Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Member Economies Research Articles

Non-communicable diseases in Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation member economies: Opportunities for achieving the sustainable development goals by 2030

Non-communicable diseases in Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation member economies: Opportunities for achieving the sustainable development goals by 2030

Assessment of APCC multimodel ensemble prediction in seasonal climate forecasting: Retrospective (1983–2003) and real‐time forecasts (2008–2013)

AbstractSince 2007, the Asia‐Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Climate Center (APCC) has monthly issued multimodel ensemble (MME) seasonal predictions for 3 months, with 1 month lead time, and disseminated it to APEC member economies. This paper gives a comprehensive documentation of the current status of the APCC operational multimodel performance, with a large set of retrospective (1983–2003) and real‐time (2008–2013) predictions of temperature and precipitation. In order to investigate the enhancement in seasonal predictability that can be achieved by empirically weighted MME (using multiple regression) and calibrated MME (by correcting single‐model prediction using a stepwise pattern projection method) schemes, operationally implemented at the APCC, we compare them with a simple averaged MME (with equal weightings), for predicting seasonal mean temperature and precipitation 1 month ahead. The results indicate that the simple averaged MME consistently outperforms the multiple regression‐based MMEs, when considering all aspects of the predictions from operational prediction systems (i.e., in different variables, regions, and seasons) whereas the calibrated MME shows the capability to reduce errors and improve forecast skills in a large proportion of cases. The possible causes of the failure and success of the different MME methods implemented in the APCC operations are discussed.

Characterizing Good Review Practices: A Survey Report Among Agencies of APEC Member Economies.

As a first step in the implementation of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Best Regulatory Practice Project, the Centre for Innovation in Regulatory Science conducted a gap analysis survey among regulatory agencies of 14 APEC member economies to assess the current use of good review practices (GRevP) to support transparent, consistent, predictable, and good-quality regulatory decision making. Although the majority of responding agencies have established some form of GRevP, most practices are currently evolving and are applied on an informal basis. Most agencies have developed standard operating procedures and guidelines and use a variety of training methods. The use of a common approach to regulatory review across jurisdictions would help build trust and confidence in each agency's processes, setting the stage for the possibility of work sharing across resource-constrained agencies and bringing consistency and transparency to the review process.

Business Continuity Planning Status of the Private Sector in the Asia Pacific Region

The Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) region accounts for around half of all global GDP. Since its supply chains are closely intertwined, a single disaster could adversely affect economic activities in the entire region. APEC therefore needs to strengthen the private sector’s capacity for disaster preparedness and recovery by promoting Business Continuity Planning (BCP) among APEC member economies. This report is summarizes findings from a 2011 regional survey conducted to understand the status of BCP adoption and the level of BCP awareness in the private sector among APEC economies. Outcomes of this survey will be used to determine the next appropriate steps for enhancing and promoting private sector resilience.

Activities on LCA in APEC region

Introduction. The second symposium concerning the LCA activity in the APEC region, the APEC/AIST Symposium 'LCA APEC member economies' was held on November 1–2, 2000, at the International Conference Center 'Epochal', Tsukuba, Japan, supported by the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), the New Energy Development Organization (NEDO) and the Japanese Agency for Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), in cooperation with the 4th International Conference on Eco-balance and Asian Productivity Organization (APO). National Institute for Resources and Environment (NIRE), which has been re-organized to Research Center for Life Cycle Assessment, AIST since April, 2001 due to the reconstruction of Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (MITI) of the Japanese government, supported as the secretariat. This symposium was the successor of the UNEP/APEC/AIST/NEDO symposium 'Life Cycle Assessment for Asia Pacific region' held on November 24 and 25 1998 in Tsukuba Research Center, Japan.

The euro revolution and the European Union: monetary and economic cooperation in the Asia-Pacific region

A study of a coordinated monetary and economic policy for the Asia-Pacific region has long been debated. Institutionalization of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) occurred in 1989. In 1999 APEC membership had risen to 21 sovereign nation-state member economies. Annual meetings of finance ministers and heads of central banks of APEC member economies have been a regular feature, pointing to the fact that a supranational macroeconomic core, well-defined by monetary or fiscal policy guidelines alone could contribute to the success of APEC agenda of intraregional free trade, free flow of investment, and then free flow of human capital. Inauguration of the euro and European Central Bank on January 1, 1999, presents a learning model for economic regionalization in the Asia-Pacific. Hence, we propose to study the economic rationale of institutionalization of the Asia-Pacific Monetary Union with an optimal and transparent agenda for intraregional monetary policy coordination in terms of both supply of aggregate stock of money and determination of the intraregional core rate of interest, supplemented by intraregional fiscal policy coordination, which can and will provide the necessary and sufficient conditions for intraregional free market with free flow of trade, investment and human capital, contributing to the maximization of economic gains for all microeconomic actors—households as well as business corporations—belonging to all intraregional sovereign nation-state macroeconomies. This regional arrangement in the Asia-Pacific work within the framework of global institutions, thus optimally harmonizing regionalism with globalism. I have argued that the core of newly emerging economic regionalization relates to (1) a map-of-the-world view of the region, and (2) an intraregional, multilateral cooperative effort to map an economic region with well-specified micro- and macroeconomic parameters on to a specific geographic region.

ASEAN and Asia‐Pacific economic cooperation

The emergence of the Asia‐Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum has introduced a new element in the global trading environment. APEC includes several regional arrangements: the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Australia‐New Zealand Closer Economic Relations (CER) schemes. Initially a preferential trading arrangement that had very limited practical coverage, ASEAN has forged ahead beyond liberalization of tariff policies, towards greater liberalization of trade in services and of investment policies as well. As ASEAN regional economic integration progresses, it is important to assess how this affects and is affected by the APEC process. ASEAN's liberalization measures influence the development of APEC in several ways. Through its expansion and the unilateral liberalization measures that have followed regional liberalization efforts, ASEAN is helping realize the enlargement of the market where APEC hopes to see freer and more open trade and investment policies. Correspondingly, ASEAN can play a more aggressive role in challenging other APEC economies to more quickly knock down remaining barriers to cross‐border trade and investment flows. The extent to which trade and investment policy reform in ASEAN can affect APEC depends not only on ASEAN's present and future economic weight as a market and exporter of goods, services and capital within APEC. It also depends on the economic importance of such reform to individual APEC member economies. At present, ASEAN is still a relatively small player in intra‐APEC trade. ASEAN's share of the total North American and Northeast Asian trade is similarly low. As economic integration proceeds, the ASEAN governments will have a common interest in coordinating policies and eliminating trade and investment barriers vis‐à‐vis other Asia‐Pacific economies. Probably more important than its economic role is ASEAN's political role in molding an Asia‐Pacific community. Currently, ASEAN occupies a central position in the region's security dialogue within the framework of the ASEAN Regional Forum. However, the extent of ASEAN's economic and political role within APEC will depend on ASEAN's unity and continued political stability and economic growth.

Development Cooperation in the 21st Century: Implications for APEC

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.

The Philippines in 1996: A House Finally in Order?

The year saw the unfolding of developments that, after decades of domestic turmoil and economic uncertainty, buoyed the hope of Filipinos that their house may finally have been put in order. Despite initial opposition from various sectors in Southern Philippines, peace was forged with the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF), a step that could undermine the credibility and legitimacy of secessionism advocated by splinter Muslim groups such as the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) and facilitate the expansion of the constituency for peace and development in Mindanao. However, the unabated ambition of political incumbents whose term of office expires in 1998 threatens to undermine the framework of political and constitutional stability that has served as the environment for economic growth since 1992. The Philippine economy continued to grow even as key elements of the economic reform package still remained to be put in place and the political coalition that had supported the macroeconomic reforms in the last four years unraveled. The successful hosting of the Fourth Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit in Subic Bay in November was the culmination of a year of Philippine leadership in fleshing out the Osaka Summit's action agenda into voluntary individual and collective initiatives by the APEC member economies. In spite of early political maneuvering by probable candidates for the presidential race in 1998, the economy looked quite healthy at the end of 1996, earning for the Philippines a label as the newest tiger cub in Asia.

APEC's Dilemmas: Institution-Building Around the Pacific Rim

THE ASIA PACIFIC ECONOMIC COOPERATION (APEC) forum has made considerable progress since it was formed at a ministerial meeting in Canberra, Australia, in 1989. Indeed, it has chalked up more successes in its first few years than even its founders and most ardent proponents had anticipated. For example, APEC combines in one organization a diverse group of economies including the biggest, and some of the most dynamic, in the world; it brings together, at its annual summit meetings, an impressive array of the world's leaders; and it has established the ambitious, if distant, goal of open economies for all its developed members by 2010 and its developing members by 2020. As a result the APEC process has garnered a good deal of public attention and engendered a momentum for establishing greater economic cooperation around the Pacific Rim. Yet the more successful APEC has become and the more progress it makes in moving the region down the road towards greater economic liberalization and cooperation, the more dilemmas it seems to face. These dilemmas are essentially caused by different and often competing conceptions of regionalism and regionalization around the Pacific Rim and are rooted in the different cultures, historical experiences and forms of capitalism of the various APEC member economies. At one time it appeared as if these competing views of economic regionalization were represented by APEC on the one hand and by Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad's proposal for an East Asian Economic Caucus (EAEC) on the other.2 However, it is now increasingly apparent that the competing conceptions of the region and how regional relations should evolve are to be found