For the ASEAN community as a whole to benefit from technology, economics should not be the sole determining driver.
Financial crises, rapid technological advances, shifting competitive advantages, and the pandemic are straining emerging Asian economies.
A rethinking of development strategy and planning beyond the traditional economic- and city-centric world is essential, especially in the Global South.
Europe might have done better to conduct a more informal, consultative approach involving all stakeholders instead of a unilateral ban on palm oil imports.
As Covid-19 grips the world, the Filipino workforce looks increasingly vulnerable, despite strong growth in recent years.
Vietnam will have to improve in a number of areas – including sustainability and infrastructure – to maintain any kind of post-pandemic economic momentum.
The country’s deeply rooted corruption and fragile political institutions should be a source of continuing concern to the international community.
Central Asia has become an important arena of collaboration for Russia and China, with Moscow focusing on the region's security and Beijing promoting trade and commerce
China recognizes that poor governance and lack of transparency of Belt and Road Initiative projects could undermine its strategic interests in Southeast Asia. While Beijing will continue to build economic cooperation networks in the region, China’s interests could collide with those of other major powers, leading to geopolitical storms, which ASEAN member states will have to weather, argues Xue Gong of the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS) at Nanyang Technological University (NTU) in Singapore.
China’s Belt and Road Initiative has been heralded as both the largest cooperative infrastructure programme in global history and an attempt by Beijing to achieve world domination. In reality, the opportunities and risks are more nuanced, writes George Abonyi, Senior Research Fellow and Visiting Professor, at the Sasin School of Management of Chulalongkorn University in Thailand.
Instead of lamenting China’s increasing global influence arising from its Belt and Road Initiative, European countries, especially Germany, should develop their own infrastructure program for emerging Asia-Pacific economies, Heribert Dieter, Associate Professor at Potsdam University and Senior Fellow at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs in Berlin, proposes.
This month, G20 leaders will endorse guiding principles for “quality infrastructure investment”, a priority for Japan. China’s support of these principles signals a willingness to address criticism of its Belt and Road Initiative. China and Japan, rivals in delivering high-speed rail, appear open to collaborating on projects that would meet high sustainability standards, writes Motoko Aizawa, President of the Observatory for Sustainable Infrastructure, who for 12 years headed the Policy and Standards Unit in the Environmental and Social Department of the International Finance Corporation (IFC).
The resounding election triumph of the ruling BJP gives Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi a strong second mandate and a fresh opportunity to make his ambitious dreams for India a reality, says Hong Kong-based strategic adviser and entrepreneur Alan Rosling, the author of "Boom Country?: The New Wave of Indian Enterprise".
The Pan-Asia Railway, meant to stretch from Kunming to Singapore, is seen by China as one of the crown jewels of its Belt and Road Initiative. While the project has seen early success in Laos, stronger Southeast Asian countries are pushing back against Beijing’s plans.
On February 1, 2018, AsiaGlobal Online invited Dr Lucas Chancel and Dr Li Yang from the Paris School of Economics to present and discuss trends in global income inequality, on the basis of the "World Inequality Report 2018." The report was co-written with Thomas Piketty and draws on the work of more than 100 researchers around the world, with Chancel as a lead coordinator. Below are videos of the presentations and brief summaries of the key takeaways.
China and Russia followed two distinct approaches to reform, leading to drastically different trajectories of economic growth. While both countries have experienced rising inequality over the last 30 years, Russia’s income distribution has worsened at a faster pace and in a bigger magnitude. What caused the difference in income distribution dynamics between the two? There are important lessons to be learned on the impact of policy decisions on inequality.