|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
140688
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In this article, I show how Prime Minister Abe Shinzo has promoted two major national and international economic policies—Abenomics and Japan’s involvement in the Trans-Pacific Partnership— by focusing on his administration’s domestic political struggles. Both agendas become significant in the face of China’s regional engagement, demonstrating the inextricable ties between international affairs and domestic politics, a combination essential for grasping the “Abe effect” in foreign policy. KEYWORDS: Abenomics, TPP, decisionmaking process, agricultural reform in Japan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
079391
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
London, Routledge, 2007.
|
| Description |
5vol. (xxxviii, xi, xi, xi, xi, 318p., 332p., 355p., 464p.,376p.)
|
| Contents |
vol. 1 APEC: its origins
vol. 2 APEC: Economic and Political Rationale
vol. 3 APEC: Foundations and Evolution
vol. 4 APEC and East Asian Arrangements
vol. 5 APEC: Its Record and Achievements
|
| Standard Number |
0415310989
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:5/I:0,R:5,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 052595 | 337.15/DRY 052595 | Main | On Shelf | Reference books | |
| 052596 | 337.15/DRY 052596 | Main | On Shelf | Reference books | |
| 052597 | 337.15/DRY 052597 | Main | On Shelf | Reference books | |
| 052598 | 337.15/DRY 052598 | Main | On Shelf | Reference books | |
| 052599 | 337.15/DRY 052599 | Main | On Shelf | Reference books | |
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
071554
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
168514
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Based on the neoclassical realism approach, this article aims to clarify factors conducive to Japan’s different roles in both participating in the trans-pacific partnership (TPP) and concluding the TPP-11 by focusing on how the US’s distinctive attitudes towards the TPP under the Obama and Trump administrations influenced Japan’s changing approaches. During the Obama administration, which needed Japan’s participation to expand the TPP in the face of China’s growing global and regional economic influence, Japan incorporated the TPP into its growth strategy and committed itself to sustaining US leadership during TPP negotiations by making necessary concessions on both the international and domestic fronts. By contrast, the Trump administration, with its strong propensity for bilateral deals to counter China’s bid for global economic hegemony with the TPP withdrawal urged Japan to change its reactive stance and take a proactive role in TPP-11 negotiations. This article opens a ‘black box’ of the political system under the second administration of Shinzo Abe, and demonstrates the strengthened function of the Prime Minister’s Office and Cabinet Secretariat or Kantei within the centralised trade policy-making apparatus as key mechanisms contributing to a departure from the traditional features that occasionally hampered Japan’s foreign economic policy initiatives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
094446
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The move towards ASEAN+6 began in earnest with a speech by Junichiro Koizumi in 2002, when the former prime minister called for Australia and New Zealand to be included as 'core members' in the process towards creating a community in East Asia, along with the 10 members of ASEAN and China, Korea and Japan. With the inauguration of the East Asian Summit in 2005, a tangle of regional institutions competes for attention and resources, and as long as the 16-nation ASEAN+6 framework continues to coexist with the 13-nation ASEAN+3 framework in East Asia, the argument as to which is the more effective framework for regional cooperation continues to linger. Why is Japan so interested in promoting ASEAN+6 as an 'expanded' East Asian regional concept, despite the existence of ASEAN+3?
This article has considered how changes in the US-led structure have influenced Japan as the agent in which regional integration within the ASEAN+6 framework was generated, by focusing on the process by which consideration of a countermeasure to the rise of China led Japan's Ministries - such as Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry - to propose and advocate the East Asian Summit and the Comprehensive Economic Partnership in East Asia, respectively, in lines with prime ministers' policy stances. The regional structure in which China's challenging behaviour was more directly relevant, can be considered to have exerted a strong influence on the Japanese state as an agent where two rival ministries shared the concern and commonly promoted ASEAN+6 framework despite the lack of strong inter-ministerial communication. This article finally examines the more recent changes in the structure, highlighted by the US initiative in the promotion of the Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific and the re-emergence of ASEAN+3 triggered by China's aggressive regional financial initiatives, and asserts these events have dimmed the prospects for ASEAN+6, since these changes meant the transformation of the preconditions behind the birth of ASEAN+6 in Japan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
086392
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The proposal of FTAAP by the United States and its announcement of its intention to participate in TPP can be interpreted as an expression of its desire to restore APEC to its role as a central regional economic institution. If these schemes materialized, this development would also represent a victory on the part of the United States, with the introduction of discriminatory and legally binding mechanism as APEC's norms, given that it was the United States that intensified efforts to create this norm for regional integration within the APEC process over the decades.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
075058
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2006.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article reviews the development of the Australia-Japan partnership in building regional institutions such as the Pacific Economic Cooperation Council and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation over the last three decades since the NARA Treaty was signed in 1976. In a unique partnership, academics, business people, politicians and officials in both countries were central to establishing these regional economic institutions. This article, however, argues that while both countries had shared understandings on regional issues during the first two decades after the treaty, the last decade has seen divergent regional understandings, especially over the rise of China. Japan sees the growing influence of China as a political obstacle due to growing bilateral tensions arising from historical and territorial issues, while Australia finds it a great economic opportunity to promote its trade with and attract investments from China. This differing understanding on China between both countries may act as a major hurdle to the effective and functional partnership in East Asian regionalism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
120717
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Abstract From a perspective of change in the institution's function, the history of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) can be divided into four periods: 1989-1995, 1996-2001, 2001-2006, and 2007-present. APEC's activities in each of these periods have been organized around major themes: respectively, the establishment of guidelines for liberalization; the implementation of liberalization measures; security issues such as counter-terrorism; and the establishment of a free trade area. American political will can be seen as a major driving force behind these changes in APEC's agenda-setting. However, norm setting during the first and second periods encountered objections from China and Japan, respectively. During the third period, the Bush administration's interest in combating terrorism through APEC was not supported by Asian members, who emphasized APEC's primary role as a framework for economic cooperation, instead placed higher priorities on East Asian regionalism that excluded the US. In light of this shift, in the fourth period, the US once again urged that APEC should be used as a framework for liberalization and pushed for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). This period saw the discriminatory, legally-binding and reciprocity-based norms for trade liberalization take root in APEC, resulting largely from the American coalition-building approach through the promotion of the TPP as an existing integration framework. This has helped to create a critical mass while competition with China over regional trade policies becomes more intense, demonstrating the case where the US successfully set its own preferred agenda and norm together for the first time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|