Production networks in the Asia-Pacific region : facts and policy implications

Production networks have been extensively developed in the Asia-Pacific region. This paper employs two micro-level approaches, case studies and econometric analysis, using JETRO's firm surveys which investigate Japanese affiliates operating in Southeast Asia. These two approaches found that production networks have extended, involving suppliers, across various nations in the Asia-Pacific region, and that production bases in host and home countries have different roles. A home country serves as a headquarters with services such as R&D, international marketing, and financing. A high tariff policy in a host country may foster domestic industries through the expansion of procurement from domestic suppliers, either indigenous or foreign, but it may discourage a country from becoming an export platform.

Production fragmentation, upstreamness, and value-added : evidence from factory Asia 1990-2005

We exploit the recent release of the 2005 Asian Input-Output Matrix to dress a picture of the geographic fragmentation of value added in Factory Asia from 1990 to 2005. We document 3 stylized facts. The first is that the average share of foreign value added embedded in production rose by about 7 percentage points between 1990 and 2005, from 9% to 16%. The second is that, contrary to popular belief, China's production embeds a smaller share of foreign value added than other Factory Asia countries'. Between 1990 and 2005 among Factory Asia countries China grew most after Japan as a source of value added to other countries' production. Third, country-industries at the upstream and downstream extremities of the supply chain embed a smaller share of foreign value added than those with intermediate levels of upstreamness.

Why EU promotion is at odds with successful crisis management: public relations, news coverage, and the Aceh Monitoring Mission. EU Centre in Singapore Working Paper No. 10, September 2012

The EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and its accompanying Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) missions can be tools used to increase the international profile of the European Union. Nevertheless, CSDP missions garner little news coverage. This article argues that the very nature of the missions themselves makes them poor vehicles for EU promotion for political, institutional, and logistical reasons. By definition, they are conducted in the middle of crises, making news coverage politically sensitive. The very act of reporting could undermine the mission. Institutionally, all CSDP missions are intergovernmental, making press statements slow, overly bureaucratic, and of little interest to journalists. Logistically, the missions are often located in remote, undeveloped parts of the world, making it difficult and expensive for European and international journalists to cover. Moreover, these regions in crisis seldom have a thriving, local free press. Using the Aceh Monitoring Mission (AMM) as a case study, the author concludes that although a mission may do good, CSDP missions cannot fulfil the political function of raising the profile of the EU.

The International Conference Education and Creativity for a Knowledge–based Society – Social and Political Scinces, Communication, Foreign Languages and Public Relations. Vienna, Osterreichish Rumanischer Akademischer Verein, 2012. VIth edition

No abstract.

Obama 2: future implications for EU-US relations. Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series Vol. 12, No. 8, November 2012

Introduction. The week following his reelection, President Obama traveled to Asia – Thailand, Myanmar, and Cambodia –, while facing at home a fiscal cliff, the need to select the next Secretaries of State, Defense, and Treasury, and the resignation of one of America’s most senior and respected generals and Director of the CIA, David Petraeus; all this at the moment wherein the Middle East is burning in flames due to another round of violence between Israel and Hamas. On the other side of the pond, the EU is currently trying to solve or at least contain several crises: the Eurozone, agreeing on the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020, or MFF 2014-2020,2 and saving France.3 For both giants, the American and European priorities are domestic; they both need to do some ‘nation-building at home.’4 The threat of the fiscal cliff in the US and the one of the Eurocrisis in Europe are too important to be ignored and so visceral that they will affect the way both actors behave internationally and interact with one another. The big question since Obama’s reelection has been what will the EU-US relations look like under his second mandate? And will there be any differences from the first one?5 This paper argues that the US-EU relations will remain quite similar as it was under the first Obama presidency. Nevertheless, with the current shift to Asia, the ‘pivot,’ the EU will be required to increase its contributions to global politics and international security. This paper is structured in three parts. First, the economic and political climax of the EU and the US will be presented. In a second a part, the EU and US strategies and foreign policies will be laid out. Last but not least, several core issues facing the Euro-Atlantic community, such as the Asia pivot, Iran, climate change, and the economy will be addressed. Other issues such as Syria, Afghanistan, and the Middle East and North Africa will not be addressed in this paper.6