Economics

亚洲博弈非零和

Apr 23, 2015 Jeffrey Frankel

美国剑桥—两个贵妇彼此为敌。她们都激烈地捍卫自己的社会地位——甚至以不再邀请作为对出席另一位女主人的派对的客人的威胁。

中国和美国看待亚太关系就是如此：零和博弈。各国要在中国的亚洲基础设施投资银行（亚投行）还是美国的跨太平洋合作伙伴关系（TPP）上签字？中国说服国际货币基金组织（IMF）将人民币纳入其账户单位——特别提款权（SDR）的尝试会获得欢迎，还是被耻辱性地拒绝？美国还是世界最大经济体地位吗？2014年中国到底有没有超过它？

关注这些问题很有诱惑力，但这些都是思考全球经济的错误思路。没有理由认为某些国家不应该同时加入中国的亚投行和美国的TPP，也没有理由认为成员资格的重合现象不应该随时间的推移而扩大——或者说，事实上，没有理由认为女主人应该永不参加彼此的派对。

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Secure your copy of PS Quarterly: The Year Ahead 2023

Our annual fourth-quarter magazine is here, and available only to Digital Plus and Premium subscribers. Subscribe to Digital Plus today, and save $15.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 10 Comments on this article

hari naidu Apr 29, 2015

Jeffery has an academic reputation which can hardly be challenged. What this piece reflects is the political log-jam in Congress on IMF reforms - GOP is not going to change status quo.
So what's the alternative? G20 was always an alternative; but because of domestic politics US has unwittingly allowed it to die a slow burn; meanwhile mainland China has taken the path of challenging Bretton Woods setup by US. US is now fighting AIIW and demanding Japan not to join. China has invited Abe to join - which he finally might.
Failure of strengthening G20 governance and promised IMF reforms have become hostage to domestic politics.
WTO is also withering principally because globalization was not properly considered - it was pushed by Clinton Treasury - during Gatt/Uruguay Round of Trade Negotiations.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jeffrey Frankel Apr 28, 2015

To Amy Studdart:
To be honest, I trust the IMF more than I trust the Congress. Maybe that's just me.
JF
- Amy Studdart May 1, 2015
  
  I do too, but while I agree that IMF reform needs to get passed, I would add that the administration (and the IMF) needs to do more to persuade Congress that while their concerns are valid, voting the reforms through is the best option for now. The line I take issue with is where you reduce the concerns on the hill to being simply about not wanting to work with the president. That might be true in a lot of policy areas, this isn't one of them. At the moment, the problem is that there are a bunch of legitimate concerns and questions that aren't being addressed, in part because the administration hasn't prioritized IMF reform and isn't investing the time or the political capital in that discussion/could-be fight.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Amy Studdart Apr 26, 2015

why not just go with "host"?
- Jeffrey Frankel Apr 28, 2015
  
  Amy Studdart:
  Why didn't I just say "host" instead of "hostess," you mean? I considered it. But I had in mind various books and plays about late-19th-century high-society life, and "host" did not seem to carry the right connotations as well as "hostess." I am sorry if the language sounds sexist.
  JF
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Amy Studdart Apr 26, 2015

This is only half true. While I'm a big supporter of both this president and IMF reform, Congress has big questions about both the IMF and the reform package, with many thinking it doesn't go far enough. The two big problems are 1) the package isn't actually cost neutral, and 2) the package will cede Congress's oversight of how US taxpayer money is spent within the IMF, and Congress has serious questions about whether the IMF can be trusted. What is needed is an open and honest conversation that says the IMF is an imperfect beast, but its the only beast we have, and if we're to keep US leadership in the global economic order, this has to be step 1.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Apr 23, 2015

Does Jeffrey Frankel see the hegemonial struggle between China and the US, vying for influence by means of their pet projects - China’s Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), or for America’s Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) - as "Asian games"? If they were "games", they would also be zero-sum games, because it's all bout winning and taking home the trophy!
What the two countries need to do is some serious horse-trading. In this respect, the Chinese may be more adept than their counterparts, who still dwell in a fantasy world of cowboys and Indians! Our planet has over 7 billion inhabitants. The US is increasingly unable - financially and politically - to lead and police the entire universe. There's a trend of the Americans turning inward, who believe their country should focus on its domestic issues, taking care of its own people and renewing the infrastructure.
What agonises China is that the monetary policies of two of the US-led supranational institutions - the World Bank and the IMF - are - much like the US Congress - are obsolete, without taking the reality into account. Instead of being an incompetent sheriff, because he has to grapple with a myriad of tasks, he should empower the local police and delegate some of his responsibilities to these officers.
Asia is a huge continent. Despite of its pivot to this part of the world, the US would hardly regain its supremacy that it enjoyed in the 1960s and 1970s. With India and and Japan, Washington's allies in the region as potential counterweights to Beijing, China's expansion may be limited. Yet the US sees China's growing influence in Asia as a threat to regional stability, not least because of the territorial disputes that emboril in the East and South China Seas. It's still not clear, whether China would try to claim the disputed territories. China wouldn't want to be compared to a revisionist Russia. Meanwhile Asia has an enormous appetite for infrastructural construction. The existing institutions are unable to meet the real needs across the continent. Perhaps the IMF and the World Bank should work together with AIIB and let it carry part of their burden.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
jagjeet sinha Apr 23, 2015

The Professor deserves full marks for articulating the tone that ought to reflect the win-win attitude protagonists must bring to the Top Table. The World Economic Olympics should be no different from the Sports version - if humanity is to find a peaceful path towards world governance. The daring of DeGaulle in demolishing the Dollar Standard of 1945 -1970, led to the creation of The Euro as the alternative World Currency. Not very different when the Dollar itself had dethroned Sterling. The advent of the Renminbi has many examples to learn from. As should the advent of the Rouble and the Rupee one day. But kudos to the Professor for hitting the nail on the head - the score keeping must not be jingoism unlimited.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Petey Bee Apr 23, 2015

Great sticky, although the TPP is somewhat special in that it imposes a complicated and risky set of obligations on signatory governments, which will empower large foreign businesses.

It's not clear why either US or Chinese or Japanese businesses would want to increase the regulatory risk they face by disempowering their home governments that they have a good working relationship with.
- Petey Bee Apr 23, 2015
  
  Great *article*. Typed this from a "smart" device, apologies. Welcome to the internet of things that like to alter your words!
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/jsoecCGzh

亚洲博弈非零和

Secure your copy of PS Quarterly: The Year Ahead 2023

New Comment

Contact us

Log in/Register

亚洲博弈非零和

Secure your copy of PS Quarterly: The Year Ahead 2023

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification