To explore opportunities for greater economic cooperation between the United States and Japan in third countries, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington and the Asia Pacific Initiative (API) in Tokyo embarked on a joint research project using a case-study approach to examine four countries (Myanmar, Vietnam, India, and South Korea) and two institutional arrangements (regional trade architecture and the G7) where the United States and Japan have aligned interests. We found that shared interests and goals of the United States and Japan transcend today’s bilateral trade tensions, and despite China’s growing influence and assertive behavior there nevertheless remains a strong demand in the region for U.S. and Japanese leadership. Washington and Tokyo should therefore work to better coordinate their economic engagement in the region.
As the United States and China mark their 40th anniversary of formal diplomatic relations in 2019, the world’s most important bilateral relationship is increasingly defined by mistrust, competition, and uncertainty. After four decades of deepening economic integration, the talk in Washington today is about the extent to which the two economies will “decouple” over the years ahead. We drew on several different academic disciplines to help us model how an economic conflict between the United States and China could escalate and eventually de-escalate. Despite the challenges inherent in modelling economic conflict, our model was validated to a surprising extent by both our simulations and real-world developments. The project produced several findings that were both unexpected and relevant to policy, including that economic conflict is likely to be an enduring feature of the U.S.-China relationship for many years to come. Until perceptions of relative costs in the two countries shift, Washington and Beijing seem set on a path of continued escalation, no substantial trade deal, and at least partial decoupling of their economies. Reflecting on these findings, the report also provides recommendations for U.S. policymakers seeking to engage in successful economic bargaining with China.
China faces increasing economic headwinds that call into question not only its near-term growth outlook but the longer-term sustainability of its economic success. At a time of leadership transition in Beijing, global markets and policymakers alike are casting an anxious eye on China’s economic decisionmakers and wondering whether they have the plans, skills, and fortitude to cope with these challenges. There is a rising premium on understanding how Chinese economic policy decisions are made, whether the emerging cadre of policymakers has the wherewithal to navigate the more turbulent waters ahead, and what the implications are for U.S. foreign and economic policy.
To explore opportunities for greater economic cooperation between the United States and Japan in third countries, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington and the Asia Pacific Initiative (API) in Tokyo embarked on a joint research project using a case-study approach to examine four countries (Myanmar, Vietnam, India, and South Korea) and two institutional arrangements (regional trade architecture and the G7) where the United States and Japan have aligned interests. We found that shared interests and goals of the United States and Japan transcend today’s bilateral trade tensions, and despite China’s growing influence and assertive behavior there nevertheless remains a strong demand in the region for U.S. and Japanese leadership. Washington and Tokyo should therefore work to better coordinate their economic engagement in the region.
As the United States and China mark their 40th anniversary of formal diplomatic relations in 2019, the world’s most important bilateral relationship is increasingly defined by mistrust, competition, and uncertainty. After four decades of deepening economic integration, the talk in Washington today is about the extent to which the two economies will “decouple” over the years ahead. We drew on several different academic disciplines to help us model how an economic conflict between the United States and China could escalate and eventually de-escalate. Despite the challenges inherent in modelling economic conflict, our model was validated to a surprising extent by both our simulations and real-world developments. The project produced several findings that were both unexpected and relevant to policy, including that economic conflict is likely to be an enduring feature of the U.S.-China relationship for many years to come. Until perceptions of relative costs in the two countries shift, Washington and Beijing seem set on a path of continued escalation, no substantial trade deal, and at least partial decoupling of their economies. Reflecting on these findings, the report also provides recommendations for U.S. policymakers seeking to engage in successful economic bargaining with China.
Economic integration has been a focus of Asia-Pacific affairs for the last quarter century. To support and strengthen economic ties, governments in the region have pursued an array of integration initiatives, from the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum launched in 1989 to bilateral and regional trade negotiations currently underway. APEC has been the most successful tool of regional trade and investment integration thus far and has the potential to continue bridging differences between various integration efforts in the region. This report, with input from a wide variety of regional and topical experts, posits that developing a common, high-standard policy approach to value chains could pull together the various integration efforts to the substantial economic benefit of the entire region. The report offers eight recommendations for a broad-based APEC initiative building on existing work in the region on supply chains and connectivity.
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.