Skip to main content

Economic Development and Evolution of Geo-economic Pattern of the “Indo-Pacific” Region

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Annual Report on the Development of the Indian Ocean Region (2018)

Abstract

This paper mainly discusses three issues from the perspective of geo-economics: First, discuss the two arguments of “the transfer of world economic centers” and the “counterbalancing China’s increasing geo-presence” through comparing the economic development dynamics of “Indo-Pacific” and “Asia-Pacific” and analyzing the economic interaction between the two regions; second, provide evidences that containing China with “Indo-Pacific” strategy may impede regional economic development by analyzing the periodic changes of the “Indo-Pacific” geo-economic pattern and comparing the influence and contribution of “Indo-Pacific” strategic partners (the U.S., Japan, Australia and India) and their balancing object (China); third, put forward some thoughts on strengthening the geo-economic cooperation in the “Indo-Pacific” region by comparing the economic inputs of China, the U.S., Japan, Australia and India in the “Indo-Pacific” region and analyzing their different attitudes towards the “Indo-Pacific” strategy. The main conclusions are that: first, despite no obvious transfer trend of the world economic center, the increased dependence of the “Asia-Pacific” region on the “Indo-Pacific” region enhances the geo-economic importance of the latter; second, the origin of the “Indo-Pacific” concept is resulted from not only the geo-economics itself but also the realistic or perceived threat on the U.S., Japan, Australia and India caused by China’s development model successfully driven by the geo-economics; third, as China has surpassed and become the leading force and defender in the regional economic cooperation years ago, the U.S., Japan, Australia and India are the challengers to the current order of the geo-economic pattern; fourth, the “Indo-Pacific” region is more important to the geo-economics of China, Japan, Australia and India than that to the U.S.; fifth, if the “Indo-Pacific” strategy attempts to contain China, it will inevitably lead to the tearing of geopolitics and geo-economics, and then damage the economic growth and integration of the region; sixth, China shall pay attention to the strategic direction of the “Indo-Pacific” strategy, seek the converging points of common interests with other countries, and dissolve the adverse factors. Meanwhile, efforts shall also be made to continuously drive a more open and inclusive geo-economic cooperation model.

Yanfang Li, Ph.D., associate professor, Research Institute for Indian Ocean Economies, Yunnan University of Finance and Economics. Her main research field is south Asia Economy.

Note: To avoid confusion, we regard “Asia-Pacific” and “India-Pacific” as region and regard ASEAN, South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, Gulf Cooperation Council and Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa as area.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Abe (2007).

  2. 2.

    Shinzo A. Asia’s Democratic Security Diamond [EB/OL]. Project-Syndicate, 2018-03-15, https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/a-strategic-alliance-for-japan-and-india-by-shinzo-abe.

  3. 3.

    Department of Defence of Australia Government, Defence White Paper 2009, http://www.defence.gov.au/whitepaper/2009/docs/defence_white_paper_2009.pdf.

  4. 4.

    Hillary Clinton, “America’s Pacific Century”, Foreign Policy, November 2011, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/10/11/americas_pacific_century?page=full.

  5. 5.

    Opening Statement by Prime Minister at Plenary Session of India-ASEAN Commemorative Summit, [EB/OL] 2012-12-20, http://www.mea.gov.in/Speeches-Statements.htm?dtl/20981/opening+statement+by+prime+minister+at+plenary+session+of+indiaasean+commemorative+summit.

  6. 6.

    Australian Government Department of Defence, Defence White Paper 2013, http://www.defence.gov.au/whitepaper/2013/docs/WP_2013_web.pdf.

  7. 7.

    2017 Foreign Policy White Paper, https://www.fpwhitepaper.gov.au/foreign-policy-white-paper.

  8. 8.

    Shinzo Abe, Japan Is Back (policy speech at Center for Strategic and International Studies) [EB/OL]. 2013-02-23, https://www.kantei.go.jp/cn/96_abe/statement/201302/23speech.html.

  9. 9.

    Shinzo Abe, speech at the opening ceremony of the 6th Tokyo International Conference on African Development (ITCAD VI), [EB/OL]. 2016-08-27, https://www.kantei.go.jp/cn/97_abe/statement/201608/1218963_11159.html.

  10. 10.

    Shinzo Abe, Policy Speech by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to the 196th Session of the Diet [EB/OL]. 2018-01-22, https://www.kantei.go.jp/cn/98_abe/statement/201801/20180122siseihousin.html.

  11. 11.

    Manish Chand, Act East: India’s ASEAN Journey, [EB/OL]. 2014-12-10, http://www.mea.gov.in/in-focus-article.htm?24216/act+east+indias+asean+journey.

  12. 12.

    Ensuring Secure Seas: Indian Maritime Security Strategy, https://www.indiannavy.nic.in/sites/default/files/Indian_Maritime_Security_Strategy_Document_25Jan16.pdf.

  13. 13.

    Joint Statement on India and Japan Vision 2025: Special Strategic and Global Partnership Working Together for Peace and Prosperity of the Indo-Pacific Region and the World, [EB/OL]. 2015-12-12, http://www.mea.gov.in/bilateral-documents.htm?dtl/26176/joint+statement+on+india+and+japan+vision+2025+special+strategic+and+global+partnership+working+together+for+peace+and+prosperity+of+the+indopacific+region+and+the+worlddecember+12+2015.

  14. 14.

    Joint Statement-United States and India: Prosperity through Partnership, [EB/OL]. 2017-06-27, http://www.mea.gov.in/bilateral-documents.htm?dtl/28560/joint+statement++united+states+and+india+prosperity+through+partnership.

  15. 15.

    India-Australia-Japan-U.S. Consultations on Indo-Pacific, [EB/OL]. 2017-12-12, http://www.mea.gov.in/press-releases.htm?dtl/29110/indiaaustraliajapanus+consultations+on+indopacific+november+12+2017.

  16. 16.

    National Security Strategy of the United States of America. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/NSS-Final-12-18-2017-0905.pdf.

  17. 17.

    Australia-India-Japan-United States Consultations on the Indo-Pacific, http://dfat.gov.au/news/media/Pages/aus-india-japan-us-consultations-on-the-indo-pacific.aspx.

  18. 18.

    Lin (2018).

  19. 19.

    Mercy A. Kuo, The Origin of ‘Indo- Pacific’ as Geopolitical Construct, THE DIPLOMAT, 2018-1-25, https://thediplomat.com/2018/01/the-origin-of-indo-pacific-as-geopolitical-construct/.

  20. 20.

    Abe (2007).

  21. 21.

    Scott (2012).

  22. 22.

    Wikipedia, Indo-Pacific, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pacific.

  23. 23.

    Weigert (1942).

  24. 24.

    Note: As for the origin of “Indo-Pacific”, scholars of various countries have some similar conclusions, reference: C Raja Mohan, Samudera Manthan: Sino-Indian Rivalry in the Indo-Pacific, http://carnegieendowment.org/files/Samudra_Manthan_Brief1.pdf; Scott (2013); Wu (2014); Saroj Bishoyi, Geosrategic Imperative of the Indo-Pacific Region: Emerging Trends and Regional Responses, https://idsa.in/system/files/jds/jds_10_1_2015_geostrategic-imperative-of-the-indo-pacific-region.pdf; Yellow River, Containment Thinking in Evolution of U.S. Geopolitical Strategy: from “Selective Containment” to “Indo-Pacific Strategy” [J]. Journal of Shenzhen University (Humanities & Social Sciences), January 2018, pp. 72–78; Xia (2015).

  25. 25.

    Liu (2014).

  26. 26.

    Zhu (2016).

  27. 27.

    C. Raja Mohan, Donald Trump’s ‘Indo-Pacific’ and America’s India Conundrum, https://www.isas.nus.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/media/isas_papers/ISAS%20Insights%20No.%20476-%20Donald%20Trump’s%20‘Indo-Pacific’%20and%20America’s%20India%20Conundrum.pdf.

  28. 28.

    Hu Xin, “Australian Dream”: Being A Middle Power in the “Indo-Pacific” Region [J] Around China, pp. 32–34.

  29. 29.

    IPCS Book Discussion, The Indo-Pacific: Political and Strategic Perspective, http://www.ipcs.org/pdf_file/issue/SR162-BookReview-IndoPacific.pdf.

  30. 30.

    Scott (2013).

  31. 31.

    USAID, Indo-Pacific Economic Corridor: Coordinated Regional Trade Analysis. https://banyanglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Indo-Pacific-Economic-Economic-Corridor.pdf.

  32. 32.

    Shankari Sundararaman, Indo-Pacific Economic Corridor: A Vision in Progress. http://www.orfonline.org/research/indo-pacific-economic-corridor-a-vision-in-progress/.

  33. 33.

    Note: 21 official APEC members are Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, China, Hong Kong, China, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Peru, the Philippines, Russia, Singapore, Chinese Taipei, Thailand, the U.S., Vietnam.

  34. 34.

    Note: A total of 50 countries, including ASEAN 10 + 3 countries: Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Burma, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam and China (excluding Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan), Japan, South Korea; 2 Australian countries: Australia, New Zealand; 8 SAARC countries: India, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and Maldives; GCC 6 + 2 countries: Iran, Iraq, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE; 19 COMESA countries: Burundi, Comoros, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Rwanda, Seychelles, Sudan, Swaziland, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

  35. 35.

    Note: In this research, the cross countries in both the “Asia-Pacific” and the “Indo-Pacific” are China, Japan, Korea, Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, Australia and New Zealand. The influence of the two regions on the global economy cannot be simply added up, and the impacting factors of overlapping regions are not necessarily excluded from the comparison. In subsequent researches, data of overlapping regions will be processed when necessary.

  36. 36.

    UNCTD, ASEAN investment report 2017, http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/unctad_asean_air2017d1.pdf.

  37. 37.

    UNCTAD’s bilateral investment data are only updated to 2011. http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/ciimem4d2_en.pdf.

  38. 38.

    The ASEAN Secretariat, UNCTAD, ASEAN Investment Report 2017, http://asean.org/storage/2017/11/ASEAN-Investment-Report-2017.pdf.

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Social Sciences Academic Press and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Li, Y. (2019). Economic Development and Evolution of Geo-economic Pattern of the “Indo-Pacific” Region. In: Zhu, C. (eds) Annual Report on the Development of the Indian Ocean Region (2018). Research Series on the Chinese Dream and China’s Development Path. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7693-1_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics