28

Asia-Pacific Forum 2016

Advancing trade and investment liberalizationin the Asia-Pacific

報 告 書2016 年 11 月 24 日（木）～25 日（金）（ベトナム ハノイ 開催）

一般財団法人 国際経済交流財団

この事業は、競輪の補助を受けて実施しました。

http://ringring-keirin.jp

平成 28 年度日アジア太平洋フォーラム
2016 年 11 月 24 日（木）～11 月 25 日（金）（於：ベトナム ハノイ）
＜1 日目＞公開フォーラム

2016/11/24

開会の辞 CIEM Dr. Nguyen Dinh Cung 所長

開会の辞 JEF 日下会長

2016/11/24

パネルセッション 1
モデレーター JEF 原岡専務理事

スピーカー集合写真

2016/11/24

パネルセッション 1
Prof. Fukagawa, Dr. Vo, Amb. McLean,
Prof. Zhang, Prof. Hawke

2016/11/24

パネルセッション 2
Dr. Chen, Mr. Palaniappan, Prof. Yap,
Prof. Tay, Dr. Ahn, Dr. Intaravitak

2016/11/24

2016/11/24

パネルセッション 3
Dr. Damuri, Prof. Yap, Dr. Vo,
Dr. Chaturvedi, U Soe, Dr. Chan

会場の様子

会場の様子

質疑応答＜2 日目＞非公開ラウンドテーブル・ディスカッション(CIEM) Mr. Hieu / (JEF)日下会長

ディスカッションの様子

ディスカッションの様子

ディスカッションの様子

ディスカッションの様子

ディスカッションの様子

目

次

1.

開 催 趣 旨・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・1

2.

開 催 概 要・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・2

3.

詳 細 日 程・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・4

4.

出

5.

略

6.

議 事 要 旨席者・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・8
歴 ・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・10

日本語
英・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・27

語・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・35

7.

発 表 資 料 ・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・43

8.

若手研究者の参加報告
略歴・感想 ・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・119

9.

公開フォーラム来場者アンケート集計・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・124

10.

成

11.

共催団体紹介・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・129

12.

事

果・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・126

務局・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・130

1．開催趣旨
国際経済国流財団は、我が国と諸外国との経済交流を促進するため、各年における経済問題を取り上げ、アジア太平洋地域の専門家・有識者間でこれらの問題解決等について議論を重ねてきた。
アジア太平洋地域に於けるＦＴＡ推進を目指して 2003 年に開始した日アジア太平洋フォーラム（Asia-Pacific Forum）は、2014 年以来これまでの当地域に於けるＦＴＡの拡大・深化、地域統合の進展、また実体経済における global value chain の展開を踏まえたＴＰＰやＲＣＥＰの交渉の進展に寄与するための従来型トピックに加えて、ＦＴＡ交渉が各国の構造改革を進めるための手段（vehicle）とする観点から、貿易・投資自由化、ひいては地域経済統合にむけての各国
内の政治経済面での制約（behind the border measures）、国家間の軋轢などの課題とそれらの克服といった内容を取り上げることとした。
今次、当財団は 2016 年 11 月 24 日（木）、 25 日（金）ベトナム・ハノイに於いて、中央経済管理研究所（Central Institute for Economic Management: CIEM）との共催でメインテーマ「アジア太平洋地域における貿易および投資の自由化の推進（Advancing trade and investment
liberalization in the Asia-Pacific）」の下、以下 3 つのセッションを設け、公開フォーラム、及び非公開ラウンドテーブル・ディスカッションを実施した。
セッション１
アジア太平洋地域の経済統合に向けてのロードマップ：考慮すべき課題
Roadmap for Asia Pacific Economic Integration: Issues for consideration
セッション２
地域内の貿易・投資自由化にとっての新たな課題
New issues of regional trade and investment liberalization
セッション３貿易を国内政策改革に繋げる：経済成長のための一貫した措置に対するコンセンサスの形成
Linking trade with domestic policy reforms: Building consensus for coherent move toward
economic growth
なお、本事業は競輪の補助（２８－２１）を受けて実施した。

12．開催概要1.

開催日時： 2016 年 11 月 24 日（木） 13:00-17:30 公開フォーラム
2016 年 11 月 25 日（金） 09:00-12:00 非公開ラウンドテーブル・ディスカッション2.

開催場所： ベトナム会場

ハノイ

＜1 日目＞

Pullman Hanoi
40 Cat Linh St., 10000 Hanoi, Vietnam＜2 日目＞

Central Institute for Economic Management (CIEM)
68 Phan Dinh Phung St., Ba Dinh Dist., Hanoi, Vietnam

3.

主 催 者：＜日本側＞
一般財団法人国際経済交流財団／Japan Economic Foundation (JEF)＜ベトナム側＞
中央経済管理研究所／Central Institute for Economic Management (CIEM)

4.

テ ー マ：

アジア太平洋地域における貿易および投資の自由化の推進
Advancing trade and investment liberalization in the Asia-Pacific
セッション１
アジア太平洋地域の経済統合に向けてのロードマップ：考慮すべき課題
Roadmap for Asia Pacific Economic Integration: Issues for consideration
セッション２
地域内の貿易・投資自由化にとっての新たな課題
New issues of regional trade and investment liberalization
セッション３貿易を国内政策改革に繋げる：経済成長のための一貫した措置に対するコンセンサスの形成
Linking trade with domestic policy reforms: Building consensus for coherent movetoward economic growth2

5.

出 席 者：

日本、ベトナム、アジア太平洋地域（計 13 の国・地域）から計 25 名
パネリスト・モデレーター・主催者・若手研究者を含む

6.

形

式：

＜1 日目＞公開フォーラム（聴衆：99 名）＜2 日目＞非公開ラウンドテーブル・ディスカッション

7.

使用言語：

英語

3

3．詳細日程
Asia-Pacific Forum 2016

“Advancing trade and investment liberalization in the Asia-Pacific”
A Conference by:Japan Economic Foundation and Central Institute for Economic Management
24-25 November 2016, Hanoi≪Program≫

DAY 1
11:30-12:30

Thursday, November 24
Welcome Luncheon (hosted by CIEM)
Venue: La Cheminée, Pullman Hotel

Public conference
Venue: Van Mieu1, Pullman Hotel
12:30-13:00

Registration

13:00-13:10

Welcome Remarks
 Dr. Cung Dinh NGUYEN, President, Central Institute for
Economic Management (CIEM) Mr. Kazumasa KUSAKA, Chairman and CEO, Japan Economic
Foundation (JEF)

13:25-13:30

Photo Session

13:30-14:40

Session1: Roadmap for Asia Pacific Economic Integration:
Issues for consideration
Key discussion points:What do you think about the global economic outlook against
the background of surging protectionism and inward looking
nationalism such as Brexit?
What do you think would be Asia’s responsibility for achieving
global economic growth?
What is the current state of major FTAs in the Asia Pacific? Isthere significant room for new (even more comprehensive)
FTAs?

4



New justifications for pro-development nature of
new-generation FTAs?



Prospect of currently pending FTAs (such as TPP, RCEP);
What are the key factors for effectively harmonizing current
FTAs into a more effective integration roadmap for Asia Pacific?

 Moderator: Mr. Naoyuki HARAOKA, Executive Managing
Director, JEF
 Speakers (5 minutes for each):

Dr. Thanh Tri VO, Senior Researcher, CIEM



Ambassador Murray MCLEAN AO, Chairman, Dunmore
McLean Pty Ltd.



Professor Yunling ZHANG, Professor, Academy Member
and Director of International Studies, Chinese Academy ofSocial Sciences (CASS)Professor Yukiko FUKAGAWA, Professor, School of Political
Science and Economics, Waseda UniversityProfessor Gary HAWKE, Emeritus Professor, Victoria
University of Wellington

 Questions and answers
14:40-14:55

Coffee Break

14:55-16:05

Session 2: New issues of regional trade and investment
liberalization
Key discussion points:
 Connectivity enhancement: framework, steps, andcontemporary challenges;
 Participation in GVCs (global value chain): any risks from theweb of FTAs in Asia Pacific;
 Phasing out TBT(technical barriers to trade)and SPS(sanitaryand phytosanitary measures): room for meaningful progress;
 Dispute settlement in FTAs: too formalistic, or too
asymmetrically restrictive?

5 Moderator: Professor Josef T. YAP, Professorial Lecturer,
University of the Philippines School of Economics
 Speakers (5 minutes for each)Dr. Lurong CHEN, Economist, Economic Research Institutefor ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA)Dr. Choong-Yong AHN, Chairman, Korea Commission for
Corporate Partnership (KCCP)

Mr. P. Ravidran PALANIAPPAN, Senior Director, ASEAN
Economic Cooperation Division, Ministry of International
Trade and Industry (MITI)

Professor Simon SC TAY, Chairman, Singapore Institute ofInternational Affairs (SIIA)

Dr. Chedtha INTARAVITAK, Research Fellow, Thailand
Development Research Institute (TDRI)

 Questions and answers
16:05-17:15

Session 3: Linking trade with domestic policy reforms:
Building consensus for coherent move toward economic
growthKey discussion points:


What are the required domestic reforms for effective
participation in new-generation FTAs in the Asia Pacific toachieve growth strategy?
Improvement of business environment to leverage the benefitsfrom integration;
Building consensus: from talks to actions;
Measures to establish and/or improve G2B and B2B linkages.

 Moderator: Dr. Thanh Tri VO, Senior Researcher, CIEM
 Speakers (5 minutes for each):Dr. Sachin CHATURVEDI, Director General, Research andInformation System for Developing Countries (RIS)

Dr. Yose Rizal DAMURI, Head of the Department of
Economics, Center for Strategic and International Studies(CSIS)6


U SOE Win, Executive Director, Renaissance Institute
Professor Josef T. YAP, Professorial Lecturer, University of
the Philippines School of Economics



Dr. Mignonne Man-jung CHAN, Chair and CEO,Out-of-the-Box Consultancy

 Questions and answers
17:15-17:30

Closing Remarks
 Dr. NGUYEN Dinh Cung, President, CIEM Mr. Kazumasa KUSAKA, Chairman and CEO, JEF

End of public conference
18:00-20:00

Welcome Dinner (hosted by JEF)
Venue: Solo room, Pullman Hotel

DAY 2

Friday, November 25

Private roundtable discussion on issues of regional economic
integration
Venue: Meeting room. CIEM
09:00-09:05

Welcome Remarks
 Dr. Thanh Tri VO, Senior Researcher, CIEM Mr. Kazumasa KUSAKA, Chairman and CEO, JEF

09:05-10:20

Private Roundtable Discussion: Round 1
Moderator: Mr. Naoyuki HARAOKA, Executive Managing Director,
JEF

10:20-10:40

Coffee Break

10:40-11:55

Private Roundtable Discussion Continued
Moderator: Dr. Thanh Tri VO, Senior Researcher, CIEM

11:55-12:00

Closing Remarks
 Dr. Thanh Tri VO, Senior Researcher, CIEM Mr. Kazumasa KUSAKA, Chairman and CEO, JEF

12:00-13:00

Farewell Luncheon (hosted by CIEM and JEF)
Venue: Meeting room, CIEM

7

4．出席者（氏名アルファベット順／18 名）
Dr. Choong-Yong Ahn, Chairman, Korea Commission for Corporate Partnership (KCCP)
Dr. Man-Jung Mignonne Chan, Founder and CEO, Out-of-the-Box Consultancy
Dr. Sachin Chaturvedi, Director General, Research and Information System for Developing
Countries (RIC)
Dr. Lurong Chen, Economist, Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA)
Dr. Yose Rizal Damuri, Head, Department of Economics, Center for Strategic and International
Studies (CSIS), Indonesia
Prof. Yukiko Fukagawa, Professor, School of Political Science and Economics, Waseda University
Mr. Naoyuki Haraoka, Executive Managing Director, Japan Economic Foundation (JEF)
Prof. Gary Hawke, Emeritus Professor, Victoria University of Wellington
Dr. Chedtha Intaravitak, Research Fellow, Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI)
Mr. Kazumasa Kusaka, Chairman and CEO, Japan Economic Foundation (JEF)
Amb. Murray McLean AO, Chairman, Dunmore McLean Pty Ltd.
Dr. Nguyen Dinh Cung, President, Central Institute for Economic Management (CIEM)
Datuk P. Ravidran Palaniappan, Senior Director, ASEAN Economic Cooperation Division,
Ministry of International Trade and Industry Malaysia (MITI)U Soe Win, Executive Director, Renaissance InstituteProf. Simon SC Tay, Chairman, Singapore Institute of International Affairs (SIIA)
Dr. Vo Tri Thanh, Vice President, Central Institute for Economic Management (CIEM)
Dr. Josef T. Yap, Professorial Lecturer, School of Economics, University of Philippines
Prof. Zhang Yunling, Professor, Academy Member and Director of International Studies, Chinese
Academy of Social Science (CASS)
オブザーバー（順不同／2 名）

Mr. Rei Naka, Assistant Manager, Asian Business Development Division, Daiwa Institute of
Research Ltd.
Mr. Aung Khine, Executive Advisor, Renaissance Institute
CIEM オブザーバー（敬称略／順不同／16 名）

Nguyen Anh Duong, Acting Deputy Director, Department for Macroeconomic and Integration
Studies8

Tran Binh Minh, Researcher, Department for Macroeconomic and Integration Studies
Dinh Thu Hang, Researcher, Department for Macroeconomic and Integration Studies
Nguyen Thi Hoa Ly, Researcher, Department for Investment Policies
Pham Phu Minh, Researcher, Department for Investment Policies
Nguyen Bich Hanh, Official, Center for Information and Documentation
Hoang Van Cuong, Researcher, Department for Public Service Policies
Dao Xuan Tung Anh, Researcher, Department for Investment Policies
Dang Thi Thu Hoai, Director, Department for Rural Economic Development Policies
Nguyen Viet Tung, Researcher, Department for Business Environment and Competitiveness
Do Thi Le Mai, Researcher, Department for Economic Institutions
Ngo Bao Ngoc, Researcher, Department for Economic Institutions
Nguyen Thi Minh Thu, Researcher, Department for Enterprises’ Reform and Development
Le Mai Anh, Researcher, Department for Macroeconomic and Integration Studies
Pham Thien Hoang, Researcher, Department for Macroeconomic and Integration Studies
Hoang Thi Hai Yen, Researcher, Department for Business Environment and Competitiveness他、参加団体Ministry of Foreign Affair
Ministry of Planning and Investment
Ministry of Industrial and Trade
Ministry of Finance
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
State Bank of Vietnam
Vietnam Chamber of Commerce and Industry
National Financial Supervisory Commission
Office of the Government
Office of the President
National AssemblyCentral Economic Committee
General Statistic Office
National Institute for Finance
Vietnam Institute for Economic and Policy Research
Foreign Trade University
National Economic University
University of Trade

9

5．略歴
Biographies of Panelists
Dr. Choong-Yong Ahn
Chairman, Korea Commission for Corporate Partnership (KCCP)

Dr. Ahn is currently Chairman, Korea Commission for Corporate Partnership (KCCP) and
responsible for inducing voluntary collaborations and nurturing synergy between Korea’s big
businesses, and small and medium enterprises. Before taking his current post, he served as
Foreign Investment Ombudsman (2006-2014) who is the troubleshooter responsible forresolving grievances raised by foreign investor at the Korea Trade and Investment
Promotion Agency in Korea. He is former Chairman of the Presidential Regulatory Reform
Committee (2010-2012). He holds also Distinguished Professorship at Graduate School ofInternational Studies, Chung-Ang University. While on sabbatical from Chung-Ang
University, he also served several posts such as the President of the Korea Institute forInternational Economic Policy (2002-2005); Chair of the APEC Economic Committee; Chairof Board, Choheung Bank; consultant to the World Bank; UNIDO Chief Technical Advisor to
the Economic Planning Unit of Malaysia to design Malaysia's industrial master plan; andserved as President of several academic societies in Korea including the Korea International
Economics Association, Korean Association of Trade and Industry Studies, and the Korea
Econometric Society.
Dr. Ahn’s honors include the Economist of the Year Award from the Maeil Business Daily
Newspaper in Korea, the Okita Policy Research Award by the National Institute for
Research Advancement in Japan for his publication on “Modern East Asian Economy”, andFree Economy Publication Award by the Federation of Korean Industries. Since receiving his
Ph.D. from Ohio State University, Dr. Ahn has published many articles in international
journals including Review of Economics and Statistics, European Economic Review,
Japanese Economic Review, Journal of Asian Economics and Monograph papers inNorth-Holland, Cambridge University Press, Springer and Edward Elgar, etc.

10Dr. Mignonne Man-jung Chan
Chair and CEO, Out-of-the-Box Consultancy

Dr. Mignonne Man-jung CHAN has extensive experience in academia, government, business,and media. She is Founder & CEO of Out-of-the-Box Consultancy, and sits in many Boards,
including Commissioner of the KMT Party Integrity & Capability Committee, Board
Member of the National Policy Research Foundation, Independent Non-Executive Directorof Standard Chartered Bank (Taiwan), Executive Board Member of Association of Emerging
Market Studies, Association of Strategic Environmental Resources, and the Sino-U.S.
Economic & Cultural Association. Dr. Chan currently also serves as Advisor to Chinese
Taipei APEC Study Center, Adjunct Associate Professor of the MBA program at the National
Chengchi University. She is also coaching negotiation regularly at the National Academy of
Civil Service, Institute of Diplomacy & International Affairs at Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Ministry of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, and National Association of Aviation. Dr.
Chan used to be Member of the Parliament at-Large and sat as Chair of the Judicial
Committee. She also served as Senior Adviser to President Ma Ying-Jeou at the National
Security Council of ROC 2008~2010, Director General of International Secretariat of Pacific
Economic Cooperation Council (PECC) 1999~2001; Director (Research) at the International
Secretariat of Asia-Pacific Cooperation Council (APEC) 1996~1999, and Chief of Staff at the
APEC Business Advisory Council (ABAC). She used to serve as Research Associate at theHarvard University Negotiation Roundtable—a consortium organized by Schools of Law,
Business, and Government. She also served as Research Associate at the Christian Science
Monitor TV.
Education
Ph.D., Political Economy, Boston University, USA
Research Fields
National Security, International Organizations, Global Governance, International Political
Economy, Business & Government Relations, Regional Economic Integration, Global
Business Environment, Cross-Taiwan-Strait Reations, Negotiation Theories & Practices,and International Parliamentary Procedure.

11Dr. Sachin Chaturvedi
Director General, Research and Information System forDeveloping Countries (RIS)Dr. Sachin Chaturvedi is Director General at the Research and Information System forDeveloping Countries (RIS), a New Delhi-based autonomousThink-Tank. He was also a
Global Justice Fellow at the MacMillan Center for International Affairs at Yale University.
He works on issues related to development cooperation policies and South-South cooperation.
He has also worked on trade and innovation linkages with special focus on WTO. Dr.
Chaturvedi has served as a Visiting Professor at the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU)
and has also worked as consultant to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, World
Bank, UN-ESCAP, UNESCO, OECD, the Commonwealth Secretariat, IUCN, and to theGovernment of India’s Department of Biotechnology and the Ministry of Environment andForests, among other organizations. He has been a Developing Country Fellow at the
University of Amsterdam (1996), Visiting Fellow at the Institute of Advanced Studies,
Shimla (2003), and Visiting Scholar at the German Development Institute (2007). His
experience includes working at the University of Amsterdam on a project on International
Development Cooperation and Biotechnology for Developing Countries supported by the
Dutch Ministry of External Affairs. Dr. Chaturvedi has also been a member of the IGSAC
Committee of Experts for evolving a framework for cooperation on conservation of
biodiversity in the SAARC region, as well as a member of the Editorial Board of
Biotechnology

Development

Monitor(the

Netherlands)

and

Asian

Biotechnology

Development Review (New Delhi). He has authored three books and edited seven books
apart from publishing several research articles in various prestigious journals.

Dr. Lurong Chen
Economist, Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia
(ERIA)

Lurong Chen is an Economist of Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia
(ERIA), Jakarta Indonesia. He obtained his Ph.D. Degree (International Economics) in12

Graduate Institute, Geneva, Switzerland in 2008. His research interests include Asian
regionalism, global value chains and production sharing, trade in services, and digital
economy. He is also working on mega FTAs, trade related intellectual property rights, labormobility, and Chinese economy. Before joining ERIA, Dr. Chen was a Research Fellow at theUnited Nations University.

Dr. Yose Rizal Damuri
Head of the Department of Economics Center for Strategic andInternational Studies (CSIS)

Yose Rizal Damuri, Head of the Department of Economics, Center for Strategic andInternational Studies in Indonesia. His research activities focus on international trade,
regional integration and globalization of value chain. He is active in several research andadvisory networks both in Indonesia and in East Asia, such as Indonesia Service Dialogue(ISD) and Asia-Pacific Research and Training Network on Trade (ARTNeT). Yose alsoteaches International Economics courses at the Faculty of Economics University ofIndonesia. In addition, he occasionally writes in local and national newspapers. He received
his Bachelor of Economics from the Faculty of Economics, University of Indonesia. He
continued his study at the National Centre for Development Studies, Australian National
University (ANU), Canberra and got his Master of Economics of Development (MEcDev). He
received his PhD in International Economics from the Graduate Institute of International
Studies (HEI), Geneva, Switzerland. Research Interest: International Economics, Economic
Modelling, Global Value Chain.

Dr. Yukiko Fukagawa
Professor, School of Political Science and Economics, Waseda
University

Yukiko Fukagawa is currently a Professor, School of Political Science and Economics,
Waseda University and a Visiting Fellow, Faculty of Asia and Middle East Studies/13

Development Center, Cambridge University. After undergraduate program at Waseda, shestudied at Yale University for MA in International Development Economics, and finished
Ph.D program at Waseda Graduate School of Business Studies. Her major interest lies in
economic development in East Asia, especially Korea, including their industrial/trade
policies. She worked for Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO) and Long-Term Credit
Bank Research Institute (LTCBR) before joining the faculty member of Aoyama Gakuin
University and the University of Tokyo before coming back to Waseda.
She engaged in many consultation and advisory activities for the government, such as theCommittee for Foreign Exchange in the Ministry of Finance, the Committee for Industrial
Structure in the Ministry of Economy and Industry etc... She served as the Chairman of
Economic Section in “Japan-Korea Joint Study for the New Era” project opened in 2013. Her
recent publication includes Northeast Asia and Japan-Korea Relations in Post Financial

Crisis (2013), co-ed with Yul Sohn, Institute of Asia Studies, Waseda University, and“Converging Institutions in Integration in Asia” (2012), in Urfa ends, Globalization andRegional Integration in Asia, Keiso Shobo 2012.

Mr. Naoyuki Haraoka
Executive Managing Director, Japan Economic Foundation (JEF)

Born in Tokyo in 1955. After graduating the University of Tokyo in 1978 (Bachelor of
Economics), he joined MITI (Ministry of International Trade and Industry) of Japanese
government. Having been posted in the industrial policy section and the international trade
policy section for a few years, he was enrolled in a two year MPA (Master of Public
Administration) programme at Woodraw Wilson School of Princeton University in the US on
a Japanese government sponsorship. After having acquired MPA at Princeton, he rejoined
MITI in 1984 as an economist. Since then he had been posted as Deputy Director andDirector of a number of MITI divisions including Research Division of International Trade
Policy Bureau. He was also posted in Paris twice, firstly, Principal Economist of Trade
Bureau of OECD (Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development) from 1988 to 92
and secondly Counselor to Japanese Delegation of OECD from 1996 to 99. After coming backto MITI from his second stay in Paris, at the occasion of the government structural reform in2001 when MITI was remodeled as METI (Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry) he14joined the efforts to found METI research institute, Research Institute of Economy Tradeand Industry as its Director of Administration. He became Chief Executive Director of
JETRO San Francisco in 2003 and stayed in San Francisco until 2006. He was
Director-General of METI Training Institute from 2006 until July, 2007 when he left METI
permanently and joined JEF as Executive Managing Director.

Prof. Gary Hawke
Emeritus Professor, Victoria University of Wellington

Gary Hawke was Head of the School of Government and Professor of Economic History at
Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand. He held visiting appointments at Stanford
University, All Souls’ College, Oxford, the Australian National University and a number of
institutions in Japan. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Distinguished
Fellow of the NZ Association of Economists and Fellow of the Institute of Public
Administration of New Zealand. He is a Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit. He
consults for government on education policy. He is a member of the board of the New ZealandCommittee of the Pacific Economic Co-operation Council, NZPECC, a member of the
Academic Advisory Council of the Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia
and represents NZ Institute for Economic Research on its Research Institutes Network. He
is now Emeritus Professor, Victoria University of Wellington, and Senior Fellow, NZ
Institute of Economic Research.

Dr. Chedtha Intaravitak
Research Fellow, Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI)

Dr. Chedtha Intaravitak is Research Fellow at the Thailand Development Research Institute(TDRI). After his Ph.D. in economics (macroeconomics and international trade) from Boston

15

University, he joined TDRI and have been actively involved with TDRI projects related tointernational trade and industry upgrading. His particular areas of interests are theutilization of FTAs’ tariff preference, production network in South-East Asia, and themodeling of economic outcomes from trade policy. He has regularly conducted training andworkshops for government agencies.

Mr. Kazumasa Kusaka
Chairman and CEO, Japan Economic Foundation (JEF)

Kazumasa Kusaka has been Chairman and CEO of the Japan Economic Foundation (JEF)
since April 1, 2013, and is also a Professor at University of Tokyo Graduate School of Public
Policy. He previously served for 36 years in Japan’s Ministry of International Trade andIndustry (MITI), rising to become vice-minister for international affairs in the reorganized
Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) in 2004. During his long career in public
service, Kusaka was seconded to the International Energy Agency (IEA)/OECD and wasJapan’s senior official for Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). He played a central
role in Asia’s economic integration, promoting FTAs in the region as well as serving as asenior official negotiating the Doha development agenda of the WTO. He was head of Japan’s
Energy Agency and held director-general positions in technology and environmental policy
in addition to trade and investment-related areas within METI. He was also instrumental in
finalizing the Kyoto Protocol, and developing Japan’s energy and environment policies.
Among many other posts Kusaka has held are Special Adviser to the Prime Minister on
Global Warming, senior vice president of Mitsubishi Electric, executive adviser to Dentsu
Inc., and president of the Japan Cooperation Center for the Middle East.

16

Amb. Murray McLean AO
Chairman, Dunmore McLean Pty Ltd

Murray McLean is formerly a senior officer of the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs
and Trade (DFAT). He currently holds many very important positions including Chair ofAustralia Japan Foundation (since 2012); a Vice Chancellor’s Professorial Fellow at Monash
University (since 2012); a non-resident Fellow at the Lowy Institute (since 2014). He retired
from DFAT in 2012 after a 42 year career during which he was Ambassador to Japan(2004-2011) initiating negotiations on the FTA and on growing security cooperation as wellas leading Australia’s response to the earthquake, tsunami and nuclear disasters; Deputy
Secretary of DFAT (2004); First Assistant Secretary, North Asia Division (2001-2003); HighCommissioner in Singapore (1997-2001); Assistant Secretary, East Asia Branch (1992-1996),
and Consul General, Shanghai.

Dr. Nguye Dinh Cung
President, Central Institute for Economic Management (CIEM)

Employment record-

6/2014 - now: President of Central Institute for Economic Management-

9/2013-5/2014: Acting President of Central Institute for Economic Management-

2009-8/2013: Vice President of Central Institute for Economic Management-

2000-2009: Director, Macroeconomic Policy Department, Central Institute for Economic
Management-

1997-2000: Deputy Director, Macroeconomic Policy Department, Central Institute for
Economic Management-

1983-1997: Researcher, Macroeconomic Policy Department, Central Institute forManagement

17

Working experiences(Detailed tasks assigned)-

Member of the drafting taskforce of Decree on guiding Law on Enterprise (2015)-

Member of the drafting committee of Law on Enterprise (2014)-

Member of the drafting committee of Law on Investment (2014)-

Member of the drafting taskforce of Resolution No. 19/ NQ-CP on main tasks andmeasures to improve business environment, to strengthen national competitiveness(2014)-

Member of the drafting taskforce of Program for transformation of economic growthmodel of Vietnam (Decision No. 339/QD-TTg, 2013)-

Head of the drafting board of the decree guiding implementation of the Enterprise Law(Decree No. 102/2010/ND-CP)-

Key drafter of Decree No. 139/2007/ND-CP) CP on implementing the law on enterprise;-

Member of the drafting committee of Law on Enterprise (2005)-

Member of the drafting committee of Law on Investment (2005)-

Key drafter of the government decrees on annulling a number of business permits andlicenses in 2000 and 2001 (decision No. 19/2000/QD-TTg; decree No. 30/2000/ND-CP and
59/2002/ND-CP).

-

Drafter of the government decrees providing detailed guidelines on implementation of
the enterprise law 1999 (Decree No. 02/2000/ND-CP and 03/2000/ND-CP which are lateron replaced and supplemented by Decree No. 109/2004/ND-CP and Decree
125/2004/ND-CP respectively).

-

Key drafter of the enterprise law 1999.

-

Principal drafter, drafting committee of the enterprise law; secretary, Steering
Committee of Planning Renovation,” 1998-

MemberofDrafting

Committee:

Domestic

Investment

Promotion

Law

and

Implementing Regulation, 1994-1995-

Member of drafting committee: procedures for liquidation of loss-making state owned
enterprises and first drafts of bankruptcy law, 1991-

Member of the drafting committee on Company and Private Enterprise Laws 1988-1990.

(Main studies and advisory experiences)-

Member of Prime Minister’s Advisory Group.

-

Member of Advisory Team on “Vietnam 2035 Report”.

-

Member of Steering Committee of the study on “Institutional reform in Vietnam,
2014-2020, vision 2030”.

-

The study on “Main institutional bottlenecks and intuitional reform orientations to18

transform Vietnam economy to modern market economy, 2014-2020” (2014).
-

Member of drafting team of Report on “Development of Vietnam market economy 2014”
in the framework of the cooperation with Vietnam Friedrich-Neumann Institute (2014).

-

Consultant for the study on “The progress on SOE restructuring reforms in Vietnam”,
The World Bank (2013).

-

Member of the advisory council on administrative procedure reforms-

Study on “Skilling up Vietnam: Preparing the workforce for a modern market economy”,
in Cooperation with WB (2012).

-

Report on “Vietnam Workforce development Report” (in Cooperation with WB) (2012).

-

Study on “Social Enterprises: Concepts, international experiences and Vietnamese
Realities (sponsored by British Council).

-Study on “Competitiveness of Vietnam Export Companies in Electronics, Textile andAquatic products (sponsored by Asia Foundation) (2010).

-

Reporton

Vietnam competitiveness

report 2010

(incooperation

with

Asia

Competiveness Institute, Lee Kuan Yew School of public policies, Singapore).
-

Report on “Policy Recommendations for rapid Transformation of Vietnam Economic
Structure in the period 2011-2020”, CIEM.

-

Report on “Some Policy Recommendations for enhancing efficiency of state enterprises”,
CIEM.

-

Report on “Public Investment and transformation of economic growth model in Vietnam”,
CIEM.

-

Reporton“Reviewing

laws

on

investment

andenterprise:findings

andrecommendations for changes”, April, 2008.
-

Report on “An assessment report of inconsistency and inappropriateness between
regulations on investment, land, construction and environment and real estate”, UNDP
(2007).

-

Report on An assessment of compliance cost for paying taxes in Vietnam (sponsored by
the World Bank) (2007)-

Report on “Stocktaking of business licenses in Vietnam”, DANIDA (2007).

-

Report on “Corporate Governance in Vietnam: regulation, practice and recommendation
for change”, GIZ (2007).

-

Report on “From business idea to reality: comprehensive reform is needed”, GIZ (2007).

-

Report on “How to select the right business form”, GIZ (2007).

-

Report on “Six month of implementing the enterprise law (2005): a preliminary
assessment”, CIEM (2007).

-

Report on “Six years of implementing the enterprise law (1999): issues and lessons
learnt“, GIZ (2006).

19

-

Report on “From business idea to reality: Still a long and costly journey”, GIZ (2005).

-

Report on “Model for management of state owned enterprise: strengths, weaknesses andrecommendations for changes”, CIEM (2005).

-

Report on “Model for execution of the state ownership in the enterprises: international
experiences and lessons for Vietnam”, CIEM (2005).

-

Report on “Licensing the foreign investment in Vietnam: an assessment andrecommendation”, UNDP (2005).

-

Report on “Hightime for another breakthrough: review of the enterprise law andrecommendation for change”, UNDP (2004).

-

Report on “Why don’t northern provinces grow faster?” UNDP (2004).

-

Head of the study on “Comparative provincial performance: some preliminary
observations from nine provincial case studies”, UNDP-CIEM (2003).

-

Report on “Selected Disputes relating to the Enterprise Law: Settlement and Remarks”.
UNDP-CIEM (2002).

-

Report on “Business Development Service in Vietnam: An assessment andrecommendations”, GIZ (2001).

-

Report on “Classification and Assessment of costs versus benefits of the current systemof the business licenses”, UNDP-CIEM (2000).

-

Reports on “Assessment of the enterprise law 1999’s enforcement”, UNDP-CIEM (2000,
2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005).

-

Report on “Review of the Laws on company and private enterprise: An assessment and
key recommendation for changes”, CIEM (1998).

-

Report on effects of macroeconomic policy on development of small and medium scale
enterprise in Vietnam, UNIDO (1998).

-

Report on “Vietnam’s service Environment: the ASIAN Priority Sectors”, UNDP (1998).

-

Report on “Policy Package for mobilization of Domestic Resources for Industrialization”(1996).

-

Report on “Some suggestions for amendment of the current law on foreign direct
investment in Vietnam”, sponsored by IDRC, Canada (1995).

-

Report on “Theoretical and Practical Aspect for Development of General Corporation in
Vietnam”, CIEM (1994-1995).

-

Report on “Allocation and Impact of banking Credit on development of small andmedium enterprise – Fact finding Survey in Habac and Dongnai Provinces”, sponsoredby FES, Germany (1994).

Publications-

Co-author of Reference Book “Reforming the model of exercising the state ownership20

functions at SOEs: Theoretical, international experiences and the application in
Vietnam” Encyclopaedia Publishing House (2013) (in Vietnamese).
-

Co-author of book “Understanding the Law on Enterprise”, CIEM (2007) (inVietnamese).

-

Co-author of book “Understanding the Law on Investment”, CIEM (2007) (inVietnamese).

-

Co-author of book “Economic Development Policy: Experiences and Lessons of China”,
Transportation Publishing House, UNDP-CIEM (2003) (in Vietnamese).

-

Co-author of book “Developing the Socialist oriented Market Economy in Vietnam”,
Statistical Publishing House (2003) (in Vietnamese).

-

Co-author of book “Selected Disputes relating to the Enterprise Law”, Transportation
Publishing House (2003) (in Vietnamese).

-

Co-author of book “Establishment of systematic macro-economic policies for accelerating
the process of industrialization and modernization in Vietnam”, National Political
Publishing House (2002) (in Vietnamese).

-

Co-author of book “The Enterprise Law: Questions and Answers”, UNDP-CIEM (2002)(in Vietnamese).

Datuk P. Ravidran Palaniappan
Senior Director, ASEAN Economic Cooperation Division, Ministry ofInternational Trade and Industry Malaysia (MITI)

Mr. P. Ravidran is the Senior Director of ASEAN Economic Integration Division of the
Ministry of International Trade and Industry. He has been with the Ministry since 1983
serving in various positions, except for a brief period of 1 year at the Ministry of Agriculture
in 1996. He was MITI Economic Counselor in Thailand from 2000-2004. While serving in
Bangkok, he was also Malaysia’s Alternate Representative to UNESCAP. He has been
actively involved in negotiations on various ASEAN economic initiatives, including the AEC
Blueprint 2015 and the AEC 2025. In addition to overseeing the implementation of theASEAN Economic Community in Malaysia, he was actively involved in the negotiations ofbilateral and regional free trade agreements involving Malaysia and ASEAN with theirtrading partners.

He currently chairs the Working Group on Services under the Regional

Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Agreement. He holds a Master in21

International Business from the University of Birmingham, United Kingdom.

U Soe Win
Executive Director, Renaissance Institute

U Soe Win is a Secretary for Parliamentary Affairs Committee and member of Economic
Committee of National League for Democracy (NLD). He was born in 1945 and studied for
his B.Com (Industry & Trade) at Rangoon Institute of Economics. He was employed in Jute
Mill, Planning Department as a Researcher from 1968 to 1973. He became a political activist
following the 1988 Democracy Movement in Burma. When NLD was found in September in
1988, he was the secretary of the Party for National Democracy which is one of the wings of
NLD. He was elected to Parliament in 1990 General Elections as a representative for Bago
Constituency. After 1989, he was arrested and imprisoned for five times because of his
political activities. In 2010, following the release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, he has been
involved as a founder in the reestablishment of NLD. Now he is acting as an Executive
Director of Renaissance Institute (Myanmar), which is non-profit research organization.

Prof. Simon SC Tay
Chairman, Singapore Institute of International Affairs (SIIA)

Simon Tay is Chairman of the Singapore Institute of International Affairs (SIIA), rated in2015 as the best in Asia and the Pacific. He is concurrently Associate Professor, teachinginternational law at the National University of Singapore, and author of the well-received
book on Asian regionalism and the role of America, Asia Alone (2010, Wiley). Prof Tay is
Senior Consultant at WongPartnership, a leading Asian law firm that practices across theregion, with offices in Singapore, China and the Middle East. He serves on boards for global
companies, Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, LGT Bank (Singapore) Ltd, and Eurex

22

Clearing Asia Ltd, and two leading Singaporean companies, Hyflux Ltd and Far East
Organization. He has spoken at leading business conferences including the World Economic
Forum, APEC CEO Summits and SIBOS, and briefed leading banks and major corporateboards about the politics and economics that matter to businesses. He has also served as
Chairman of the National Environment Agency, and has taught as a visiting professor at
Yale University, the Fletcher School and Harvard Law School. He graduated in law from the
National University of Singapore (1986) and Harvard Law School (1993), where he won the
Laylin prize for the best thesis in international law.

Dr. Vo Tri Thanh
Vice President, Central Institute for Economic Management(CIEM)

Working experience-

1989-91: researcher at the General Department of the CIEM, responsible formacroeconomic policies-

1992-5/1997: graduate and PhD student at Australian National University-

8/1997-10/2001: deputy director of the Centre of Applied Economics, head of the Unit for
Policy Analysis and Economic Forecast of the CIEM-

11/2001–12/2003: Head of the Department of Policy Analysis and Development Researchof the CIEM-

1/2004 – 4/2009: Director of the Department for International Economic Integration
Studies of the CIEM-

5/2009-10/2015: Vice-president of the CIEM-

Since 11/2015: Expert of the CIEM

Education-

1974-79: Moscow State University, BSc-

1980-81: Hanoi National University, Diploma (in mathematics)-

1992-93:AustralianNational University, MEc-

1994-1997: Australian National University, PhD in Economics

23

Awards:-

Helen Huges Prize for the best Master student at NCDS, ANU (1992-1993)-

United Nation’s Special Prize for policy impact of National Human Development Report

2001 (Co-editor with others)-

2nd Place Medal for Oustanding Research on Development “Mutual Impact, the Global
Economic Architecture, and the Millennium Development Goals” (GDN, January 2005;
together with Trinh Quang Long)-ANU Award for recognizing the oustanding contribution to the Vietnamese economy(November 2008)

Some recent books, publications and research papers-“Institutional Changes for Private Sector Development in Vietnam”, in Philippa Dee(ed.), Institutions for Economic Reform in

Asia, Routledge, London & New York, 2010

(Coauthor)-“Managing Capital Flows: The case of Vietnam”, in Masahiro Kawai and Mario B.
Lamberte (eds), Managing Capital Flows: The Search for a Framework, ADBI & Edward
Elgar Publishing, 2010 (Coauthor).

-

International Institutions and Asian Development, PAFTAD Conference Series,
Routledge, London and New York, 2011 (Co-editor)-“Revisiting Export and Foreign Direct Investment in Vietnam”, Asian Economic Policy

Review, Vol 6 Isue 1, Japan Center for Economic Research JCER, June 2011 (co-author)-“Impact of WTO and FTAs on Vietnama’s Merchandise Trade and Recommendations for
Trade Policy till 2015”, Report under MUTRAP-III Activity, Hanoi, September 2011
(Co-author; in Vietnamese)-

Indicators of Financial Supervision, Research Report RS-03, Economic Committee of
National Assembly and UNDP, December 2011 (co-editor; in Vietnamese).

-“SMEs Access to Finance in Vietnam”, in Charles Harvie, Sothea Oum, and Dionisius A.
Narjoko (eds), SMEs Access to Finance in Selected East Asian Economies, ERIA
Research Project Report 2010, No 14, September 2011 (Co-athor)-“Achieving an Efficient AEC by 2015: A Perspective from Vietnam”, in Sanchita Basu
Das (ed.), Achieving ASEAN Economic Community 2015: Challenges for Member

Countries and Businesses, ISEAS, Singapore, 2012.
-“The Initiative for ASEAN Integration: Effectiveness, Issues and the Way Forward”,
Chapter XV in ERIA, ASEAN Economic Blueprint Mid-Term Review, Jakarta, October
2012.

-

“Asian and Trans-Pacific Initiatives in Regional Integration”, Chapter 4 in PECC, Stateof The Region 2012-2013, PECC International Secretariat, September 2012 (Co-author).

24

-“Deepening the GMS Cooperation in a More Integrated ASEAN and East Asia”, inOmkar L. Shrestha and Aekapol Chongvilaivan (eds), Greater Mekong Subregion: From

Geographical to Socio-Economic Integration, ISEAS, Singapore, 2013.
-

Financial Regulations, Financial Structure, and Effectiveness of Monetary Policy in
Vietnam, Knowledge Publishing House, Hanoi, 2013 (Co-author; in Vietnamese andEnglish).

-A Comprehensive Evaluation of Vietnam’s Socio-economic Performance Five Years
After the Accession to WTO, Finance Publishing House, Hanoi, November 2013
(Research Group Leader; in Vietnamese and English).

-A Comprehensive Evaluation of Vietnam’s Socio-economic Performance

Five Years

After the Accession to WTO, Finance Publishing House, Hanoi, November 2013
(Research Group Leader; in Vietnamese and English).
-“Engendering Industrial Clusters and SMEs Dvelopment in ASEAN”, paper for the book

ASEAN Rising – ASEAN and AEC Beyond 2015, ERIA, 2014 (edited by Ponciano Intal,
Jr., Yoshifumi Fukunaga, Fukunari Kimura, Phoumin Han, Philippa Dee, Dionisius
Narjoko, and Sothea Oum)-“Supporting and Enhancing Regional Surveilance for ASEAN + 3 and Chiang Mai
Initiative Multilateralization: Country Report for Vietnam”, ADB RETA 7810-REG
Project, December 2014 (Coauthor).

Dr. Josef T. Yap
Professorial Lecturer, University of the Philippines School of
Economics

Josef T. Yap was President of the Philippine Institute for Development Studies, where heworked for 26 years until his retirement on June 30, 2013. While at PIDS, he specialized inmacroeconomic policy and applied econometrics. Dr. Yap finished his undergraduate anddoctoral studies at the University of the Philippines Diliman and went to the University ofPennsylvania on a post-graduate program. In 2010, Dr. Yap was honored as one of the 100
outstanding alumni of the UP Diliman College of Engineering as part of its Centennialcelebration. His current research interest centers on regional economic integration in East
Asia. Dr. Yap was the regional coordinator of the East Asian Development Network and was25

actively involved in the establishment of the Economic Research Institute for ASEAN andEast Asia (ERIA). He is co-author of the book The Philippine Economy: East Asia's Stray

Cat? Structure, Finance and Adjustment and is an Editorial Adviser of the Asian Economic
Journal. At present, Dr. Yap is a Professorial Lecturer at the University of the Philippines
School of Economics.

Prof. Zhang Yunling
Professor, Academy Member and Director of International Studies,
Chinese Academy of Social Science (CASS)

ZhangYunling, Born 1945.05.08, China, now professor, Academy Member and Director ofInternational Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Science (CASS), Director of Center ofRegional Security, CASS, Member of National Committee of Chinese Political Consultant
Conference (since 2002), President of China Association of Asia-Pacific Studies,. He is also
Vice Chairman of China Committee of PECC, Vice president of China-ROK Friendship
Association, Board member of ERIA.
He was Director of Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies from 1993-2007. He served as a memberof East Asia Vision Group (2000-2001, EAVG II, 2012-2013), member of Official Expert
Group on China-ASEAN Cooperation (2001), member of ASEM Task Force (2003-2004),
Chairman of Joint Expert Group for Feasibility Study on EAFTA (2005-2006), and memberof Phase II , member of Joint Expert Group of CEPEA (2006-2009), Executive Chairman ofChina-Republic of Korea Joint Expert Committee(2010-2013), Member of China-Japan 21stCentury Friendship Commission (2003-2008).
Latest Publication: China and Asia Regionalism (English, 2010), China and World: Newchange, understanding and Identification (Chinese, 2011), Seeking a benign relationshipbetween China and the world (Chinese, 2013)，Between the Ideal and Reality-Thinking of
East Asian cooperation (Chinese 2015).

26

6．議事要旨（日本語）
以下の日本語サマリーは、ベトナム中央経済管理研究所（CIEM）が作成した英文サマリーを当財団で仮訳したものである。

アジア太平洋地域における貿易および投資の自由化の推進2016 年 11 月 24、25 日、ハノイに於いて国際経済交流財団とベトナム中央経済管理研究所（CIEM）の共催で日アジア太平洋フォーラム 2016〔APF 2016〕が開催された。
１日目：公開フォーラム（於：プルマン ハノイ ホテル）
11 月 24 日、公開フォーラムが開催された。参加者はオーストラリア、中国、東アジア・アセ
アン経済研究センター（ERIA）、インドネシア、日本、韓国、マレーシア、ミャンマー、ニュージーランド、フィリピン、シンガポール、台湾、タイ、ベトナムといったアジア太平洋経済圏からの招待登壇者、専門家‐ベトナムの省庁、団体、研究機関、大学関係者を含む約 100 人であった。主要な新聞、雑誌も関心を示し、20 人のジャーナリストが派遣された。総論としては、公開フォーラムの 3 つのパネルセッションのすべてにおいて出席者は実りある討論を交わし、洞察と情報を共有した。
フォーラムはベトナム中央経済管理研究所（CIEM）所長のグエン・ディン・クン博士と国際経済交流財団（JEF）会長の日下一正氏による開会の挨拶を以って開始となった。
（*開会の辞の全文は付属書に記載）

セッション１「アジア太平洋地域の経済統合に向けてのロードマップ：考慮すべき課題」
モデレーター：原岡直幸氏
国際経済交流財団（JEF）専務理事
出席者： ▶ ヴォー・トリ・タン博士
ベトナム中央経済管理研究所（CIEM）前副所長▶ マレー・マクリーン元大使
オーストラリア Dunmore McLean Pty Ltd. 代表取締役▶ 張蘊嶺教授
中国社会科学学院（CASS）国際研究学部長・教授▶ 深川由起子教授
早稲田大学 政治経済学部教授▶ ゲーリー・ホーク教授
ニュージーランド ヴィクトリア大学ウェリントン名誉教授

27

主な討論点： ブレクジット（英国の EU 離脱）などの保護主義的かつ内向的ナショナリズムの台頭を背景とする世界経済見通しをどう考えるか？
 世界的な経済成長を実現するうえでアジアの責任は何か？
 アジア太平洋地域における主要 FTA の現状は？新たな（より包括的な）FTA の余地はあるか？
 新世代 FTA の発展重視的性質の新たな正当性は？
 現在進展が滞っている FTA（TPP、RCEP など）の見通しは？
 現行の FTA の効果的な調和を図り、アジア太平洋の地域統合に向けてより実効性のあるロードマップを策定するうえで重要な要素は何か？
本セッションにおいて討論参加者全員が、貿易、投資、サービスの自由化、円滑化、コネクテ
ィビティ、連携性の側面において、アジア太平洋地域において経済統合がかなり進展しているとの見解を示した。このような努力が、この地域の人々により大きな繁栄をもたらし、持続可能な成長と開発格差の解消に寄与している。今日の貿易においてはグローバル・バリュー・チ
ェーン（GVC）が発達し、アジア太平洋地域における経済成長、競争、雇用創出に新たな見込みを提供している。登壇者は、地域経済統合において発展途上国はより大きく、主要な役割を与えられるべきだと主張した。
しかしながら、地域貿易および投資の自由化は、地域と世界における予期せぬ急激な変化によって、次のような新たな問題に直面している。すなわち、政治的意志やリーダーシップ、地域の地政学的問題、第 4 次技術革命“低賃金のわな”“中所得層のわな”などである。
アジア太平洋地域における経済統合と連携を進めるうえで、世界情勢の変化と問題点に関する
新たな理解に基づく新たな多国間協議事項を創始するために緊急コンセンサスの確立が急務だと提起された。APEC とその制度上の仕組みを強化し、より効果的に利用するべきである。重要視すべき選択肢として、アジア太平洋自由貿易圏（FTAAP）が挙げられた。RCEP 交渉は優位性が存在する期間内で合意されるべきである。国内施策に関わる組織制度に重点を置くという点で、身近な問題の解決促進や新たな問題に対する賢明な取り組み方法として TPP の規定を利用し、地域経済統合に引き続き努力するべきである。各国内においては、喫緊の構造改革や
ミクロ経済の改革を最優先し、プライベートセクターを奨励し、生産性、競争、貿易や投資機会を促進するべきである。他方、産業近代化が遅れているグループにおいては、リージョナル
化とグローバル化を適切に考慮すべきである。

セッション２「地域内の貿易・投資自由化にとっての新たな課題」
モデレーター：ジョセフ・T・ヤップ博士
フィリピン大学 経済学部教授級講師
出席者：▶ チュンヨン・アン博士
韓国コーポレートパートナーシップ委員会（KCCP）委員長▶ ルーロン・チェン博士
東アジア・ASEAN 経済研究センター（ERIA）エコノミスト▶ ラヴィドラン・パラニッパン氏
マレーシア通商産業省（MITI）シニアディレクター

28▶ サイモン・SC・テイ教授
シンガポール国際問題研究所（SIIA）会長▶ チェッダ・インタラヴィタク博士
タイ開発研究所（TDRI）主任研究員
主な討論点：
 コネクティビティの強化：枠組、段階、現在の課題
 GVC（グローバル・バリュー・チェーン）への参画：アジア太平洋地域における FTA 網からのリスク
 TBT（貿易の技術的障害に関する協定）および SPS（衛生植物検疫措置の適用に関する協定）の廃止：有意義な進展に対する余地
 FTA における紛争解決：形式的すぎる、不均等に制限的？
本セッションでは、コネクティビティの強化、グローバル・バリュー・チェーンへの参画、非関税措置の廃止、FTA における紛争の解決といった、地域における貿易および投資の自由化において昨今顕在化している新たな問題を集中討論した。コネクティビティについては、大メコン開発地域や環黄海経済圏の刑成など、重要な地域連携スキームが展開している。 チュンヨ
ン・アン博士は、東アジア共同体構想は、世界的な「ニュー・ノーマル」現象からの回復に向けて弾みをつけている、と強調した。したがって、東アジア共同体設立という目標にとって、ボトムアップとトップダウンの開発については、それらが含有する補完的性質と、その後の相互強化を考慮して、両方について話し合うことが重要である。GVC 参画については、討議者た
ちは GVC とジョイントベンチャーの両方に参加することが、特に東アジアにおいて、また複
雑な地域 FTA 網から逃れることにおいて、各国の FDI を増やすうえで重要な駆動力となっていることを理解した。アジア太平洋地域における GVC と国境を超えた FDI の流れを加速する手段として、TPP は最重要視されるべきである。しかしながら、TPP の批准は危ぶまれており、登壇者全員はドナルド・トランプ氏が米国大統領となった場合の政権下、またはブレクジット
によって反グローバル化主義が急増し、保護貿易主義に戻るのではないかとの懸念を示している。こうした事態の進展から東アジアで現在進行中の実用的かつ公的な統合に向けた取り組み
がどの程度影響を受けるかは、未知数である。
チェン博士はスピーチの中で、国際的に整合性のとれた IPR（知的財産権）の管理と執行が、
21 世紀の貿易システムにおいて重要な問題となっていることを指摘した。アジア諸国は IPR 執行に関する新たな国際的基準設定の進捗状況を注視するべきである。アジア諸国に求められているのは、 (1)国内レベルで IPR の保護を強化し、技術適用の円滑化とインクリメンタルイノ
ベーションの活性化を図る (2) 最低でも知的所有権の貿易関連の側面に関する協定（TRIPS）の要件を満たす IP 関連の法規制を整備し、常により高いレベルの基準を目指すこと (3) IPR 関
連の規則は必ず拘束力を有し、実際に執行可能であること (4)世界的な IPR 規則制定活動に参加すること。そして最も重要なことは、知的財産（IP）全体と関連権利に対する国民の意識改革である。人的資本の質が高く豊富であるということは、発明をはじめとした革新的活動のレベルだけでなく IPR の効率性にも影響を及ぼすものである。NTM（非関税措置）廃止に関しては、NTM の利点を最大限に引き出し、かつコストを最小限に抑えるために、「通知‐交渉‐削除」モードから各国の規制‐改革政策という手順に移行することを討論した。タイ開発研究
所主任研究員のチェッダ・イントラヴィタク博士は、国によって基準が異なり、必ずしも国際的な基準と一致しているとは限らないため、多国間レベルでは実施は難しいと主張した。地域的な試みはインセンティブ問題が障害となるので、国レベルの規制改革が最も有効となるであろう。
本セッションで提起された不安要素や問題に対処するために、アジア諸国は次のような努力／
取り組みを実施するべきである。(i)より良質な投資をより多く呼び込むための各国レベルの改

29

革 (ii)より自由で開放的な経済に向けた改革は、各国レベルでのより包括的な成長戦略に向けた取り組みと合致していなければならない (iii) 経済統合の進め方を地域全体で考える。

セッション 3「貿易を国内政策改革に繋げる：経済成長のための一貫した措置に対するコ
ンセンサスの形成」
モデレーター：ヴォー・トリ・タン博士
ベトナム中央経済管理研究所（CIEM）前副所長
出席者：▶ サチン・チャトゥルヴェディ博士
インド発展途上国リサーチ情報システムセンター（RIS）所長▶ ヨセ・リザル・ダムリ博士
インドネシア戦略国際問題研究所（CSIS）経済部長▶ ソー・ウィン氏
ミャンマー ルネッサンス研究所 専務理事
▶ ジョセフ・T・ヤップ博士
フィリピン大学 経済学部教授級講師▶ マン‐ジュン・ミニョンヌ・チャン博士
台湾 Out-of-the-Box-Consultancy 創設者兼 CEO
主な討論点：
 成長戦略を実現するためにアジア太平洋地域における新世代 FTA への効果的な参画に必要な国内改革は何か？
 統合からのメリットを活用するためのビジネス環境の向上
 コンセンサス確立：対話から行動へ
 G2B および B2B 連携を確立および／または向上させる政策
登壇者全員から、多くの国々で経済改革を後押しするために貿易合意が利用されており、東アジアにおいて多数の国内（behind-the-border）イニシアチブが利用されている、との指摘があった。しかしながら、コミットメントへのアプローチと国内改革の間には大きな隔たりが存在する。ジョセフ・ヤップ博士から、リージョナリズムは国内改革を促進した
か否かについて、フィリピン競争法を具体例に挙げて疑問が呈された。博士は国際的なコ
ミットメントは競争法を成立させる過程において主要な要素ではなかったと主張した。一方 ASEAN が重要視している国内単一窓口イニシアチブは、政治的理由により 2010 年以降行き詰っている。博士はまた、TPP であれば別な結果となったか否かついても質問を投げかけた。
ソー・ウィン氏から次の点に焦点を合わせたミャンマーの経済政策について、次の諸点の経験談が披露された。それらは、①公共財政の管理強化、国営企業の活性化、改革および／または民営化、SME 支援、②人的資源と資本の涵養、③インフラ開発の優先化、④雇用の創出、⑤包括的な発展、食物の安全性、輸出増大の実現、⑥活力のあるプライベートセ
クターの促進、⑦安定した財政金融環境の確保、⑧環境的に持続可能な都市建設 、⑨知的財産権を守る公正かつ効率的な税制度の形成、⑩事業環境の改善。

30

２日目：非公開ラウンドテーブル・ディスカッション（於：CIEM 内会議室）
11 月 25 日に開催された非公開ラウンドテーブル・ディスカッションでは、2 つのセッシ
ョンに分けて地域経済統合の問題が討論された。1 つ目のセッションでは RCEP、アジ
ア・ダイナミズムと TPP という選択肢に関していくつかの課題が明確になった。一部の出席者にとって RCEP 構想とは、加盟国の野心レベルがバラバラであることを示すものであった。既存の ASEAN+1 FTA に基づいた RCEP とするのか包括的、近代的かつ優良な
RCEP とするのかという問題である。
アジア・ダイナミズムは、包括的貿易の観点、特に SME コミュニティおよび多数の SMEが生産的に参画するための事業環境という観点から言及された。GVL は SME が参画を強化しようという取組みを中心に構築されるべきである。これにより MRA が機能するかどうかという疑問も呈された。アジア・ダイナミズムは近づいている産業革命からも影響を受けており、その意味では各国はアジア・イニシアチブを取り上げて向かうべき方向を選ぶべきである。
TPP という選択肢は未決問題である。しかしながら、この地域の国々の中には WTO コミ
ットメントに達している、あるいは、TPP コミットメントよりも幾分高くなっている国もある。それ故、これらの国にとっては後退と感じられるかもしれない。他方、そうでない国々にとっては、関税低減措置、サービスの自由化、外国直接投資ポリシー、知的財産の保護、サービス貿易、国営企業の行動、労働と環境、政府調達の開放、製品規格が異なる
ことによって生じる貿易阻害の低減化などの推進を対象範囲とするとの観点では、WTO の
コミットメントを上回っている。したがって、TPP がこれらの国に影響を及ぼすかどうかは不確定である。
2 つ目のセッションでは、ベトナムが抱える短期的な経済問題を特定した。すなわち、マ
クロ安定性と制度改革、事業環境の改善、公共改革、行政手続、経済改革などである。近年、教育と農業という 2 つの大きな経済改革の柱が加わった。これらは人的資源開発の必要性、経済にとって比較優位を持つ農業セクター強化の必要性によるものである。他の参加者も、開発の中で何を優先するかを考えることによりグローバル経済により効果的に参加する方法についていくつか手段を提案した。

1 日半に亘る日アジア太平洋フォーラムは、学者コミュニティと政府機関の両方により有益かつ洞察に満ちた討論が行われ、成功裏に終わった。ベトナムは国際的経済統合が経済の構造改革にとっての重要な柱と認識しており、また、来年 2017 APEC を主催する上で積極的に準備を進めていることから、ベトナムにとって APF2016 はアジア太平洋地域全体から出席した専門家や学者と国際的経済統合の過程について対話、交流、情報共有を行うことができる重要な機会と位置付けられていたのである。
URL: http://ciem.org.vn/tintuc/tabid/63/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/2165/Default.aspx

31

付属書：開会の辞（全文）

グエン・ディン・クン博士

ベトナム中央経済管理研究所（CIEM）所長

皆さまおはようございます。
計画・投資省を代表して、皆さまにご挨拶いたします。日アジア太平洋フォーラム 2016 のタイトルは、「アジア太平洋地域における貿易と投資の自由化の推進」であります。今回のフォーラム出席のために、アジア太平洋地域の国々からハノイにお越しくださった世界的な専門家ならびに学者の皆様に、心から御礼申し上げます。このように有意義なフォー
ラムに参加しご挨拶できることを名誉に思います。
この数十年、国際的経済統合はベトナムの社会・経済的発展と改革において常に重要な役割を担ってきました。1986 年のドイ・モイ（改革）以降、ベトナムは開放経済の必要性を強調し続け、国際的経済統合に自ら積極的に参加してきました。1990 年代からは、ベトナ
ムはこの地域の経済圏の大半と二国間貿易協定を結んでいます。こうすることでベトナムは次第により広くより深く統合の道を歩んできました。1995 年には ASEAN に加盟しています。2007 年には 150 番目の加盟国として、WTO に参加しています。以来ベトナムは多数の重要 FTA の交渉、締結、実施を続けています。
実際、統合を強化する中で私たちは多くの社会・経済発展を実現させました。1989 年から1996 年にかけて GDP 成長率は年平均 7.51 %、2000 年から 2007 年にかけては 7.63%を達成したことがその一例です。ドイ・モイから 30 年以上たった現在、ベトナムは低所得国を脱し、中所得開発途上国へと成長しています。ベトナムは、グローバル経済に速く強く統合した、活発な市場経済に向かっています。国民も統合と社会・経済発展の過程で恩恵を受けました。貧困率は大きく下がり、生活水準も向上しました。国民一人当たりの GDP は1992 年の 140 米ドルから 2008 年は 1,024 米ドル、2015 年には 2,109 米ドルに増えています。ASEAN や APEC といった国際場裡におけるベトナムの地位と貢献度も著しく向上しています。
ベトナム共産党中央委員会と政府は、国際経済統合の過程における効率性強化を再確認しており、成長モデルの国内改革と経済の構造改革に弾みをつけるものと重要視しています。
第 10 回党大会において、ベトナム共産党は「国際的経済統合に積極的に参加し、同時に他国との国際的なパートナーシップを拡大する」ことを約束しています。2016 年 11 月上旬、共産党中央委員会は国家決議第 6 号を発布し、国際関係の多様化と多角化、ならびに国際経済統合への積極的なアプローチを強調しています。ビジネス、専門家の両コミュニティ
が牽引役を務める国際経済統合は、わが国民全員の任務であります。統合の過程において、
ベトナム政府と国家は国内事業と製品の開発と競争力の向上を推進することに焦点を置き、ベトナムの発展レベルの向上を図ります。
とはいえ、この地域における現状と情勢は、国際経済統合のプロセスにとって多く不利な点が見られ、課題も山積になっています。世界経済はゆっくりと回復しました。アジア太平洋地域では、主要国の経済は着実に回復しているとはまだ言えない状況です。保護貿易
主義は拡散する傾向にあります。世界およびこの地域で重要である FTA は、期待されたほど早くは実現できていません。多くの FTA が実施されているとはいえ、利用率の低さや統合チャンネルの調和といった問題に直面しています。

32

その意味で、アジア太平洋地域における貿易と投資の自由化に弾みをつける努力の重要性に変わりはありません。ベトナムにおいては尚更有意義です。共産党中央委員会の決議に沿った国際経済統合の効果的な実行を促すものだからです。グローバルな、また地域的な経済統合に関わる課題やリスクがあることは承知しています。しかしながら、より効率的で一元的な取り組みを以ってすれば、具体的で実行可能なイニシアチブを伴う統合ロード
マップを構築し、統合を国内コンセンサスや改革と関連付けられるものと期待しています。
したがって、ベトナムならびに計画・投資省の優先事項は、国内外の専門家や学者の方々と国際経済統合について対話や討論を深めることです。イニシアチブに貢献する機会はふんだんにあります。ベトナムは今後も国際経済統合を推進し続け、APEC 2017 の主催に向けた準備を進めているからです。日アジア太平洋フォーラムは、こうした機会を有効利用
しようという私たちの取り組みの一環なのです。
以上を念頭において、「アジア太平洋地域における貿易および投資の自由化の推進」に関する日アジア太平洋フォーラム 2016 の開会を宣言いたします。本フォーラムにおいて、忌憚のない有意義なディスカッションと情報共有がなされることを願います。本フォーラム
がアジア太平洋地域全体と特にベトナムにおける経済発展と国際経済統合に関して貴重な提言を示してくれるものと信じています。中央経済管理研究所と国際経済交流財団がディ
スカッションならびに提言の内容を要約したうえ、政府リーダーと計画・投資省に提出し、検討を求める予定です。
最後になりましたが、APF 2016 の大きな成功と皆さまのご健勝とご活躍をお祈り申し上げます。

日下一正氏 国際経済交流財団（JEF）会長
共催者であるベトナム中央経済管理研究所 グエン・ディン・クン所長、アジア太平洋地域
からお集まりの専門家の方々、ご来場の皆さま、本日ここで挨拶の機会を得ましたこと、誠に光栄です。ご紹介いただきました国際経済交流財団の会長の日下一正でございます。
私共の国際経済交流財団（JEF）は、わが国と諸外国との経済交流の一層の促進を図るた
め、特に近年のフォーラム開催では、日本およびアジア・米国・欧州の地域それぞれが持続的発展を遂げる上での制約要因を取りあげ、それらの解決策を模索し、それぞれの政策の成功と失敗から相互に学びあうことを中心的な課題としています。
アジア地域においては、持続的な経済成長を実現するためアジア太平洋に於ける FTA の推進を目指し、この Asia Pacific Forum は第１回を 2003 年にシンガポールでスタートし、
この地域の FTA の進め方について議論を開始し、今回が 15 回目の年次会合となります。
この間、議論は、behind the border measures と呼ばれる国内制度やその運用にも拡がり、地域の成長ポテンシャルを高めることを目指し、地域のビジネス、投資の環境の更なる改善に焦点を当ててきています。
当地域のおける FTA 締結は活発化し、昨年末にはアセアン経済共同体が実現しました。しかし、地域経済統合のモデルと考えられていた EU ではこの 6 月には英国で国民投票よる
離脱の動きが起きました。また、TPP も米国での批准の先行きが不透明になっております。

33

このことは、改めて最も大事で難しい仕事は、相手国との交渉でなく、国内の支持を得る
ことだということを雄弁に物語っています。国内で非対称的に影響を受けるステークホル
ダーとの対話を通じ、国内の経済、社会、政治の課題を克服していくことです。 この宿
題をしっかりやっておかないと、グローバリゼーションが格差の元凶だと悪者にされて、投票行動などを通じ国民の反乱が起こります。
より深化した統合を目指していくとことは、難易度が上がるということです。すなわち、統合の深化はそれぞれの国・地域の domestic な経済・社会・政治に影響を及ぼします。貿易投資の自由化がもたらす恩恵への国民の理解を促し、それを梃に構造改革を後押しし、また、所得・資産の格差の拡大及び固定化を是正することにより政治・社会的な安定性を向上させることが統合を進める上で、各国にとり大きな課題となると思われます。
日本においてはアベノミックスの成長戦略は TPP や RCEP の交渉を通じて構造改革を加速することが中核をなしています。これらのメガ FTA は、ひとり日本にとってのみならず、
この地域全体の成長をこれまで牽引してきた直接投資を更に拡大させ、本日集まった東ア
ジア地域の持続的成長を約束するものです。
各国が、好むと好まざるとにかかわらず進展するグローバリゼーションの中で、格差の問題も直視しつつ国内で新たな社会契約ともいうべき合意を創り出すことが求められています。互いに協力し合いメガ FTA を進めることがこの地域の成長戦略を成功に導くためにも必要だと考えます。
本日のフォーラムがこの地域の絆のさらに強固にし、経済統合の推進、経済の持続的発展に貢献することを祈念して、挨拶を締めくくります。ご清聴ありがとうございました。

34

（英語）
English Summary drafted by CIEM.

ADVANCING TRADE AND INVESTMENT
LIBERALIZATION IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC
On 24 and 25 November, the Asia-Pacific Forum 2016 (APF 2016) was co-hosted by the Japan
Economic Foundation and the Central Institute for Economic Management (CIEM) in Hanoi.
DAY 1: Public Forum (Venue: Pullman Hanoi Hotel)
The Public Forum was held on 24th November and there were about 100 participants,
including invited speakers, experts from various economies of the Asia-Pacific region Australia, China, ERIA, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Myanmar, New Zealand,
Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam, and Vietnamese representatives fromministries, institutions, research institutes and universities. It also attracted the media, with 20
journalists of leading newspapers and magazines. In general, The Forum experienced fruitful
discussions and insights and information-sharing by all participants throughout the three panelsessions on the Public Forum.
The Forum started with Welcome Remarks by Dr. Nguyen Dinh Cung, President of Central
Institute for Economic Management (CIEM) and Mr. Kazumasa Kusaka, Chairman of Japan
Economic Foundation (JEF).
(*The full texts of speech are compiled in Appendices.)

Session 1“Roadmap for Asia Pacific Economic Integration: Issues for consideration”
Moderated: Mr. Naoyuki Haraoka, Executive Managing Director of Japan Economic Foundation(JEF)
Participants:▶ Dr. Thanh Tri Vo
Senior Researcher, Central Institute for Economic Management (CIEM),
Vietnam▶ Ambassador Murray McLean AO
Chairman, Dunmore McLean Pty Ltd., Australia▶ Professor Yunling Zhang
Academy Member, Director of International Studies, Chinese Academy ofSocial Sciences (CASS)▶ Professor Yukiko Fukagawa
Department of Political Science and Economics, Waseda University, Japan▶ Professor Gary Hawke
Emeritus Professor, Victoria University of Wellington, New ZealandKey discussion points:
 What do you think about the global economic outlook against the background of surging
protectionism and inward looking nationalism such as Brexit?

35 What do you think would be Asia’s responsibility for achieving global economic growth?
 What is the current state of major FTAs in the Asia Pacific? Is there significant room for new(even more comprehensive) FTAs?
 New justifications for pro-development nature of new-generation FTAs?
 Prospect of currently pending FTAs (such as TPP, RCEP) What are the key factors for effectively harmonizing current FTAs into a more effective
integration roadmap for Asia Pacific?
All discussants and participants, in this session, shared a strong agreement on the significant
progress in the process of economic integration in the Asia Pacific on aspects such as trade,investment and services liberalization, facilitation and connectivity and cooperation. These
efforts have led to greater prosperity for all the people in the region, sustainable growth andnarrowing of the development gap. The global value chain (GVC) has been developed incontemporary trade and has offered new prospects for growth, competitiveness and job
creation in the region. The speakers contended that developing countries should be given agreater, even leading, role in regional economic integration.
However, regional trade and investment liberalization has been exposed to new issues andchallenges, which are emerging in the context of the fast and unexpected changes in both theregional and global landscape , including political will and leadership, regional geopoliticalproblems, the 4th technological revolution, “low cost labour trap” and “middle income trap”, etc.
In considering ways forward to strengthen Asia-Pacific economic integration and cooperation,
an emergent consensus building has been raised as something highly needed for initiating a
new multilateral agenda based on a new understanding of global change and challenges. APEC
and its institutional mechanisms should be strengthened and more effectively utilized. The
Free Trade Area of Asia-Pacific (FTAAP) was identified as another potential option to beemphasized. RCEP negotiation should be reached in a meaningful timeframe. Provisions of TPP
which make progress on familiar issues or deal with new issues in sensible ways, as in theemphasis on domestic institutions for behind the border issues should be utilised in continuing
effoprts towards regional economic integration. Domestically, each country should, on one
hand, prioritise critical structural and micro-economic reforms, promote private sector andfacilitate productivity, competition, trading and investment opportunities. On the other hand,
disadvantaged groups in the process of industrialization-modernization, regionalization andglobalization should be appropriately taken into consideration.

Session 2“New issues of regional trade and investment liberalization”
Moderated: Dr. Josef T. Yap, University of the Philippines School of Economics
Participants:▶ Dr. Choong-yong Ahn
Chairman, Korea Commission for Corporate Partnership (KCCP)▶ Dr. Lurong Chen
Economist, Economic Research Institute of ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA)▶ Mr. P. Ravidran Palanippan
Senior Director, ASEAN Economic Integration, Ministry of International
Trade and Industry (MITI), Malaysia▶ Professor Simon SC Tay
Chairman, Singapore Institute of International Affairs (SIIA)

36▶ Dr. Chedtha Intaravitak
Research Fellow, Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI)
Key discussion points:
 Connectivity enhancement: framework, steps, and contemporary challenges
 Participation in GVCs (global value chain): any risks from the web of FTAs in Asia Pacific Phasing out TBT (technical barriers to trade)and SPS(sanitary and phytosanitary
measures): room for meaningful progress Dispute settlement in FTAs: too formalistic, or too asymmetrically restrictive?
Discussion in this session focused on new issues emerging in recent regional trade andinvestment liberalization, including connectivity enhancement, participation in Global Value
Chains, phasing out of non-tariff measures, and dispute settlement in FTAs. On the connectivity
side, significant regional cooperation schemes have been developed such as the Great MekongRiver Development Area or the formulation of Pan-Yellow Sea economic sphere. Dr. Choongyong Ahn emphasized that concept of the East Asian Community had regained its momentum
to recover from global “new normal” phenomenon. Therefore, to this goal of East Asian
Community building, it was very important that both the bottom-up and top-down
developments should be discussed because of their inherent complementary nature andsubsequent mutual reinforcement. On the participation in GVCs, discussants realized bothparticipation in GVCs and joint ventures have been an important driving force to increase FDI
across countries, especially in East Asia and out of the complex web of regional FTA networks.
TPP should be viewed as the most significant means to accelerate GVCs and cross-border FDI
flows in the Asia-Pacific region. However, the ratification of TPP was a concern and all the
speakers raised their concern at the sudden rise of anti-globalization and potential return to aprotectionist trade regime under the regime of Mr. Donald Trump as the President of theUnited States or BREXIT; the extent to which these developments would affect on-going
functional and formal integration efforts in East Asia remained an open question.
In his speech, Dr. Chen pointed out that disciplining and enforcing IPRs in a coherent mannerinternationally has become a critical issue in the 21st century trade system. Asian countries
should follow the progress in setting new standards on international IPR enforcement. Asian
countries are suggested to (1) enforce IPR protection at the domestic level to facilitate
technology adoption and stimulate incremental innovations; (2) set IP laws and regulations
that must at least meet the requirements of the Agreement on Trade-related Aspects ofIntellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and always aim for higher level standards; (3) make sure
IPR disciplines are binding and practically enforceable; (4) actively participate in global IPR
rule-making. But above all, it is crucial to increase public awareness of intellectual property(IP) in general and its associated rights. The abundance and quality of human capital will affectnot only the level of invention and other innovative activities but also the efficiency of IPR
enforcement. On the phasing out of NTMs, in order to maximize benefits and minimize costs ofNTMs, the speakers discussed moving from a “notify-negotiate-eliminate” mode to a national
regulatory-reform agenda. Dr. Chedtha Intaravitak, Research Fellow of Thailand development
Research Institute argued that at a multilateral level, it was difficult to implement because eachcountry has national standards, which do not necessarily conform with international standards.
Regional attempts suffer from an incentive problem and country level regulatory reform would
be most effective.
In the context of the emerging uncertainty and challenges raised in this session, some efforts
should be made by Asian countries, including (i) at the national-level for reform in line witheach government’s effort to attract more and higher quality investments; (ii) reforms towards amore liberal and open economy must be tied with efforts towards more inclusive and growth37strategies at the domestic level; and (iii) regional efforts to consider how economic integration
can and should proceed.

Session 3“Linking trade with domestic policy reforms: Building consensus forcoherent moves toward economic growth”
Moderated: Dr. Vo Tri Thanh, Senior Researcher, Central Institute for Economic Management(CIEM), Vietnam
Participants:▶ Dr. Sachin Chaturvedi
Director General, Research and Information System for Developing Countries(RIS), India▶ Dr. Yose Rizal Damuri
Head of Department of Economics, Center for Strategic and International
Studies (CSIS), Indonesia▶ U Soe Win
Executive Director, Renaissance Institute, Myanmar▶ Dr. Josef T. Yap
Professorial Lecturer, School of Economics, University of the Philippines▶ Dr. Man-Jung Mignonne Chan
Founder and CEO, Out-of-the-Box Consultancy, Taiwan

Key discussion points:
 What are the required domestic reforms for effective participation in new-generation FTAs
in the Asia Pacific to achieve growth strategy?
 Improvement of business environment to leverage the benefits from integration;
 Building consensus: from talks to actions; Measures to establish and/or improve G2B and B2B linkages.
It was pointed out by all speakers that trade agreements have been used to push for economic
reforms in many countries and many behind-border initiatives have been raised in East Asia.
However, there is a big gap between approaches to commitments and domestic reforms. Dr.
Josef Yap raised a question as to whether regionalism promoted domestic reform with a
specific example of the Philippines Competition Act. He argued that international commitments
were not a major factor in its passing. Meanwhile, the initiatives for a National Single Window,
which is deemed important by ASEAN, has been stalled since 2010 due to political reasons. He
then also raised an open question as to whether TPP made the difference.
U Soe Win shared the experiences of Myanmar’s economic policy with focus on strengthening
public financial management; revitalizing, reforming and/or privatizing state enterprises andsupporting SMEs; fostering human resources and capital; prioritizing infrastructuredevelopment; creating employment opportunities; achieving inclusive development, foodsecurity and increased exports; promoting a vibrant private sector; ensuring a stable financial
and monetary environment; building environmentally sustainable cities; formulating a fair andefficient tax system that protect intellectual property rights; and improving the businessclimate.

38

DAY 2: Private Roundtable Discussion (Venue: CIEM)
The private roundtable discussion on 25 November discussed issues of regional economic
integration in two rounds. The first round identified some discussion about challenges on RCEP,
Asian dynamism and the TPP option. To some participants, the scope of RCEP showed various
levels of ambition amongst members. There has been an issue of building on existing ASEAN+1
FTAs versus a comprehensive, modern and high quality RCEP agreement.
Asian dynamism was mentioned under inclusive trade, especially for the SME community andthe business environment for SMEs to participate productively. The design of GVCs should befocused on SMEs’ efforts to strengthen their participation. It then raised a question as towhether the MRAs work or not? Asian dynamism has also being affected by the upcoming
industrial revolution, and in this context, economies should take up Asia initiatives and choose
which diversion to move on.
TPP option has been an open question. However, to some economies in the region, WTO
commitments have been covered and to some extent, higher than TPP commitments, therefore
it could be seen as a step-back for those economies. To others, TPP will go well beyond the
WTO in terms of coverage, addressing such matters as tariff reductions, services liberalization,
foreign direct investment policies, protection of intellectual property, trade in services,behavior of state-owned enterprises, labor and environment, opening up of government
procurement, and reducing the trade-impeding effects of different product standards.
Therefore, there is uncertainty as to whether TPP would make any difference to these
economies.
The second round of private roundtable discussion identified some economic challenges in the
short-term for Vietnam, including macro stability and institutional reforms, improvement ofbusiness environment, public reforms, administrative procedures, and restructuring of theeconomy. Recently, two more pillar of economic restructuring had been added namely
education and agriculture, showing the need for human resource development andenhancement of the agricultural sector as having comparative advantage for the economy.
Other speakers contributed some ideas on measures to engage more effectively in the global
economy through providing priories for development.

The one-and-half day Asia-Pacific Forum was quite successful with fruitful and insightful
discussion both from academic community and governmental agencies. APF2016 was seen as
an important opportunity for Vietnam to take advantage of dialogue, exchange, informationsharing among experts with scholars from all over the Asia-Pacific region on the process ofinternational economic integration, especially when Vietnam recognized international
economic integration as one key pillar in restructuring the economy and actively preparing tohost the 2017 APEC next year.
URL: http://ciem.org.vn/tintuc/tabid/63/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/2165/Default.aspx

39

Appendices: The full texts of Welcome Remarks
Dr. Nguyen Dinh Cung, President, Central Institute for Economic Management (CIEM)
Good morning Ladies and gentlemen,
On behalf of the leaders of The Ministry of Planning and Investment, I would like to welcome allof you to the Asia Pacific Forum 2016 entitled “Advancing trade and investment liberalizationin the Asia-Pacific”. I would like to express my deepest gratitude towards the coming ofinternational experts and academia from the Asia-Pacific economies to this Forum in Hanoi. I
am personally feeling honored to attend and speak at this significant forum.
In the last few decades, international economic integration has always played an important roleto the socio-economic development and reform of Vietnam. Since Doi Moi (Renovation) in 1986,
Vietnam has been emphasizing the need of opening the economy and proactively participating
in international economic integration. Since 1990s, Vietnam has signed bilateral trade
agreements with most of economies in the region. Vietnam, then, has been gradually
integrating more widely and deeply. In 1995, Vietnam became a member of ASEAN. In 2007,
Vietnam joined WTO as the 150th member. Since then, Vietnam has continued to negotiate,
sign and implement many important FTAs.
In fact, we have gained a lot of achievements in socio-economic development during theperiods that we strongly integrated. For instance, the average GDP growth rate in the period of
1989-1996 attained at 7.51% per year and 7.63% per year in 2000-2007. After more than 30
years of Doi Moi, Vietnam has escaped from a low-income to a middle-income developing
nation. Vietnam is heading towards an active market economy with fast and strong integration
into the global economy. The people also benefited from the integration and socio-economic
development process. The poverty has dropped substantially and the living standard has been
improved. GDP per capita of Vietnam increased from USD 140 in 1992 to USD 1,024 in 2008
and USD 2,109 USD in 2015. The position and contribution of Vietnam in international arena
such as ASEAN, APEC, etc. are also improved remarkably.
Vietnam’s Central Committee of the Communist Party and Government have re-affirmed theenhancement of efficiency during international economic integration and considered it as animportant momentum for domestic reform of growth model and economic restructuring. At the10th Party Congress, the Communist Party of Vietnam assured to be “proactive in international
economic integration and simultaneously expand international partnership to others”. In theearly of November 2016, the Central Committee of the Communist Party issued Resolution
No.06, emphasizing the diversification and multilateralization of international relations and theproactive approach towards international economic integration. The international economic
integration is the mission of all people in the nation, in which business and professional
community are the leading forces. In that process, the Vietnamese Government and State will
focus on facilitating the development and competitiveness of domestic businesses and products,
thereby enhancing the development level of the economy.
However, the current context and developments in the regions appeared lots of disadvantages
and challenges to international economic integration process. The global economy recovered
slowly. Even in the Asia-Pacific region, the major leading economies are yet to recover steadily.
Protectionism tends to increase. The important FTAs in the world and the region have not beenrealized as quickly as expected. Many FTAs have been implemented, however, encounteredwith several issues including the low rate of utilization or the harmonization of integration
channels.

40

In that context, efforts on creating momentum for the liberalization of trade and investment in
the Asia-Pacific remains significantly. For Vietnam, it is even more meaningful since it boosts
the effective implementation of international economic integration in accordance with the
Resolution of the Party Central Committee. We recognized the existent difficulties and risks
related with the global and regional economic integration. However, we expect more effective
and centralized effort to build an integration roadmap with specific and feasible initiatives aswell as associating integration with domestic consensus and reforms.
Therefore, it is a priority of Vietnam and the Ministry of Planning and Investment to promotedialogues and discussions on international economic integration among international anddomestic experts and academia. Opportunities to contribute initiatives remain abundant,
especially when Vietnam is still continuing to foster the international economic integration andpreparing to host APEC 2017. The Asia-Pacific Forum is one of our efforts to utilize thoseopportunities.
Bearing that in my, I declare the opening of the Asia-Pacific Forum 2016 on “Advancing tradeand investment liberalization in the Asia-Pacific”. I do hope that we will have straightforward
and fruitful discussion and sharing at the Forum. I believe that the Forum will contributevaluable proposals for the economic development and international economic integration in
the Asia-Pacific region in general and Vietnam in particular. The Central Institute for Economic
Management and Japan Economic Foundation will summarize the content of the discussion andproposals at the Forum and submit it to the leaders of the Government and the Ministry ofPlanning and Investment for reviewing.
Finally, I wish APF 2016 great achievements and wish your health and success!

Mr. Kazumasa Kusaka, Chairman and CEO, Japan Economic Foundation (JEF)
Dr. Nguyen Dinh Cung, President of our co-host, Central Institute for Economic Management, tothe experts gathered here from around the Asia Pacific region, to the distinguished guests, andladies and gentlemen, I am deeply honored to be given the opportunity to greet you here today.
My name is Kazumasa Kusaka, Chairman of Japan Economic Foundation.
The Japan Economic Foundation (JEF) has been hosting dialogues with the U.S., Europe, andAsia in order to achieve sustainable growth in the regions. We have identified the constraining
factors that Japan, as well as these regions face for that matter, tried to identify its solutions
and learned from each other on the policy successes and failures. These have been the coreagenda of the dialogues.
In the Asian region, the first Asia Pacific Forum convened in Singapore in 2003 to promote
FTAs in Asia Pacific to achieve sustainable economic growth. Discussions on how to proceedwith FTAs in this region have since been ongoing, and this year’s Forum will be its 15th annual
meeting.
During this time, the discussions have expanded to include domestic systems and its practiceof the so-called behind the border measures, and the discussions have also been focusing on
further improvements to the regional business-and-investment environment with the aim tostrengthen the growth potential of this region.

41

FTA ratifications have progressed very actively, and at the end of last year, the ASEAN
Economic Community came to life. However, EU, which was thought to be the role-model ofregional economic integration, saw the U.K. leaving after a referendum which voted in favor of
exiting the EU. The U.S. ratification of TPP also looks uncertain at the moment.
These have reinforced and clearly tell of the fact that the most important and toughest task is
not the negotiations with the partner country, but that it is winning domestic support.
Domestic economic, social, and political challenges need to be overcome through dialogues
with those stakeholders who are asymmetrically affected domestically. If this homework is notproperly done, globalization will be singled out as the bad guy being at the root of disparities,
and there will be citizens’ revolts, for example through voting activities.
To aim for deeper integration means the process will be more complex. In other words,
deepening of integration will affect the domestic economy, society and politics in each of thenation or region. The big challenge for each country in pursuing integration will be theimprovement of the political and social stability by raising people’s understanding andawareness towards the benefits of liberalization of trade and investment, by using this asleverage to support structural reforms, and also by correcting the expansion or fixation ofincome and asset disparities.
In Japan, the growth strategy of Abenomics has placed acceleration of structural reform as itscore via TPP and RCEP negotiations. These mega FTAs will further expand direct investments
which have led the growth of not only Japan but also this region as a whole, and will ensure thesustainable growth of the East Asian region represented here today.
Whether each country likes it or not, globalization is progressing, and this has demanded
creation of a new social contract with which the government and the public tackle with themost challenging job of reducing disparity. I think that mutual cooperation in moving the mega
FTA forward is needed to guide this region’s growth strategy to success.
I would like to end my remarks by expressing my hope that today’s forum will further
strengthen this region’s bond, and that it will contribute to promoting economic integrationand sustainable economic development. Thank you very much for your attention.

42

7．発表資料
公開フォーラムの発表資料（パワーポイントスライド、トーキングポイント）
SESSION 1：Roadmap for Asia Pacific Economic Integration: Issues for consideration①

Vo Thanh Tri②

Murray McLean③

Zhang Yunling④

Yukiko Fukagawa⑤

Gary Hawke

SESSION 2：New issues of regional trade and investment liberalization⑥

Lurong Chen⑦

Choong-Yong Ahn⑧

P. Ravidran Palaniappan⑨

Simon SC Tay⑩

Chedtha Intaravitak

SESSION 3：Linking trade with domestic policy reforms: Building consensus for coherent
move toward economic growth⑪

Sachin Chaturvedi⑫

Yose Rizal Damuri⑬

Soe Win⑭

Josef T. Yap⑮

Mignonne Man-jung Chan

43

①

Vo Thanh Tri

44

45

46

47

②

Murray McLean

48

49

③

Zhang Yunling

50

51

52

④

Yukiko Fukagawa

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

⑤

Gary Hawke

63

64

65

66

67

⑥

Lurong Chen

Topic: IPR protection and participation in GVCs
Key Issues:
Mega FTAs emerge in the 21st century trade governance.
IPR protection is one of the critical issues.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement shows us an example of robust IPR
standards.
Emerging Asian economies’ adherence to an international agreement containing high levelcommitments on IP protection could be seen as an effort to gain access to, or to secure an
established presence in global value chains (GVCs).

68

⑦

Choong-Yong Ahn

At the Panel Session 2 :New Issues of Regional Trade and Investment Liberalization
By Choong Yong Ahn
Chairman, Korea Commission for Corporate Partnership
Distinguished Professor, Graduate School of International Studies,
Chung-Ang University, Seoul
1. Connectivity enhancement in Asia-Pacific: frameworks, steps, and contemporary
challenges
The rapid development of transportation and communication technologies has enormously
enhanced intra-regional connectivity in Asia Pacific economies. As a result, intra-regional
movements of goods, services and tourists have increased a great deal in the past decades.
Until very recently, East Asian regionalism had been nurtured not by political andinstitutional arrangements but by sheer market forces such as a geographical proximity, theincreasingly liberal trade regimes of East Asian economies, and exceptionally high growth of
China in the past few decades, active utilization of natural supply chains and production
fragmentation prevailing especially in East Asia as the global manufacturing power house,
and East Asia’s self-help response against global hedge funds originating from financiallyadvanced economies.
At the trans-border regional micro level, significant regional cooperation schemes havebeen developed as evident in the Great Mekong River Development Area and formulation of
Pan-Yellow Sea economic sphere. Both supply chain and production fragmentation havebeen reinforced by geographical proximity and differential factor endowments to generate
closer economic linkages at the cross-border level particularly when neighboring countries
develop open cross-border regions and supra-regions as a new national development
strategy.
While observing significant functional and formal integration processes in terms ofdeepening trade interdependence and cross-border investment flows through a web of
intra-regional FTAs and intra-regional self-help financial cooperation as institutionalized in
the Chiangmai Initiative (CMI), the recent unprecedented global financial crisis has slowed69

down the expansion of intra-regional economic connectivity and but also made the concept of
the East Asian Community regain its momentum to recover from global “new normal”
phenomenon. Against this backdrop, the conclusion of TPP in 2015 and on-going RCEP
negotiation provided a great potential birth of the largest mega economic blocs in the world.
Together with the APEC movement toward trade and investment facilitation andliberalization, Asia Pacific economies have progressed consistently toward a closely linked
economic mega region.
Toward this goal of East Asian community building, it is very important that both thebottom-up and top-down developments need to be discussed because of their inherent
complementary nature and subsequent mutual reinforcement. Both developments havecontributed a great deal to foster East Asian regionalism. Although a formal framework of“East Asian Economic Community” has emerged in the ASEAN+3(China, Japan, and Korea;
hereafter named CJK) entity, the real driving force toward an East Asian Community needs
to come from the ‘Big Three’ economies in Northeast Asian in terms of economic size andpolitical influence, namely China, Japan and Korea. Until recently, ASEAN has played moreof a leadership role than the other three countries by developing an active reginal
cooperation mechanism via ASEAN plus CJK framework and recently the Regional
Comprehensive Economic Agreement (RCEP) particularly after the Asian financial crisis. In
May 2010, they agreed to establish a secretariat’s office in Seoul to work for the trilateralsummit meetings. Most importantly, the big three agreed to elevate hitherto on-goingtrilateral FTA studies at a think tank level to an official study format with participation ofrespective government officials. Finally, CJK have begun negotiations for the CJK trilateral
FTA. In due course of formalizing the trilateral FTA, CJK would agree on diverse
trans-border cooperation mechanisms, which would lead to a conclusion of the RCEP.
An economic integration involves unifying economic policies through the partial or fullabolition of tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade, investments and factor movement acrossborders. It ranges typically from preferential trade arrangements, to custom unions, to fuller
economic integration with some diverse forms, including capital and labor movement, andfinally to a supra national entity as seen in the European Union. In the course of upgrading
and deepening of economic integration, economic communities naturally evolve into politicalunions over time.
Perhaps, the greatest challenge to increase significantly the intra-regional connectivity inthe region would be the sudden rise of anti-globalization and return to protectionist trade
regime as Mr. Donald Trump was elected recently the next President of the United States.

70Together with the BREXIT, the election of Mr. Trump has rocked steadily practiced
liberalism in the international trade and investment system in the post-war era. The TPP
being scrapped by Mr. Trump and the US congress at least for the time being, dose the Asia
Pacific mega deal lose its steam entirely? How much and to what extent the emerging
anti-globalization sentiment would affect on-going functional and formal integration efforts
in East Asia remains to be seen. In order to push an East Asian formal integration forward,
the RCEP although far lower than TPP in terms of its quality needs to be concluded as abuilding block to a wider and deeper formal integration such as Free Trade Area of the
Asia-Pacific (FTAAP). Then, it can help revive the scrapped TPP and eventual amalgamationof RCEP and TPP down the road.

2. Participation in GVCs: any risks from the web of FTAs in Asia PacificIn the process of deepening GVCs, both input and output devices in finer technologicalsegmentation have been increasingly crossing the borders of the three countries. In
Particular, production has become increasingly fragmented as a result of growing regionaland global value chains (GVCs), with components and parts crossing numerous
international borders as market forces dictate. This trend has resulted in faster growth inintermediate inputs than in the trade in final goods. This new pattern of production has also
been prevalent in Asia. The IMF provided empirical evidence that from 1995 to 2013 toindicate that Asia’s trade in intermediate goods grew by a factor of six, while trade in final
goods grew almost four-gold. This trend in Asian compares with fourfold and threefold
increases of trade in intermediate and final goods, respectively, in the rest of the world.
IMF evidence (2015) also suggests that integration into GVCs brings benefits toparticipating economies beyond those traditionally associated with international trade in
final goods. This outcome was made feasible through exploiting finer competitive advantages
and both economies of scale and scope. The rise of GVCs has two important macroeconomic
implications: One relates to the increase in interconnectedness among countries, the other tothe impact of the exchange rate, which could be dampened or amplified depending on an
economy’s position in the GVC because the import of intermediate goods in GVC are also
inputs into exports. A standard GVC encompasses a number of production stages, fromupstream products conception to midstream assembly and then downstream branding andmarketing.
Given the growing interconnectedness of countries through GVCs and joint ventures, free71

trade deals have reinforced trade and intra-regional cross-border FDI flows in East Asia totake advantage of geographical proximity, differential factor endowments, and theattractiveness of huge consumer markets. As a result, the Asian trade network isincreasingly fragmented and results in higher dependence on supplies of goods and services
between ASEAN and East Asian countries on the basis of the OECD input-output Bilateral
Trade Databases. As a consequence, production fragmentation of major companies on the
one hand, and cross-border investments in the form of joint ventures among multinationalfirms and local ones on the other, have been more visible. This pattern is likely to be acharacteristic of a viable East Asian economic community.
Joint ventures among multinational companies originating in different countries have also
become more common and aim to realize win –win solutions in global competitions. Despiteongoing diplomatic uneasiness about historical issues between Korea and Japan, thecompanies of the two countries have continued to conduct joint investments to maximize
their complementarity. Both participation in GVCs and joint ventures have been an
important driving force to increase FDI across nations, especially in East Asia.
Out of the complex web of regional FTA networks, TPP should be viewed as the mostsignificant in accelerating GVCs and cross-border FDI flows in the Asia-Pacific region.
Indeed, the TPP is a game changer in that it will usher in new trade rules that will
qualitatively shift the scope of market liberalization and tariff elimination for trade andinvestment flows. Cross-border investment creates jobs. It also invigorates the regional
value chains, assigning diverse functions to different locations for competitive advantages.
The TPP will propel investment through public-private partnerships between countries, andinvestor-state disputes will escalate.
However, the much heralded TPP appears to be scrapped for the time being or entirely as the
US President-elect Donald Trump and the Republican Party decided not to ratify the TPP.
Whatever forms Mr. Trump’s policies might take once he takes office, his worldview suggests
based on his election campaigns and policy agenda that the US will no longer attempt to playa central role in shaping the world’s trading system. A mercantilist zero-sum view of theworld in which economies are intrinsically in competition and current account deficits prima
facie reflect cheating by trade partners is deeply worrying development.
However, it is very important to bear in mind the new trade rules embedded in the TPP as
highlighted below. They need to be adopted by Asia-Pacific economies selectively and even instep by step fashion and as best practices of private companies’ to follow in the years ahead:72

Lower tariff and nontariff barriers on goods through eventual elimination of all tariffs on
industrial products and most tariffs and quotas on agricultural products;
Greater service sector liberalization with enhanced disciplines, such as nondiscriminatory
and minimum standard of treatment, along with certain exceptions;
Additional intellectual property rights protections in patent, copyrights, trademarks, andtrade secrets; first specific data protection provisions for biologic drugs and new criminal
penalties for cyber theft of trade secrets;
Investment protections that guarantee nondiscriminatory treatment, minimum standard oftreatment and other provisions to protect foreign investment, balanced by provisions toprotect a state’s right to regulate in the public interest;
Enforceable provisions designed to provide minimum standards of labor and environmental
protection in TPP countries;
Commitments, without an enforcement mechanism, to avoid currency manipulation, provide
transparency and reporting concerning monetary policy, and engage in regulatory dialogue
among TPP parties;
Digital trade commitments to promote the free flow of data and to prevent data localization,
except for data localization in financial services, alongside commitments on privacy andexceptions for legitimate public policy purposes;
Enhanced regulatory transparency and due process provisions in standards-setting
The most expansive disciplines on state-owned enterprises ever in a U.S. FTA or the WTO,
albeit with exceptions, the advance fair competition with private firms based on commercial
considerations.
In the medium term, the quality of RCEP needs to be enhanced on a par with the trade rules
contained in the TPP to expedite a genuine free trade regime in the region. Then, it would beready to get combined with TPP when it revives down the road.
Given new normal era characterized secular stagnation, massive unemployment, and risingincome inequality, we need to recognize why anti-globalism has been increasingly popular.

73

The US presidential election result indicates that a vast majority of common people believethat they are victims rather than beneficiaries of free trade regime as they suffer fromincome polarization. Therefore, a new international trading system needs to be inclusive bymaking doors more open for small and medium sized enterprises. We need to address“inclusive trade policy” in a regional scale as well as global scale.
Given the global “new normal”, characterized by slow growth, low employment andsubsequent income polarization, the leaders of major economies, advanced and developing,have started to discuss policy priorities for inclusive growth. Social and economic inclusion
lies at the heart of the World Bank’s goals to eliminate poverty and boost shared prosperity.
Trade and investment liberalization measures must consider distributional impacts tovarious economic agents due to globalization.

3. Phasing out TBT and SPS: Room for Meaningful Progress;
Technical barriers to trade (TBTs), a category of nontariff barriers to trade, are the widely
divergent measures that countries use to regulate markets, protect their consumers, orpreserve their natural resources (among other objectives), but they also can be uses(orperceived by foreign countries) to discriminate against imports in order to protect domestic
industries.
The 2012 classification of non-tariff measures (NTMs) developed by the Multi-Agency
Support (MAST), a working group of eight international organizations, classifies TBTs ad
one of 16 NTMs Chapters. Here, technical barriers to trade refer to measures such aslabelling requirements, standards on technical specifications and quality standards, andother measures protecting the environment. They also include all conformity-assessment
measures related to technical requirements, such as certification, testing and inspection.
Other examples of TBTs are rules for product weight, size, or packaging; ingredient or
identity standards, import testing and certification procedures.
Sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures are measures to protect humans, animals, andplants from diseases, pests, or contaminants. The Uruguay Round Agreement on the
Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures applies to all sanitary (relation toanimals) and phytosanitary (relating to plants) measures that may have a direct or indirect
impact on international trade. The SPS agreement includes a series of understandings(trade disciplines) on how SPS measures will be established and used by countries when
they establish, revise, or ally their domestic laws and regulations. Countries agree to base74

their SPS standards on science, and as guidance for their actions, the agreement encourages
countries to use standards set by international standard setting organizations.
According to the 2012 classification of non-tariff measures (NTMs), SPS measures aredefined as “Measures that are applied to protect human or animal life from risks arisingfrom additives, contaminants, toxins or disease-causing organisms in their food; to protect
human life from plant-or animal- carried diseases; to protect animal or plant life from pests,
diseases, or disease-causing organisms; to prevent or limit other damage to a country fromthe entry, establishment or spread of pests; and to protect biodiversity”. Examples of SPS aretolerance limits for residues, restricted use of substances, labeling requirements related tofood safety, hygienic requirements and quarantine requirements.
However, trade experts widely view TBTs and SPSs as having great potential for being
misused by importing countries as nontransparent obstacles to trade. The SPS agreement
needs to ensure that SPS measures will not arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate against
trade of certain other members nor be used to disguise trade restrictions. In this SPS
agreement, countries maintain the sovereign right to provide the level of health protection
they deem appropriate, but agree that this right will not be misused for protectionist
purposes nor result in unnecessary trade barriers. A rule of equivalency rather than equality
applies to the use of SPS measures.
In the absence of formal treaties like bilateral or multi-lateral preferential tradingarrangement, regional multilateral fora like APCE should address continuously issues
relating to TILF (trade and investment facilitation and liberalization). For example, theShanghai accord adopted by the APCE in 2000 to reduce cross-border transaction cost by 2%
within five years has been effective to gradual phasing out TBT and SPS. There need to be
regular ministerial meetings in the various regional fora to address these issues including
effectuation of mutual recognition systems between countries with similar technical andscientific standards. They could serve as a pathfinder approach to spread out to othercountries.

4. Dispute settlement in FTAs: too formalistic, or too asymmetrically restrictive?
Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) or investment court system (ICS) is a systemthrough which individual companies can sue countries for alleged discriminatory practices.
ISDS is an instrument of international public law contained in a number of bilateral or
multilateral investment and trade treaties in NAFTA (chapter 11) and the proposed TTP

75

(chapter 9 and 28).
While ISDS is often associated with international arbitration under the rules of ICSID (theinternational Centre for Settlement of investment disputes of the world back), it often takes
place under the auspices of international arbitral tribunals governed by different rules or
institutions, such as the London Court of international Arbitration, the international
Chamber of Commerce, the Hong Kong international Arbitration, the international
Chamber of Commerce, the Hong Kong international Arbitration Centre or the UNCITRAL
Arbitration Rules.
ISDS has been criticized because the United States has never lost any of its ISDS cases, andthat the system is biased to favor American multinational companies and American tradeover other Western countries, and Western countries over the rest of the world. It is wellknown that through the Philip Morris v. Uruguay case, where the tobacco company Philip
Morris sued Uruguay after having enacted strict laws aimed at promoting public health.
Furthermore, judges are not elected in most countries outside the US, so that “public
accountability of judges” may not be considered a standard of public international law.
Empirical evidences suggest that ISDS have been too asymmetrically restrictive in favor of
powerful multinational companies of the advanced economies including the US and EU to
inhibit the capacities of the domestic governments, largely smaller and less advanced
economies, to implement reforms and legislative and policy programs to address legitimate
public concerns such as health, environmental protection, labor rights or human rights.
Proponents of ISDS argue that states and their governments are bound by public
international law, which includes bilateral investment treaties and international
investment agreements. Opponents also argue that arbitrations are sometimes carried out
in secret by trade lawyers who do not enjoy the typical safeguards of judicial independence
and procedural fairness, who earn income only if a case is brought and proceeds, and who are
not accountable to the public or required to take into account broader constitutional andinternational law and human rights norms.
In general, ISDS or ICS or arbitration takes time consuming and costly process. In Korea,
there exists system, so-called foreign investment ombudsman who serves as the trouble
shooter for foreign invested companies to resolve their grievances while doing businesses in
Korea. I personally served three terms as the Foreign Investment Ombudsman to realizethat preemptive aftercare services for foreign invested companies tend to prevent a potential
dispute from escalating into a big ISDS cases.

76

⑧

P. Ravidran Palaniappan

77

78

79

80

⑨

Simon SC Tay

New issues of regional trade and investment liberalization:
Political, Social Issues and Regional Options to Move Ahead
Simon Tay
Chairman, Singapore Institute of International Affairs
Key discussion points:
My comments will focus on options for Asia in the wake of the US presidential election. My
analysis is that the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), led by the USA is in limbo for theimmediate to medium term. The question arises what options are there for Asians to
consider.
While some will turn their attention to other FTAs, especially the Regional Comprehensive
Economic Partnership (RCEP), I believe these have their own challenges and will not, in any
event, come close to the level of economic integration of the TPP.
I suggest that there are three efforts that Asians and should make.
The first is at the national level for reform in line with each government’s effort to attract
more and higher quality investments in a world that is short of growth factors. Reformers ineach country must however deal with nationalist/ protectionist sentiments.
This brings me to the second effort to be made. Reforms towards a more liberal and open
economy must be tied with efforts towards more inclusive and growth strategies at thedomestic level. The case must be made and proven that economic reform and opening will
benefit the majority of ordinary people and improve their lives, whether directly or throughstate intervention and fiscal policy. The populist sentiment that was felt in the US generalelection is by no means unknown in Asia and ASEAN.
The third necessity for Asians is at the regional effort to consider how economic integration
can and should proceed. For ASEAN inter se, with its 2025 agenda, the post-Trump
imperative is to keep focused and move forward and to try to harmonize efforts made bydifferent ASEAN members according to their own national reform and opening efforts. The
key country for this will be Indonesia, not as a pace setter but the center of gravity; if

81Indonesia can move forward even incrementally, as the Jokowi administration seems to be
doing, ASEAN will move. The group can witness progress through parallel and coordinatednational reform.
For the RCEP, the task will be harder as several large economies are to a considerable
degree in competition for investments and growth. RCEP has been delayed and, even more
important, there seems to be a relatively low level of ambition amongst key members.
A third option to consider is for a major Asian economy to take the initiative towards anagreement with higher standards, even if among a more limited group. Asians should be toconsider a “TPP minus” initiative – utilizing the TPP agreement that has been negotiated asa template but with the flexibility to include fewer members and with levels of ambition thatare reduced (and yet still ahead of RCEP or other existing FTAs).

82

⑩

Chedtha Intaravitak

83

84

85

86

87

88

⑪

Sachin Chaturvedi

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

⑫

Yose Rizal Damuri

96

97

98

99

⑬

Soe Win

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

⑭

Josef T. Yap

109

110

111

112

⑮

Mignonne Man-jung Chan

113

114

115

116

117

118

8．若手研究者の参加報告
当財団では、
平成 25 年度からの試みとして、若手研究者を対象に各国有識者等との交流を通じ、将来に向けた見識の向上に役立つ場を提供している。今次フォーラム事業においては、早稲田大学の深川由起子教授のご推薦により、株式会社大和総研アジア事業開発グループの中澪様にオブザーバーとしてご参加いただいた。その成果の一部として、略歴並びに感想文を掲載する。
（略歴）
中

澪（なか

れい）

株式会社大和総研 アジア事業開発グループ主任
コンサルタント早稲田大学政治経済学部 国際政治経済学科を卒業後、2014 年 4 月より大和総研に入社。東アジ
ア・アセアン研究センター（ERIA）や経済産業省（METI）を含む、国際機関や日本の官公庁の調査・研究プロジェクトに従事。主な関心分野は、国際貿易と投資、エシカルサプライチェー
ン、ジェンダー、人権。
Rei Naka
Assistant Manager and Consultant
Asian Business Development Division, Daiwa Institute of Research Ltd.
Rei Naka is Assistant Manager and Consultant at Daiwa Institute of Research Ltd (DIR).
After graduating the School of Political Science and Economics, Waseda University, he joined
DIR in April 2014 and has been engaged in various research projects of internationalorganizations such as the Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA) andJapanese government offices including the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI).
His research interests are, but not limited to, international trade and investment, ethicalsupply chains, gender and human rights.

119

（感想文）
株式会社大和総研 アジア事業開発グループ主任
コンサルタント中澪

国際社会における日本人のプレゼンスと、若い世代に必要なこと―平成 28 年度日アジア太平洋フォーラム若手研究者派遣プログラムに参加して「まだ若すぎるのではないかと懸念はしているのですが…」。深川先生にはそう前置きをされながらも何とか決まった私の本フォーラムへの参加であったが、アジア太平洋地域の 13 ヵ国・地
域、国際機関から集まった研究者・実務家との交流、彼らによって交わされる良質な議論を体験できたことは、私のキャリア開発においてのみならず、個人としての成長にとっても、大きな資産となることを確信している。2003 年以降、本フォーラムを長きに亘って主催されている国際経済交流財団（JEF）の皆様、中でも、今年度の開催にご尽力された日下一正会長、原岡直幸専
務理事、土屋隆業務部長には、この場をお借りし心から御礼を申し上げたい。
1991 年生まれの私は、いわゆるミレニアル世代に属し、幼少期からデジタル化の恩恵を受け、インターネットを使いこなすことが特徴であるとされる。しかし、悲観的な見方をすれば、「国際社会」と称されるあらゆるシーンにおいて日本のプレゼンスが低下する中を生きてきた世代といえよう。ネットを通じ、国際会議をライブ映像で視聴することはできても、日本の国力低下と財政制約の強化によって、実際に参加できる機会は限られてしまった。世界の出来事は常に身近に感じてきたかもしれないが、スクリーン越しのそれが決してリアルな感覚ではないところがもどかしいのみならず、現実的な問題として、国際的なキャリアを志向すればするほどこの不利益は大きいものとなる。ゆえに、そのような中で与った機会は一層有難く感じられた。
本フォーラムは 2016 年 11 月 24 日（木）～25 日（金）の 2 日間で開催され、1 日目はプルマン
ハノイホテルにて公開フォーラム、2 日目はベトナム中央経済管理研究所（CIEM）において非公開ラウンドテーブルが行われた。
公開フォーラムは、JEF の日下会長、CIEM のグエン・ディン・クン所長によるオープニング
スピーチによりその幕が開け、アジア太平洋地域におけるこれまでの貿易・投資自由化の成功と、今後のさらなる取り組みの必要性が本フォーラムの共通認識として確認された。
第 1 パネルセッションは“Roadmap for Asia Pacific Economic Integration: Issues for
Consideration”と題され、JEF の原岡専務による進行の下、CIEM のヴォー・トリ・タン氏、
マレー・マクリーン元オーストラリア駐日大使、中国社会科学学院（CASS）の張蘊嶺教授、早120

稲田大学の深川由起子教授、ヴィクトリア大学ウェリントン校のゲーリー・ホーク名誉教授が登壇した。先進国・大国からの参加が多いこのセッションでは、今後のアジア太平洋地域における統合の道筋がどうあるべきかについて、大きな視点からそのあり方が中心に議論された。自由貿
易体制を取り巻く環境が大きく変化しようとしている中で、アジア太平洋経済協力（APEC）の役割を再考し、その制度的メカニズムをより強く、実効的なものにしていくべきであること、極めて難しい状況ではありながら、自由化レベルの高い環太平洋経済連携協定（TPP）の実現を諦めるべきではないこと、東アジア地域包括的経済連携（RCEP）交渉はその意味が失われないよ
う、適切なスケジュールで進めていくべきであること等が議論された。
本セッションの議論は各国の関心の違いを明確に反映していた。深川教授は、TPP 以降の日本の通商政策を見据え、日 EU・EPA、日中韓 FTA、韓国の参加による TPP のさらなる拡大の可能性といった複数の FTA 構想をモノのインターネット（IoT）や人工知能（AI）等の技術革新とも結びつけながら、日本の成長戦略の中でどのように位置づけるべきかを論じた。このような議論には、企業の生産ネットワークが世界中に広がり、二国間の自由貿易協定（FTA）よりは、多国間かつ自由化の範囲が広く、水準も高い経済連携協定（EPA）を求める日本の関心が反映されている。他方、張蘊嶺教授は、自由化レベルの高い TPP は多くの開発途上国にとって参加が難しく、WTO にとって代わる自由貿易のスタンダードにもなりえないとし、RCEP を漸進的に進めていくべきとの立場を取った。TPP は自由化水準の高さのみならず、国有企業や環境、労働等の広範な分野で、国際貿易・投資上のルール・メイキングをその核とし、中国が参加するた
めには抜本的な国内改革を要する。また、RCEP は ASEAN が提案し、イニシアチブをとってきた経緯があるため、自らが設計し主導する「一帯一路」構想（B&R）やアジアインフラ投資銀行（AIIB）に重きを置くのは彼らにとってごく自然な発想であろう。
第 2 パネルセッション“New Issues of Regional Trade and Investment Liberalization”では、フィリピン大学のジョセフ・ヤップ教授の進行により、東アジア・アセアン経済研究センター（ERIA）のチェン・ルーロン氏、韓国コーポレートパートナーシップ委員会（KCCP）のアン・チュンヨン氏、マレーシア通商産業省（MITI）の P. ラヴィドラン氏、シンガポール国際問題研
究所（SIIA）のサイモン・テイ氏、タイ開発研究所（TDRI）のチェッダ・インタラヴィタク氏が登壇し、知的財産権の保護やグローバル・バリュー・チェーン（GVCs）への参加等、経済統合の進展に伴う新しい課題への対処が議論された。また、各国が取り組むべき政策の方針として、さらなる投資を呼び込むための国内改革の推進、インクルーシブな成長につながる、より自由で開かれた経済の実現等が提案された。
本セッションの参加国は、一定の自由化を受け入れて成功し、その過程で新しい課題に直面している中進国が多い。インタラヴィタク氏は、今後の地域統合において関税削減はもはや問題ではなく、非関税障壁や投資の自由化への取組みがより重要になると主張した。しかし、タイは農業や医薬を中心とする反対勢力の説得ができず、TPP に参加していない。さらに、経済担当のソムキット副首相が、米国が TPP からの離脱を決定した場合、タイにとっては利益となるとの見方を示す（2016 年 11 月 17 日付 Bangkok Post）等、むしろ保護主義的な様相を呈してきてい121

るようにすら思われる。
第 3 パネルセッションは“Linking Trade with Domestic Policy Reforms: Building Consensus
for Coherent Move toward Economic Growth”をテーマに、CIEM のヴォー・トリ・タン氏の進行の下、インド開発途上国研究情報システムセンター（RIS）のサチン・チャトゥルヴェディ
氏、インドネシア戦略国際問題研究センター（CSIS）のヨセ・リザル・ダムリ氏、ルネッサンス研究所（ミャンマー）のソー・ウィン氏、フィリピン大学のジョセフ・ヤップ教授、アウト・オブ・ザ・ボックス・コンサルタンシー（台湾）のミニョンヌ・チャン氏が登壇し、経済統合と国内改革との接点に注目した議論が展開された。
本セッションでは、ソー・ウィン氏より、2016 年 10 月にミャンマーで成立した新投資法についての説明があった。本フォーラムへの参加国の中で最も発展段階の低いミャンマーにおいては、
約 50 年間続いた軍政に終わりを告げたのが 2011 年のことであり、その時点から数えると民主化の歴史は 5 年程度ということになる。まさにこれからビジネス環境を整え、積極的に自由化を進めていこうとする後発国の努力は、アジア太平洋地域がいかに新しい成長機会、市場のポテン
シャルに富んでいるかを感じさせると同時に、この地域が一体となって深い統合を実現するまでには、未だ長い道のりが待っていることを表している。
3 つのパネルセッションに共通しているのは、各国の関心の違いはこの地域の多様性を象徴しながら、それをどうバランスさせるかが統合深化に向けた大きな課題であることを示している点だ。
ミャンマーやラオス、カンボジアのように、切実に協力を必要とする国もあるが、一定の発展段
階に達してもなお「自由化より協力」の中国やインドの説得は難しく、国内における反自由貿易の勢力が強いタイ等が、保護主義に傾くリスクも懸念される。こうした国々をいかに説得するか
は、日本にその役割が期待されるところではないだろうか。
議論の中身に関する考察とは異なる観点で、本フォーラムでの「気づき」を述べたい。国際会議の場では、自分自身がその一部となって体験することでしか得られない多くの気づきがある。その一つが食事会の重要性であろう。本フォーラムでは、1 日目にはウェルカムランチとウェルカ
ムディナー、2 日目にはフェアウェルランチが設けられていた。食事会は、単に参加者同士が交流を深める機会のみならず、非公式な議論の場でもある。議論の前後に自分の存在をアピールすることに加え、主要人物から論点を探る、議論の後の場合は対立した人にこそ親しみを持って話しかける等、繊細かつ戦略的なコミュニケーションが要求される。
また、ホスト国の文化や歴史に対する敬意を表することも大切である。その国の文化や歴史について学んでおくのは当然だが、それらを表現する上で、その国の民族衣装（ベトナムにおけるアオザイ等）や、象徴的なアクセサリー（ミャンマーにおけるルビー等）をコーディネートに取り入れることもオシャレかつ有効な手段である。これらはビジネスにおけるプレゼンテーションや学会での発表とも異なる国際会議に独特のテクニックであり、洗練された所作を身につけるには、相当な場数を踏むことが求められそうだ。

122

ウェルカムディナーにて結論に代えて、一参加者の経験として感じた本フォーラムの意義について述べたい。一つは、各国の政策形成に一定の影響力を持つ人々の間で、自由貿易の価値を確認しあう機会を提供している点だ。
本フォーラムにおいても度々言及されたが、世界的な保護主義の広がりは反自由貿易に留まらず、これまで多くの人々が共通の価値観と認識していたものを、あらゆる分野で変えようとしている。
例えば、米国ではトランプ大統領の誕生後、移民や性的少数者（LGBT）等、マイノリティに対するヘイトクライムやヘイトスピーチが急増している（2016 年 11 月 28 日付 Reuters）。2015
年 6 月に連邦最高裁判所により同性婚は憲法で保障された権利であるとする判決が下され、ホワ
イトハウスがレインボーフラッグの 6 色にライトアップされてから 1 年余りのことである。社会に共有される価値観とは思いのほか脆く、簡単に壊れてしまうものであることを認識させられた。
米国以外のアジア太平洋地域では今のところ顕在化していないと思われるが、自由貿易についても同様のバックラッシュが起こる可能性があることから、引き続き価値観の共有を図っていくことが重要であろう。
もう一つは、国際社会における日本のプレゼンスの向上に貢献している点である。そもそも日本のプレゼンスとは何だろうか。国家としての力であれば、経済力、軍事力、文化や芸術のソフトパワーが挙げられる。企業の場合、その製品やサービスがいかに世界の人々に愛されるかがものをいうだろう。
それらの他に、個人として世界で活躍することで、日本のプレゼンスを高めている人もいる。つまり、その意味においては「日本のプレゼンス」とは「日本人のプレゼンス」に他ならず、国際社会のあらゆる場面で、そこに立つ日本人がその舌鋒鋭い議論や振る舞いの美しさに人々の尊敬を集めることの積み重ねが、ひいては日本のプレゼンス向上につながるのであろう。そしてそのプレゼンスを次世代に連綿とつなげるためには、こうした場に若い研究者を派遣することに大きな意義がある。世界で活躍できる人材は一朝一夕に育つものではなく、若い頃からの研鑽が欠かせないからだ。若い人にこそ、このような機会が必要とされているのである。

123

9．公開フォーラム来場者アンケート集計
Questionnaire Survey of APF2016
1. Overall Evaluation of the Forum

Satisfactory

Somewhat
Satisfactory

Somewhat
Unsatisfactory

Unsatisfactoryout of

23

17

1

0

41

Somewhat
Unsatisfactory
2.4%

Unsatisfactory
0.0%

Somewhat
Satisfactory
41.5%
Satisfactory
56.1%

2. Evaluation of the Quality of the Forum as compared with your expectation
Higher than
expected

the same level

Lower than
expected

No Answerout of

11

28

1

1

41

Lower than
expected
2.4%

No Answer
2.4%

Higher than
expected
26.8%

the same
level
68.3%

3. Session by Session Evaluation

124

Question

Satisfactory

Somewhat
Satisfactory

Somewhat
Unatisfactory

Unatisfactory

No Answerout of

22

19

0

0

0

41

23

17

1

0

0

41

20

19

0

2

0

41

23

14

0

0

4

41

KeynoteAddress
Panel
Session 1
Panel
Session 2
Panel
Session 3

Satisfactory

KeynoteAddress

53.7%

Panel
Session 1

56.1%

46.3%

Somewhat
Satisfactory

41.5%

Panel
Session 2

2.4%

Somewhat
Unatisfactory

48.8%
46.3%

Panel
Session 3

4.9%

Unatisfactory

56.1%
34.1%
0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

No Answer

9.8%

80.0%

100.0%

You are:Student

Researcher

University
teacherBusiness
personGovernment
official

Media

Othersout of

0

24

0

1

11

1

4

41

Student
0.0%

Media
2.4%

'Others' の回答
・NGO

Others
9.8%

・Policy Institute Founder・Economist

Government
official
26.8%

Business
person2.4%

125

University
teacher
0.0%

Researcher
58.5%

10．成果アジア・太平洋地域に於ける FTA の推進を目指して 2003 年に開始した当財団主催の日ア
ジア太平洋フォーラムは、2014 年のシンガポール開催から、これまでの当地域での FTA の拡大及び深化、地域統合の進展、また実体経済におけるグローバル・バリュー・チェーン（global value chain: GVC）の展開を踏まえ、①TPP や RCEP の交渉の進展に寄与するための従来型トピック、に加えて、②ＦＴＡ交渉が各国の構造改革を進めるための手段（vehicle）との観点から、貿易投資自由化、ひいては地域経済統合にむけての各国内の政治経済面での制約（behind-the border-measures）、国家間の軋轢などの課題とそれらの克服といった内容を取り上げることとした。
今次、2016 年 11 月 24 日（木）、25 日（金）ハノイに於いて、ベトナム計画・投資省の経済管理中央研究所（Central Institute for Economic Management: CIEM）との共催で以下のテーマにて、公開フォーラム（24 日午後 プルマンホテル）、及び非公開ラウンドテーブ
ル・ディスカッション（25 日午前 CIEM 内、会議室）を行った。
フォーラムの開催に際して、アジア太平洋地域の経済統合を取り巻く環境は、①統合のモデルである EU が英国の離脱をうける、②TPP についてはその提唱者であった米国がトラン
プ次期大統領の誕生で脱退する、③RCEP は交渉が停滞している、といった厳しい状況となっている。こうした中で、当該地域の経済の持続的成長を達成するためにいかに地域統合を推進していくかを話し合うべく、メインテーマ「アジア太平洋地域における貿易および投資の自由化の推進（Advancing trade and investment liberalization in the Asia-Pacific）」の下、以下の 3 つのセッションを設けた。
セッション１
アジア太平洋地域の経済統合に向けてのロードマップ：考慮すべき課題
Roadmap for Asia Pacific Economic Integration: Issues for consideration
主な問題意識：BREXIT やトランプ米国次期大統領の選挙戦に見られた発言など、保護主義、反グローバル化の動きが出現する中で、アジア・太平洋地域としては何をすべきか？ 当地域での地域大 FTA、例えば、TPP、RCEP はどのような状態であるのか、今後の見通しは？ 当地域の更なる統合に向けてこれらの FTA を効果的に調和させる上でのキーとなる要素は何か？等
セッション２域内の貿易・投資自由化にとっての新たな課題
New issues of regional trade and investment liberalization
主な問題意識：国家間でのモノや人の流れの連結性を高める上での課題は何か？ グローバル・バリュー・チェーンに参加する際に複数の FTA が絡み合っていることから発生するリスクとは何か？等

126

セッション３
貿易を国内政策改革に繋げる：経済成長のための一貫した措置に対するコンセンサスの形成
Linking trade with domestic policy reforms: Building consensus for coherent movetoward economic growth
主な問題意識：成長戦略形成に向けて新たな FTA 参加を活用する上ではどのような国内の改革が必要になるのか？ 経済統合からの恩恵を享受する上でどのようなビジネス
環境の改善が必要か？等
今回のフォーラムの参加者は、共催機関であるベトナムの CIEM、及び地元ハノイの研究者に加えて、当財団が招聘した 13 の国・地域（日本、豪州、ニュージーランド、中国、韓国、
フィリピン、インドネシア、マレーシア、シンガポール、タイ、ミャンマー、インド、台湾）
並びにジャカルタの東アジア・アセアン経済研究センター（ERIA）から計 25 人の専門家・有識者であった。
公開フォーラム、及び非公開ラウンドテーブル・ディスカッションでの主な議論は前出のサマリーを参照していただくことになるが、興味深い論点についていくつか紹介する。
１. 東アジア地域においては欧米と異なり、グローバル化、地域経済統合に反する動きは顕在化してきていない。他方で、深化が期待されている ASEAN 経済共同体については、
域内関税率の引き下げは進んでいるのに対して、非関税障壁撤廃やサービス投資の自由化、さらに言えば、人の移動などが遅れている。各国の国内法制の改正が伴うものは、
簡単ではない。
２. 国内法制に関しては、経済成長に向けて、FTA を国内の規制改革の梃として活用するケースがみられるが、ベトナムが国内改革の根拠としている TPP の成立が頓挫する中でこうした規制改革の行方が注目される。
３. TPP が米国の離脱を受ける状態になることから、いかに対処するかについて様々な意見があった。例えば、①加盟各国は TPP を批准し米国の参加を粘り強く促しながら米国の翻意を待つ、②米国抜きの 11 か国で取り組む、③中国の参加を求める、等。また、
米国は 2 国間の FTA を重視としている。この点に関しては、参加者の中から、2 国間の交渉では米国からの要求が厳しく妥結できなかったので多国間である TPP に取り組
み妥結に至っており、米国の 2 国間指向を警戒しているとのコメントもあった。今後の展開から目を離せなくなっている。
４. RCEP については、TPP の状況からして、早く成立させるべきとの意見がある中、その中核役を期待される ASEAN が 2017 年に創設 50 周年を迎えることから、それを機になんらかの動きが出てくるのか、気になるところである。
以上、公開フォーラム、及び非公開ラウンドテーブル・ディスカッションの成果としては、

127

以下が挙げられる。


２４日（木）の公開フォーラムは、参加した一般聴衆の満足度が高かったのは成果である。フォーラムには JEF・CIEM 招へいの各国の専門家 25 名に加えて、74 名が聴衆として参加し、聴衆からも活発なコメントがあった。
また、当財団が聴衆を対象に満足度のアンケート調査（満足度 4 段階方式）を行ったところ、回答者 41 名中、総合満足度で最上位が 56％、第２位 41%となり、ほぼ全回答者が満足であった。特に、最上位が 56%と第２位を上回っており、かつ、事前の期待に比べて、実際のフォーラムが期待以下との回答が 41 人中 1 名であったことは、内容がよかったかことを物語っている（期待以上 27%、期待通り 68%）。



参加国の面では、当財団が招聘を意図した国・地域の研究機関全てのから参加を得たこ
とも成果である。特に、ミャンマーについては、新設のルネッサンス研究所から初めて参加を得た。しかもトップの方に参加いただいた。同研究所はアウン・サン・スー・チー氏率いる国民民主連盟（National League for Democracy: NLD）による政権発足とともに政策のブレインとして設立されたシンクタンクであり、参加された U Soe Win
は NLD 創設のメンバーの一人である。



また、今回は、中国からはここ２年ほど代役の参加で本人は欠席となっていた著名な有識者、中国社会科学院 ZHANG Yunling 教授も参加されたことで、議論も深みが出ていた。

JEF が各国から招へいした上記参加者の評価が高いことも成果である。当財団が実施した満足度調査（満足度 4 段階方式）では、総合満足度で、回答 12 名中、全員が最上位であった。また、事前の期待との比較では、期待以上が 7 名（約 60%）、期待通り 5 名（約 40%）であった。参加者のコメントも、①参加者が素晴らしかった、②２日間のディスカッションが有意義であった、知的刺激を受けた、という高い評価ものが多かった。
他方、反省材料としては、議論のポイントをもう少し絞った方が、議論がより深化したのではないか、との指摘もあり、次回に向けて検討したい。



また、日本の若手研究者にもオブザーバーとして参加してもらい、アジア・太平洋地域
から集まった専門家によるダイナミックな議論に接していただいた。若手研究者からは、「長年フォーラムに参加されている方も多く、（中略）とても良い雰囲気の中、率直な議論が行われていたのが印象的でした。国際情勢を踏まえた、有意義な議論でした。
（後略）」との有意義であったとのコメントを得ている。

これらの議論の詳細は、当財団のホームページに掲載されており、実際にフォーラムに参加した方々に加えて、今後多くの方に見ていただくことにより、波及効果が期待される。

128

11．共催団体紹介

Japan Economic Foundation (JEF)
The Japan Economic Foundation (JEF) was established in July 1981 to deepen
understanding between Japan and other countries through activities aimed at promoting
economic and technological exchange.
With this goal in mind, JEF engages in a broad range of activities such as providing
information about Japan and arranging venues for the exchange of ideas among opinion
leaders from many countries in such fields as industry, government, academia and politics inorder to build bridges for international communication and to break down the barriers thatmake mutual understanding difficult.
URL: www.jef.or.jp

Central Institute for Economic Management (CIEM)
The Central Institute for Economic Management was established in 1978. CIEM is anational and think-tank institute in Vietnam, belonging to the Ministry of Planning andInvestment. CIEM has always proactively initiated and conducted researches offundamental, creative and new issues to give on-time and effective advice to the Party andthe State on economic reforms and policies. In 2012, the Institute is ranked among the top
80 policy research institutes globally in the field of national economic policies (according to
The Global "Go -To -Think - Tanks" in 2013).The Institute has also established extensive andeffective cooperative relations with a number of countries and international organizations,such as France, the UK, Japan, Australia, Canada, China, Singapore, the International
Monetary Fund (IMF), the International Labor Organization (ILO), the World Bank (WB),
the Asian Development Bank (ADB), etc. In 2008, the member countries of the Economic
Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA) elected the President of the Central
Institute for Economic Management to be Chairman of the Executive Council of ERIA from2008 to 2011.

129

12．事務局（日本側）
一般財団法人国際経済交流財団／Japan Economic Foundation (JEF)
住所：〒104-0061 東京都中央区銀座 5-15-8 時事通信ビル 11 階

T E L：03-5565-4824

FAX：03-5565-4828

U R L：www.jef.or.jp
担当：業務部長 土屋
業務部

井上

隆
真弓

［業務運営委託先］
株式会社イベントアンドコンベンションハウス／EVENT & CONVENTION HOUSE, INC.
住所：〒110-0016 東京都台東区台東 4-27-5 秀和御徒町ビル 8 階

担

当：営業企画部

次長 吉岡 光晶

営業企画部

大木

和美

（ベトナム側）Central Institute for Economic Management (CIEM)
住所：68 Phan Dinh Phung St., Ba Dinh Dist., Hanoi, Vietnam

U R L：http://ciem.org.vn/en/home.aspx
担当：Nguyen Anh Duong, Acting Deputy Director, Department for Macroeconomic andIntegration Studies
Tran Binh Minh, Department for Macroeconomic Policy & Integration Studies

130平成 29 年 3 月
一般財団法人 国際経済交流財団
JAPAN ECONOMIC FOUNDATION（JEF）©JEF Printed in Japan 無断の複写転載はお断りします。