Search results

Since the financial crisis, East Asian countries have worked on bilateral/regional Free Trade Agreements (FTAs). Currently, East Asian countries are working on over 30 FTAs. So far, the United States (U.S.) has exerted its considerable political and economic power in East Asia, but its political and diplomatic position is increasingly shaky for many reasons-emergence of China’s economic and military strength, growing regionalism in East Asia, weakening influence of the Asia Pacific Economic Conference (APEC) forum, and growing anti-American sentiment after the anti-terrorism war. The U.S. will be even more concerned about the development of FTAs in East Asia, since the country will suffer economic and non-economic losses when the East Asian regionalism is developed. This article evaluates a U.S.-Korea FTA in terms of U.S. involvement in East Asian regionalism, and tries to provide an economic assessment of the FTA. This article points out that the U.S. should take advantage of the U.S.-Korea FTA to secure its interests in East Asia and to avoid exclusion from East Asian regional economic integration.

Building a large trading bloc tends to produce substantial economic gains, while minimizing economic losses from overlapping FTAs. East Asia has tried to generate the impetus for promoting region-wide trading blocs, but most of those blocs have been overlapped and multilayered. This paper reviews the evolution of East Asian regionalism from the APEC FTA under the 1994 Bogor Goal to recent RCEP promoted in 2013. This paper underlines that the continued expansion of multilayered trading blocs in East Asia works as a serious obstacle to regional economic integration, rather than exploring the realization of a region-wide trading bloc.

The major economies of East Asia, namely Japan and the Four Asian Tigers, have always prioritized the WTO-led multilateral trade liberalization over other trade arrangements primarily due to their unique economic structure with a high dependency on the world’s major markets such as the US. Along the same line, even the huge blow from the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997 only managed to trigger a few initiatives to aide East Asian regional integration while being led by different centering bodies, APEC and ASEAN. These dispersed efforts naturally resulted in no realistically significant achievements in the light of ‘integration’ until the present day. Under these circumstances, East Asia now faces a second opportunity to achieve its economic independence from the extra-regional influences via regionalization: the 2009 Global Credit Crunch. This paper hereupon critically reviews the actual progress and the likely impacts of the current global recession on the East Asian region.

The economic success of East Asia was due to an export-led growth strategy, which was heavily dependent on the global trading system underpinned by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). In recent years, however; East Asian countries have shifted their trade policy focus to regional agreements and made Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) among themselves arid with other regions. Government organization has been restructured to increase FTA activities. Generally, the current literature predicts that FTA activities of East Asia would help to increase the welfare of the region. In this paper; we offer a critical assessment of East Asia FTAs. We note that East Asia FTAs provide incomplete coverage of sectors and are likely to lead to an inefficient resource allocation. FTA movements are not matched with actual trade flows. The benefits of East Asia FTAs are fairly limited and potential benefits, if any, would not likely be materialized in the near future. Our overall assessment is that the recent policy shift in East Asian countries from multilateral trade orientation or unilateral action to regionalism or a parallel multilateral and regional trade approach will not produce much gain. The governments should increase their efforts at economic reform and reduce barriers to trade and investment, rather than to allocate more resource and manpower to FTA activities.

Among various distinctive formulations that have been developed simultaneously in East Asia as of 2009, this paper selected three major paths, ASEAN+3, ASEAN+6 and APEC, to quantitatively examine the economic impacts of Asian regionalization with the CGE model. This paper confirmed previous findings such as the magnitude of economic impact being proportional to the size of membership and the existence of trade diversion effect within all trade blocs. The subsequent KORUS and Korea-EU FTA imposition upon the built CGE base models further verified the effects of hub-and-spoke-ism in East Asia. Jointly, the simulation results implied that the economic impacts of a trade arrangement heavily depend on the subject economy’s reliance on trade with the participating states. It was also found that the impacts were directly proportional to the accrued trade balance of the subject spoke country with both the hub state and the hub-destination. This could have been exaggerated as the scope of this study was limited to East Asia where KORUS FTA was found to be more influential than Korea-EU FTA due to its exceptionally high reliance on the US. On the course of this research to verify the aforementioned findings, however, both GTAP 6 and 7 were adopted, and hence, the economic impacts of China’s accession to the WTO in the global trade system were also empirically proven.

The study compares the socioeconomic development of the South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation (SAARC) to that of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). SAARC was established on December 8, 1985, as a result of former President Ziaur Rahman's efforts to promote the welfare of the people and mutual trust. ASEAN was founded in August 1967 with the goal of accelerating the region's economic growth, social progress, and cultural development while also promoting regional peace and stability. The SAARC countries share problems such as poverty and unemployment. SAARC countries have a GDP per capita four times that of ASEAN. A qualitative analysis based on secondary data pertaining to SAARC and ASEAN reveals that SAARC has not been more successful than ASEAN. National and international conflicts are common within SAARC. SAARC has 22% of the world's population and 3% of the world's economy, and there are enormous opportunities for economic growth and human development.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of Association of Southeast Asian Nations’ (ASEAN) flagship universities in moving the agenda of regional integration forward through academic/research collaboration and cooperation.

Flagship universities are leading universities in the national higher education systems of countries that make up the ASEAN. This study on the ASEAN’s flagship universities is based on a three-pronged strategy, namely, a literature review, analysis of websites contents, and citation of supporting pieces of evidence from other relevant studies to support arguments. Using the QS top universities in Asia 2016 listing, top 70 public universities in ASEAN were selected for investigation. In instances where public universities in a particular ASEAN country were not listed in the QS listing, a premier public university of that country was then selected for investigation.

There is a tendency for ASEAN’s flagship universities to look beyond ASEAN, primarily to establish vertical collaboration, which is important to their efforts in creating their image and enhancing their reputation. As a result, academic/research collaboration among flagship universities and collaboration between these universities and other universities in ASEAN is glaringly on the low side. Interestingly, to move the regional integration agenda in ASEAN, other intermediary agencies outside of ASEAN, such as in the European Union, are very active in providing a platform for both flagship and non-flagship universities to collaborate.

While regional collaboration and cooperation within ASEAN and East Asia have been discussed elsewhere, this paper has utilised and expanded Douglass’ (2016) idea of flagship universities to include regional relevance for the purpose of regional integration of ASEAN.

The management of higher education institutions (HEIs) is undergoing a period of rapid development around the world and particularly in Asia. Competing forces of neoliberal decentralisation, increased government oversight, internationalisation and regionalism are creating difficulties for managers and stakeholders alike. This paper aims to look at the ways in which universities have institutionalised their strategies for coping with these forces, in the form of their mission statements (MSs), particularly within an East Asian context.

Several major international university ranking tables were used to compile a list of “world class” institutions in East Asia. Those with available MSs in English were examined for reference to factors existing within the literature, as well as those which were not previously identified.

East Asian universities placed a high degree of emphasis on aspects related to university management, as well as social, cultural and historical foci. Far less emphasis was placed on aspects such as engagement of stakeholders and inclusion.

The paper draws on previous research from other regions and attempts to provide some insights into the particularities of higher education in East Asia from a management perspective.