APEC as an Institution: Multilateral Governance in the Asia-Pacific

Introduction

By: ROS Size: 6" x 9" J/No: 03-10509 Fonts: Bembo INTRODUCTION This book is the second major research project of theAPEC International Assessment Network (APIAN), the first being Assessing APEC’s Progress: Trade, Ecotech and Institutions (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2001).That first effort focused principally upon the substantive agenda of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, but did include an article byVinod Aggarwal and Kun-Chin Lin on “APEC as an Institution”.Aggarwal and Lin concluded that “the most significant contributions of APEC have been in agenda-setting and socialization of member economies into the acceptance of global norms and principles” (p. 178) — and that institutional weaknesses have limited APEC’s ability to fulfill its more ambitious substantive goals in the areas of trade and investment liberalization and integration, economic and technical cooperation and capacity building.Drawing on questionnaires circulated to experts throughout theAsia-Pacific as well as their own research,Aggarwal and Lin found a credibility gap between APEC’s formal agenda and goals and its institutional capacities to realize them. APIAN’s first policy report, Learning From Experience (November 2000), began to tackle APEC’s institutional structure. It recognized that APEC’s institutional weaknesses were not haphazard but rather were purposeful acts by those present at the creation. For reasons deeply imbedded in the history and structure of theAsia-Pacific,APEC’s founding members preferred a relatively loose organizational structure that would not be able to impose its collective will upon reluctant members, but rather would respect national sovereignties.APEC was organized around the core principles of consensus, voluntarism, and unilateralism — and eschewed binding agreements with strict timetables that could be 00 APEC Prelims 4/9/03, 1:05 PM 13 By: ROS Size: 6" x 9" J/No: 03-10509 Fonts: Bembo rigorously monitored by agents that would seek to enforce compliance. APEC established a weak secretariat whose functions were primarily logistical; there would be no large permanent bureaucracy that might drive APEC in ways that diverged from the preferences of some of its members. At the same time,this firstAPIAN policy report noted that however “soft”, APEC has evolved into an institution: Brick by brick, APEC has been constructing its edifice. During its first decade,APEC has created a set of norms,procedures and structures that define its essence: the goal of free trade and investment flows within a paradigm of open regionalism; capacity-building through economic and technical cooperation; agreement through consensus; action by each member at its own pace; annual Leaders Meetings and regularly scheduled Ministerials that set direction, committees of senior officials that drive the process, and an array of working groups responsible for specific programmes and projects.APEC has established its special place in the panoply of international institutions (p. 4). The report went on to argue that while this soft institutionalism served APEC well during its infancy,asAPEC enters its second decade,it should reconsider the degree of its soft institutionalism:“What may have been realistic at the outset may have become an avoidable obstacle to further achievement.What may have seemed hopelessly idealistic at the beginning may have become more feasible as members gain confidence in APEC and in each other” (p. 5). In this spirit,APIAN chose to make APEC’s institutionalization the central focus of its second research project.This book is the result of that ambition. Draft papers were first presented and debated at the Annual APEC Study Center International Consortium Meeting in Merida, Yucatan, Mexico, on 22–24 May 2002.We have defined “institution” to encompass formal structures (bricks and mortar) as well as rules and norms, “soft” informal undertakings and declarations, and periodic meetings such as working groups,ministerials,and summits.Our inspiration comes not only from a belief that a more robust institutional framework might more effectively help APEC approximate its laudable goals, but also from an appreciation of the potential of APEC’s uniquely postmodern virtuality. Instead of a strong, central bureaucracy, APEC has organized its activities around semi-autonomous ministerial meetings and working groups that keep in touch intersessionally via electronic means. In line with modern theories of efficient management, this nontraditional decentralized functionalism places power in the hands of the member countries’ functional bureaucracies. However, as APIAN xiv Introduction 00 APEC Prelims 4/9/03, 1:05 PM 14 By: ROS Size: 6" x 9" J/No: 03-10509 Fonts: Bembo researchers discovered...