Measuring and Comparing Progress in APEC

Abstract

The challenge APEC now faces is to create a dynamic process for continued progress. In recent months, the term has become a code word among APEC officials for some tactical aspects of progress on APEC's liberalization agenda. This article explores ways of operationalizing the aggregate comparability and detailed comparability concepts in order to encourage productive co-operation in APEC. argue that the advantages of APEC's repeated game structure can be exploited by defining the contributions APEC expects from its members and by recognizing (positively or if necessary negatively) the efforts of individual economies. One conclusion is that a well-designed loop of information collection, dissemination and feedback could be helpful in stimulating substantive progress. With its Subic Bay summit in 1996, the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum has entered the operational phase of its ambitious agenda of building a regional community and abolishing regional trade and barriers. The Manila Action Plan for APEC (MAPA) unveils plans by each of APEC's 18 members for achieving free and open trade and investment by 2010 (developed countries) or 2020 (developing countries). A complex, 1,500-page document, MAPA represents a major step forward in the transparency of APEC and a beginning towards its substantive goals. But the hardest work lies ahead; most of the Individual Action Plans (IAPs) are vague on overall goals and short on specifics. Implementation, of course, is only in its very earliest stages. The challenge APEC now faces is to create a dynamic process for continued progress. This progress will have to involve new initiatives in trade and facilitation and in economic and technical co-operation. It will also require new approaches in the liberalization area, the focus of this article.1 Progress in liberalization could come, on one hand, through sectoral or other thematic agreements, such as the Information Technology Agreement (approved by APEC and subsequently the World Trade Organization [WTO] at their 1996 summits), that promote a common range of policy measures in all or most member economies. It could also come through incremental improvements in and the gradual implementation of the IAPs. In either case, it will be important to track progress towards the goals of the Bogor Declaration, since that vision offers a uniquely powerful rationale for regional co-operation. In recent months, the term has become a code word among APEC officials for some tactical aspects of progress on APEC's liberalization agenda. The term was first introduced by U.S. representatives in the days leading up to APEC's 1995 Osaka meetings. In U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher's words, We do not have to take identical steps, but the steps we take should produce comparable results. Each of us can take difficult steps if all of us are taking difficult steps.2 In this context, the term refers to the aggregate comparability of the contributions of APEC economies. The process behind MAPA identified further issues. Early on, it became clear that, despite the Osaka guidelines, APEC lacked a concrete framework for setting goals or measuring progress. Several senior officials meetings (SOMs), for example, dealt with streamlining the IAP submissions through the adoption of common indicators, such as templates for reporting average tariff rates. Despite these efforts, the final submissions are difficult to interpret or compare across economies. Thus, there is also need for what might be called detailed comparability, or a disaggregated framework for describing each economy's starting position and commitments. This article explores ways of operationalizing both concepts of comparability in order to encourage productive co-operation in APEC. APEC is novel among international trade fora in that its negotiations are ongoing; it has a repeated game structure. …