IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ris/apecjn/0102.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can APEC Bridge the Divide? A Game Theory Approach to US-China Cooperation

Author

Listed:
  • Euamporn Phijaisanit

    (Faculty of Economics, Thammasat University, Thailand)

Abstract

The escalating US-China rivalry threatens to impede economic integration within the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum. This paper departs from the existing literature by analyzing specific actions of both countries that exemplify a focus on short-term gains. It argues that by understanding the dominance of short-run gains in current US-China actions, a framework that emphasizes long-term cooperation becomes particularly relevant. Employing game theory, the paper examines APEC's future prospects. The paper analyzes potential cooperation and conflict scenarios based on economic incentives and strategic considerations. While the current rivalry resembles a Prisoner's Dilemma, the paper explores alternative game structures, namely; Repeated Games and Supergames, that can incentivize cooperation on shared economic objectives. The analysis demonstrates that long-term benefits from cooperation can outweigh short-term temptations to defect, particularly if APEC institutions foster trust and transparency. Ultimately, the analysis highlights the critical role of a strengthened APEC in promoting a stable and cooperative equilibrium, thereby fostering long-term economic prosperity for the entire Asia-Pacific region.

Suggested Citation

  • Euamporn Phijaisanit, 2024. "Can APEC Bridge the Divide? A Game Theory Approach to US-China Cooperation," Asian Journal of Applied Economics/ Applied Economics Journal, Kasetsart University, Faculty of Economics, Center for Applied Economic Research, vol. 31(2), pages 65-76.
  • Handle: RePEc:ris:apecjn:0102
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://so01.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/AEJ/article/view/273399/177493
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: Asian Journal of Applied Economics/ Applied Economics Journal
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or

    for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert Gibbons, 1997. "An Introduction to Applicable Game Theory," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 11(1), pages 127-149, Winter.
    2. Drew Fudenberg & Eric Maskin, 2008. "The Folk Theorem In Repeated Games With Discounting Or With Incomplete Information," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Drew Fudenberg & David K Levine (ed.), A Long-Run Collaboration On Long-Run Games, chapter 11, pages 209-230, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Kreps, David M. & Wilson, Robert, 1982. "Reputation and imperfect information," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 253-279, August.
    4. Chad P. Bown, 2021. "The US–China trade war and phase one agreement," Working Paper Series WP21-2, Peterson Institute for International Economics.
    5. Bown, Chad P., 2021. "The US–China trade war and Phase One agreement," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 805-843.
    6. Pedro Dal Bó & Guillaume R. Fréchette, 2019. "Strategy Choice in the Infinitely Repeated Prisoner's Dilemma," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(11), pages 3929-3952, November.
    7. Andreoni, James A & Miller, John H, 1993. "Rational Cooperation in the Finitely Repeated Prisoner's Dilemma: Experimental Evidence," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 103(418), pages 570-585, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yangbo Song & Mofei Zhao, 2023. "Cooperative teaching and learning of actions," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 76(4), pages 1289-1327, November.
    2. Tamas David-Barrett, 2022. "Clustering Drives Cooperation on Reputation Networks, All Else Fixed," Papers 2203.00372, arXiv.org.
    3. Alexis H. Kunz & Thomas Pfeiffer, 1999. "Investitionsbudgetierung und implizite Verträge: Wie resistent ist der Groves-Mechanismus bei dynamischer Interaktion?," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 51(3), pages 203-223, March.
    4. Janvier D. Nkurunziza, 2005. "Reputation and Credit without Collateral in Africa`s Formal Banking," Economics Series Working Papers WPS/2005-02, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    5. repec:cdl:compol:qt9pt7p9bm is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Anne Corcos & Yorgos Rizopoulos, 2011. "Is prosocial behavior egocentric? The “invisible hand” of emotions," Post-Print halshs-01968213, HAL.
    7. Yuko Imura, 2023. "Reassessing Trade Barriers with Global Production Networks," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 51, pages 77-116, December.
    8. Funke, Michael & Wende, Adrian, 2022. "Modeling semiconductor export restrictions and the US-China trade conflict," BOFIT Discussion Papers 13/2022, Bank of Finland Institute for Emerging Economies (BOFIT).
    9. Salomon, Antoine & Forges, Françoise, 2015. "Bayesian repeated games and reputation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 159(PA), pages 70-104.
    10. Brennan, Timothy J., 2000. "The Economics of Competition Policy: Recent Developments and Cautionary Notes in Antitrust and Regulation," Discussion Papers 10716, Resources for the Future.
    11. Drew Fudenberg & David K. Levine, 2008. "Reputation And Equilibrium Selection In Games With A Patient Player," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Drew Fudenberg & David K Levine (ed.), A Long-Run Collaboration On Long-Run Games, chapter 7, pages 123-142, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    12. Du, Chuang, 2012. "Solving payoff sets of perfect public equilibria: an example," MPRA Paper 38622, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. K. Schmidt, 1999. "Reputation and Equilibrium Characterization in Repeated Games of Conflicting Interests," Levine's Working Paper Archive 626, David K. Levine.
    14. Rense Corten & Stephanie Rosenkranz & Vincent Buskens & Karen S Cook, 2016. "Reputation Effects in Social Networks Do Not Promote Cooperation: An Experimental Test of the Raub & Weesie Model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(7), pages 1-17, July.
    15. Chong, Juin-Kuan & Camerer, Colin F. & Ho, Teck H., 2006. "A learning-based model of repeated games with incomplete information," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 340-371, May.
    16. Kartal, Melis & Müller, Wieland & Tremewan, James, 2021. "Building trust: The costs and benefits of gradualism," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 258-275.
    17. Juan Escobar, 2008. "Cooperation and Self-Governance in Heterogeneous Communities," Discussion Papers 07-038, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
    18. Dilip Abreu & David G. Pearce, 2006. "Reputational Wars of Attrition with Complex Bargaining Postures," Levine's Working Paper Archive 122247000000001218, David K. Levine.
    19. Ge, Yongbo & Zhu, Yuexiao, 2022. "Boosting green recovery: Green credit policy in heavily polluted industries and stock price crash risk," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    20. Elwyn Davies & Marcel Fafchamps, 2015. "When No Bad Deed Goes Punished: A Relational Contracting Experiment in Ghana," CSAE Working Paper Series 2015-08, Centre for the Study of African Economies, University of Oxford.
    21. Drew Fudenberg & David K. Levine, 2008. "Efficiency and Observability with Long-Run and Short-Run Players," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Drew Fudenberg & David K Levine (ed.), A Long-Run Collaboration On Long-Run Games, chapter 13, pages 275-307, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C73 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Stochastic and Dynamic Games; Evolutionary Games
    • F15 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Economic Integration
    • F53 - International Economics - - International Relations, National Security, and International Political Economy - - - International Agreements and Observance; International Organizations
    • F55 - International Economics - - International Relations, National Security, and International Political Economy - - - International Institutional Arrangements

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ris:apecjn:0102. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Arannee Tongjankaew (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/feckuth.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.