2019 年度日アジア太平洋フォーラム
Asia-Pacific Forum 2019

報 告 書2019 年 10 月 16 日（火）・17 日(水)マレーシア・クアランプール開催

一般財団法人 国際経済交流財団（JEF）

2019 年度日アジア太平洋フォーラム
2019 年 10 月 16 日（水）、17 日（木）マレーシア・クアラルンプール

開会挨拶 Tan Sri Rastam Mohd Isa

開会挨拶 JEF 日下会長

基調講演 YB Dr. Ong Kian Ming

Session1 浦田秀次郎氏

会場の様子

Session 1 Q & A の様子

Session 1 Q & A の様子

Session 1 会場の様子

Session２ 会場の様子

Session3 会場の様子

Session３ モデレーター JEF 原岡専務理事

Session3 モデレーター JEF 原岡専務

Day2 ラウンドテーブル
ディスカッション

閉会の様子

集合写真

目

次

1.

開

催

趣

旨

·························································································1

2.

開

催

概

要

·························································································2

3.

詳

細

日

程

·························································································4

4.

出

者

·······················································································10

5.

略

歴

·······················································································12

6.

議

席

事

要

旨

和

文

·······················································································27

英文·······················································································48

資

7.

発

表

料

·······················································································64

8.

活 動 と 成 果·····················································································110

9.

アンケート結果·····················································································117

10.

共催団体紹 介·····················································································12011.

事·····················································································121

務局

１．開催趣旨

国際経済交流財団は、我が国企業の国際競争力に資するため、更なる成長が期待され重要な市場であるアジア太平洋地域について、持続的経済成長への貢献、またビジネス制
度の共通化・標準化の点で重要な地域経済統合を推進するという観点から、アジア太平洋地域のシンクタンクや大学等と共に議論を重ねて来ている。
本事業は、アジア太平洋地域で指導的役割を果たしている政財界、官界、学界における有識者が一堂に会し、豊富な経験に基づき同地域におけるこれらの課題の解決に向けて、率直な意見交換を行い相互の交流、および理解を深めると共に、我が国をはじめ参加各
国での政策立案に資することを目的としている。
2003 年にシンガポールで第 1 回を開催して以来、昨年度（2018 年）はインド・デリー
において 17 回目、今年度は 18 回目をマレーシア・クアラルンプールにてマレーシア
戦略国際問題研究所 Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) Malaysia との共催で公開シンポジウム、および非公開ラウンドテーブル・ディスカッションを開催した。

1２．開催概要【開催日時】
10 月 16 日（水）終日 ＜DAY1＞ 公開シンポジウム
10 月 17 日（木）午前 ＜DAY2＞ 非公開ラウンドテーブル・ディスカッション【開催場所】
マレーシア・クアラルンプール（会場：The Westin Hotel Kuala Lumpur）【主催者】
日本側：一般財団法人国際経済交流財団／Japan Economic Foundation (JEF)
マレーシア側：マレーシア戦略国際問題研究所
Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) Malaysia【テーマ】
2020 年以降のアジア太平洋地域の経済：
アジア太平洋地域は台頭するポピュリズムと顕在化する格差問題への対応の中で如何にして“より良きグローバリゼーション”を成し遂げられるか？
The Future of the Asia-Pacific Economies Beyond 2020：
How can the Asia-Pacific Region Achieve a Better Globalization in Coping with Rising
Populism and Emerging Inequality?
パネルセッション１
アジア太平洋地域における今後の持続的かつ包摂的成長の展望と課題
Prospects and Issues for the Future Sustainable and Inclusive Growth in the AsiaPacific Region
パネルセッション２
アジア太平洋地域における地域統合の進展とその展望
Progress of Regional Integration in the Asia-Pacific Region and Its Outlook
パネルセッション３
経済的な繁栄の達成に向けての新たな挑戦
New Challenges for Achieving Economic Prosperity2

【出席者】
日本、マレーシア、アジア太平洋地域の計 13 の国・地域から 21 名

【形式】
＜DAY1＞公開シンポジウム（聴衆：85 名）＜DAY2＞非公開ラウンドテーブル・ディスカッション【使用言語】
英語3３．詳細日程

Asia-Pacific Forum 2019
co-hosted by Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS)
and Japan Economic Foundation (JEF) on

The Future of the Asia-Pacific Economies Beyond 2020-- How can the Asia-Pacific Region achieve a better globalization in coping with rising
populism and emerging inequality? -16 - 17 October 2019
(Venue: Westin Hotel Kuala Lumpur)

Wednesday, 16 October 20191000 - 1030

Arrival and Registration

1030 - 1045

Welcoming Remarks by

Tan Sri Rastam Mohd Isa
Chairman and Chief Executive
Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) Malaysia
Welcome Remarks by
Mr Kazumasa Kusaka
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Japan Economic Foundation (JEF)
1045 - 1105

Keynote Address by

YB Dr Ong Kian Ming
Deputy Minister
International Trade and Industry (MITI) Malaysia
1105 - 1115

Photo Session

41120 - 1230

Panel Session 1: Prospects and Issues for the Future Sustainable andInclusive Growth in the Asia-Pacific Region

The Asia-Pacific region has been the growth center of the world economy. For its growth tobe sustainable, it is important that growth should be inclusive with its outcome distributed
equally. What are some constraining factors which must be overcome to achieve such growthin the coming years?
In the past, this region suffered low growth as protective “My Country First” measures,
including excessive protection of infant industries, were taken. Then, this region achieved
today’s development through such open and free trade measures as seen in the progress of
ASEAN integration, China’s entry to WTO, the expansion of intra-regional FTAs, and therealization of the CPTPP.
Now in order for this region to enjoy the benefits of free trade to a maximum extent, it isimperative to implement domestic structural reforms. Growth strategies need to correspondto issues of structural reforms. In this session, issues, challenges and solutions for executing
growth strategies in this region are broadly examined with attention paid to the notion that it
is very important for growth to contribute to the overall welfare of society as well as GDP
growth. In other words, growth has to be inclusive.
Guiding questions:⚫

What are the components of sustainable and inclusive growth thatcountries in the region should focus on in the medium to longterm and what are the challenges in achieving them?

⚫

What are the sources of sustainable growth in the region? Can
trade still be the vehicle for equal prosperity?

⚫

How do we ensure that inclusive growth is achieved by all in theregion?

Moderator:
Dr Josef T Yap
Senior Technical Advisor
ASEP-CELLs Project, Ateneo School of Government
Panelists:
Prof Shujiro Urata
Professor of Economics
Graduate School of Asia Pacific Studies Waseda University

5

Dr Man-jung Mignonne Chan
Co-Founder and Chief Strategy Officer
Forum on Humanities
Prof Gary Hawke
Emeritus Professor
Victoria University of Wellington
Dr Wisarn Pupphavesa
Senior Advisor
Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI)Dr Vo Tri Thanh
Chairman
Vietnam National Committee for Pacific Economic Cooperation (VNCPEC)
Mr Alizan Mahadi
Senior Fellow, Technology, Innovation, Environment and Sustainability (TIES)Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) Malaysia
1230 – 1400

Welcome Luncheon
Hosted by Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS)
Malaysia

1400 – 1510

Panel Session 2: Progress of Regional Integration in the Asia-PacificRegion and Its Outlook

In the Asia-Pacific region, ASEAN integration is progressing, intra-regional FTAs
are expanding and the CPTPP was realized. Consequently, these trade liberalization
measures have promoted the establishment of intra-regional supply chains. In addition, theRegional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Agreement is close to realization.
However, the recent US-China trade friction, which began due to the Trumpadministration’s “America First” action, is causing changes in the regional supply chains,
including those of Chinese companies. Amid actions of anti-globalization and protectionism
seen in the EU and US, prerequisites for economic growth as well as issues, challenges andsolutions are discussed for this region to maintain and develop free trade, and eventually lead6

it to the realization of a regional integration.
Guiding questions:⚫

What are the mid and long-term outlook for regional trade amidst
trade tensions?

⚫

Should countries in the region continue pushing for tradeliberalization going forward beyond 2020?

⚫

Which type of mega-regional trade deals are needed toreinvigorate further trade liberalization and facilitation efforts inthe long-term?

Moderator:
Prof Tham Siew Yean
Senior Fellow
ISEAS-Yusof Ishak InstitutePanelists
Dr Zhong Feiteng
Head and Professor
National Institute of International Strategy, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences(CASS)
Amb Murray McLean AO
ChairmanDunmore McLean Pty Ltd
Datuk Seri Jayasiri Jayasena
Former Secretary-General
Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI), Malaysia
Ms Anita Prakash
Director of Policy Relations
Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA)Dr Juita Mohamad
Fellow, Economics, Trade and Regional Integration (ETRI)
Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) Malaysia
71510 - 1530

Coffee Break

1530 – 1640
Panel Session 3: New Challenges for Achieving Economic Prosperity
New difficulties have arisen in realizing inclusive growth and achieving the economic
prosperity and stability of the Asia-Pacific region. One is the Digital Revolution and the otheris political populism. The impact of the Fourth Industrial Revolution and Digital Revolution
on this region is a matter of particular concern. On the other hand, there remains a concern
whether political populism could cause anti-globalization in this region sentiments.
Against these backdrops, and in achieving the region’s socio-economic stability andprosperity, what should we do? This session will examine human resource as well as
infrastructure development and other possible solutions.
Guiding questions:⚫

What is needed for countries in the region to participate in the
Fourth Industrial Revolution?

⚫

How does quality infrastructure fit into the needs of a region inboosting its supply capacity?

⚫

What can be done to offset anti-globalization sentiments on the
ground?

Moderator:
Mr Naoyuki Haraoka
Executive Managing Director
Japan Economic Foundation (JEF)
Panelists:
Dr Ahn Choong-yong
Distinguished Professor
Graduate School of International Studies, Chung-Ang University
Dr Yose Rizal Damuri
Head of Department of Economics
Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)8Dr Josef T Yap
Senior Technical Advisor
ASEP-CELLs Project, Ateneo School of Government
Assoc Prof Simon SC Tay
ChairmanSingapore Institute of International Affairs (SIIA)
Dr Priyadarshi Dash
Assistant Professor
Research and Information System for Developing Countries (RIS)
Ms Farlina Said
Analyst, Foreign Policy and Security Studies (FPSS)
Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) Malaysia
1640 - 1700

Closing Remarks by

Tan Sri Rastam Mohd Isa
Chairman and Chief Executive
Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) Malaysia
1800 - 1830

Cocktail Session

1830 - 2030

Welcome Dinner

Hosted by Japan Economic Foundation

Thursday, 17 October 2019
0900 - 1200

Closed-door Roundtable

1200 - 1300

Farewell Lunch

Hosted by JEF and ISIS Malaysia

9

4．出席者（登壇順／22 名）◼

Tan Sri Rastam Mohd Isa

Chairman and Chief Executive, Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS)
Malaysia◼

Mr Kazumasa Kusaka

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Japan Economic Foundation (JEF)◼

YB Dr Ong Kian Ming

Deputy Minister, International Trade and Industry (MITI) Malaysia◼

Dr Josef T Yap

Senior Technical Advisor, ASEP-CELLs Project, Ateneo School of Government◼

Prof Shujiro Urata

Professor of Economics, Graduate School of Asia Pacific Studies Waseda University◼

Dr Man-jung Mignonne Chan

Co-Founder and Chief Strategy Officer, Forum on Humanities◼

Prof Gary Hawke

Emeritus Professor, Victoria University of Wellington◼

Dr Wisarn Pupphavesa

Senior Advisor, Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI)◼

Dr Vo Tri Thanh

Chairman, Vietnam National Committee for Pacific Economic Cooperation (VNCPEC)◼

Mr Alizan Mahadi

Senior Fellow, Technology, Innovation, Environment and Sustainability (TIES), Institute ofStrategic and International Studies (ISIS) Malaysia◼

Prof Tham Siew Yean

Senior Fellow, ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute◼

Dr Zhong Feiteng

Head and Professor, National Institute of International Strategy, Chinese Academy of Social
Sciences (CASS)◼

Amb Murray McLean AO

Chairman, Dunmore McLean Pty Ltd◼

Datuk Seri Jayasiri Jayasena

Former Secretary-General, Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI), Malaysia
10◼

Ms Anita Prakash

Director of Policy Relations, Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA)◼

Dr Juita Mohamad

Fellow, Economics, Trade and Regional Integration (ETRI), Institute of Strategic andInternational Studies (ISIS) Malaysia◼

Mr Naoyuki Haraoka

Executive Managing Director, Japan Economic Foundation (JEF)◼

Dr Ahn Choong-yong

Distinguished Professor, Graduate School of International Studies, Chung-Ang University◼

Dr Yose Rizal Damuri

Head of Department of Economics, Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)◼

Assoc Prof Simon SC Tay

Chairman, Singapore Institute of International Affairs (SIIA)◼

Dr Priyadarshi Dash

Assistant Professor, Research and Information System for Developing Countries (RIS)◼

Ms Farlina Said

Analyst, Foreign Policy and Security Studies (FPSS), Institute of Strategic and International
Studies (ISIS) Malaysia

11

5．略

歴

Tan Sri Rastam Mohd Isa was appointed Chairman of theInstitute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) Malaysia
on 9 January 2015. Since 1 January 2014, he has also served as
Chief Executive of ISIS Malaysia. He holds a Bachelor of Social
Science (Hons) degree from Universiti Sains Malaysia, a Masterof Arts degree in International Relations and Strategic Studies
from the University of Lancaster and a Certificate of Diplomacy
from the University of Oxford.
Tan Sri Rastam spent more than 36 years in the Malaysian diplomatic service. He
served in various capacities at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Malaysian
diplomatic missions abroad, including as High Commissioner of Malaysia to
Pakistan, Ambassador of Malaysia to Bosnia Herzegovina, Ambassador of Malaysia
to the Republic of Indonesia and Permanent Representative of Malaysia to theUnited Nations in New York. He was Secretary General of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs from 8 January 2006 until he officially retired from public service on 2
September 2010. Prior to his appointment as Chief Executive of ISIS Malaysia, he
was Advisor at the Chief Minister’s Department in Sarawak. He serves as chairmanof the board of directors of one Malaysian public listed company. He also sits asdirector on the board of two other companies.
Tan Sri Rastam is Chairman of the Malaysian National Committee for the Pacific
Economic Cooperation Council (PECC) and Chairman of the Malaysian National
Committee of the Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific (CSCAP).
Tan Sri Rastam has received Federal and State awards and decorations namely, thePanglima Setia Mahkota (PSM), SSAP, PJN, SIMP, DIMP, KMN and AMN. He is also arecipient of the DSLJ from His Majesty the Sultan of Brunei Darussalam. He ismarried to Puan Sri Norizan Sulaiman. They have three children.

12Kazumasa Kusaka
Chairman and CEO
Japan Economic Foundation (JEF)
Mr. 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 hislong career in public service, Kusaka was seconded to the International Energy
Agency (IEA)/OECD and was Japan’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 a senior official negotiating theDoha development agenda of the WTO. He was head of Japan’s Energy Agency andheld 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.

Ong Kian Ming is Deputy Minister of International Trade andIndustry (MITI) for Malaysia. He is also the Member ofParliament for Bangi (since May 2018) and Assistant National
Director for Political Education for the Democrat Action party(DAP). He was formerly the Member of Parliament for Serdang(2013-2018). A former Fulbright Scholar, he holds a PhD in
Political Science form Duke University, an MPhil in Economics
from the University of Cambridge and a BSc in Economics from the London Schoolof Economics. Prior to his political life, he was formerly a lecturer at UCSI
University, a researcher at the Scio-Ecoomic Development and Research (SEDAR)
Institute and the Institute of Strategic Analysis and Policy Research (INSAP), and a
consultant with the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) in Kuala Lumpur.
13

Dr. Josef T. Yap
Senior Technical Advisor, ASEP-CELLs Project
Ateneo School of Government
Josef T. Yap was President of the Philippine Institute forDevelopment Studies, where he worked 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
and doctoral studies at the University of the Philippines Diliman and went to the
University of Pennsylvania on a post-graduate program. In 2010, Dr. Yap washonored as one of the 100 outstanding alumni of the UP Diliman College ofEngineering as part of its Centennial celebration. His current research interest
centers on regional economic integration in East Asia and promoting energy security
in the Philippines. Dr. Yap was the regional coordinator of the East AsianDevelopment Network and was actively involved in the establishment of the
Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA). He is co-author of thebooks The Philippine Economy: East Asia's Stray Cat? Structure, Finance andAdjustment and Lessons from Nationalist Struggle: The Life of Emmanuel Quiason
Yap. At present, Dr. Yap is Senior Technical Advisor to the ASEP-CELLs Project(Access to Sustainable Energy Program, Clean Energy Living Laboratories) which is
being implemented under the auspices of the European Union and the Ateneo Schoolof Government.Dr. Prof. Ahn, Choong-yong
Distinguished Professor
Graduate School of International Studies
Chung-Ang University

Prof. Shujiro Urata
Professor of Economics
Graduate School Asia-Pacific Studies
Waseda University
Shujiro Urata is Professor of Economics at Graduate School
Asia-Pacific Studies, Waseda University. He is also Specially
Appointed Fellow at the Japanese Centre for Economic Research(JCER), Faculty Fellow at the Research Institute of Economy, Trade & Industry(RIETI), Senior Research Adviser for the Executive Director of the Economic
14

Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA) in Jakarta, and Visiting Fellow at
the Asian Development Bank Institute. Professor Urata received his B.A. in
Economics from Keio University in 1973 and his M.A. and Ph.D. in Economics at
Stanford University in 1976 and 1978. He is a former Research Associate at the
Brookings Institution, an Economist at the World Bank. He specializes inInternational Economics and Economics of Development. He has held a number of
research and advisory positions including senior advisor to the Government ofIndonesia, consultant to the World Bank, OECD, the Asian Development Bank and
the Government of Japan. He published and edited a number of books oninternational economic issues and is an author and co-author of numerous articles
in professional journals. His recent book publications in English include Emerging
Global Trade Governance, co-editor, Routledge, 2018, East Asian Integration, coeditor, Routledge, 2019 and others.

Dr. Man-jung Mignonne Chan
Co-Founder and Chief Strategy Officer
Forum on Humanities
Dr. Man-jung Mignonne CHAN has extensive experience inacademia, government, business consultancy, and media. She iscurrently Co-Founder and Chief Strategy Officer in the Forum on
Humanities (人文薈), and sits in many Boards, including Commissioner of the KMTParty Review & Disciplinary Commission, Board Member of the National Policy
Research Foundation, Independent Non-Executive Director of 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. In addition, she is also commissioned as Senior
Advisor to the Legislative Yuan.
Dr. Chan currently also serves as Advisor to Chinese Taipei APEC Study Center, andAdvisor to the Chinese Cyan Geese Peace Education Foundation. She is alsocoaching negotiation regularly at public and private institutions.
Dr. Chan used to serve as KMT Member of the Parliament at-Large and sat as Chairof the Judicial Committee in 2016. She was Senior Adviser to President Ma YingJeou at the National Security Council of ROC 2008~2010, Director General ofInternational Secretariat of Pacific Economic Cooperation Council (PECC)
15

1999~2001; Director (Research) at the International Secretariat of Asia-PacificCooperation Council (APEC) 1996~1999, and Chief of Staff at the APEC Business
Advisory Council (ABAC). In addition, she used to serve as Research Associate at
the Harvard University Negotiation Roundtable—a consortium organized by

Prof. Gary Hawke
Emeritus Professor
Victoria University of Wellington
Gary Hawke was Head of the School of Government andProfessor of Economic History at Victoria University of
Wellington. 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. As Director of the Institute of Policy Studies
from 1987 to 1998, the projects for which he was responsible included relations
among Australia, New Zealand and the United States and New Zealand’s position in
the Asia-Pacific region. He is a member of the board of the New Zealand Committeeof the Pacific Economic Co-operation Council, NZPECC, a member of the Academic
Advisory Council of the Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia andrepresents 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. Wisarn Pupphavesa
Senior Advisor
Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI)
Dr. Wisarn Pupphavesa is currently Senior Advisor and Research
Director on International Trade and Development Policy atThailand Development Research Institute (since 2005). He wasformer Dean of the School of Development Economics (1996-2002), Director ofCenter for International Economics and Development Studies (2002-2005) and16

Assistant Professor (1983-2005) at the National Institute of Development
Administration. Earlier, he was Economist at Asian Development Bank (19801983) and Consultant, ASEAN-MTN Project at UN-ESCAP (1978-1980).
Dr. Wisarn Pupphavesa has been appointed to various important posts andfunctions such as Member of the Subcommittee on Research (2006-2016),
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Development of Transparency Index for
Government Agencies (2010-2013) and Member of the Subcommittee on
Development and Supervision of Integrity and Transparency Assessment ofGovernment Agencies (2018-pressent), all under the National Anti-Corruption
Commission, Director of Export-Import Bank of Thailand (2007-2008) andMember of the Subcommittee on Dumping and Subsidy Investigation (2001- 2008).
He was also an Honorary Advisor to Minister of Commerce (2006-2007), Memberof the Council of Economic Advisors to the Prime Minister (2001-2005), Member of
the International Economic Policy Committee (1997-2003), Member (Thailand’s
Representative) of the High Level Task Force on ASEAN-CER FTA (1999-2000) and

Dr. Vo Tri Thanh
Chairman
Vietnam National Committee for Pacific Economic Cooperation(VNCPEC)
Dr. Vo Tri Thanh is former Vice-president of the Central Institutefor Economic Management (CIEM). He is currently Chairman of Vietnam National
Committee for Pacific Economic Cooperation (VNCPEC) and a member of the
National Financial and Monetary Policy Advisory Council. He is also Director of
Institute for Brand and Competitiveness Strategy (BCSI). He holds a Bachelor of
Science from the Moscow State University, and a Master degree in Economics and a
PhD degree in Economics both from the Australian National University.
Dr. Vo Tri Thanh mainly undertakes research and provides consultation on issues
related to trade liberalization, international economic integration andmacroeconomic policies. His other areas of interests include institutional reforms,
financial system and economic development.

17

Tham Siew Yean is Senior Fellow at ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute,Singapore. She was formerly Director and Professor ofInternational Trade at Institute of Malaysian and International
Studies (IKMAS), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. Her researchinterests cover trade in goods and services as well as foreign direct
investment (FDI), including BRI projects from China in Malaysia.
She has served as a consultant with national agencies such as
Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) Malaysia, and international
agencies including World Bank, World Bank Institute, Asian Development Bank andAsian Development Bank Institute. She has published extensively on trade-related
issues in books and journals such as Journal of Contemporary Asia, Emerging
Markets, Finance and Trade, Asian Economic Panel and Prague Economic Papers,
besides co-editing several books by international publishing houses.

Dr. Zhong Feiteng
Head and Professor
National Institute of International Strategy
Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS)
Professor Zhong Feiteng received his Ph.D. (2009) ininternational relations from the Waseda University as well as
the Peking University. He used to work at the Institute of AsiaPacific Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences since 2009. He is now seniorresearch fellow, professor, and head of Department of Great Power Relations
Studies, National Institute of International Strategy, Chinese Academy of Social
Sciences. He is the author of Developmental Security: China Rise and Regional Order
Reconstruction (China Social Sciences Press, 2017) and Managing Investment
Liberalization: the Political Economy of Japanese Foreign Direct Investment in the
United States, 1985-1993(Social Sciences Academic Press, 2011). Dr. Zhong has
advanced academic research centered on international political economy, China’s
international economic policy, enery security and maritime security issues, andChina’s foreign policy. He published more than 40 articles in Chinese leading
journals. Dr. Zhong also touches on policy-oriented research work and involves
various research programms initiated by the Chinese central government. During
past five years, he visited more than ten countries and regions to participate
18international conferences. He occasionaly contributes commentary pieces to China
Daily, China Social Sciences Today and East Asia Forum. He could be reached atzhongft@cass.org.cn.

Amb. Murray McLean AO
ChairmanDunmore McLean Pty Ltd.
Murray McLean is Chair, Australia Japan Foundation (since2012); Chair, Foundation of Australian and Japanese Studies(NPO); a Fellow of the Australian Institute for International
Affairs (since 2018); and Chairman of his family company, Dunmore McLean Pty
Ltd. He was a Vice Chancellor’s Professorial Fellow at Monash University (2012 to2015) and a non-resident Fellow at the Lowy Institute 2014-2016
Formerly a senior officer of the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade(DFAT), he retired in 2012 after a 42 year career culminating in his role asAmbassador to Japan (2004-2011) initiating negotiations on the Japan/Australia
EPA and on growing security cooperation as well as leading Australia’s response to
the earthquake, tsunami and nuclear disasters of 2011.
Prior to that role, he served as Deputy Secretary of DFAT (2004); First Assistant
Secretary, North Asia Division (2001-2003), High Commissioner to Singapore(1997-2001); Assistant Secretary, East Asia Branch, (1992-1996), and Consul
General, Shanghai (1987-1992). His other DFAT postings were at the Australian
Embassy in Washington D.C. (1983-1986); the Australian Embassy in Beijing(twice) (1973-1976 and 1979-1983) and in Hong Kong (1971-1973). He speaks
fluent Chinese. In DFAT, he was consistently involved in the formulation ofAustralian policy towards Asia and also served as a special ministerial envoy on
North Korean nuclear matters visiting North Korea on several occasions.
He was appointed as an officer of the Order of Australia (AO) in the Australia Day
Honours list 2013 and in November 2014, the Japanese Emperor presented him
with the Grand Cordon of the Order of the Rising Sun.

19

Datuk Seri Jayasiri Jayasena
Former Secretary General
Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI), Malaysia
Datuk Seri J.Jayasiri is the former Secretary General, Ministry ofInternational Trade and Industry, Malaysia. He joined the civil
service in December 1981 as Assistant Secretary ofInternational Affairs, Ministry of Primary Industries dealing with internationalcommodity issues. He later assumed the post of First Secretary/Counsellor in the
Permanent Mission of Malaysia in Geneva from 1988 to 1997 representing
Malaysia in the Uruguay Round of negotiations to establish the WTO. He returned
to MITI in 1997 and served in various positions. He was Malaysia’s Senior Official
to APEC from 2002 – 2006. He assumed the post of Deputy Secretary-General,
MITI, in charge of strategy and monitoring in January 2015 before serving as the
Secretary-General from July 2016 until his retirement from civil service in May
2018. On 15 August 2019 he was appointed as a member of the Public Services
Commission.
Throughout his career, he represented Malaysia in numerous international
meetings and trade negotiations. He led Malaysia’s team in the ASEAN-China FTA,
Malaysia-Japan FTA, the TPPA and CPTPP negotiations.
He was also deeply involved in many industry related issues and led the High-Level
Task Force on the way forward for Malaysia to embrace Industry 4.0. He is also astrong advocate of Good Regulatory Practice.

Date of Birth:

22 August 1957

Place of Birth: Selangor, Malaysia
Qualifications:i) Dip. In Public Administration, National Institute of Public Administrationii) B.A (Hons), Universiti Malaya

Anita Prakash
Director, Policy Relations
Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA)
20

Anita Prakash is Director, Policy Relations, at the Economic Research Institute for
ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA) in Jakarta, Indonesia. Her key role at ERIA is policy
research and policy development for leaders and senior officials of ASEAN, East
Asia and Oceania, Europe and Africa. Her policy research expertise is economic andstrategic connectivity in the Indo-Pacific region, covering Asia, Europe and Africa.
She covers policy issues on economic integration in East Asia, Southeast Asia andSouth Asia, converging the connectivity programmes in Indo-Pacific,
multilateralism and global governance, sustainable development, trade andeconomic cooperation, global value chains and industrialization in developing Asia
and Africa.
She provides policy and research support for bilateral and multilateral cooperation
programmes between ASEAN and its Dialogue Partners, the East Asia Summit(EAS) countries, and their counterparts in Europe and Africa. She also supports theworkings of the Ministerial meetings in ASEAN, East Asia Summit, Asia-Europe
Meeting, and to the T 20 and Sherpa process in G20.
She has worked extensively on the ASEAN-India free trade agreements and theRegional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). She developed the vision
document for ‘Asia Africa Growth Corridor’ which was presented in the Africa
Development Bank Annual Meeting in India, in May 2017. In 2018, she wrote the“Brussels Report on Asia Europe Connectivity” for the 12th ASEM Summit. She also
developed the report on “ASEAN-Russia economic cooperation framework” for the
ASEAN-Russia meeting in 2018.
She has previously served in various capacities in the Government of India in the
Ministry of Human Resource Development, Ministry of Commerce and NITI Aayog.
In addition to her work at ERIA, she is also a Visiting Research Associate at theGraduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva.

Juita Mohamad is Fellow in the Economics, Trade and Regional
Integration (ETRI) division of the Institute of Strategic andInternational Studies (ISIS) Malaysia. Previously, she has worked at
the Asia Desk of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment (OECD) in Paris, the Asian Development Bank Instituteand Waseda University in Tokyo, Japan. She holds a PhD in
International Studies from Waseda University. Her research focused on the impactof trade liberalisation on wage inequality between skilled and unskilled workers in21

Malaysia. She obtained her Master’s degree in Economics from Shiga University,
Japan, and her Bachelor’s degree in Business Administration from Universiti
Kebangsaan Malaysia. Dr Juita’s research interests include trade, regional
integration, protectionism, wage inequality and the informal sector.

Naoyuki Haraoka
Executive Managing Director
Japan Economic Foundation (JEF)
Mr. Naoyuki Haraoka has been Executive Managing Director of theJapan Economic Foundation (JEF) since 2007. After graduating the
University of Tokyo in 1978 (Bachelor of Economics), he joined MITI (Ministry ofInternational 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 beenposted as Deputy Director and Director 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 back to MITI fromhis second stay in Paris, at the occasion of the government structural reform in2001 when MITI was remodeled as METI (Ministry of Economy Trade andIndustry) he joined the efforts to found METI research institute, Research Instituteof Economy Trade and 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.

22Dr. Prof. Ahn, Choong-yong
Distinguished Professor
Graduate School of International Studies
Chung-Ang University
Dr. Ahn is currently Distinguished Professor at the Graduate School ofInternational Studies, Chung-Ang University, Seoul. He is also Co-Chair of KoreaIndia Strategic Dialogue and Honorary Governor of Kangwon Province. Previously,
he was the Chairman, Korea Commission for Corporate Partnership (KCCP: 20142018) and responsible for inducing voluntary collaborations between Korea’s big
businesses and SMEs, and also Chairman of the Board, Korea Electric Power
Corporation. Before taking the KCCP post, he served as presidentially appointed
Foreign Investment Ombudsman (2006-2014) who is the troubleshooter
responsible for resolving grievances raised by foreign investors at the Korea Tradeand Investment Promotion Agency in Korea. He is former Chairman of the
Presidential Regulatory Reform Committee (2010-2012). While on sabbatical from
Chung-Ang University, he also served several posts such as the President of the
Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (2002-2005); Chair of the APEC
Economic Committee(2002-2005); Chair of 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; and served as President ofseveral academic societies in Korea including the Korea International Economics
Association, Korean Association of Trade and Industry Studies, and the Korea
Econometric Society. He was also a visiting professor to Economic ResearchInstitute , Kyoto University, Japan.
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,” and Free Economy Publication Award by the Federation of Korean
Industries. Since receiving his Ph.D. from Ohio State University and his MA from
University of Hawaii in association with the East West Center, 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, Global Asia, and Monograph papers in North-Holland, Cambridge
University Press, Springer, Edward Elgar, Palgrave Macmillan, Iwanami Shoten of
Japan, Peking University Press, etc.
23Dr. Yose Rizal Damuri
Head of Department of Economics
Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
Yose Rizal Damuri is the Head of the Department of Economics,
Centre for Strategic and International Studies. His research activities
focus on international trade, regional integration and globalization of value chain.
Yose has been teaching International Economics courses in the Department of
Economics University of Indonesia for many years.
He is active in many networks of research institutes in East Asia region, such as in
Asia Pacific Research Network on Trade (ARTNet) and ERIA Research InstituteNetwork (ERIA-RIN). Currently he serves as the Co-Chair of Indonesia National
Committee of Pacific Economic Cooperation (INCPEC). Yose is active in many
policy forum including as the Research Coordinator of Indonesia Service Dialogue,
a forum dedicated for the development of services sector in Indonesia. He also
helps the Indonesian government as an Advisor to Indonesian Trade Negotiating
Team. He received his PhD in International Economics from the Graduate Instituteof International Studies, Geneva, Switzerland.
⚫ Ph.D. in International Economics from the Graduate Institute of International
Studies, Geneva, Switzerland⚫ Head of the Department of Economics, Centre for Strategic and International
Studies⚫ Lecturer at the Fakultas Ekonomi dan Bisnis, Universitas Indonesia⚫ Founder of Indonesia Services Dialogue (ISD)⚫ Co-chair of Indonesia National Committee of Pacific Economic Council(INCPEC)

Assoc. Prof Simon SC Tay
ChairmanSingapore Institute of International Affairs (SIIA)
Simon SC Tay is a public intellectual as well as an advisor to major
corporations and policy-makers.
24

He is Chairman of the Singapore Institute of International Affairs, the country’s
oldest think tank. The SIIA’s work focuses on the politics, economic policies andsustainablity issues that matter to corporatoons and policy makers. The SIIA isranked by an international survey as a leading think tank in ASEAN and Asia, andhas advised the Indonesian and Myanmar governments on foreign investment.
He is concurrently a tenured Associate Professor, teaching international law at the
National University of Singapore Faculty of Law. He has also taught at Harvard Law
School, the Fletcher School and Yale University. His book, Asia Alone: theDangerous Post Crisis Divide from America (Wiley 2010) was well reviewed in the
Economist and Financial Times. His comments and interviews feature in theinternational and regonal media, including the BBC, CNN, Bloomberg, NHK Japanand CCTV.
Prof Tay is also Senior Consultant at WongPartnership, a leading Asian law firm ofsome 300 lawyers and with offices in ASEAN, China and the Middle East. He hasserved on boards for global companies including MUFG Bank of Japan and waspreviously Corporate Advisor to Temasek Holdings (2006-09). He has spoken atleading business conferences including the World Economic Forum, APEC CEO
Summits and SIBOS, and briefed major corporate boards and financial institutions.
From 1992 to 2008, he served in a number of public appointments for Singapore
including as Chairman of the National Environment Agency (2002-08); an
independent Member of Parliament (1997-2001); and to coordinate the country’s
equivalent of the Peace Corps (1990-93). He was chair or co-chair for a number ofpublic commissions such as Singapore 21, the Singapore Green Plan and theSingapore Concept Plan 2010. In 2006, Prof Tay received a National Day Award. He
served Singapore as an Expert and Eminent Person in the ASEAN Regional Forumfrom 2002 to March 2019.
He is a prize winning author of fiction and poetry. His 2010 novel City of Small
Blessings was awarded the Singapore Literature Prize. He graduated in law fromthe National University of Singapore (1986), where he was president of the student
union for three terms. He also holds a Masters in Law from Harvard Law School(1993-94), which he attended on a Fulbright Scholarship and where he won the
Laylin prize for the best thesis in international law.
He was born in 1961 and is the only son of the late Tay Seow Huah, who was asenior civil servant in the government reporting to the Prime Minister and Defence
25

Minister, and the late Madam Cheong Keong Hin, a teacher. Prof Tay has one son.

Dr.Priyadarshi Dash is Assistant Professor at Research andInformation System for Developing Countries (RIS), New Delhi, India.
His research interests broadly cover topics in foreign exchange
reserves, macroeconomics, international trade and finance, and blue
economy. He has contributed to RIS work programme on issues ofregional economic cooperation in Indian Ocean Rim Association(IORA), BIMSTEC, Asia-Africa Growth Corridor and G20. Dr. Dash has
published a book titled “Universal Banking in India: Evolution, Trends andPerformance” and several papers in peer-reviewed journals and edited volumes. He
is a member of the Editorial Advisory Board of the Cambridge Scholars Publishing,member of the Editorial Board of the Journal-Advances in Economics and Business,
and Managing Editor of G20 Digest published by RIS. He has been part of a numberof Indian academic delegations to China and Central Asia, and presented papers inseveral international conferences. He has worked with Korea Institute for Industrial
Economics and Trade (KIET), Seoul as a ‘Visiting Fellow’ in 2012 under a fellowshipby the Asia Foundation. He has received the “Award for Excellence in Thesis Work”
by IIT Bombay in 2011. Dr. Dash holds PhD in Economics from Indian Institute ofTechnology (IIT), Bombay, India. He has participated in summer schools oninternational economics issues and global economic governance at University ofGeneva, University of Padova and University of Milan.

Farlina Said is an Analyst in the Foreign Policy and Security
Studies programme of ISIS Malaysia since 2015. She graduatedfrom S Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS),
Nanyang Technological University with a MSc (Strategic
Studies). As a part of the think tank she was involved incrafting various dialogues and forums on cybersecurity,
radicalisation and Malaysia-Korea relations. Her written work and comments haveappeared in the local and international media such as New Straits Times and South
China Morning Post. She was a part of SEARCCT’s Experts on Violent Extremism
and Community Engagement (EVOKE) Council (2018-2019).

26

６．議事要旨（和文）以下の日本語サマリーは、マレーシア国際問題研究所（ISIS）が作成した英文サマリーを仮訳したものである。

2019 年度 日アジア太平洋フォーラム
２０２０年以降のアジア太平洋地域の経済：アジア太平洋地域は台頭するポピ
ュリズムと顕在化する格差問題への対応の中で如何にして“より良きグローバ
リゼーション”を成し遂げられるか？
主催：国際経済交流財団（JEF）／マレーシア戦略国際問題研究所（ISIS）
2019 年 10 月 16 日
会場：ウェスティン クアラルンプール

歓迎の辞
タン・スリ・ラスタム・モハマド・イサ氏（マレーシア戦略国際問題研究所（ISIS）会長）
世界経済の成長が鈍化している現在、われわれに不可欠なのは、すべてのステークホルダーにバランスの取れた経済的利益をもたらしつつ、環境と母なる地球を損なうことのない、成長の源泉を探ることである。過去数十年の間に、アジア太平洋地域の内外において、急速な成長の結果、
環境が大きく損なわれてきた。この状況を変えなければならない。
これからは、
新たな成長モデルを推進していく必要がある。
ここで思い起こされるのが松尾芭蕉である。芭蕉は日本全国を行脚し、各地で自然の美しさと厳しさをたたえる句を詠んだ。芭蕉はわれわれに、自然が人類にとっていかに素晴らしいかを思い出させてくれる。成長を追求する中にあっても、自然のもろさを忘れないことは、
われわれの責務である。
マレーシアも現在、国民の富や所得の格差縮小を主な目標とし、また持続可能な成長へ向かう主要な経路とすべく、持続可能な成長を追求している。このことは、新しい「共通繁栄ビ
27

ジョン 2030」（Shared Prosperity Vision 2030）でも強調されている。このビジョンは、持続可能な経済成長の推進に必要な「ターボチャージャー」を提供しており、それによりマレーシアを高所得国に押し上げ、国民の一層の繁栄と幸福を実現するものである。
マレーシアを始め域内諸国のほとんどが貿易に依存しているため、「東アジア地域包括的経済連携（RCEP）協定」の交渉妥結が、地域にとって重要になる。また「環太平洋パートナ
ーシップに関する包括的及び先進的な協定（CPTPP）」加盟国が、早期に批准を完了することも望まれる。この 2 つは、現在も続いている貿易紛争や他の自由で公正な貿易を脅かす動きを受けた保護主義の台頭に関して、その負の影響に対抗する取り組みにおける重要な展開である。
マレーシアは、RCEP と CPTPP のいずれにおいても、それぞれ交渉相手国として、また締約国として、当事国になっている。マレーシアは小規模な開放経済であり、政府としては、
これらの協定を通じて市場アクセスの拡大を図りたいと考えている。しかしそれは、市場へのアクセスをもたらすだけでなく、マレーシア企業を海外での競争にさらし、より高度で厳格な国際基準に適合するよう求めることでもある。このことは結局、国内外の消費者のみならずに企業自身とっても利益となる。
最後に、現在の不確実なグローバル環境には、新たな課題も生まれている。例えば、ポピュ
リズムの台頭や「第 4 次産業革命（4IR）」、域内外における非伝統的脅威への懸念の高まりなどである。こうした新たな課題の台頭を念頭に、各国政府は、協力に向けたさまざまな方
策を探らなければならない。
日下一正氏（国際経済交流財団（JEF）会長）
21 世紀を迎えようとしていた当時、国際経済交流財団（JEF）は、成長著しかったこの地域にふさわしい貿易システム、すなわち自由貿易協定（FTA）を確立することが、成長可能性の実現を妨げる障壁を取り除く鍵であると、確信するに至った。そこで当財団は、域内における FTA の推進を目指し、2003 年にシンガポールにおいて、最初の「日アジア太平洋フォーラム」を開催した。以後毎年開催されたフォーラムは、今回で 18 回目を迎えた。
2003 年以来、フォーラムでの議論は、東南アジア諸国連合（ASEAN）における経済統合の進展と歩調を合わせ進められてきた。ASEAN は域内における統合プロセスで中心的役割を担っており、議論は関税などの国境措置（これは貿易障壁となる）から、国内制度とその適用、いわゆる国境内措置（これは投資に重要）へと移ってきた。

28

現在この地域では、ASEAN の経済統合は更に深化し、CPTPP（米国の離脱により TPP11ともいう）が発効している。また RCEP についても、合意が間近となっている。しかし、欧州連合（EU）における統合の拡大と深化の過程、また直近では英国の EU 離脱やトランプ現象に見られるように、グローバル化のスピードやその中身について行くことが難しい国民によって引き起こされる出来事や、その結果として生じるグローバル化に対する反感も、現れてきている。
数年前から JEF はグローバル化につきまとう所得格差問題に着目し、「より良きグローバリ
ゼーション」への道を模索し始めている。
多くの国では、「インダストリー4.0」と「デジタル革命」の進展に伴い、所得格差の一層の拡大に直面するとともに、グローバル化が問題の根源だと主張するポピュリズムにも直面した。
では、より良きグローバリゼーションとは、いわゆる原理主義的な「ワシントン・コンセン
サス」のように、グローバリゼーションは無条件に善だ、ということだろうか。ここで特に求められるのは、「誰にとってより良いのか」という問いを、自問し続けることである。おそらく、ASEAN 経済共同体（AEC）の「包摂的成長」という思想も、同じ問題意識の下にあると言えるだろう。
近年のポピュリズム傾向は、北米自由貿易協定（NAFTA）の改定や米中貿易摩擦などに見られるように、国境を越えた生産、販売、投資、貿易、経営戦略に影響を与え始めている。
こうしたことへの反応として現在起きているのは、「貿易転換」であり、「サプライチェーン／バリューチェーン」の変化である。
つまり、国境措置や国内の規制の障壁が低い立地へと、事業がシフトしている。現在起きている現象が、米国と中国の「逆 FTA」であるとしても、民間企業の行動原則は普遍的なものである。米中貿易摩擦により、最初に生産拠点を中国から移転したのは、中国の国内企業だとの報告がある。欧州や日本の多国籍企業（MNC）は、
ASEAN 地域など中国以外にも生産拠点があり、中国の生産拠点のみに依存するアメリカの多国籍企業と比較して、中国における生産比率の変更に速やかに対応できると思われる。
域内の地政学的リスクに直面する中、地域の成長潜在性を実現するために不可欠な最適投資水準を確保するには、ビジネスと投資のためのさらなる環境改善が、決定的に重要になる。
しかしこれには、国内における人々の生活や社会、産業に与える影響が均一でないという側
面がある。

29

この点で、国内で不人気ではあるが必要な構造改革を実施するためのピア・プレッシャー（仲間からの圧力）として重要な役割を果たすのが、国際機関や地域機関である。ただし、こうした機関自体の改革が急務であり、それに対する我々の真摯な取り組みが求められている。こうした機関を活用しつつ、国内問題への対応に鋭意取り組み、国民のグローバル化への適応を確保することが、「急がば回れ」というアジア的方法における成功の秘けつとなる。
基調講演
オン・キアン・ミング 博士（マレーシア国際貿易産業省（MITI）副大臣・国会議員）
オン・キアン・ミング副大臣は基調演説の中で、現在の地域機関と国際機関の堅牢性と柔軟性について、その根本的な問題を検討した。その評価において注目したのは 3 つの領域、つまり、①ポピュリズムの台頭と格差の表面化、②世界金融危機以後の変化の質、③破壊的な技術変化と気候変動への適応に向けた準備態勢、である。
まず、ポピュリズムの台頭と格差の表面化という、現在の現象を検討した。特に考えたのは、
これらが一時的な現象なのか、それとも将来にわたって継続する困難であるのか、という問題である。同副大臣は米国のトランプ大統領と英国のジョンソン首相の語り口や政策を例に挙げつつ、こうした指導者たちの発言が一層声高で破壊的になっており、それが問題を引き起こしている、と主張した。これに大衆の感情も勘案した上で、副大臣は聴衆に対して、こうした人物に気を取られがちにはなるが、現代の問題に適切に対処するためには、主要な目的と成果を忘れてはならない、と呼び掛けた。
こうした感情的な反応や発言にとらわれたために、ポピュリズム感情の根源にあるニュア
ンスと文脈が、これまで見落とされてきた。注意すべき結果として副大臣が指摘したことの1 つは、ポピュリズムに単一の定義がなく、つじつまの合わない概念化がさまざまな形で行われてきたことである。こうしたことは、ポピュリズムの蔓延の原因としてさまざまなものが挙げられている点にも見られる。それらは、①極右政党や極左政党に対する投票分布、②
既存の民主主義国における新政党の得票率、あるいは、③一部の運動における大衆支持の獲得方法、例えば西洋諸国における反イスラムや反移民感情、東洋における反西洋感情の出現などである。さらに副大臣が指摘したのは、例えば、グローバル化への態度に関する国際調
査や、地域機関（EU、G7、ASEAN など）に対する一般市民の認識などが、ポピュリズムの参照点に使われているが、これらに一貫性がないことである。
ポピュリズムの理解や範囲にこうしたばらつきがあるために、この話題にはバイアスがか30

かり、一般的に否定的な含意を伴っている。しかし、オン副大臣は、見落とされてきている
例が他にあることから、これとは逆だと主張する。フランスのマクロン大統領とその与党である“共和国前進”党の登場は、主要かつ伝統的な左派右派の政党間で取り決めされている現状への異議申立てを可能にするものとして、前向きな変化と受けとめられた。しかしオン副大臣も指摘するように、もっとどっちつかずに受けとめられた実際の例もある。例えば、インドのモディ首相の「ポピュリスト」運動には、称賛と批判のいずれの声も聞かれた。同様に、インドネシアのジョコ・ウィドド大統領の「テクノクラート的ポピュリズム」という形式や、その公共サービス提供重視の姿勢は、比較的好意的に受け取られ、国際的にも国内的にもより広く受け入れられている。
オン副大臣は、ポピュリズム観の違いが、破壊（ディスラプション）への対応に対する意欲の違いにつながり、結果的に格差を悪化させる可能性があると、警告を発した。仮にポピュ
リズムを、その影響が肯定的なものか否定的なものかにかかわらず、一時的で周期的な現象とみなすならば、効果的な構造改革と政策調整を待とうという気持ちになる。しかし金融危機を例に見ると、国内機関、地域機関、国際機関の堅牢性を事前に判断することは、現実的なアプローチと思えない。さらに、ポピュリストの要求の否定的な側面、例えば現状に対する不満から生じる要求に、各国が耐えられるかは不明である。
次にオン副大臣が取り上げたのは、現在までに、次の世界金融危機を防止できるだけの十分な構造改革が行われてきたか、という問題である。ここで同副大臣は、複数の地域のさまざ
まな経験を比較した。米国から始まり、ヨーロッパに波及した金融危機は、西洋諸国に特に深刻な影響を与えた。こうした経験からは、EU 全体や各加盟国が実施した大規模な改革をとおして、必要な予算・歳出改革の推進がどのようにして可能になったかを、見て取ることができる。同副大臣は西洋の経験とアジア諸国の経験を比較して、アジアでは 1997 年～
1998 年の金融危機からの回復に向けた対応として、すでに多くの改革が行われていたため、
世界金融危機の際の影響はかなり抑えられたと述べている。
しかし、次のリセッションの可能性については、副大臣はリセッションは景気循環という自然なプロセスの一部であるから、予想される現象だと確信している。つまり問題は、リセッションが「起きるかどうか」（If）ではなく、「いつ起きるか」（When）である。リセッションの際に、その影響の深刻度を左右するのは、先に挙げた諸機関がこうした変化に耐えつつ、堅牢性と柔軟性の両面をもって適切な調整を行っていく能力のである。次にリセッションが起きたとき、それに対処する諸機関の手腕が、ポピュリズムや格差、市民の要求の変化（特にリセッションや次の金融危機の後の）による悪影響の管理能力を測る指標になるだろう。
第 3 にオン副大臣が取り上げた問題は、技術変化と気候変動がもたらす変化、すなわちそ31

の破壊的影響と、各国がそうした変化に適応するための準備態勢である。技術変化とは、第4 次産業革命（4IR）によってもたらされる変化、およびそれが経済構造と雇用機会に与える影響のことをいう。同副大臣は、米国民主党の大統領候補、アンドリュー・ヤンの見解を取り上げた。技術変化に対するヤン氏の悲観的な見解や、自動化によって雇用機会が失われるという予想からは、
米国では必然的に、ユニバーサル・ベーシックインカムが必要になる。
しかしオン副大臣は、先進国でさえそのようなサービスを提供できる財政状況にはないことから、取り組むべき課題は大きいとの警鐘を認識している。
環境問題に関してオン副大臣が取り上げたのは、気候変動や気象パターンの変化、海面上昇などの現象の影響を緩和するために利用できる技術である。また、気候変動活動家グレタ・
トゥーンベリの取り組みについても取り上げた。彼女が強調しているのは、環境問題とそれが将来の世代の生活に与える影響への取り組みの重要性である。オン副大臣はここでも、こうした課題に対応する上で、柔軟で堅牢な機関が必要になると指摘した。しかし、各国がこうした必要な能力を備えるよう確保するまでには、まだ長い道のりが残されている。
最後にオン副大臣は、自分が機関／制度の信奉者だと宣言した。それは、サミュエル・ハン
チントンが『変革期社会の政治秩序』の中で取り上げた政治的・体制的機関／制度でもあり、あるいはダグラス・ノースの「新制度主義」の意味における社会的・法的規範の枠組みでもある。しかしアジア太平洋地域の各国を見ると、これまでの議論は、先進国による解釈とレンズをとおして行われることが圧倒的に多かった。講演の結びに、オン副大臣はこう問いかけた。
「アジア太平洋地域は、自らの具体的な状況に即した対策を整備する用意が、どこまでできているだろうか。
」
パネルセッション 1：アジア太平洋地域における今後の持続的かつ包摂的成長の展望と課題
モデレーター：ジョセフ T.ヤップ博士（アテネオ公共政策大学院 ASEP-CELLs プロジェク
ト シニア・テクニカルアドバイザー）
アジア太平洋地域は、世界経済の成長センターとなってきた。その成長を持続可能なものにするためには、成長はその成果が平等に分配され、包摂的なものになることが重要になる。
今後このような成長を実現しようとする場合、克服しなければならない制約要因は何であろうか。
過去にこの地域が低成長に苦しんだのは、幼稚産業の過剰な保護など、「自国第一」主義の保護政策が取られたときであった。その後、この地域が現在の発展を実現したのは開放的で自由な貿易政策によるものであり、その例は、ASEAN 統合の進展、世界貿易機関（WTO）
32

への中国の加入、域内 FTA の拡大、CPTPP の実現などに見られる。
アジア太平洋地域が自由貿易の恩恵を最大限に享受するためには、国内の構造改革を実施することが不可欠になる。成長戦略は、構造改革の課題に対応している必要がある。持続可能かつ包摂的成長の各構成要素のうち、域内諸国が中長期的に焦点を当てるべきものは何であろうか？また、それを達成するための課題は何であろうか？域内の持続可能な成長の源泉は何か？貿易は今後も平等な繁栄をもたらす手段たりうるのか？域内全体で包摂的成長の実現を確保するためには、どうすればよいか？
このセッションでは、アジア太平洋地域において成長戦略を実施する上での問題、課題、対策について、幅広く議論した。その際注目したのは、成長が GDP の拡大にとどまらず、社
会全体の福祉に貢献することが重要だ、という考え方、つまり、成長は包摂的でなければならない、ということである。
浦田秀次郎教授（早稲田大学大学院アジア太平洋研究科（経済学））
浦田教授の発表では、持続可能かつ包摂的な成長の課題について、その概要がまず説明された。持続可能とは、環境問題のない成長の実現であり、包摂的とは、すべての人に利益となる成長の共有のことである。発表の冒頭で浦田教授が問いかけた重要な問題は、持続可能か
つ包摂的な成長を実現するためには、成長をあきらめるべきなのか、ということであった。
それに対して教授は、まず経済成長を実現し、次に成長を持続可能かつ包摂的なものにすることが重要だと語った。そして経済成長のためには、生産要素、資本および労働の効率的な利用と、技術進歩が必要であることを確認した。
浦田教授によれば、①独占禁止政策による競争の促進と維持、②人材の開発、③新たなイノ
ベーションと技術移転を可能にする適切な環境の提供こそ、各国が生産要素の利用効率を高めるとともに、技術進歩を促進する上で鍵となる。
また環境の持続可能性を推進する上で、政府の規制と民間部門の取り組みの両方が必要になることにも触れた。同時に、経済成長を包摂的なものにするためには、機会の不平等などの構造的問題に取り組むことが重要になる。
浦田教授が発表の中で注目した最近の重要な進展としては、（1）資源の効率的利用と技術移転を確保する上で重要な生産システムとなるグローバル・バリューチェーン（GVC）、（2）
WTO 改革やメガ FTA、多国間貿易協定をつうじた保護主義拡大との戦い、（3）データの自由な流れによって支えられるデジタル経済の発展、などがある。
33

マン・ジュン・ミニョンヌ・チャン博士（ヒューマニティズ・フォーラム共同創設者兼最高戦略責任者）
チャン博士が焦点を当てたのは、持続可能な成長の主要な要素とその課題、つまり、（1）相互繁栄を実現する健全な国際競争の確保、（2）急速な技術革新によるサプライチェーン連結性の効率化・シームレス化に向けた協力、（3）科学的研究にもとづく環境に優しい生態系管理の制度化、（4）多様な文明の尊重と、有望な事例の選択的アプローチである。
包摂的成長の主な構成要素と目標設定に関しては、従来のアプローチを超える方策を提案した。具体的には、（1）各国が今後の技術変化やその潜在的なメリット、および悪影響に対応する能力を測定する、将来技術に関する「準備態勢」指標、（2）すべての人々に平等な機会を維持し、弱者の生活を守る「幸福」指標、（3）国際的な人材の移動と進出に関する「地域トレーニング・雇用情報センター」などである。
またこれに関しては、実践的な幼児教育や、技術・職業訓練への取り組みの強化、教育に関する域内統一の基本基準の必要性も挙げた。同じく、技術の変化と進歩に対応する手段として、質の高い機会があることを特に指摘した。
ゲイリー・ホーク教授（ヴィクトリア大学ウェリントン校名誉教授）
ホーク教授は、このセッションで取り組むのは包摂と持続可能性の基本問題であり、それには、貿易戦争とポピュリズムの台頭の両方が付随することを指摘した。アジア太平洋経済協
力（APEC）は現在、「ボゴール目標」の期限である 2020 年を前に、次のビジョンをどのように示すべきか検討しているが、地域のステークホルダーや、私的な立場で参加している役
員、産業界、研究者を対象とした調査からは、包摂と持続可能性に重点を置くよう望む声が強いことが明らかになった。
「持続可能性」とは、遠い未来に備えることである。しかしそれは、すべてを今のままの姿で（ましてや過去の姿で）残しておくということではない。わたしたちは今後も、進歩の経験を続けたいと望んでいる。最も根本的な課題は、現在未知の可能性をただ当てにするのでも、生活水準向上の可能性を否定するのでもなく、その間の適切なバランスを取っていくという、政治的コンセンサスを維持することにある。包摂性での課題としては、各国の間で、政策の国際化をどの程度進めるかについて判断が異なるということがある。国内政策は、貿易相手国への悪影響を最小限に抑えるように策定すべきである。国際的な対話に加え、既存の経済活動を保護するのではなく、調整と変化を促進するという政府の決意がある場合に、包摂のための政策が可能になる。
34

包摂は、平等を意味するわけではない。生涯収入は、平均余命がある程度長い人に限定した場合でも、人によって異なるが、これは経験や知識の蓄積、エネルギーのライフパターンが異なるためである。また育児に関する社会慣習によっても、所得は変化する。わたしたちは「幸福(well-being)」についての理解を深めていくが、そこで追求するのは、引き続き機会の平等、つまり社会的流動性である。不平等を制限するのは、機会が大きく損なわれる場合に限る。
包摂性を実現する上で最も問題になるのは、今後価値を持つようになるものへの参加を奨励するのではなく、現在存在するものを保護したいという、誤った願望である。われわれの先祖が、鉄道はリスクが大きすぎるとか、馬を使用する仕事に従事する人たちへの影響が大きすぎると考えなかったのは、幸いであった。自ら学習し、自らを再生産（しかも改良）する能力を持つ機械が発明され、それが人間を排除しようという欲求を持つようにならない
限り、今後もテクノロジーには楽観的であるべきである。ただし、変化への適応を促進する
仕組みは作るべきである。
貿易は、今後も繁栄をもたらす手段たりうるだけではない。繁栄は、貿易の継続にかかっている。簡単な頭の体操として、自分たちの地域社会が、周囲から隔絶した土地で自給自足の生活に追いやられた場合を考えてみればよいだろう。
ウィサーン・プッパベサ博士（タイ開発研究所（TDRI）シニアアドバイザー）
ウィサーン博士は、発展途上国の貧困には制度的な要因があり、その鍵は、機会の不平等であると指摘した。博士によれば、貧困層と富裕層の間には多くの面で格差があり、それには
例えば、インフラへのアクセスや、規制遵守のコスト、市場へのアクセスなどがあるという。
例えばタイでは、経済的機会や社会的流動性、法的構造を開放する必要がある。
また博士によれば、強力で公正な競争法制が、こうした不均衡を一部軽減し、市場の透明性と情報の対称性を維持する上で、大きな役割を果たす可能性がある。さらに博士は、すべての人にデジタル化社会への平等な参加を確保するために、広範な技術インフラが必要だと述べた。
博士は、成長そのものは今後も重要な目標であるという点で、他のパネリストと意見が一致した。経済成長がなければ、再分配はゼロサムゲームになる。最後に、RCEP や CPTPP、
APEC、ASEAN などの機関をつうじて、地域貿易と開発協力を拡大・深化することも有効だと述べた。

35

ヴォ・チー・タン博士（ベトナム太平洋経済協力全国委員会（VNCPEC）委員長）
ヴォ博士によれば、歴史的に見ると、貧困削減のペースは経済成長と密接に関連している。
これは、民間部門の発展や、貿易自由化をつうじた各国の比較優位の強化のおかげである。
博士が強調したのは、貧困削減におけるさまざまな政策イニシアチブの重要性である。多くの国では、インフラ整備や、農業の研究開発、教育などの取り組みが、貧困削減にとって最も重要なものとされている。
同時に博士が強調したのは、多次元貧困と社会的包摂に重点を置くことの重要性である。それには、公平で堅固な社会保障制度の確立が有効だろう。最後に博士は、国際協力機関や地域機関が、持続可能かつ包摂的な成長を推進する上で果たす役割についても、説明した。
アリザン・マハディ氏（マレーシア戦略国際問題研究所（ISIS）技術・イノベーション・環境・持続可能性（TIES）シニアフェロー）
アリザン氏は、まず持続可能かつ包摂的な成長に実際に必要なものを明確にすることの重要性について、その概要を説明した。ここでアリザン氏が強調したのは、国の豊かさを測定する際に、GDP 成長率以外の指標を利用することが必要だという点である。他方で「幸福度」指標や「包摂的富」指標などの指標については、これが最終的にこうした目標の達成度を測定するものであるとしても、それを達成するための方法を示すものではないことも指摘した。ここでアリザン氏が挙げた例は、一国の自然資本、例えばマングローブ林を破壊した場合の経済的コストである。こうしたものは、伝統的な国民経済計算では捕捉されない。
そのためアリザン氏は、一国における持続可能な経済発展の進捗度を把握する、新しい指標に移行する必要性を強調した。最後にアリザン氏は、人口動態の変化が、持続可能性や気候変動に対する世界的な態度の変化をもたらすことを説明した。ここで挙げられた例は、グレ
タ・トゥーンベリであった。この若き気候変動活動家は、より環境に優しい製品や、持続可能性の向上を求める、今後の消費者需要の変化を象徴している。アリザン氏によれば、根本的な問題は、諸機関が堅固かつ柔軟であるだけでなく、将来の経済とトレンドに確実に適応できるようにするにはどうすればよいか、ということにある。
質疑応答のセッションでは、パネリストは以下の課題についてコメントを求められた。（i）
経済政策の決定者に、持続的かつ包摂的成長に関する代替的な測定値（幸福度など）の重要性を納得してもらう方法。
（ii）諸機関にグローバル化に対応させる方法。
（iii）「文明的」価値または現地の価値と、持続可能性の概念を融合する方法。
（iv）マレーシアなどの小国で、FTA や貿易自由化が所得の不平等にどのような影響を与えるか。
（v）多国籍企業や外国人
36

投資家による市場の支配が生じないよう、競争を規制する方法。
パネルセッション 2：アジア太平洋地域における地域統合の進展と展望
モデレーター：ターム・シューン・ヤン教授（ISEAS ユソフ・イサーク研究所シニアフェロ
ー）アジア太平洋地域では、ASEAN 統合が進展するとともに、域内 FTA が拡大し、CPTPP も実現している。その結果、こうした貿易自由化措置をつうじて、地域内サプライチェーンの整備が促進されている。さらに、RCEP 協定も成立間近である。
しかし、トランプ政権の「アメリカ・ファースト」政策に端を発した最近の米中貿易摩擦のために、中国企業の場合を始めとして、域内サプライチェーンに変化が生じている。EU や
米国に見られる反グローバリゼーションと保護主義の動きを受けて、ここでは、アジア太平洋地域が自由貿易を維持・発展させるとともに、最終的にはそれを地域統合の実現につなげるための、経済成長の前提条件、更には、問題点と課題、解決策について、議論が行われた。
貿易紛争の中で、地域貿易の中長期的な見通しはどうであろうか。域内各国は、2020 年以
降も貿易自由化の推進を継続すべきであろうか。貿易自由化拡大の再活性化と、長期的な取り組みの促進に向けて、どのようなタイプのメガ地域貿易協定が必要だろうか。
鐘（ゾン）飛騰（フェイテン） 博士（中国社会科学院（CASS）国際戦略研究所所長・教授）
鐘（ゾン）博士は、ASEAN に焦点を当てつつ、現在の貿易戦争が域内貿易に与える影響についての所見を披露した。鐘博士によれば、貿易紛争の結果、域内の貿易にいくつかの変化が生じているという。ただし、こうした貿易パターンの変化は、長期的なトレンド、つまりASEAN が米国に代わり、中国にとって第 2 位の貿易相手国となる一方、中国が米国に代わって ASEAN 最大の貿易相手国になったという流れの一部であることも指摘した。
貿易戦争の影響について、鐘博士が示したデータによれば、一部で貿易転換が生じており、その主な受益者はベトナムである。外生的ショックが中国と ASEAN の輸出の増大に与えた影響について、過去 40 年間を対象に自ら行った分析にもとづき、アジア太平洋地域が現在の貿易紛争の影響に対処できるのは間違いないと述べた。また、引き続き経済協力と自由化を拡大していくことの重要性に触れ、過去 30 年間に中国が受けた利益を強調した。

37

マレー・マクレーン元駐日オーストラリア大使（Dunmore McLean 社会長）
マクレーン元大使の見解によれば、国際情勢は新たな現実、特に顕著なのは、元大使が「アジア・インド・太平洋地域」と呼ぶ地域の動向が出現しており、重大局面に差し掛かっている。元大使は、現在直面している課題として、①貿易の混乱（米中貿易戦争や英国の EU 離脱など）や、②国際機関や国際的規範に対する脅威、③サイバーセキュリティの問題、そして、④人工知能（AI）やデジタル技術、電子商取引など新技術の台頭、を挙げた。
ただし、こうした課題はあるにしても、アジア・インド・太平洋地域は堅調を維持しており、成長のペースは鈍化するものの、（長期的にはともかく）中期的には世界の最も生産的な経済成長の源泉となっている。マクレーン元大使は、取り組むべき主な要素を 3 つ指摘した。
まず、（１）上記の課題から生じる悪影響を軽減するための基礎となる、経済的復元力を実現する必要がある。ただし、（２）経済的復元力だけでは十分でないとも語った。すなわち、各国の個別的、集団的、多国間的な取り組みをつうじて、国内改革を進めるとともに、トランプ政権下の米国の行動によって侵食された国際的規範の確立を図る必要がある。そして最後に、（３）保護主義への対抗が共通の利益にかなうことに触れた。マクレーン元大使は、
CPTPP の批准と RCEP 交渉の妥結を呼び掛けた。これらは、多国間の自由化と、それに伴う国内改革に対する、関係国の決意を示すものと言えよう。
ダトゥク・セリ・ジャヤシリ・ジャヤセナ氏（元マレーシア国際貿易産業省（MITI）事務次官）
ジャヤシリ元次官は、多国間や域内の貿易自由化イニシアチブに対して、非現実的な期待が寄せられていると感じている。FTA や地域貿易協定（RTA-Regional Trade Agreement）は、貿易関係の確実性や、保護主義への抑止力、能力構築を追求する手段としては有効だが、それ自体が目的ではなく、単に地域統合を実現するための手段にすぎない。それは決して、世界の問題をすべて解決する万能薬ではない。
ジャヤシリ元次官は、ASEAN 自由貿易地域（AFTA）の例を挙げて、市場アクセスを現実のものとするためには、協定の全面的な施行を確保する必要性が残っているとの見解を示した。そのためには適切な支援と、施行状況の継続的な監視、紛争解決メカニズムの活用が必要になる。
CPTPP については、7 カ国がすでに協定を施行しており、2020 年第 1 四半期には 3 カ国で施行される予定である。締約国やマレーシア内外の経済界が、未施行のマレーシアの行動を注視している。また、英国や南米など、域外諸国も関心を示しており、これによって協定38の性質が変化し、地域的な枠組みからグローバルな枠組みに転換することもありうる。
またジャヤシリ元次官は、RCEP が目指すレベルと、その交渉の進捗状況の両方に、懸念を表明した。次回の ASEAN サミットで交渉が妥結しなかった場合、交渉の勢いに影響が出る
可能性がある。アジア太平洋自由貿易圏（FTAAP）については、困難が高まっていると見ている。これは、APEC 加盟国がパプアニューギニアでの一連の会議で合意形成に至らなかったことから明らかなように、共通の基盤が見つけにくくなっているためである。リーダー
シップの欠如や交渉の長期化、それに伴うコストのために、大規模貿易協定への意欲は低下している。
またジャヤシリ元官房長によれば、今後の自由化の取り組みは、本質的に分野別（例えば電子商取引）になり、関心を持つ加盟国のみが参加する形になる可能性がある。これは、WTO
での情報技術協定（ITA）交渉に極めて類似している。
アニタ・プラカシュ氏（東アジア・ASEAN 経済研究センター（ERIA）政策関係部長）
プラカシュ部長は、最近の貿易データと経済成長シナリオに関する独自の評価を提示し、今後の見通しが明るいものではないと結論付けた。2008 年の世界金融危機からの回復は、アジアにおける消費の増大と輸出の拡大によるところが大きかったが、次の世界的不況は、全体的な消費パターンの減速により、はるかに対処が難しい問題になると予測した。このことから、アジアと先進国は、いずれも成長率の下降傾向が予想される。
プラカシュ部長は、地域の主な課題を特に 3 つ挙げた。
（１）まず長期的には、雇用主導型
成長を促進する政策を検討する必要である。需要の減少（低消費）と、アジアにおける若年層の雇用創出の必要性を考えると、このことがますます重要になっている。
人材育成に加え、社会保障の問題への対応も重要になる。
次に、（２）メガ RTA(Regional Trade Agreement)の将来については、ジャヤシリ元次官と同様、今や協定に対する熱意が失われているという見解を示した。例えば、RCEP に対する初期の熱意の高まりは、ステークホルダーの活発な協議によるものであったが、現在は、ブラカシュ部長が言うところの「RCEP 交渉の不透明化」によって、熱意が冷めている。これは、交渉が進むにつれて政策の焦点が失われたことの結果だというのが、同部長の見解である。また貿易戦争も、各国がいずれかの陣営につくことを強いられた結果、RCEP の形に影響を与えている。
今後、FTA や RTA を限定的なものにすることが提案されていることから、これはより短期
39

的な措置になる可能性がある。それでも、世界経済や地域経済には、明るい兆しもある。例
えば、ベトナムやバングラデシュなど新興経済の台頭に伴う新たなバリューチェーンの発展、新市場の出現、新たな地域（南アジアやアフリカ）への貿易、投資、労働力移動の拡大などである。
最後に、（３）プラカシュ部長はマクレーン元大使同様、今や発展を幅広くとらえるべきときであり、これをインド太平洋の視点から検討すること、特に、新たな投資や製造バリュー
チェーンの移転が進んでいるアフリカでの開発を考えることが必要だ、との見解を示した。
ジュイタ・モハマド博士（マレーシア戦略国際問題研究所（ISIS）経済学・貿易・地域統合（ETRI）フェロー）
ジュイタ博士は、現在続いている貿易戦争の影響が、地域に現れ始めていると感じている。
複雑に絡むバリューチェーンと貿易自由化の水準が、ASEAN にとってリスクとなり、ベト
ナムでも成長に影響が出る可能性がある。ただし、中期的な予測では、こうした貿易戦争で生じる貿易転換によって、各国が恩恵を受ける機会がある。マレーシア ISIS の評価によれ
ば、貿易転換で最も利益を受けるのは、日本、韓国、ベトナム、台湾である。驚くべきことに、例外はマレーシアであった。したがって、輸出の決定要因を調査する必要があるとともに、マレーシアの供給能力を継続的に改善していく必要もある。
メガ RTA の問題については、市場アクセスの拡大が不可欠と見ており、国連貿易開発会議（UNCTAD）の研究を引用した。それによれば、アジア太平洋地域の国は、域内外の市場アクセスの改善から大きな利益を得ている。ジュイタ博士が強調したのは、FTA 大規模化の是非について、また伝統的 FTA と非伝統的 FTA（これには政府調達、知的財産権、労働、環境などの分野が含まれる）の間の選択について、現在も続いている議論である。博士は、すべての国が同等の恩恵を受けるわけではないことを認めつつ、マレーシアを、RCEP や
CPTPP への参加で恩恵を受ける国の 1 つに挙げた。
質疑応答セッションでは、以下について質問があった。
（i）地域統合を実現する上での連結性の重要性。
（ii）各国の国益を実現する上で最適な自由化イニシアチブ（二国間協定か地域
協定か）
。
（iii）
「一帯一路」の地域統合に対する寄与。
最初の質問に対する答えで、中国のゾン博士は、先進国と発展途上国のニーズを区別する必要があると強調した。先進国は包摂性の実現に向けて、制度改革と構造改革に力を入れるべきであるが、発展途上国は引き続き、インフラ開発に重点を置く必要がある。中国について言えば、一帯一路の重点は、連結性の物理的側面の実現に置かれている。
40

ゾン博士によれば、RCEP などのこれと同様の取り組みの方が中所得国や低所得国に適している。大西洋横断貿易投資パートナーシップ（TTIP）や CPTPP のような FTA は、CPTPP
でさえも、それらの国々にとって難しいものになるだろう。中国にとっては、RCEP が中心的な枠組みになるのであって、それは中国・EU 間の FTA に向けた取り組みの基礎としてだけでなく、インドとの関係改善に向けた戦略の一環にもなる。
しかし、ジャヤシリ氏は、物理的な連結性は重要だが、連結性のソフト面での取り組みもやはり必要だという見解である。同氏は ASEAN を挙げて、ASEAN がインフラ・プログラム
で真の成果を実現できずにいるのは、連結性の問題のその他の側面で、依然として断絶が残るためであり、特にそのような側面として、政策立案や、国内インフラ整備、プロモーショ
ン、インセンティブにかかわるものがあり、こうしたことが依然として国益にもとづいて進められ、孤立した状態で整備されていると述べた。また、マレーシアの「第 4 次産業革命」に向けた取り組みについて、現場のビジネスの実情を考慮する必要があり、特に、従来より広い地域を視野に入れている現代ビジネスの性質を考慮すべきだと言う。
国益を犠牲にせずに自由化を実現する最適な方法に関する質問については、ジュイタ博士
は、マレーシア ISIS のスコーピングの結果を披露した。それによれば、RTA への加入は国益（この場合マレーシアの）に資すると考えることができる。ここで同博士は、CPTPP の
コミットメントや義務の一環として実施が求められる国内改革、特に労働や環境などの分野における改革が、マレーシアにとって有益であることを強調した。
最後に、一帯一路の地域統合に対する寄与に関する質問について、プラカシュ部長は、一帯
一路はその性質上、地域を対象としたもののように見えるが、実際は、取り極めは二国間の枠組みであり、各国の国益と優先課題のみによって決まるという見解であった。こうしたプロジェクトが国境を越えたものになる場合もあるが、地域的な取り組みとみなすことはできない。ただし同部長は、相補性の観点から見た場合、特に何らかの標準化が求められるようになった場合、これを支持する議論もありうるということを否定しなかった。そして、これを支持する議論としては、調和が求められている EU とアジアの連結性の向上につながるケースでは特に妥当性を持つとの指摘だった。
パネルセッション 3：経済的な繁栄の達成に向けての新たな挑戦
モデレーター：原岡直幸氏（国際経済交流財団（JEF）専務理事）
アジア太平洋地域では、包摂的成長の実現と経済的な繁栄と安定を達成する上で、新たな困難が生じている。デジタル革命と、政治的ポピュリズムである。第 4 次産業革命とデジタル41

革命がこの地域に与える影響については、特に懸念材料となっている。他方、政治的ポピュ
リズムには、それによってこの地域に反グローバリズム感情が引き起こされるのではないかという懸念が、依然としてある。
こうした背景において、地域の社会経済的安定と繁栄を実現するには、何をすべきであろうか。域内各国が第 4 次産業革命に参加するには、何が必要だろうか。域内の供給能力を高めようとする場合、質の高いインフラを地域のニーズに適合させるには、どうしたらよいのだ
ろうか。社会の反グローバリズム感情を抑えるために、何ができるだろうか。本セッション
では、人的資源に加え、インフラ開発や、その他の可能なソリューションについても検討した。
安（アン）忠栄（チョンヨン） 博士（チュンアン大学（韓国）国際関係大学院教授）
第 4 産業革命（4IR）は、第 3 産業革命（3IR）、つまりデジタル革命から発展してきたものだが、その延長ではなく、新たな時代と考えられている。第 4 次産業革命を特徴付けているのは、ビッグデータと AI が持つ破壊性、多義性、爆発性、および突破力である。
デジタル先進国と後進国は、区別する必要がある。それは、各国の情報通信技術（ICT）の開発程度やデジタル人材の充実度によって、それぞれ必要なものが国ごとに異なるからである。
デジタル後進国に必要なのは、デジタル人材を育成することにより、ICT ハードインフラとソフト開発を促進することである。また、4IR に見られるドイツの経験や、中小企業（SME）のファクトリオートメーションにおける日本の経験を、目標とする必要がある。
デジタル先進国は、4IR の連結性と爆発力に勝者総取り的性格があるために、新産業の覇権競争に直面している。このことは、現在の米中貿易戦争や、国際取引の制限を見れば明らかである。
ビッグデータを持つ国は、未来をわが物とする可能性がある。特に、IT とバイオテクノロ
ジーの効果的な融合が、新たな産業競争力の決め手になるだろう。
多くの国で深刻な問題は、貿易自由化による成果の分配の不平等がグローバル化で拡大し、所得の不平等が悪化したために、域内のいくつかの国で、ポピュリスト的政治指導者による反自由主義的な政治体制の確立を許してしまったことである。

42

包摂的成長を促進し、現在発展中の域内のクロスボーダー・サプライチェーンを確保するた
めには、イノベーションと拡大が必要になる。これによって中小企業の一層の参加が可能になり、それが比較的所得の低い人々の雇用創出や、収入の増加、社会経済的福祉の向上につながる。
この点では、企業間（B2B）、企業対消費者（B2C）、企業対政府（B2G）のプロセスをつう
じて、中小企業の底上げを確保する必要がある。域内のバリューチェーンを拡大するには、貿易ルールのハーモナイゼーションを図り、国境を越えて自由に部品・コンポーネントをやりとりできるようにする必要がある。これを実現する上では、標準化や、衛生・植物検疫措置の合意、相互承認制度、企業に優しい直接投資（FDI）環境が、決定的な重要性を持つ。
また、成長を拡大するには、アジア太平洋地域全体で、低所得国と中所得国の物流サービス
や港湾・空港管理の品質改善を進めることも、必要になる。
米国と中国は、特に自由貿易ルールの基本線を生み出す必要がある。小規模経済国の側が、いずれの国と連携するかの決定を迫られるべきではない。そして、同じ考えを持つ低・中所得国が、現在進展中のサプライチェーンを確保し、悪影響を最小限に抑えるために、多国間
FTA を追求すべきである。
デジタル先進国は、人間が AI と競合するのではなく、人間が AI の提供と活用に集中する環境を整備すべきである。その場合、長期的には労働市場において、人と AI の競争ではな
く、人と AI の協力が求められるようになるだろう。第 4 次産業革命に備える上では、人材の能力向上とタレントプールの拡充に向けた投資が、最も重要になる。
その他にも、自由な貿易秩序のための平等な競争環境作る上で大きな問題として、国有企業（SOE）への補助金と知的財産権（IPR）の保護がある。
包摂的な自由貿易のためには、オフラインとオンラインでの域内連結性が重要であり、これを強化しなければならない。
もう 1 つの深刻な課題は、第 4 次産業革命によって、セキュリティが脅かされたり、プラ
イバシーが侵害される可能性である。この点については、幅広いマルチステークホルダーの連携により、デジタル公共財の共有や、人材の採用、プライバシーを尊重したデータセットの利用を可能にするプラットフォームの確立を目指すことが、必要になる。
ヨセ・リザル・ダムリ博士（戦略国際問題研究所（CSIS）経済学部長）

43

技術は開発だけでなく、採用のスピードも速い。採用は開発より低コストであり、そのため、さらに広く応用されるようになる。デジタル技術の応用が一層広まっていくのも、当然である。AI と「モノのインターネット（IoT）」の応用は、劇的な変化をもたらすことになる。
では、世界経済へはどのような影響があるだろうか。
マッキンゼーの調査によると、2030 年には、オートメーションとテクノロジーによって、4 億～8 億人もの雇用が失われると予想される。また技術の進歩は、フォーマルセクターとインフォーマルセクターの両方で、新たな雇用や収入源も生み出す。雇用の柔軟性が高まる
につれて、転職が増えると見込まれることから、社会的保護がより重視されるようになる。
一方で徴税が以前より困難になり、政府の歳入確保能力が低下するため、社会的保護が危うくなる可能性がある。
競争力と信頼性の高い ICT サービスを提供するには、インフラと連結性の向上が必要になる。また人材を強化し、タレントプールを拡大する必要性も大きい。成長を促進するには、強力な政策と規制の枠組みの確立が、国境を越えたルールのハーモナイゼーションや、変化に適応する柔軟性とあわせて、決定的に重要になる。
ジョセフ T.ヤップ博士（アテネオ公共政策大学院 ASEP-CELLs プロジェクト シニア・テ
クニカルアドバイザー）
発展途上国の中には、第 2 次／第 3 次産業革命を完了していないところもある。ではそうした国が、一足飛びに第 4 次産業革命を実現することは可能だろうか。
国内における所得と富の不平等の拡大は、依然として問題である。失業や排他的コミュニテ
ィーの拡大などに対する大衆の不満は、
反グローバル感情の温床になる。ここで必要なのは、個別の職業ではなく個々の労働者を保護する政策、
例えば、スキルの再学習や教育、移動性、収入支援などによって、社会的結束を促進することである。共通の目標を実現するための共通の戦略の実行には、協力（コーオペレーション）よりも連携（コーディネーション）を重視する必要がある。
また、膨大な個人ユーザーデータが、合法または違法な手段で世界中で収集されていることから、セキュリティとプライバシーの問題もある。
サイモン・テイ准教授（シンガポール国際問題研究所（SIIA）所長）
グローバリゼーションは、保護主義と偏狭なナショナリズムに取って代わられようとして44いる。また、われわれは、社会的結束の強化という課題にも直面している。こうした感情を和らげるために、政府が国内で行うべきことは多い。
いまわれわれは、自分たちがその中で育ってきた体制が崩壊する危険にさらされている。大国の専横は明らかであり、いま目の前にあるのは、大国が自国の政治的見地から決定した貿易ルールである。
米中の紛争に関しては、可能な限り両方の側に関与することが重要になる。また、何らかの決定について検討する場合には、紛争でいずれの側に立つかという視点から見るのではな
く、自国の国益に照らして、自国の立場から検討することが必要である。このことは、BRIなど大国のイニシアチブに対応する場合だけでなく、すでにある制度を活用する場合にも当てはまる。
紛争が悪化した場合、ASEAN の中心性と一体性が維持されるかは、明らかでない。非米国・
非中国企業にとっては、より幅広く経済的利益を得るためには、協力と組織化を進めることが課題となる。超大国間の紛争に対応するには、超大国以外のインフラ資金の提供者との協力を通じた、中堅国外交を進めるべきだろう。
プリヤダルシ・ダッシュ博士（開発途上国研究情報システムセンター（RIS；ニューデリー）
助教授）
アジア太平洋地域では、全般的にマクロ経済指標が安定しているように思われるが、一部の国においては、高失業率や高インフレ、比較的低水準の資本形成という問題を抱えている。
それゆえ、域内各国における完全雇用均衡の確保を目標とすべきである。失業と投資不足が広く見られる事態は、各国で資源が十分活用されていないことを示している。すべての人々が成長のパイを平等に分かち合うとともに、将来世代の機会が損なわれないことを確実にすることが必要である。各国は、従来の正統的財政金融政策（これは短期的な解決策である
場合が多い）か、あるいは、例えば「持続可能な開発目標（SDG）」や「インダストリー4.0」（これは新たなデジタル技術や人的資本へ投資に基礎を置く）といった新たなパラダイムのどちらかを、選択する必要がある。自然生息地と環境の保全を、総合的な開発戦略に織り込む必要がある。
SDG の達成には、新たなインフラ資産の建設や既存インフラの維持などのための資金投資を含む追加的な投資が求められ、これは包摂的自由貿易を促進するためにも必要なことである。

45

アジア太平洋地域には、3G モバイルネットワークのインターネットの普及率がまだ総人口の 80％を下回っている国が 14 ある。このようにまだ開発の余地があることを考えると、経済回廊の開発促進に向けて、デジタル技術とデジタルインフラを活用していく必要がある。
モバイルネットワークを提供すれば、金融包摂を確保することが可能になる。これに当てはまる例として注目されるのが、インドである。数百万人が公式の銀行システムを利用できるようになったことで、人々の社会経済的福祉の向上が可能になっている。経済のさまざまな部門でデジタル経済化が進むにつれて、フィンテック部門や IT 活用サービス部門で、成長と雇用創出の大きな可能性が生まれるだろう。アジア太平洋地域の諸国が、技術開発や、知識・専門知識・スキルなどの共有で協力すれば、国レベルの能力の限界を乗り越え、全体的な発展への影響で相乗効果をもたらすことができるだろう。
ファリナ・サイード女史（マレーシア戦略国際問題研究所（ISIS）外交政策・保障研究（FPSS）
アナリスト）
これまでの発表から、各国が、技術によって引き起こされる破壊（ディスラプション）に備
える上で、インフラ、雇用、機会の平等、人材開発、代替的な指標（幸福や包摂的成長など）が有効であることを学んだ。
第 4 次産業革命（4IR）を原動力とする成長を実現するのは、信頼のエコシステムであり、そうしたシステムの構築を確実にすることが必要になる。では、信頼のエコシステムとは何だろうか？
•

産業の成長が可能になるように、システムの運用者がサービスを継続的に提供するという、システムの信頼性と機能性。
•

こうした運用者が情報を収集しても、それを悪用することがないという、運用者の善意に対する信頼。
•

法の支配への信頼、つまり安全保障と権利が運用され、また必要な場合に守られるということ。
•

サイバー空間の社会的、コンテンツ的、論理的、物理的な面での安全な機能。

運用者の中立性を維持することは極めて重要だが、一国の司法権が他国に適用されないことも、忘れてはならない。そこで必要になるのが、国際的な場での法のハーモナイゼーショ
ンと対話である。これについての考え方は、各国がこうしたインフラの保護をどう拡大できるか―例えば別の国にデータセンターを置き、（そうすると厳密に言えば他国にある施設となるため）そこに大使館の地位を持たせるなど―によって異なる。

46

データガバナンスは、本日の参加者の多くにとってなじみ深い問題である。というのは、国家安全保障と成長の推進力とのバランスが、現在も模索されているからである。AI などの強力なシステムには、クラウドが必要になる。このことは、こうしたシステムがサービスを提供する際に使用する計算が、ブラックボックス化していることを意味する。
データガバナンスとセキュリティについては、議論が混乱しているが、これはサイバー空間
に関してさまざまな定義が存在するためである――コンテンツはデータとみなされるが、ものを買った場合の処理もデータとみなされる。
こうした状況において支えとなるのが、サイバー空間における可能な行動規範を国際社会が定めることによる、法の支配である。ただし、サイバーは多次元的な性質を持つことから、政府機関相互、政府機関内部、国際的レベルでの準備が特に必要になる。
適切な機関の選定に関心を持つことは、法の執行が確実に可能になるようにする上でも、また包摂的で、かつ適切な情報提供にもとづく協議プロセスが、先進国と発展途上国の間で行われることを確実にする上でも、有益であろう。
反グローバル化の感情の原因としては、雇用の流出やナショナリズムの台頭、排他的コミュ
ニティーの拡大などが考えられる。またグローバル化によって、社会的にしろ、経済的にしろ、恩恵を失うコミュニティーも発生する。必要なのは、疎外された、あるいは疎外されたと感じているコミュニティーに対する支援と教育であろう。
ただし、パブリック・ディプロマシー（広報文化外交）においては、複雑な概念を手短にまとめる必要があるため、政府機関の戦略的コミュニケーションが課題となる。また、我々にとっては、一定の理屈の流れを明確に説明することも課題になる。
人の移動と都市化は、異なる国から来た人々の接触が増えることを意味する。これが継続す
るなら、コミュニティーの孤立化が解消される可能性もあるが、包摂性を測る何らかの仕組みが必要である。

47

English Summary drafted by ISIS

Asia-Pacific FORUM 2019
The Future of the Asia-Pacific Economies Beyond 2020:
How can the Asia-Pacific Region Achieve a Better Globalization in Coping with
Rising Populism and Emerging Inequality?
A Conference By:
Japan Economic Foundation (JEF) and the Institute of Strategic andInternational Studies (ISIS) Malaysia
16 October 2019
The Westin Kuala Lumpur

Welcoming Remarks
Tan Sri Rastam Mohd Isa, Chairman and Chief Executive, Institute of Strategic andInternational Studies (ISIS) Malaysia
With the current lackadaisical growth of the global economy, it will be imperative to
explore sources of growth that would result in balanced welfare gains for all stakeholders,
while not causing harm to the environment and to mother earth. In the past decades, one
would have seen how the environment has taken its toll in the wake of rapid growth in theregion and beyond. This needs to be changed. A new model of growth needs to be
championed.
Matsuo Basho, who undertook a journey on foot throughout Japan, was mentioned.
During his journey, Matsuo wrote poems in Japanese praising the beauty and severity ofnature. He reminds us of how good nature is to us. It is our responsibility not to forget its
fragility in the wake of our pursuit for growth.
Malaysia is also now in pursuit of sustainable growth, whereby narrowing the wealth andincome inequality within the country among the population is a prime objective and key
pathway to sustainable growth. This is highlighted through the new Shared Prosperity
Vision 2030, whereby the vision will provide the “turbo charge” needed to spursustainable economic growth, which in turn will elevate Malaysia to a high-income
economy and increase the people’s prosperity and well-being.
As most countries in the region, including Malaysia, are mostly trade dependant countries,
it is important for the region to see the finalization of the Regional Comprehensive
Economic Partnership (RCEP) negotiations. There is also hope for the full ratification of
the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP)
by member countries soon. These are important developments in the effort to counter48

the effects of rising protectionism, in the wake of the ongoing trade wars and otherdevelopments that threaten free and fair trade.
Malaysia is a party to both the RCEP (as a negotiating partner) and CPTPP (as asignatory). As a small open economy, the government hopes to gain more market accessthrough these agreements. But it is not just about market access, it is about exposing
Malaysian firms to compete abroad, challenging them to adhere to higher and more
stringent international standards. This in turn would provide benefits for the consumers
domestically and abroad, as well as to the firms themselves.
Finally, there are new challenges in our uncertain global environment, including the riseof populism, the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) and rising concerns of nontraditional threats within the region and beyond. With these arising new challenges inmind, governments must explore various avenues to cooperate on.
Mr Kazumasa Kusaka, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Japan Economic
Foundation (JEF)
At the turn of the century, the Japan Economic Foundation (JEF) came to believe that
establishing a trade system that was fit for this growing region at the time – the free trade
agreement (FTA) – was the key to removing barriers that prevented achieving growthpotential. The Foundation thus aimed to promote FTAs in this region and held its first
Asia-Pacific Forum in 2003 in Singapore. This year marked the 18th annual forum.
Since 2003, discussions have kept pace with the progress of economic integration within
the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), who holds a central role in the
integration process of this region, and it has shifted from border measures, such as custom
duties (which are trade barriers), to domestic systems and its application, called behindthe-border measures (which are important for investment).
Presently in this region, the economic integration of ASEAN continues to evolve, the
CPTPP, also known as TPP11, without the United States, has become effective.
Meanwhile, agreement on the RCEP is almost there. But as seen in expanding European
Union (EU) integration and its deepening processes, and more recently in Brexit as wellas the Trump phenomenon, incidents of domestic citizens not being able to keep up withthe speed or the content of globalization and their consequent resentment towards
globalization is being observed.
For the past few years, JEF has started exploring whether there is a path to “betterglobalization”, looking directly into income disparities that persist with globalization.
Many countries faced a further widening of income disparities with the development ofIndustry 4.0 and the Digital Revolution and populism, which claims that globalization is
the root cause.
Does better globalization mean that globalization is good without reservation just like theso-called fundamentalism “Washington Consensus”? In particular, we are required tocontinue asking ourselves the question, “Better for whom?”. Perhaps the philosophy of“inclusive growth” of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) also works under thesame awareness of the issue.
Recent tendencies to populism are beginning to impact cross-border production, sales,
investment, trade and management strategies as seen, for example, in the review of theNorth American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and US-China trade frictions.
What is happening now in response are “trade diversion” and changes in “supply chainvalue chain”. It is shifting businesses to locations where border measures and domestic49

regulation barriers are lower. What is happening right now is “reversed FTA” between
the United States and China, but the behavioural principle of private business entities isuniversal. With the US-China trade frictions, it is reported that the first to move theirproduction bases out of China were home-grown Chinese companies. European andJapanese multinational corporations (MNCs) have production capacities outside China,
such as in the ASEAN region, and they are likely to be quicker to respond to changing theratio of production in China compared to American MNCs, which have depended solely
on Chinese production capacities.
Facing geopolitical risks in our region, in order to secure the optimum level of investment,
which is essential for the realization of the region’s growth potential, further
improvements to the business and investment environment is crucial. But this has thedimension of unevenly affecting domestic livelihoods, societies and industries.
In this aspect, global and regional institutions play a crucial role as peer pressure in
implementing such domestically unpopular, but needed structural reform, though thereform of these institutions themselves is urgent and requires our commitments. Whileutilizing such institutions, working on domestic task attentively and making sure people
can keep up with globalization will be the secret of success to the Asian way of “slow andsteady wins the race”.
Keynote Address
YB Dr Ong Kian Ming, Deputy Minister, Ministry of International Trade and Industry(MITI) Malaysia
The Keynote Address by YB Dr Ong Kian Ming aimed to deliberate on the underlying
questions on the robustness and flexibility of existing regional and international
institutions. To assess such, he highlighted three areas: the state of rising populism andemerging inequality, the quality of the changes following the global financial crisis andthe preparedness to adapt to disruptive technological and climate change.
Firstly, Dr Ong deliberated on the contemporary phenomenon of rising populism andemerging inequality. Particularly, he questioned if these were either temporary
phenomena or enduring struggles in the future. Using examples of the rhetoric andpolicies by President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Boris Johnson, he argued thatleadership figures such as these had louder and disruptive voices, which have become
obstacles. Compounded with the sentiments of the public, he reminded the audience thatwhile it was easy to become distracted by such figures, the main objectives and outcomesshould not become forgotten in order to properly address problems of the day.
Such preoccupation with emotionally charged reactions and discourse overlooked thenuances and context in the sources of populist sentiments. A notable result Dr Ong
pointed out was the inconsistent ways populism had been conceptualized, as there was no
singular definition. These have included the increased prevalence of populism based on:
the distribution of votes given to a country’s far right or far left parties; the proportion of
votes by new parties in existing democracies; or the way some movements have won
popular appeal, such as the anti-Islamic and anti-refugee sentiments in the West or therise in anti-Western sentiment in the East. Moreover, he referred to the inconsistentreference points, which can include global surveys on attitudes of globalization andgeneral public perceptions on regional institutions, such as the EU, G7 or ASEAN.
With such a variation in the understanding of populism and its surrounding coverage, thetopic has been subjected to bias and generally negative connotations. However, Dr Ong
50argued contrary to that, as there have been other examples that have been overlooked.
President Emmanuel Macron and the emergence of the political party La Republique enMarche was framed as a positive change as it was able to challenge the status quo
arrangements between the major and traditional political parties of the left and right.
Although, he also noted, that there had been more functional examples that received more
ambivalent reception – Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s “populist” movements received
both praise and criticism. Similarly, President Joko Widodo’s form of “technocratic
populism” and its focus on public service delivery has been perceived as more benign andmore internationally and domestically accepted.
Dr Ong warned of the way the outlook towards populism could affect the willingness toreact to disruptions and exacerbate inequality. If populism, regardless of its positive or
negative implications, is treated as a temporary and cyclical phenomenon, it becomes
tempting to wait for meaningful structural reforms and policy adjustments. However, it
does not seem to be a feasible approach to determine beforehand the robustness ofdomestic, regional and international institutions in light of a financial crisis. Additionally,
it is undetermined whether countries are able to withstand the negative aspects of
populist demands, such as those arising from the dissatisfaction with the status quo.
Secondly, Dr Ong asked if there had been sufficient structural reforms to prevent anotherglobal financial crisis. He compared the different experiences of several regions. Startingin the United States, before spreading to the European countries, he demonstrated how
the West was amongst those that were severely affected by this financial crisis. In light ofsuch experiences, the EU has shown how the major reforms undertaken by the institution
as a whole and its member states were able to pursue the necessary budgetary andexpenditure reforms. He made a comparison between the Western experience and theexperiences of Asian countries, saying that the impact of the global financial crisis wasmuch subdued as many of the reforms have already been undertaken as responses inrecovering from the Asian financial crisis of 1997-1998.
However, when considering the likelihood of another recession, Dr Ong believed it is an
expected phenomenon as it is a part of the natural process of the business cycle. Thus, it
is not a question of “if”, but “when”. The severity of its effects will be determined by theability of these institutes, through both the robustness and flexibility, to be resilient
against these changes and make the appropriate adjustments. Their ability to face thenext recession will serve as an indicator for their ability to manage the negative effects of
populism, inequality and the changing demands of the public, especially after recessions
or another financial crisis.
Thirdly, Dr Ong posed questions about the changes brought upon by technology andclimate change, namely the disruptive effects they can pose and the readiness of countries
in being able to adapt to such changes. Technological changes referred to those brought
upon by the 4IR, and their impact on the structures of economies and employment
opportunities. He brought up the outlook of the Democratic presidential candidate
Andrew Yang, whose pessimistic views on the technological changes and the projected
loss of job opportunities to automation necessitate the need for a universal basic income
for the United States. However, Dr Ong recognized the caveat that there was a great task
to undertake as even developed countries were not financially ready to provide suchservice.
As for environmental concerns, he referred to the technologies made available to mitigate
the effects of phenomena, such as climate change, the changing weather patterns and51

rising sea levels. He made references to the efforts by climate change activist Greta
Thunberg, which emphasized the importance of tackling environmental concerns and theimpacts they may have on the livelihood of the future generation. He reiterated how
flexible and robust institutions need to be to react to these challenges. However, itremains to be on the long-term trajectory to ensure that countries are equipped with thesenecessary capacities and abilities.
In his conclusion, Dr Ong declared that he was a firm believer of institutions, whether
they are political and systemic ones referred to in Samuel Huntington’s Political Order inChanging Societies or the social and legal norms framework captured in Douglas North’s
New Institutionalism. However, in light of the Asia-Pacific economies, much of what has
been discussed has predominantly been through the interpretation and lens of adeveloped country. He closed by asking a question: how ready is the region to be able todevelop solutions that are contextually specific and relevant?
Panel Session 1: Prospects and Issues for the Future Sustainable and Inclusive Growth in
the Asia-Pacific Region
Moderator by Dr Josef T Yap, Senior Technical Advisor, ASEP-CELLs Project, Ateneo
School of Government
The Asia-Pacific region has been the growth centre of the world economy. For its growth
to be sustainable, it is important that growth should be inclusive with its outcome
distributed equally. What are some constraining factors which must be overcome toachieve such growth in the coming years?
In the past, this region suffered low growth as protective “My Country First” measures,
including excessive protection of infant industries, were taken. Then, this region achieved
today’s development through such open and free trade measures as seen in the progressof ASEAN integration, China’s entry to World Trade Organization (WTO), theexpansion of intra-regional FTAs, and the realization of the CPTPP.
Now in order for this region to enjoy the benefits of free trade to a maximum extent, it isimperative to implement domestic structural reforms. Growth strategies need tocorrespond to issues of structural reforms. What are the components of sustainable andinclusive growth that countries in the region should focus on in the medium- to long-term
and what are the challenges in achieving them? What are the sources of sustainablegrowth in the region? Can trade still be the vehicle for equal prosperity? How do weensure that inclusive growth is achieved by all in the region?
In this session, issues, challenges and solutions for executing growth strategies in thisregion were broadly examined with attention paid to the notion that it is very importantfor growth to contribute to the overall welfare of society as well as GDP growth. In otherwords, growth has to be inclusive.
Prof Shujiro Urata, Professor of Economics, Graduate School of Asia Pacific Studies
Waseda University
Prof Urata started his presentation by outlining the challenges of sustainable andinclusive growth. The former refers to achieving environmental problem-free growth,whereas the latter refers to shared growth that benefits everyone. A key question that
Professor Urata asked at the beginning of his presentation was whether we should stop
growing in order to attain sustainable and inclusive growth.
He then proceeded to talk about the importance of first achieving economic growth,52before making growth sustainable and inclusive. For economic growth, Prof Urata
reiterated the need for efficient use of the factors of production, capital and labour, andtechnological progress.
Prof Urata described increasing and maintaining competition via antitrust policy,
developing human capital, and providing the appropriate enabling environment for new
innovation and technology transfer to occur, are key for countries to increase efficiency
of production factor use, while driving technological advancement. Prof Urata outlined
the need for both government regulations and private sector efforts in driving
environmental sustainability. At the same time, for economic growth to be inclusive,
addressing structural issues including the inequality of opportunity is crucial.
Some of the important recent developments that Prof Urata highlighted in his
presentation include: (i) Global Value Chains (GVCs) as an important production system
to ensure efficient use of resources and transfer of technology; (ii) the fight against
growing protectionism via WTO reforms, mega FTAs and plurilateral trade agreements;and (iii) the development of the digital economy which is aided by the free flow of data.
Dr Man-jung Mignonne Chan, Co-Founder and Chief Strategy Officer, Forum on
Humanities
Dr Chan highlighted key components of, and challenges of, sustainable growth: (1) toensure healthy international competition so as to achieve mutual prosperity; (2) tocollaborate on efficient & seamless supply chain connectivity with volatile technologicalinnovation; (3) to institute environmentally friendly eco-system management, with
science-based research; and (4) to honor diverse human civilizations and selective
approaches with inspired exemplifies.
As to the key components of & goal settings for inclusive growth, Dr. Chan proposed
measures that go beyond traditional approaches—These include (1) a “preparedness”
index on future technology to measure the ability of the economy to weather theupcoming technological changes, their potential benefits and setbacks; （2）a “happiness”
index to uphold equal opportunities for all and to protect the livelihood of the lessadvantaged； and (3) a “regional training & employment clearinghouse” on cross-borderhuman resource mobility and advancement; etc.
On this end, Dr Chan also talked about the need for practical early childhood education,
an increased focus on technical and vocational training, and uniform regional basic
standards for education. Similarly, she stressed quality opportunities as a means of copingwith technological changes and advancement.
Prof Gary Hawke, Emeritus Professor, Victoria University of Wellington
Prof Hawke noted that the session addressed the fundamental questions of inclusion andsustainability to which trade wars and the rise of populism were both incidental. The AsiaPacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) is currently considering how its vision should be
expressed as the “Bogor Goals” relate only to the period until 2020, and a survey ofregional stakeholders, officials in a private capacity, business and researchers, revealed astrong wish to emphasize inclusivity and sustainability.
"Sustainability" is about providing for the long-term future. It cannot be the preservationof everything as it is, still less how it was, since we want to sustain an experience ofprogress. The deepest challenge is maintaining political consensus that we are striking
the right balance between relying on the currently unknown and denying possible
53improved living standards. Inclusivity poses a challenge in that economies will makedifferent choices about how much to internationalize their policies. National policies
should be designed to minimise adverse impacts on trading partners. International
dialogue and a commitment by governments to facilitate adjustment and change rather
than to protect existing activities would make policies for inclusion possible.
Inclusion cannot mean equality. Lifetime incomes - even if restricted to those whose life
expectancy is not cut short - will vary as experience, accumulated knowledge, and energy
follow different life patterns, and incomes will also vary with social customs aboutchildrearing. We will refine our understanding of “well-being”, but continue to seek
equality of opportunity - social mobility - but act to limit inequality only when it impinges
greatly on opportunities.
The greatest challenge to achieving inclusivity is a misplaced desire to protect what exists
rather than encourage participation in what will be valuable in the future. We are
fortunate that our ancestors did not think railways were too risky and posed too big achallenge to those whose employment depended on the use of horses. Until we inventmachines which have the ability to learn and to reproduce themselves (withimprovements) and with a desire to indulge themselves to the exclusion of humans, weshould remain optimistic about technology. But we should build mechanisms to facilitate
adaptation to change.
Trade not only can still be the vehicle for prosperity; prosperity depends on thecontinuation of trade. It is a fairly simple mental exercise to contemplate our regionalsocieties reduced to relying on subsistence in isolated pockets.
Dr Wisarn Pupphavesa, Senior Advisor, Thailand Development Research Institute(TDRI)Dr Wisarn noted that there are systemic factors for poverty in developing countries, keyof which is the inequality of opportunity. He explained that there are disparities between
the poor and the rich in numerous aspects, such as access to infrastructure, costs forregulatory compliance and access to markets. For example, in Thailand, there is a need toopen up economic opportunities, social mobility and legal structures.
Dr Wisarn also explained that strong and fair competition law could play a huge role in
reducing some of these disparities, in supporting market transparency and information
symmetry. Additionally, Dr Wisarn described the need for widespread technologicalinfrastructure for all to ensure equal participation in the digitalized world.
At the same time, Dr Wisarn agreed with the other panellists that growth itself remains
an important goal. Without economic growth, the game of redistribution becomes zerosum. Finally, Dr Wisarn also noted that broadening and deepening regional trade anddevelopment cooperation through institutions like RCEP, CPTPP, APEC and ASEAN
would be beneficial too.
Dr Vo Tri Thanh, Chairman, Vietnam National Committee for Pacific Economic
Cooperation (VNCPEC)Dr Vo explained that the pace of poverty reduction has historically been closely associatedwith economic growth, thanks to the development of the private sector in addition to theenhancement of country comparative advantages through trade liberalization. Dr Vo
underlined the importance of various policy initiatives in reducing poverty. For many
countries, Dr Vo explained that initiatives like infrastructure development, agricultural54

research and development, and education were some of the most important for poverty
alleviation.
At the same time, Dr Vo stressed that a focus on multidimensional poverty and social
inclusion was crucial. As such, establishing an equitable and robust social security system
would be beneficial. Finally, Dr Vo also described the role of international cooperation
and regional institutions in driving sustainable and inclusive growth.
Mr Alizan Mahadi, Senior Fellow, Technology, Innovation, Environment andSustainability (TIES), Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) Malaysia
Mr Alizan outlined the importance of first defining what sustainable and inclusive growth
actually entails. To this end, Mr Alizan emphasized the need to rely on other measuresbesides GDP growth to measure the wealth of nations. He also stated that indexes, suchas a “happiness” index and an “inclusive wealth” index, ultimately measure the end, butthey do not measure how we get there. He cited the example of the economic cost ofdestroying a country’s natural capital, like mangrove forests, which are not captured bytraditional national accounts.
As such, he stressed the need to move towards new measures to track the progress of anation’s sustainable economic development. Finally, Mr Alizan explained that
demographic shifts in turn bring along shifts in global attitudes towards sustainability andclimate change. He cited the example of youth climate activist Greta Thurnberg, which isemblematic of a change in consumer demand in the future for more environmentalfriendly products and greater sustainability. According to Mr Alizan, the fundamental
question is: how do we ensure our institutions are adaptive towards future economies andtrends, beyond being robust and flexible?
In the Question and Answer Session, panellists were asked to comment on how: (i)economic policymakers can be convinced of the importance of other measuring values onsustainable and inclusive growth such as happiness; (ii) institutions can address
globalization; (iii) “civilizational” or local values can be merged with the sustainability
concept; (iv) FTAs and trade liberalization can impact income inequality on a small
country like Malaysia, and; (v) competition can be regulated to ensure multinationals andforeign investors do not dominate the market.
Panel Session 2: Progress of Regional Integration in the Asia-Pacific Region and Its
Outlook
Moderated by Prof Tham Siew Yean, Senior Fellow, ISEAS-Yusof Ishak InstituteIn the Asia-Pacific region, ASEAN integration is progressing, intra-regional FTAs are
expanding and the CPTPP was realized. Consequently, these trade liberalization
measures have promoted the establishment of intra-regional supply chains. In addition,
the RCEP Agreement is close to realization.
However, the recent US-China trade friction, which began due to the Trumpadministration’s “America First” action, is causing changes in the regional supply chains,
including those of Chinese companies. Amid actions of anti-globalization andprotectionism seen in the EU and the United States, prerequisites for economic growth
as well as issues, challenges and solutions were discussed for this region to maintain anddevelop free trade, and eventually lead it to the realization of a regional integration.
What are the mid- and long-term outlooks for regional trade amidst trade tensions?
Should countries in the region continue pushing for trade liberalization going forward55

beyond 2020? Which type of mega-regional trade deals are needed to reinvigorate further
trade liberalization and facilitation efforts in the long-term?
Dr Zhong Feiteng, Head and Professor, National Institute of International Strategy,
Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS)Dr Zhong shared his findings on the impact of the ongoing trade war on regional trade,with a focus towards ASEAN. According to him, the trade war had resulted in somechanges to the trade patterns in the region. However, he cautioned that these changes inthe trade patterns are part of the long-term trend that has seen ASEAN overtake theUnited States as China’s second largest trading partner while China has replaced theUnited States as ASEAN’s largest trading partner.
On the impact of the trade war, Dr Zhong presented data that revealed that some trade
diversion had occurred with the primary beneficiary being Vietnam. Based on his analysisof the impact of external shocks on the export growth for China and ASEAN, during past
four decades, Dr Zhong was confident that the region will be able to deal with the impactof the trade conflict. He also stated the importance of continuing to strengthen economic
cooperation and liberalization, highlighting the benefits enjoyed by China in the past
three decades.
Amb Murray McLean AO, Chairman, Dunmore McLean Pty Ltd
Amb McLean was of the view that world affairs were at a pivotal point as new realities
were emerging, most notably the developments within what he termed as the Asia-IndoPacific region. He identified the current challenges faced, such as trade disruptions (suchas the US/China trade war and Brexit), threats to international institutions and norms,
the issues of cybersecurity and the rise of new technologies, such as Artificial Intelligence(AI), digital technology and e-commerce.
However, despite these challenges, the Asia-Indo-Pacific region remains robust, as theworld’s most productive source of economic growth for the medium, if not longer, termalbeit at a slower pace. Amb McLean highlighted three key factors that needed to beundertaken. First, there is the need to achieve economic resilience which is fundamental
to reduce the adverse impacts of the said challenges. Nevertheless, he said that economic
resilience was not enough as there was a need to act individually, collectively andmultilaterally to undertake domestic reforms as well as set international norms, which had
since been eroded by the actions of the United States under the Trump administration.
Finally, he said there was mutual interest to counter protectionism. He called for theratification of the CPTPP and the conclusion of the RCEP negotiations which would
demonstrate the parties’ commitment to multilateral liberalization and the accompanying
domestic reforms.
Datuk Seri Jayasiri Jayasena, Former Secretary-General, Ministry of International Tradeand Industry (MITI)
Datuk Seri Jayasiri felt there were unrealistic expectations placed on multilateral andregional trade liberalization initiatives. FTAs and Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs),
while useful as a mechanism to provide certainty in trade relations, deterrence toprotectionism and an avenue to pursue capacity building, are not an end in itself, but
merely a means to achieve regional integration – they are definitely not a panacea for all
global problems.
56

Highlighting the case of the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA), he opined that there wasstill a need to ensure the agreements are fully implemented in order to enjoy real market
access. This required proper outreach and continued monitoring of the implementation
as well as the use of the dispute settlement mechanism.
On the CPTPP, seven members are already implementing the agreement while threemembers are expected to begin implementing it in the first quarter of 2020. The parties
and the business community both in and outside Malaysia are closely watching Malaysia’s
actions. There is also interest from parties outside the region, such as the United Kingdom
and Latin America, which would change the nature of the agreement – transforming itfrom a regional to global framework.
Datuk Seri Jayasiri also shared his concerns both on the level of ambition of the RCEP
and on the progress of the RCEP negotiations, which if not concluded by the coming
ASEAN Summit, could potentially impact the negotiating momentum. The Free Trade
Area of the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP), according to him, faces challenges progressing as
parties in APEC could not find common ground as evident by the failure to arrive atconsensus in the Papua New Guinea round. The lack of leadership, protracted
negotiations and the costs resulting from it has reduced the appetite for mega trade deals.
Datuk Seri Jayasiri also mentioned that future liberalization initiatives could be sectoralfocused in nature (such as e-commerce), involving only interested members, very similar
to how the Information Technology Agreement (ITA) was negotiated at the WTO.
Ms Anita Prakash, Director of Policy Relations, Economic Research Institute for ASEAN
and East Asia (ERIA)
Ms Anita presented her own assessment of recent trade data and economic growthscenario and concluded that the outlook is not positive. While much of the recovery fromthe global financial crisis in 2008 was due to increased consumption and exports led
growth in Asia, she predicted that the next global recession to be a far more difficult
challenge to address as the overall consumption patterns are slowing down. In this, both
Asia and developed countries are expected to experience a downward trend in growth.
She highlighted three major challenges for the region. In the longer-term, there was aneed to look at policies to encourage employment led growth, which is becoming
increasingly important in light of shrinking demand (low consumption) and the need tofind employment for Asia’s young population. Human resource development will be
important, as well as dealing with the issues of social security.
On the future of mega RTAs, she shared Datuk Seri Jayasiri’s view that there was a lackof enthusiasm for such agreements now. For example, the early enthusiasm for the RCEP,
encouraged by very high stakeholder consultations, has been tempered by what she
described as the increasing opaqueness in the RCEP negotiations today. This is the resultof what she viewed as a loss of policy focus as negotiations progressed. The trade wars arealso impacting the shape of RCEP as they compel countries to take sides.
On the suggestion of limited FTAs/RTAs in the future, this could be more of a shortterm measures. Nevertheless, there are some positive signs in the global and regional
economy, such as the development of new value chains, the emergence of new markets,
increasing trade, investment and labour mobility into newer regions (South Asia, Africa),with the rise of new economies, such as Vietnam and Bangladesh among others.
Finally, Ms Prakash echoed Amb McLean’s view that it was time to view developments
on a broader spectrum including looking at developments from an Indo-Pacific57

perspective, particularly considering the developments in Africa where the newer
investments and value chains of production are moving to.
Dr Juita Mohamad, Fellow, Economics, Trade and Regional Integration (ETRI), Instituteof Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) Malaysia
Dr Juita felt that the region was now feeling the impact from the ongoing trade war. Theintertwining value chains and level of trade openness places ASEAN at risk, which could
affect even Vietnam’s growth. In a mid-term projection, however, there are opportunities
for countries to benefit from the resulting trade diversion. An assessment by ISIS Malaysia
identified Japan, Korea, Vietnam and Taiwan as the major beneficiaries from trade
diversion. The surprise exception was Malaysia and, as a result, there is a need to look
into the determinants of exports and a continuous need to improve Malaysia’s supply
capacity.
On the issue of mega RTAs, Dr Juita viewed increasing market access as essential andcited a United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) study that
concluded that the Asia-Pacific economies benefited greatly from improved market accesswithin the region and outside the region. Dr Juita highlighted on the ongoing debate onwhether bigger FTAs are better and also the choice between traditional and nontraditional FTAs, which include areas such as Government Procurement, Intellectual
Property Rights, Labour and Environment. She acknowledged that not all countries would
benefit equally and identified Malaysia among those who would enjoy benefits from being
party to the RCEP and CPTPP.
In the Question and Answer Session, questions were raised on: (i) the importance ofconnectivity to achieve regional integration; (ii) the best liberalization initiatives toachieve the respective national interest of each economy (bilateral or regional
agreements); and (iii) the contribution of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) towards
regional integration.
In response to the first question, Dr Zhong highlighted there was a need to differentiate
the needs between the developed and the developing economies. While developed
economies should focus on institutional and structural reforms to achieve inclusiveness,developing economies still have a need to focus on infrastructure development. For China,
the focus of its BRI is on achieving physical aspects of connectivity.
Dr Zhong stated that likewise initiatives, such as the RCEP, are more suitable for middleand low-income economies. FTAs, such as the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment
Partnership (TTIP) and even the CPTPP, would be a challenge to implement. For China,
the RCEP will be its main vehicle, not only as the basis to work towards a China-EU FTA,
but also as part of its strategy to improve its relations with India.
Datuk Seri Jayasiri, however, was of the view that while physical connectivity was
important, there is still a need to address the soft side of connectivity. He cited ASEAN,
which had not derived real outcomes from infrastructure programmes, because there
continued to be a disconnect in other aspects of the connectivity question, particularly
those in relation to policy formulation, domestic infrastructure development, promotion
and incentives which continue to be driven by national interest and developed in isolation.
He cited also Malaysia’s effort towards embracing Industry Revolution 4.0, which needed
to consider business realities on the ground, particularly the nature of business today,
which has a wider-regional outlook.
On the question of the best vehicle to achieve liberalization without sacrificing national
58

interests, Dr Juita shared the findings of the ISIS Malaysia’s scoping exercise which foundthat national interests, in this case Malaysia’s, could be served by membership into RTAs.
She highlighted that the domestic reforms required to be implemented as part of the
CPTPP commitments and obligations, specifically in areas such as labour andenvironment, would be beneficial to Malaysia.
Lastly, on the question of the BRI to regional integration, Ms Anita was of the view thatwhile the scope of the BRI appeared to be regional in nature, in reality the arrangements
were bilateral and dependent solely on state interests and priorities. There are instanceswhere these projects do cross borders, but it cannot be considered a regional initiative.
However, she did not discount that there could be argument for this if viewed from theperspective of complementariness, and especially if it resulted in requiring somestandardization. She highlighted the argument for this was especially pertinent in the caseof improving connectivity between the EU and Asia where congruence was needed.
Panel Session 3: New Challenges for Achieving Economic Prosperity
Moderated by Mr Naoyuki Haraoka, Executive Managing Director, Japan Economic
Foundation (JEF)
New difficulties have arisen in realising inclusive growth and achieving the economic
prosperity and stability of the Asia-Pacific region. One is the Digital Revolution and theother is political populism. The impact of the 4IR and Digital Revolution on this region
is a matter of particular concern. On the other hand, there remains a concern whether
political populism could cause anti-globalization in this region’s sentiments.
Against these backdrops, and in achieving the region’s socio-economic stability andprosperity, what should we do? What is needed for countries in the region to participate
in the 4IR? How does quality infrastructure fit into the needs of a region in boosting its
supply capacity? What can be done to offset anti-globalization sentiments on the ground?
This session examined human resource as well as infrastructure development and otherpossible solutions.
Dr Ahn Choong-yong, Distinguished Professor, Graduate School of International Studies,
Chung-Ang University
The Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) is growing out of the Third Industrial Revolution(3IR), namely the digital revolution, but it is considered a new era rather than acontinuation of its predecessor. 4IR is categorized by its disruptiveness, evasiveness,
explosiveness and breakthrough of big data and AI.
There is a need to make a distinction between digitally advanced economies and digitallybackward nations, as what is needed varies by country depending on its degree of
information and communications technology (ICT) development and availability ofdigital manpower.
Digitally backward economies need to expedite ICT hardware infrastructure and softwaredevelopment by cultivating digital manpower. These economies also need to benchmark
the German experience, as evident in 4IR and the Japanese experience of factory
automation of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).
Digitally advanced economies face a hegemonic competition for new industries due to thewinner-takes-all nature of connectivity and explosiveness of 4IR. This is evident in theongoing U.S.-China trade war and restrictions in international transactions.
The countries that own big data are likely to own the future. In particular, the effective
59

fusion of information technology and biotechnology may determine new industrial
competitiveness.
A serious challenge in many countries is how globalization has broadened the unequallyshared fruits of trade liberalization and worsened income inequality, which, in turn,helped populist political leaders establish illiberal political regimes across several nationsin this region.
Innovation and expansion are needed to promote inclusive growth and ensure an ongoingregional cross-border supply chain. This will allow more active SME participation, which
will create jobs for those of relatively low income, raise their incomes and elevate theirsocio-economic wellbeing.
In this regard, there is a need to ensure bottom-up SMEs through business-to-business(B2B), business-to-consumer (B2C) and the business-to-government (B2G) processes.
To expand the regional value chain, trade rules need to be harmonized so that parts andcomponents can freely cross borders. For this to happen, standardization, an agreed-uponsanitary and phyto-sanitary measures, a mutual recognition system and a businessfriendly environment for FDI are critical. To broaden growth, quality improvements inlogistic services and the management of seaports and airports in low-income and middleincome economies throughout Asia Pacific are also necessary.
The United States and China especially should work out the bottom line of free trade
rules. Smaller economies should not have to decide which country to align with. And likeminded middle- and low-income countries should pursue plurilateral FTAs to ensureongoing supply chains and minimize negative consequences.
Digitally advanced economies should work out an environment in which people focus onservicing and leveraging AI instead of competing with it. The job market then in the longrun would need human-AI cooperation rather than human-AI competition. Investments
in human capital to upgrade and expand the talent pool are paramount as we prepare for
4IR.
Another major issue related to creating a level-playing field for a liberal trade orderinvolves subsidies to state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and the protection of intellectual
property rights (IPRs).
For inclusive liberal trade, offline and online intra-regional connectivity is crucial andmust be enhanced.
Another serious challenge is that 4IR can be used to erode security and violate privacy. In
this regard, a broad multi-stakeholder alliance is necessary to create a platform for sharing
digital public goods, engaging talents, and pulling datasets in a manner that respects
privacy.
Dr Yose Rizal Damuri, Head of Department of Economics, Centre for Strategic andInternational Studies (CSIS)
Growth of progress as well as adoption of technology is rapid. Adoption is cheaper, whichthen gives rise to a wider application. It is not surprising to see applications of digitaltechnology becoming more prevalent. The application of AI and Internet of Things (IoT)
will change things dramatically. What are the implications to the global economy?
According to a study by McKinsey, it is expected that automation and technology will
replace as many as 400-800 million jobs in 2030. Technology advancement will also
provide new job opportunities and new sources of income, both in the formal and informal
sectors. There will be a greater emphasis on social protection as people will most likely
60change jobs with jobs being more flexible. In turn, social protection may be at risk as
governments experience a decline in capacity to collect revenues as taxation becomes
more difficult to be conducted.
We need to upgrade our infrastructure and connectivity in order to provide competitiveand reliable ICT services. There is a great need to upgrade talents and expand the talentpool. Establishing a strong policy and regulatory framework is crucial in supporting
growth, coupled with harmonization of rules across borders and the flexibility to adapt tochanges.
Dr Josef T Yap, Senior Technical Advisor, ASEP-CELLs Project, Ateneo School ofGovernment
There are developing countries that have yet to complete the second and third industrial
revolution – can they then leapfrog to the 4th IR?
Rising income and wealth inequality within a country remains to be a challenge.
Dissatisfaction among the populace, such as displacement of jobs or the promotion of
exclusive communities, provides a breeding ground for anti-globalization sentiments.
There is a need to promote social cohesion with policies that protect individual workers
and not individual jobs, such as re-skilling, education, mobility and income support.
Coordination needs to be emphasized, rather than cooperation, in acting out a common
strategy in order to achieve shared objectives.
There are also challenges to security and privacy where massive volumes of personal user
data from around the world are being collected legally or illegally.
Assoc Prof Simon SC Tay, Chairman, Singapore Institute of International Affairs (SIIA)
Globalization gives way to protectionism and narrow strident nationalism. We are also
faced with the challenge of making a society more cohesive. To offset these sentiments,
governments will need to do a lot domestically.
We are at a risk of a system, which we grew up in, breaking down. Bullying by great powers
is evident and we are faced with trade rules being determined by political standpoints ofbigger power.
It is crucial to engage both sides of the US-China conflict as much as possible. It is also
necessary to look at each decision on its own terms, by looking at a nation’s own national
interests instead of looking at a decision from the lens of whose side of the conflict it ison. It is not just about responding to great power initiatives, for example the BRI, but also
leveraging on what we already have.
It is not clear if ASEAN centrality and unity will continue if the conflict worsens. It is thetask of non-American and non-Chinese companies to work together and organize
something in order to gain broader economic benefits. Middle power diplomacy throughcollaborations with other sources of funding for infrastructure is encouraged in dealing
with superpower conflicts.
Dr Priyadarshi Dash, Assistant Professor, Research and Information System forDeveloping Countries (RIS), New Delhi
Although the overall macroeconomic parameters appear to be stable in the Asia-Pacificregion, there are a few countries which suffer from high unemployment, high inflation
and relatively lower level of capital formation. The aim should be to ensure fullemployment equilibrium in the regional economies. Prevalence of unemployment and61low investment indicates underutilisation of resources in the economies. We need toensure that everyone has equal share in the growth pie and that the opportunities of thecoming generations are not destroyed. Countries need to choose between conventional
orthodox fiscal and monetary policies that often provide short-term solutions and newparadigms like Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and industry 4.0 that rests in new
digital technologies and investment in human capital. Conservation of the natural habitat
and the environment needs to be accommodated in a holistic development strategy.
Achievement of SDGs requires additional investment which includes infrastructure
investment, such as capital for constructing new infrastructure assets and maintenance ofexisting infrastructure, is needed to promote inclusive liberal trade.
There are 14 countries in the Asia-Pacific region where internet penetration in terms of
3G mobile networks is still below 80 per cent of total population. In view of this untapped
potential, we need to leverage on digital technology and infrastructure in order tostimulate economic corridor development. By providing a mobile network, financial
inclusion can be ensured. India was highlighted as a case in point – several millions of the
population gained access to the formal banking system, which in turn enables animprovement of one’s socio-economic wellbeing. Fintech and IT-enabled services sectors
would unleash huge potential for growth and job creation as digital economy deepens
across different sectors of the economy. Cooperation among Asia-Pacific countries intechnology development, sharing of knowledge and expertise, skilling, etc would address
limits of national capabilities and bring synergy in overall development impact.
Ms Farlina Said, Analyst, Foreign Policy and Security Studies (FPSS), Institute ofStrategic and International Studies (ISIS) Malaysia
We have learned from previous presentations that infrastructure, jobs, equality ofopportunities, developing human resources and different indexes, such as happiness andinclusive growth, will be helpful to prepare nations for disruptions caused by technology.
Ensuring the establishment of an ecosystem of trust, which would enable the growthfacilitated by the 4IR, is necessary. What is an ecosystem of trust?
• Trust and functionality of the system that there will be continuous service by
operators to enable the growth of industries;• Trust in the benevolence of these operators that information would be gathered andwill not be misused;• Trust in the rule of law – where security and rights are in practice and in cases,
defended; and• Safe functions in the social, content, logical and physical layers of cyberspace.
While maintaining the neutrality of the operators is crucial, we must also remain
cognizant of the fact that a nation’s jurisdiction will not apply to other nations. This will
require harmonization of laws and conversations in the international sphere. Ideas on thisvary for how nations can extend protection of these infrastructures – perhaps by designinga data centre in another country with an embassy status because these are technicallyfacilities in other people’s borders.
Data governance is a question most in the room would be familiar with as the balance
between national security and drivers for growth is still being explored. Powerful systems,
such as AI, needs cloud, which means that these systems use computational black boxes
to deliver services.
Conversations on data governance and security are fractured because there are varying
62

definitions in cyberspace – content is regarded as data and the process of purchasing items
is also regarded as data.
Underpinning this is the rule of law by the international community in deciding possible
rules of conduct in cyberspace, but due to the multidimensional nature of cyber,preparations need to be made particularly at the inter-agency, intra-agency andinternationally.
The concern for the identification of an appropriate body would be helpful to ensure thatlaws could be enforced and that a consultation process that is inclusive and informed willtake place between developed and developing nations.
Anti-globalization sentiments can be caused by reasons such as displacement of jobs andthe rise of nationalism or the promotion of exclusive communities. Globalization may also
create communities that are disenfranchised by benefits, be it socially or economically.
What would be needed is outreach and education towards communities that are displacedor feeling displaced.
However, strategic communication by agencies in public diplomacy is a challenge ascomplicated concepts have to be contracted to short headlines and we are faced with thechallenge of articulating certain chains of logic.
Movement of people and urbanization would mean greater contact of people fromdifferent nations. As this continues, communities may not be isolated, but there has to besome type of mechanism to measure inclusivity.
-----END-----

63

７．発表資料
パネルセッション１
Dr. Mignonne Man-Jung Chan, Co-Founder and Chief Sgterategy
Officer, Forum on Humans

64

65

Prof. Gary Hawke, Emeritus Professor, Victoria University of
Wellington
Asia Pacific Forum
Kuala Lumpur 16 October 2019•

what are the components of sustainable and inclusive growth that countries in
the region should focus on in the medium to long yet, and what are thechallenges to achieving them.

•

What are the sources of sustainable growth in the region? Can trade still be thevehicle for equal prosperity?

•

How do we ensure that inclusive growth is achieved by all in the region?

I am glad that this Forum continues to focus on fundamental issues. It would always be apleasure to rejoin longstanding friends in the Japan Economic Foundation and its
networks, and to have an opportunity to see more friends in KL, but it is especially good
to do so in a context such as this Forum.

66

We could have talked about trade wars, retreats from globalisation, the rise of populism,
and so on, but all of those issues are incidental to the fundamental questions posed here.
As a member of NZPECC, and with colleagues from Malaysia PECC, I have been
engaged in proposing what should succeed the Bogor Goals as the vision of APEC. You
will remember that "Free Trade and Investment for the developed economies by 2010
and for the developing members by 2020" or•Trade and investment liberalization•

Trade and investment facilitation•

Economic and technical co-operation

were adopted in APEC in the early 1990s and the Bogor Goals have served as
aspirations since then. It is mostly the mention of specific dates which makes revisionnecessary.
We might also reflect that the mere existence of the two formulations I used shows that
aspirational visions do not need to be complete and entirely agreed. Debates on themeaning of "free" and the question of whether ecotech was to assist all members toachieve liberalization and facilitation or supported a wider field of cooperation weresterile.
APEC will deliberate through 2020 and adoption of a revision of the Bogor a Goals isscheduled for the Leaders' Meeting here in KL towards the end of next year. However,the consultations led by NZPECC and Malaysia PECC among all the regional
stakeholders, officials in a private capacity, business and researchers, reveal a strong
wish to emphasise inclusivity and sustainability.
There will be reservations. The core of "Sustainability" is providing for the long-term
future. It cannot be the preservation of everything as it is, still less how it was, since wewant to sustain an experience of progress. It must however include conservation of what
is highly valued in what we inherit. The real challenge is in accurately predicting what
has yet to be discovered as alternative ways of achieving what we currently achieve byusing non-renewable resources. The deepest challenge is maintaining politicalconsensus that we are striking the right balance between relying on the currently
unknown and denying possible improved living standards.

67

Agreement on subsidies on fossil fuels or on management of fishery resources may seema long way from this abstraction, but the region can benefit from exchanging views andexperiences on all aspects of valuing the future.
Inclusivity generates a different challenge. In the APEC context, the question is theextent to which member economies want to internationalize their social policies. Thereis no one right balance between relying on families to support the aged and choosing
among the many available processes of social security. International migration ensuresthat there will always be tension between countries that make different choices but hey
can be managed. The international policy issue is to minimize the extent to which
implementation of a national policy bears negatively on trading partners. The key tothat is international dialogue and a commitment by governments to facilitate adjustment
and change rather than to protect existing activities.
We hear less about the East Asian Miracle than we did. The world changes and our
problems are no longer those of the 1970s and 1980s when we were preoccupied with"flying geese industrialisation". But we should remember that a key to that success was
not a simplistic idea of Washington consensus, but a common understanding not thatgovernments should not intervene, but that they should assist movement of people tomore productive sectors and should not seek to protect what had been valuable activities
in the past.
The greatest challenge to achieving inclusivity is a misplaced desire to protect what
exists rather than encourage participation in what will be valuable in the future.
In practice, this question is usually related to technology-induced unemployment. My
background is that of an economic historian and I cannot refrain from speculating on
our societies had our predecessors decided that accommodating railways was too big arisk for all those who employment rested on the demand for horses. Until we inventmachines which have the ability to learn and to reproduce themselves (withimprovements) and with a desire to indulge themselves to the exclusion of humans, I
shall remain an optimist on technology.
The sources of sustainable growth in the region are the same as they have always been,
the stocks of useful natural resources inherited from the past, the structures of all kinds
built by human endeavor which continue to contribute to generating valued goods and68services, the human skills and knowledge which make this possible (including
recognising some natural phenomenon as a resource), and above all, the ability togenerate new knowledge. (Note that new knowledge may mean something is recognised
as a natural resource for the first time.) Trade not only can still be the vehicle forprosperity; prosperity depends on the continuation of trade. It is a fairly simple mental
exercise to contemplate our regional societies reduced to relying on subsistence inisolated pockets.
I silently altered the prescribed question then by leaving out "equal". We can see thatmost discussion of equality is simplistic by asking equality of what? Equal lifetime
incomes - even if restricted to those whose life expectancy is not cut short - will vary as
experience, accumulated knowledge, and energy follow different life patterns. (Inaddition, incomes will vary with social customs about childrearing.) Then there arequestions about different degrees of commitment to producing what has social value aswell as all the questions about how well-being relates to measured income. We cancontinue to refine our understanding of well-being, but I anticipate that we willcontinue what has been general experience in modern societies - we will seek equality ofopportunity - social mobility - though this cannot be attained in the absence of equality
since home backgrounds matter - but we will take social action to limit inequality only
when it impinges greatly on opportunities.
Which implies that we will actually seek something less than that "inclusive growth isachieved by all in the region". We will aim for a region where we avoid putting barriersin the way of others and where all have a reasonable opportunity to participate.

69Dr. Wisarn Pupphavesa, Senior Advisorm Thailand Development
Research Insitute (TDRI)

70

71

72

Dr. Vo Tri Thanh, Vietnam National Committee for Pacific
Economic Coperation (VNCPEC)

73

74

パネルセッション２
Dr. Zhong Feiteng, Head and Professor, National Institute of
Iternational Sterategy, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CASS)

75

76

77

78

79

Amb Murray Mclean AO, Chairman, Dunmore Mclean Pty Ltd
Asia-Pacific Forum 2019
Public Symposium on“The Future of the Asia-Pacific Economies Beyond 2020”
Panel comments: Murray McLean – 16 October 2019
Panel Session 2:
Progress of Regional Integration in the Asia-Pacific Region and its Outlook“Guiding questions” addressed generally in these remarks:
1. What is the mid-term and long-term outlook for regional trade amidst tradetensions?
2. Should countries in the region continue pushing for trade liberalisation going
forward beyond 2020
3. Which type of mega-regional trade deals are needed to reinvigorate further tradeliberalisation and facilitation efforts in the long-term
We are facing a pivotal point in world affairs, particularly in our own Asia/Indo/Pacificregion.
We are all familiar with this dynamic and fast-changing world situation, which ischaracterized by trends such as:• shifting strategic power balances,• major trade disruption principally stemming from the US/China trade dispute,• widespread disruption of accepted international institutions and norms,• cross-border threats from terrorism and cyberspace and• rapidly increased use of, and dominance in our economies, of new technologies
such as artificial intelligence, smart cities, social media and e-commerce.
In managing the challenges at this pivotal time and attempting to forecast the medium
to longer-term outlook for regional trade, the first and most important point to note isthat the Asia/Indo/Pacific region remains the most productive source of global
economic growth.
Moreover, the relative strength and resilience of Asia-Pacific economies which we haveexperienced over the past decade, is a trend that has continued in 2019, even if at a
slowing pace. And despite a slowdown this resilience looks certain to continue for someyears to come.
80Economic resilience will be fundamental element in offsetting the extent to which theregion’s economic growth may be adversely affected by global and regional macrodevelopments.
My second point is that economic resilience alone is not enough. The fact that the
US/China trade dispute has already impacted on the regional economy and its tradevolumes and patterns, including changing regional and global supply chains, means it isvery important that regional countries do not sit by passively, or as spectators. Working
together multilaterally and collectively to shape rules, norms and standards for theregion’s trade and investment is critical.
Such collective action needs also to be supplemented by what countries can do
individually, to preserve free and open trade, and to implement domestic reforms thatremove behind-the-border barriers to trade and investment to advance economic healthand growth.
A combination of collective multilateral action and individual action by countries for the
medium and long-term will be an essential ingredient of ensuring continued economic
development and growth.
Since our shared region’s economic strength is so fundamental to global economic
health, there is no more important time than now, for the region to take a leadershiprole, working collectively. This is especially so because long-established and broadlyaccepted multilateral institutions, international norms, rules and practices have beensteadily eroded in the past few years.
So my third point is that it is in our strong mutual interests that we, in our region, do
everything possible to counter that adverse protectionist trend wherever possible andmaintain openness, transparency and fairness in trade regimes.
It is not the subject of this conference, but the unfolding strategic competition between
the United States and China extends well beyond trade and investment and its direct
effect on the US/China bilateral relationship. Suffice to say the most obvious impacts
are that the trade dispute has slowed down global economic growth generally, and thatthe preferential/protectionist measures being adopted are impacting on the tradeperformance of third countries.
In this resort to protectionism which is basically a zero-sum approach, there isdiminishing reliance on all of the positive measures the global multilateral trade agenda
has achieved over past decades. It is critical that the countries of the Asia/Indo/Pacificregion do not simply wring their hands in despair or seek only to survive by navigating81

the cross-currents. It is essential to commit pro-actively and collectively to trying toshape the outcomes most beneficial to the region and to individual countries.
Accordingly, the region’s long-term interests will be best served if the RCEP
negotiations are concluded as soon as possible, in order to demonstrate to a global
audience, the benefits of multilateral liberalization that aims to ensure open and freemarkets and develops new momentum for ongoing reform.
A successful outcome at the planned November summit would demonstrate that thecountries of the Asia/Indo/Pacific are prepared to act in a leadership role in support ofthe ongoing value of the multilateral trading system.
Major regional economies notably China, India and Japan – as well as ASEAN countries
and Australia and New Zealand are now all generally committed to achieving a
successful RCEP outcome at least by year-end.
Looking into the medium to longer term, a successful conclusion of RCEP negotiations
should mean RCEP is well-placed not simply to help remove trade distortions and build
new regulatory arrangements for services, but also to enhance the region’s investment
climate and to set up new regulatory frameworks for international financial movements
and for areas of the new economy. If any or indeed all of this takes place, it will deliver a
powerful message against protectionism.
More broadly, the critical role of ASEAN, beyond RCEP, is for others present today to
speak about. But clearly, ASEAN’s continued central importance to the region’s
economic integration should be noted very positively.
With the realization of RCEP (potentially) and CPTPP, ASEAN is well-placed,consistent with the themes in its most recent “ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific”, towork collectively with other regional countries such as Japan, Australia, India, China andKorea. This for example, can be in the G20 or the WTO or APEC. Working together,regional countries can be standard-setters for new norms, rules and institutions or for
updating or adjusting regulations and institutions to make them more fit for purpose.
WTO is a clear case where action on making it more fit for purpose can be influenced by
the region with ASEAN/RCEP in a leading role. Collective work by regional countries in
the creation of new standards and norms for management of cyber-security, AI, smart
cities and regulation of social media are examples of future important cooperation.

82

Ms. Anita Prakash, Director of Policy Relations, Economic ResearchInstitute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA)

83

84

85

86

パネルセッション３
Dr. Ahn-choong-yong, Distinguished Professor, Graduate School ofInternational Studies, Chung-Ang University
The Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) is growing out of the Third Industrial
Revolution (3IR), namely the digital revolution, but it is considered a new era
rather than a continuation of its predecesor. 4IR is categorized by its
disruptiveness, evasiveness, explosiveness and breakthrough of big data and AI.
There is a need to make a distinction between digitally advanced economies anddigitally backward nations, as what is needed varies by country depending on its
degree of information and communications technology (ICT) development andavailability of digital manpower.
Digitally backward economies need to expedite ICT hardware infrastructure andsoftware development by cultivating digital manpower. These economies alsoneed to benchmark the German experience, as evident in 4IR and the Japaneseexperience of factory automation of small and medium-sized enterprises
87

(SMEs).
Digitally advanced economies face a hegemonic competition for new industries
due to the winner-takes-all nature of connectivity and explosiveness of 4IR. Thisis evident in the ongoing U.S.-China trade war and restrictions in internationaltransactions.
The countries that own big data are likely to own the future. In particular, theeffective fusion of information technology and biotechnology may determine
new industrial competitiveness.
A serious challenge in many countries is how globalization has broadened theunequally shared fruits of trade liberalization and worsened income inequality,
which, in turn, helped populist political leaders establish illiberal politicalregimes across several nations in this region.
Innovation and expansion are needed to promote inclusive growth and ensure an
ongoing regional cross-border supply chain. This will allow more active SME
participation, which will create jobs for those of relatively low income, raise theirincomes and elevate their socio-economic wellbeing.
In this regard, there is a need to ensure bottom-up SMEs through business-tobusiness (B2B), business-to-consumer (B2C) and the business-to-government(B2G) processes. To expand the regional value chain, trade rules need to beharmonized so that parts and components can freely cross borders. For this tohappen, standardization, an agreed-upon sanitary and phyto-sanitary measures,a mutual recognition system and a business-friendly environment for FDI are
critical. To broaden growth, quality improvements in logistic services and the
management of seaports and airports in low-income and middle-income
economies throughout Asia Pacific are also necessary.
The United States and China especially should work out the bottom line of free
trade rules. Smaller economies should not have to decide which country to alignwith. And like-minded middle- and low-income countries should pursue
plurilateral FTAs to ensure ongoing supply chains and minimize negative
consequences.
Digitally advanced economies should work out an environment in which people
focus on servicing and leveraging AI instead of competing with it. The job
market then in the long run would need human-AI cooperation rather than88

human-AI competition. Investments in human capital to upgrade and expand
the talent pool are paramount as we prepare for 4IR.
Another major issue related to creating a level-playing field for a liberal tradeorder involves subsidies to state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and the protection of
intellectual property rights (IPRs).
For inclusive liberal trade, offline and online intra-regional connectivity is crucial
and must be enhanced.
Another serious challenge is that 4IR can be used to erode security and violate
privacy. In this regard, a broad multi-stakeholder alliance is necessary to create aplatform for sharing digital public goods, engaging talents, and pulling datasetsin a manner that respects privacy.

Dr. Yose Rizal Damuri, Head of Department of Economics, Center
for Sterategic and IInternational Studies (CSIS)

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

Dr. Josef T. yap, Senior Technical Advisor, ASEP-CELLs Project,
Ateneo School of Government

98

99

100

101

102

Assoc Prof Simon SC Tay, Chairman, Singapore Institute ofInternational Affairs（SIIA）

Talking Points for JEF Asia-Pacific Forum 2019
The Future of the Asia-Pacific Economies Beyond 2020
Panel Session 3: New Challenges for Achieving Economic Prosperity
Simon Tay
Four major disruptions:(1) geopolitical, in the Sino-American conflict;(2) social cohesion, in the populism and increased potential for tension andunrest within countries;103

(3) technological, in what some call the 4th industrial revolution changing ways
goods and services are conceived, produced and delivered; and(4) climate and sustainability, as we face limits to the use of our resources andexistential and negatives threat in our environment.
Risky scenarios:(1) globalization gives way to protectionism and narrow strident nationalism;(2) efficient and rules-based win-win cooperation gives way to chaotic, beggarthy-neighbor policies and bullying;(3) technological and other advancements like infrastructure are concentrated
and lead to winner-take-all outcomes that sharpen inequalities between
countries and also within each society; and(4) climate concerns and carbon constraints lead to radically different priorities
among countries, companies and peoples without any agreed basis forcooperation and become reasons for conflict.
Priorities for the region:•

Engage both sides in Sino-American conflict•

Develop coherent and consistent frameworks to harness benefits ofdigitization while mitigating costs and risks•

Collective leadership in the region e.g. RCEP as a signal==
Panel Session 3: New Challenges for Achieving Economic Prosperity
New difficulties have arisen in realizing inclusive growth and achieving the
economic prosperity and stability of the AsiaPacific region. One of them is Digital Revolution and the other is political
populism. The Fourth Industrial Revolution and Digital Revolution are taking
place in this region and their negative impact is a matter of particular concern.
Regarding populism, the question is whether political populism causing antiglobalization movement is breaking out in this region.
In coping with these concerns and realizing the socio-economic stability andprosperity of the region, what should we do? In this session, human resource
104development, infrastructure development, both software and hardware, andother relevant issues as their possible solutions are examined.
Guiding questions:⚫ What is needed for countries in the region to participate in the 4th Industrial
revolution?
⚫ How does quality infrastructure fit into the needs of a region in boosting its
supply capacity?
⚫ What can be done to offset the anti-globalization sentiment on the ground?

Dr. Priyadarshi Dash, Assistant Professor Research and Information
System for Developing Countries (RIS)

105

106

107

108

109

９．活動と成果＜活動＞
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年次会合は、２０１４年のシンガポール
開催から当地域での持続的かつ包摂的な経済成長に貢献すべく、①地域統合の推進、実体経済における global value chain の展開を踏まえ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、②ＦＴＡ交渉が各国の持続的成長に資する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・社会・経済面での制約(“behind-the border-measures”)、③とりわけ、第 4 次産業革命-デジタル革命の進展に伴う各国の包摂的成長への課題とそれらの克服といった内容を取り上げてきている。
２０１９年度の開催の当会合は通算１８回目となった。今回においても上記問題意識を継続し、１０月１６日（水）、１７日（木）クアラルンプールおいてマ
レーシアの有力シンクタンクである“戦略国際問題研究所”（Institute of Strategic
and International Studies: ISIS）との共催で開催した。その全体テーマは“The
Future of the Asia-Pacific Economies Beyond 2020-How can the Asia-Pacificregion achieve a better globalization in coping with rising populism and emerging
inequality?”（2020 年以降のアジア太平洋地域の経済‐アジア太平洋地域は台頭するポピュリズムと顕在化する格差問題への対応の中で、如何にしてより良きグローバル化を成し遂げられるか？）で、その下に３つのパネルセッションを設けて、公開シンポジウム（１６日終日）と非公開ラウンドテーブル・ディスカッション（１７日午前）を行った（会場はともに the Westin Hotel Kuala Lumpurの会議場）。
今回の開催地マレーシアは、マハティール首相のリーダーシップの下、第 4 次
産業革命、デジタル革命に対処し、経済・産業を発展させるべく”Industry4WRD”という政策を打ち上げ、製造業や関連サービス産業のデジタル化を推進している。第 4 次産業革命、デジタル革命への対応は当フォーラムの議論で重要な部
分であり、マレーシアはそうしたことを語るのに大変適したところであった。
今回のフォーラム（公開シンポジウム+非公開円卓会議）の参加者は共催機関である ISIS の研究者、並びに ISIS が招へいした研究者の地元勢計５名に加えて、ＪＥＦが招聘した１３の国・地域の１３名（日本、ニュージーランド、豪州、中110

国、韓国、台湾、フィリピン、インドネシア、マレーシア、シンガポール、タイ、
ベトナムおよびインド（ミャンマーは会合の５日前に政府の急用のためキャンセル））、及び東アジア・アセアン経済研究センター（ＥＲＩＡ）1 名を合わせた計１９名の専門家・有識者に、JEF2 名（日下会長、原岡専務理事）を加えた総計２１名であった。日本からは浦田秀次郎早稲田大学大学院アジア太平洋研究科長・教授を招聘した。
全体テーマ：“The Future of the Asia-Pacific Economies Beyond 2020-How can
the Asia-Pacific region achieve a better globalization in coping with rising
populism and emerging inequality? ”（2020 年以降のアジア太平洋地域の経済‐
アジア太平洋地域はポピュリズムの台頭と格差問題の出現の中で如何にして”より良きグローバル化“を成し遂げられるか？）
３つのパネルセッション：
パ ネ ル セ ッ シ ョ ン １ ： Prospects and Issues for the Future Sustainable andInclusive Growth in the Asia-Pacific Region（アジア太平洋地域における今後の持続的かつ包摂的成長の展望と課題）
パネルセッション２：Progress of Regional Integration in the Asia-Pacific Region
and its Outlook（アジア太平洋地域における地域統合の進捗と展望）
パネルセッション３：New Challenges for Achieving Economic Prosperity（経済的な繁栄の達成に向けての新たな挑戦）＜１６日の公開シンポジウムでの主な議論について＞
ISIS 会長の Tan Sri Rastam Mohd Isa、 JEF 日下会長の開会挨拶につづき、マレーシア通商産業省の YB Dr. Ong Kian Ming 副大臣が基調講演を行い、その後各セッションでの発表と討議を行った。その主な論点、興味深い論点についていくつか紹介する。
なお、１７日午前の非公開円卓会議は、ISIS、JEF の関係者および JEF の被招聘者によるものであり、チャタムハウス・ルールのもとで、１６日の議論を発展させる形で行われた。
パ ネ ル セ ッ シ ョ ン １ ： Prospects and Issues for the Future Sustainable andInclusive Growth in the Asia-Pacific Region111我々のアジア太平洋地域は、ASEAN 統合の進展、自由貿易、域内サプライチェーンの発達、などの効果により、これまで力強い成長を遂げ、世界経済の成長のエンジンとなってきている。他方で、保護貿易や米中の摩擦により、負の影響が現れてきた。こうした中で、当地域が持続的かつ包摂的な成長を達成する上での課題について議論した。具体的な問題意識は、①中長期的にかかる成長を達成す
るにはどのような課題があるのか、②持続的成長の源は何か？、貿易はそのツールとなるのか？③包摂的な成長が当地域で可能となるための方策は何か？などである。これらを念頭にプレゼンテーションが行われ、議論がなされた。興味深
い意見は以下の通りである。
・経済成長が持続可能かつ包摂的となる前提は経済成長の実現であり、それには、①独占禁止政策による競争の促進と維持、②人材の開発、③新たなイノベー
ションと技術移転を可能にする適切な環境の提供、④環境の持続可能性を推進する政府の規制と民間の取り組み、⑤機会の平等化を進める構造改革、などが必要である。
・包摂的成長の主な構成要素と目標設定に関しては、①各国が今後の技術変化やその潜在的なメリットとデメリットに対する能力を測定する”preparedness
Index”、②すべての人々に平等な機会を維持し、弱者を守る”happiness index”、③国際的な人材の移動と採用に関する”regional training & employment clearing
house”、が活用できるのではないか。他方で、こうした指標は、目標の達成度を測定するものであるとしても、それを達成するための方法では必ずしもないとの指摘もあった。
・APEC(アジア太平洋経済協力)は現在、「ボゴール目標」の期限である 2020 年を前にして、次のビジョンを検討中。地域のステークホルダーや産業界、研究者を対象とした調査結果では、包摂と持続可能性に重点を置くよう望む声が強い
ことが明らかになった。
・貿易は今後も繁栄をもたらす手段であり、繁栄は貿易の継続に係っている。

パネルセッション２：Progress of Regional Integration in the Asia-Pacific Region
and its Outlook（アジア太平洋地域における地域統合の進捗と展望）
パネル１で記載した当地域を取り巻く環境を背景に、当パネルでの問題意識は
特に、①米中摩擦の真っ只中で地域内の貿易の中長期的な展望はいかがか？②112

当地域諸国は、2020 年以降も貿易自由化を推し進めてくべきか？③当地域での更なる貿易自由化や貿易促進努力を活性化するに必要な地域大の貿易協定とは何か？、など。これらを念頭にプレゼンテーションが行われ、議論がなされた。
興味深い意見は以下の通りである。
・米中貿易摩擦の中で、一部で貿易転換が生じており、その主な受益者はベトナムである。外生的ショックが中国と ASEAN の輸出の増大に影響を与えており、
アジア太平洋地域が現在の摩擦の影響に対処できるのは間違いない。
・「アジア・インド・太平洋地域」と呼ばれる地域が出現しており、同地域は成長を堅持していて、中期的には世界の最も生産的な経済成長の源泉となっている。課題としては、各国の個別的、集団的、多国間的の取り組みを通じて、国内改革を進めつつ、トランプ政権下で侵食された国際的規範の確立を図る必要がある。また、今後の発展を幅広くとらえるべきであり、新たな投資や製造バリューチェーンの移転が進んでいるアフリカでの開発を考えることが必要である。
・FTA や RTA は、貿易関係の確実性や、保護主義への抑止力、能力構築を追求する手段としては有効だが、それ自体が目的ではなく、地域統合を実現するための手段である。そして、それは、必ずしも世界の問題をすべて解決する万能薬ではない。
・地域統合への一帯一路（BRI）の寄与に関しては、BRI はその性質上地域を対象としたもののように見えるが、実際は、取り極めは二国間の枠組みであり、各国の国益と優先課題のみによって決まるので、地域的な取り組みとは見なせない。
パネルセッション３：New Challenges for Achieving Economic Prosperity（経済的な繁栄の達成に向けての新たな挑戦）
当パネルでは、包摂的成長、経済的な繁栄と安定を達成するにとって出現した新たな課題、すなわち、①第 4 次産業革命の AI、IOT、デジタル化と②台頭する
ポピュリズムの影響による反グローバル化の気運の高まり、という環境下において、何をなすべきかが問われた。具体的な問題意識は、①第 4 次産業革命（4IR）に取り残されないようにするには各国は何が必要か？②地域の供給力を高めるというニーズに対して求められる良質なインフラストラクチャーとは何か？③
反グローバル化の気運を弱めるためには何ができるのか？などである。これらを念頭にプレゼンテーションが行われ、議論がなされた。興味深い意見は以下の113

通りである。
・アジア太平洋地域には、３G モバイルネットワークのインターネットの普及率が未だ総人口の８０％を下回っている国が１４ある。このように開発余地があることを考えると、経済回廊の開発促進に向けて、デジタル技術とデジタルイ
ンフラを活用していく必要がある。
・４IR を原動力とする成長を実現するには、“信頼のエコシステム(ecosystem oftrust)”の構築が必要になる。これは、①システムの運用者がサービスを継続するというシステムの信頼性、機能性、②運用者が情報を収集しても悪用しないという運用者の善意に対する信頼、③権利や安全が守られるという法の支配への信頼、そして、④サイバー空間での多面的な安全機能、から成る。
・貿易自由化による成果の分配の不平等がグローバル化で拡大し、所得の不平等が悪化したため地域内のいくつかの国でポピュリスト的指導者による反自由主
義的な政治体制が確立してしまった。
・反グローバル化の感情の原因としては、雇用の流出やナショナリズムの台頭、排他的コミュニティの拡大などがある。グローバル化によって、社会的、経済的に恩恵を失うコミュニティが発生する。必要なのは、疎外された、あるいは疎外されたと感じているコミュニティに対する支援と教育である。また、個別の職業ではなく個々の労働者を保護する政策、例えば、スキルの再学習や教育、移動性、収入支援などによって、社会的結束を促進することである。
・米中の紛争に関しては、可能な限り両方の側に関与することが重要。また、何らかの決定について検討する際は、紛争でいずれの側に立つという視点から見るのではなく、自国の利益に照らして、自国の立場から検討することが必要である。
＜成果＞
上記の１０月１６日公開シンポジウム、１７日の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、以下が挙げられる。
１）公開シンポジウムが共催者 ISIS の尽力で、成功裏に開催されたことである
スピーカー・パネリストとして、JEF2 名、JEF 招聘 14 名、ISIS アレンジ 5
名の計 21 名が活発に討議。聴衆として 85 名（ISIS 集計）が参加し、スピー
カー・パネリストとの活発な質疑応答が行われた。
２）情報提供の観点では、公開シンポジウムは、参加した一般聴衆の満足度が高114

かったことが成果である。満足度アンケート調査（当財団アンケート満足度
４段階方式）を行ったところ、４９名から回答を得た（回収率５８％）。結
果は：総合評価は、聴衆の９０％が最上位の満足、６％が第二位と肯定的な評価が、合計９６％という高い評価を得た。
-参加の事前の期待に対する聴衆の参加後の結果比較を問う「あなたの期待と比較してシンポジウムの質の評価は？」では、最上位の「期待以上に良かった」２３％、第２位の「期待通り良かった」７３％という、高評価であった。
‐シンポジウムで取り上げたテーマについて、時宜にあったものか否かを尋ねたところ、８１％が最上位の「同意する」、１７％が第２位「やや同意する」となっており、テーマ設定もよかったことが分かる。
-また、上記アンケートで、「シンポジウムでの議論があなたの業務・研究に役立ったか？」の問いを設けたところ、回答者４５名中最上位「役立った」
７６％、第２位「まあ役立った」２０％と、ほぼ全員がポジティブな回答であった。
-以上のとおり、シンポジウム全体に対する満足度が高く、期待にそった高いレベルでの議論、そして役立つ内容であったことなど、クアラルンプールの聴衆からシンポジウムに対して高い評価をいただいたことは当事業の成功を示している。
3) アジア太平洋地域での当事業の波及効果という観点では、ＪＥＦは、今回のアジア太平洋フォーラム（公開シンポジウム＋非公開ラウンドテーブル・ディスカッション）にＡＳＥＡＮ６か国（フィリピン、インドネシア、マレー
シア、シンガポール、タイ、ベトナム）、日本を含むアジア大洋州７か国・地域（日本、ニュージーランド、豪州、中国、韓国、台湾、インド）から 7
名、そして在ジャカルタの国際研究機関ＥＲＩＡ（東アジア・アセアン経済研究センター）から 1 名の合計１４名の専門家を招聘した（常連のミャンマ
ーは、Renaissance Institute の U Soe Win 氏に代わって同氏から推薦を受けた Myanmar Development Institute の Dr. Khin Maung Nyunt が参加することになっていたが、1 週間前になって、政府の緊急な会議に招集されたた
め、参加取りやめとなった）。招聘対象の専門家は過去５年間で定着してきており、議論も充実して来ている。これら専門家が本国での活動にシンポジ
ウムの結果を活用することが期待できる。
-更に、当財団にとっては、これらの人的ネットワークは次回以降の共催機関
115

を決める際に大変有効であり、また当財団発行の英文誌 JapanSPOTLIGHT への寄稿にも活用できている。
4) ＪＥＦが招聘したスピーカーおよび ISIS からのスピーカーからの評価が高
いことも成果である。2 日間を通しての満足度のアンケート調査（当財団アンケート満足度４段階方式）を行ったところ、回答者１６名中全員が最上位「満足」の回答であった。また、「期待と比べて成果は？」の問いには、最上位の「期待以上に高かった」４名、第２位の「期待通り高かった」１２名と全員からポジティブな回答を得、参加者に高く評価いただけた。
-また、「当フォーラムでの議論が貴国政府の政策形成にどの程度役立つか？
問いには、最上位の「役立つ」１３名、第２位「まあまあ役立つ」３名と、全員から政策形成に役立つとの良い評価をいただいた。
なお、当財団の会議の準備、運営については、１６名から最上位の満足との評価をいただいた。
5) 今後のシンポジウム運営上の検討事項としては、公開シンポを今回のように昼食を提供しての１日のイベントとするのか、従来の午後１時開始にした半日イベントとするのかである。今回は現地共催者 ISIS から、クアラルンプー
ルでは①昼の時間は多くのイスラム教徒が礼拝を行うので、１時にシンポを開始するには集客が困難、②昼食とお祈りの場所はホテルで提供でき、経験上
昼食付終日イベントとなっても、午後の参加者はさほどは減らない、また、③
昼食提供でも予算が極端に増えない、との説明があり、今回はその意見に従ったフォーマットとなった。これに関して、被招聘者の中には、これまでの午後だけで公開シンポジウムを消化するプログラムにくらべて、今回は時間的ゆとりができたと評価する声も聴かれた。次回２０２０年１２月の New ZealandInstitute of International Affairs と共催に際しても、現地側の意向を確認することにしたい。
６）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。

以上

116

１０．アンケート集計報告
シンポジウム参加者 85 名中、49 名より回答を得た。(回答率約 58%)
フォーラムの総合評価

評価

人数

満足

43

やや満足

3

やや不満

2

不満

0

2 やや不満 (4%)

3 やや満足(6%)

43 満足…

（回答

48名中 ）

あなたの期待と比較して議論の質の評価は？
2 やや期待に反した

評価

人数

期待以上

11

概ね期待
どおり
やや期待に
反した
期待以下

(4%)

11 期待以上
35

23%

2

35 概ね期待どおり…

0

（回答

117

48名中 ）

シンポジウムで取り上げたテーマは時宜にあったものか？

評価

人数

同意する

37

やや同意
する
あまり同意
しない
同意しない

1 やや期待に反した (2%)

8 やや同意する
8

(17%)

1
0

37 同意する(81%)

セッションごとの評価

Satisfactory

Somewhat satisfactory

Somewhat unsatisfactory

Unsatisfactory46

Keynote Address

3(49 respondatns)

Panel Session 1

33

12

21

31

15

2

(48 respondatns)

Panel Session 2(48 respondents)

34

Panel Session 3

61(41 respondents)

0%

20%

40%
118

60%

80%

100%

シンポジウムでの議論があなたの業務・研究に役立ったか？

評価

人数

役立った

34

まあ役立った9あまり役立たなかった
役立たない

1 あまり役立たな

1 役立たない (2%)

かった(2%)

9 まあ役に立った
(20%)

1
1

34 役に立った
(76%)

(回答

45名中)

職業について1 メディア
(2%)
5 その他
(10%)

7 政府関係者(14%)

1 学生(2%）

7
6
5
4
3
2
1

17 研究者(36%)

職業は？
(85名中、49名回答)

9 大学関係者(18%)

１１．共催団体紹介
1199 ビジネスパーソン(18%)

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 suchas providing information about Japan and arranging venues for theexchange of ideas among opinion leaders from many countries insuch fields as industry, government, academia and politics in order tobuild bridges for international communication and to break down the barriers that makemutual understanding difficult.
https://www.jef.or.jp/

Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) Malaysia
ISIS Malaysia was established on 8 April 1983 as an autonomous, notfor-profit research organization. ISIS Malaysia has a diverse research
focus which includes economics, foreign policy, security studies,
nation-building,socialpolicy,technology,

innovation

andenvironmental studies. It also undertakes research collaboration withnational and international organizations in important areas such as
national development and international affairs.
ISIS Malaysia engages actively in Track Two diplomacy and promotes the exchange ofviews and opinions at both the national and international levels. The Institute has also
played a role in fostering closer regional integration and international cooperation
through forums such as the Asia-Pacific Roundtable, the ASEAN Institutes of Strategic
and International Studies (ASEAN-ISIS), the Pacific Economic Cooperation Council(PECC) and the Network of East Asian Think-Tanks (NEAT). ISIS is a founding memberof the Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia-Pacific (CSCAP) and manages theCouncil’s Secretariat.
As Malaysia’s premier think-tank, ISIS has been at the forefront of some of the mostsignificant nation-building initiatives in the nation’s history. It was a contributor to the
Vision 2020 concept and was consultant to the Knowledge-Based Economy Master Plan
initiative.

120

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 3-7-3
銀座オーミビル 5 階
ＴＥＬ： 03-6263-2517
ＦＡＸ： 03-6263-2513
担 当： 業務部長 土屋
隆
業務部
井上 真弓
木村 晶子
［業務運営委託先］
JTB コミュニケーションデザイン
住 所： 〒105-8335 東京都港区芝３－２３－１
セレスティン芝三井ビルディング
ＴＥＬ： 03-5657-0605
ＦＡＸ： 03-5657-0634
担 当： ミーティング&コンベンション事業部
コーポレート営業 1 局営業 1 課マネージャー
ミーティング&コンベンション事業部
コーポレート営業 1 局営業 1 課

土屋ゆり
小山亜希子

（マレーシア側）
マレーシア戦略国際問題研究所（Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) Malaysia）
住 所：No. 1, Persiaran Sultan Salahuddin, PO Box 12424, 50778
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
ＴＥＬ：+603 2693 9366
担当：Tengku Sheila, Director Public Affairs and Conference Services ISIS Malaysia
Nur ATIKAH Ishak, Conference Manager Public Affairs & Conference Services
Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS)

121