Development Cooperation in the 21st Century: Implications for APEC

Abstract

Abstract: The purpose of this article is to explore the relationship between the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum and prospects for development cooperation in the 21st century. It argues that resource transfer as a dominant feature of North-South relations is likely to decline as a major form of development cooperation among the APEC member-economies and within the Asia-Pacific region more generally. However, the Asia-Pacific region of the future will require a significant economic and technical cooperation component within the APEC framework. Moreover resource transfers from the increasingly rich economies in Asia-Pacific to much poorer regions will be needed, and APEC can be a vehicle for policy discussions and research related to such “out-of-region” transfers. APEC has sometimes been described as the first “post-cold war international institution.” Its very structure and composition challenge notions of the post-World War II development-cooperation regime, which many observers now consider to be in a deep crisis. It is therefore essential to review the potential development-assistance role of this institution as it relates to APEC members’ trade and investment as well as human-resource development. APEC member-economies should view development cooperation broadly as a process by which they work together to develop the entire region in mutually agreed upon ways, and not as a process for resource transfers. In this sense, all the members are developing economies, cooperating to achieve common goals such as establishing efficient regional transportation networks and protecting the Asia-Pacific environment. Once these visions are clearly stated, the work programs they generate are primarily national ones. APEC thus captures under its own label and connects many individual efforts that APEC societies are doing in their own interests. The APEC modes of development cooperation then replicate those of trade and investment liberalization and facilitation. Individual member-economies make and compare their own national action plans to achieve the regional goals, and the group seeks to supplement and strengthen these individual efforts through sharing information and experiences as well as by concentrating national efforts and formulating joint endeavors where these make economic and political sense. Recognizing the different stages of economic development, some of the more advanced APEC economies will want to assist others in meeting their goals through foreign assistance. These bilateral, or possibly multilateral, foreign assitance activities can be placed alongside national efforts as contributions toward achieving common APEC goals. But they are not APEC programs as such, nor should they be administered through a cumbersome multilateral bureaucracy. And, given the economic dynamism of the region, the vast majority of efforts to create a prosperous, well-connected, and clean Asia-Pacific region will come from private-sector investments within nations rather than from the relatively small foreign-assistance programs that remain or might still be developed. Another development-cooperation function for APEC could address global development issues from an Asia-Pacific perspective as an emerging partner to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) through its Development Assistance Committee. This would serve several functions, including encouraging greater regional and global responsibility sharing by the emerging newly rich economies, and supporting community-building in APEC through cooperative out-of-region endeavors. This approach would, of course, be compatible with and supportive of the APEC notion of “open regionalism.” APEC would then not simply be a self-interested community, but a community dedicated to a prosperous and secure global system.