privacy Framework provides guidance and direction to both APEC member economies and businesses on implementing information privacy protection policies and procedures. By facilitating information flows it will facilitate trade and e-commerce (Miranti, R., & Haw, D. W. 2004).

The APEC Business Travel Card (ABTC) provides substantial time and cost savings to business people and facilitates their travel in the region, by allowing visa free travel and express lane transit at airports in participating economies (Downing, & Sandra L. 2003). APEC is also removing behind-the-border barriers to trade through its Structural Reform agenda, which focuses on reforming domestic policies and institutions that adversely affect the operation of markets, and the capacity of businesses to access markets and to operate efficiently (APEC 2011).

Economic and Technical Cooperation

APEC's Economic and Technical Cooperation (ECOTECH) activities are designed to build capacity and skills in APEC member economies at both the individual and institutional level, to enable them to participate more fully in the regional economy (Downing, & Sandra L. 2003).

Since APEC first began to undertake capacity building work in 1993, around 1600 projects have been initiated; at any moment in time, up to 170 projects may be in implementation. APEC contributes funding to around 100-150 projects each year, with a total value of over $23 million committed by APEC to projects in 2010-2011 (Drexl, J., & Ed. 2012).

A particular focus has been reducing the digital divide between industrialized and developing economies. In 2000, APEC set a goal of tripling internet usage in the region and that goal has now been achieved, as recognized by the 2008 APEC Ministerial Meeting on the Telecommunications and Information Industry (APEC 2011). APEC is now focusing efforts on achieving the goal of universal access to broadband in the APEC region by 2015 – an ambitious target reaffirmed by Telecommunications Ministers in Okinawa, Japan in 2010(APEC 2011).

A network of 46 APEC Digital Opportunity Centers (ADOC) now operates in 10 member economies. ADOC's objective is to transform the digital divide into digital opportunities and the centers act as local information and communication technology (ICT) resource centers, providing citizens and businesses of the region with access to ICT technologies, education and training(Drexl, J., & Ed. 2012).

CHALLENGES FACING ASIA-PACIFIC ECONOMIC COOPERATION (APEC)

At present, APEC is confronted with a series of problems and challenges in its implementation of the commitments in advancing free and open trade and investment and building one economic community in the Asia Pacific region (APEC 2011).

Discrimination

The increase of trade among the FTAAP members is achieved in part at the expense of the interests of non-FTAAP members (Drysdale et al December 2012). The trade diversion effects will do harm to the establishment and development of multilateral trading system (Duff, D. M. 2002). In APEC, FTAAP members and non-FTAAP members will have to deal with various kinds of treatments and arrangements when engaging in trade and investment in the region.

Non-FTAAP economies have to face discrimination of trade policy of FTAAP economies, which will result in the increase of transaction costs. In many cases, the interests of FTAAP economies may contradict with APEC initiatives (Duff, D. M. 2002).

The exception lists in free trade arrangements will exclude some important sectors and commodities from APEC’s trade liberalization process and the rule of origin will exclude many entrecote trade commodities and exports relying on import of foreign intermediate goods or raw materials from preferential arrangements (Drysdale et al December 2012).

Exclusive Focus on Trade Liberalization

Weakness of APEC has been its too exclusive focus on trade liberalization in seeking to promote regional economic integration (Duff, D. M. 2002). Since ECOTECH has not received due attention, the results have not been satisfactory and, to some extent, it dampens the enthusiasm of the developing economies in regional cooperation. Though ECOTECH is generally considered to be one of the two major pillars of APEC, its importance in economic and social development and narrowing the gap between developed and developing economies has not been fully realized (Higgott, R. 1998).

Time for Liberalization

The time for liberalization set in Bogor goals is approaching fast; however, there is still disagreement in understanding of the goals. People can still remember Malaysia’s 6-point reservations and Thailand’s 7-point observations on the Bogor Declaration in 1994 (Duff, D. M. 2002). There was also difference among developed economies regarding the “time gap” in the Bogor goals. The lack of a clear-cut definition for the goals, different attitudes and inadequate progress towards the goals make people doubt if the goals can ever be achieved in time (Higgott, R. 1998).

Less Interest in Institutionalization

Since the close economic linkages among the member economies have been established mainly due to market mechanism, many economies have shown less interest in institutionalization of the organization in the cooperation process. Therefore, more efforts have been made in formulating action goals and agendas and there is a lack of institutional construction in supporting their implementation (Higgott, R. 1998).

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE REFORM OF APEC

With the aim of revitalizing APEC, a series of measures should be taken to enhance its efficiency and effectiveness. Only with its reforms, APEC will be better positioned to restore dynamism and confidence to the Asia Pacific region (Morrison, C. E., & Pedrosa, E. 2007).

Long-term Goal and Operation Mechanism

There should be a long-term goal and road map accepted by all member economies. A special task force should be established to discuss a clearly-defined goal and direction of development, feasible road map and timetable, streamline the mechanism of supervising and reviewing the initiatives and decisions (World Bank, G., & ed. 2012). At present, the Secretariat is neither responsible nor capable of shouldering this task. The APEC Leaders Meetings should concentrate more on the above-mentioned major issues instead of new initiatives (Howard, J. 2007, April - August ).

Quick Response Mechanism

As more regional incidents have been happening in the Asia Pacific region, it is necessary to establish a mechanism of quick response within the framework of APEC. At present, APEC has limited quick-reaction capacity to identify and address new and emerging issues (Hugo, G., & Soogil, Y. 2008).

With the accelerating rate of change that now characterizes the global political economy, APEC should raise its capacity to adapt to meet the requirements of its member economies and evolving policy agenda (Howard, J. 2007, April - August ).

Evaluation and Coordination

Evaluation and coordination will be two important tasks for APEC in the future (World Bank, G., & ed. 2012). The organization does not need to produce major new initiatives every year, instead it should strive for a solid record of achievement in dealing with the expanding agenda of economic and social issues that confront the Asia Pacific region. APEC should raise its capability of effectively monitoring and evaluating its own work (Hugo, G., & Soogil, Y. 2008).

Strengthening the Secretariat

Due to its weak secretariat, APEC relies heavily on the initiatives proposed by member economies, especially the annual host economies (Hugo, G., & Soogil, Y. 2008).The two top leaders at the Secretariat are in place for a maximum of two years and the professional staff members are seconded for two to three year postings. They often find themselves bogged down in administrative details. The rotation system results in a lack of long-term consideration of effective operation (Howard, J. 2007, April - August ).

CONCLUSION

In summary, APEC has evolved and is as relevant now as it was in 1989. Many of the reasons that drove its creation remain valid today. Economically, APEC is the most dynamic region in the world. With its reform, it will remain an essential and effective part of the regional and international architecture for economic cooperation. However, APEC, despite its many accomplishments, has been losing ground.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum. (1996). saka Action Agenda on Implementation of the Bogor Declaration (Trade Liberalization and Facilitation; Economic and Technical Cooperation).35, pp. 1111-1128. Osaka: International Legal Materials.

Aggarwal, V. K., & Urata, S. (2006). Bilateral Trade Agreements in the Asia-Pacific: Origins, Evolution, and Implications. New York and London: Routledge.

APEC. (2010). APEC at a Glance: Advancing Free Trade for Asia-Pacific Prosperity. Singapore: APEC Secretariat.

APEC. (2011). Outcomes and Outlooks 2010-2011. Advancing Free Trade for Asia-Pacific Prosperity. Singapore: APEC Secretariat.

Barro, R. J., & Lee, J. (2011). Costs and Benefits of Economic Integration. London and Manila: Oxford University Press and Asian Development Bank.

Choi, S. (2004). Regionalism and Open Regionalism in the APEC Region. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

Downing, & Sandra L. (2003). Asia Pacific Cooperation (APEC): Current Issues and Background. Nova Publishers.

Drexl, J., & Ed), (. (2012). Competition Policy and Regional Intergration in Developing Countries. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Drysdale, P., Yunling, Z., & Song, L. (December 2012). APEC and liberalisation of the Chinese economy. Osaka: ANU E Press.

Duff, D. M. (2002). APEC after Shanghai. Which Path Forward?, 57(3), 439-457.

Estevadeorda, A., Shearer, M., & Suominen, K. (2011). Regional Integration in Asia: State of Play, Lessons, and Ways Forward. Tokyo: Asian Development Bank Institute.

Higgott, R. (1998). The international political economy of regionalism. Regionalism and Global Economic Intergration:Europe, Asia and the Americas, 42.

Howard, J. (2007, April - August ). Australia and APEC in 2007. 40(157), 165-175.

Hugo, G., & Soogil, Y. (2008). Labor Mobility in the Asia-Pacific Region: Dynamics, Issues, and a New APEC. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

Janow, & E, M. (1996). Assesing APEC's role in Economic Intergration in the Asia-Pacific Region. 947.

Kesavapany, K., & Hank, L. (2009). APEC at 20: Recall, Reflect, Remake. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

Mckay, J. (2002). APEC: Successes, Weaknesses, and Future Prospects. In D. Singh, & ‎. L. Smith, Southeast Asian Affairs (pp. 42-53). Singapore : Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

Miranti, R., & Haw, D. W. (2004). APEC in the 21st Century. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

Morrison, C. E., & Pedrosa, E. (2007). An APEC Trade Agenda. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

World Bank, G., & ed. (2012). World Development Indicators 2012. World Bank Publications.

Translate

Magazine

Donate

Thursday, 11 December 2014

ASIA PACIFIC ECONOMIC COOPERATION

ABBREVIATIONS