Energy market integration and regional institutions in east Asia
Introduction
In this article the integration of energy markets in East Asia is examined by assessing the different types and functions of regional institutions, including regional cooperation among national level institutions, and by taking account of global energy trends.
Studies conducted under the auspices of the East Asia Summit (EAS) have proposed that energy market integration should comprise liberalisation of energy trade, investment and domestic energy markets, development of regional energy infrastructure and institutions together with energy pricing reforms. These measures would strengthen the region׳s economies, reduce development gaps, optimise the use of energy resources and improve energy security as well as environmental and climate policy (Shi and Kimura, 2014, p. 10; Bhattacharyay, 2010, pp. 1–2). Correspondingly, failure to integrate regional energy markets could become an obstacle to economic growth in East Asia (Horii, 2011, pp. 451–57). Furthermore, in a survey of over 3000 Asian opinion leaders in 2010, improving energy interconnections and other infrastructure was ranked as the most potent and urgent area of regional integration (Capannelli, 2011, p. 8).
A compelling case therefore exists for energy market integration in East Asia. At the same time regional integration is inseparable from global trends owing to the region׳s heavy dependence on external supplies of fossil fuels. Only Australia, Indonesia, Myanmar, Malaysia and Vietnam have a positive ratio of domestic energy production to supply (Bhattacharya and Kojima, 2011). Some early signs suggest the regional cooperation facilitates the North East Asian states׳ energy dialogues with their Middle Eastern oil suppliers that have so far provided half of China׳s oil imports and some 80–90% of those of Japan and South Korea. New regional energy infrastructure also enhances competition by bringing Russian supplies onto the markets (Kanekiyo and Yoshikazu, 2013, pp. 77–84; cf. Motomura, 2014, Shadrina, 2014; Tabata and Liu, 2012, pp. 160–3).
East Asia is currently most dependent on external supplies of oil. In the IEA׳s New Policies scenario, oil demand in non-OECD Asia will increase by 2035 to 35.5 mb/d plus 2.8 mb/d in Japan. Production will only be 6 mb/d, plus 3.7 mb/d in Kazakhstan and 9.4 mb/d in Russia (IEA, 2013a, pp. 481, 505). These features indicate how East Asian regional integration is intertwined with the global trends discussed in this Special Issue: new interconnections; more competitive markets; new suppliers (including Russia); and the market entry of new sources of energy from the proliferation of LNG to unconventional fossil fuels and renewables (Aalto and Talus, 2014).
The role of institutions in actually facilitating the targeted positive outcomes in East Asian energy market integration remains under-investigated. The constraints imposed by the relative weakness of regional intergovernmental institutions on energy market integration, however, are frequently noted (e.g. Shi and Kimura, 2014, p. 19). In this situation, the operations of international companies, primarily of Japanese origin, have so far provided the impetus in the form of foreign direct investment and cross-border production and distribution networks. These, in turn, have been facilitated by decreasing transportation costs (Fujita, Kuroiwa and Kumagai, 2011, p. 2; Kim and Gokan, 2011, Capannelli, 2011, Dieter, 2012, p. 117; cf. Bhattacharyay, 2010). This predominant economic integration pattern returns us to the role of states and their mutual coordination as providers of transport, energy supply and other infrastructure to facilitate the regional operations of companies.
The lack of more detailed attention to how state institutions are actually involved in regional energy market integration is problematic given the centrality of state institutions in the economies of East Asia. The states׳ centrality is a natural consequence of the state capitalist, neo-mercantilist, developmental and markets socialist variations of how the institution of trade is often organised in East Asia (see e.g. Beeson, 2009, Bremmer, 2008, Dent, 2012a, García, 2011, Stubbs, 2012, Aalto, 2014, Shadrina, 2014). Moreover, insufficient attention has been paid to the order creating functions of states and other institutions vis-à-vis the provision of a firm enough structure for energy market integration. State sovereignty is a major order-creating institution in international relations and in particular in East Asia (Narine, 2012, p. 156). In fact, the existing studies of regional economic and energy market integration, and studies on how sovereignty shapes regional integration in East Asia, have explored very different questions (see Beeson and Stubbs, 2012, p. 5).
In order to fill some of these gaps in the existing research, in this article market and sovereignty issues, or transaction cost reduction and order creation problems are scrutinised systematically as parts of the same methodological framework alongside ecological/climatic problems. The research question is: to what extent do institutions support energy market integration in the sub-regions of South East Asia (SEA) and North East Asia (NEA)?
In the next section the comparative methodological framework and material utilised is introduced. In the third section the results are discussed in the context of the global trends. The final section concludes the article and discusses some policy implications.
Section snippets
Heuristic case study comparison
In this article the similarities and differences among regional level institutions in the SEA and NEA regions are compared vis-à-vis energy market integration (for the method, see Porta, 2008, pp. 204–208). These two East Asian case studies are heuristic or instructive with regard to the wider prospects of integration in representing the only Asian sub-regions with notable intraregional trade (see Capannelli, 2011, p. 5).
The two case studies will build on the comparison of the institutional
SEA: trade
The ASEAN Economic Community aims at a ‘single market and production base, a highly competitive economic region, a region of equitable economic development, and a region fully integrated into the global economy by 2015 (ASEAN, 2008, pp. 6, 22). In the Plan of Action for Energy Cooperation 2010–15, ‘open and flexible markets׳ are linked with energy security and sustainability objectives, infrastructure projects and institutions (ASEAN, 2010, pp. 9–12). While ASEAN Member States attempt a shift
Conclusions and policy implications
In this article the main similarities and differences in energy market integration between the SEA and NEA regions were explained by referring to the types, functions and overall structure of institutions, and to the impact of global energy market trends.
Regarding the research question on the extent to which institutions can support energy market integration, we can conclude that in both sub-regions energy companies spearhead energy market integration by means of the infrastructure projects
Acknowledgements
This article was supported by the Academy of Finland project ‘Energy Policy in European Integration’ (Aalto, 2011–15, no. 1396863) and the Academy of Finland Centre of Excellence ‘Choices of Russian Modernization׳ (Kivinen, 2012–17). Great responsibility for compiling the material and tables in this article was assumed by Iida Jaakkola. For commentary I wish to thank Iida Jaakkola, Kim Talus and the anonymous reviewers.
References (86)
Institutions in European and Asian energy markets: A methodological overview
Energy Policy
(2014)- et al.
Guest editorial: European and Asian energy markets: too many or too few institutions?
Energy Policy
(2014) Japan׳s need for Russian oil and gas: A shift in energy flows to the Far East
Energy Policy
(2014)- et al.
The energy and CO2 emissions impact of renewable energy development in China
Energy Pol.
(2014) Russian energy in the European markets: The role of institutions
Energy Policy
(2014)Russia׳s natural gas policy towards Northeast Asia: Rationales, objectives and institutions
Energy Policy
(2014)United States natural gas markets, contracts and risks: What lessons for the European Union and Asia-Pacific natural gas markets?
Energy Policy
(2014)- et al.
Thinking big: politics, progress, and security in the management of Asian and European energy megaprojects
Energy Policy
(2014) - et al.
Overview of Northeast Asia energy situation
Energy Pol.
(2011) Natural gas in Asia: trade, markets and regional institutions
Energy Policy
(2014)
Russia׳s energy relations in the East and West: towards a social structurationist approach to energy policy formation
J. Int. Relat. Dev.
Russia׳s energy policy towards the new markets in the Asia Pacific region: Implications for the energy security environment in the region
A Regional public goods approach towards energy market integration in East Asia
ASEAN Economic Community blueprint
ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement
ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement
Non-tariff barriers: A challenge to achieving the ASEAN Economic Community
Developmental States in East Asia: A comparison of the Japanese and Chinese experiences
Asian Perspect.
Introduction
The return of state capitalism
Survival
The East Asia Summit: pan-Asian multilateralism rather than intra-Asian regionalism
Towards an integrated Asia-Pacific natural gas market
The ASEAN Economic Community: Progress, challenges and prospects
Renewable energy and East Asia׳s new developmentalism: Towards a low carbon future?
Pac. Rev.
Regional leadership in East Asia: Japan and China as contenders
Asia׳s and Europe׳s energy policy challenges: introduction
Asia Eur. J.
Trade integration in Asia
Comparative analysis: case-oriented versus variable-oriented research
Case study and theory in political science
Cited by (33)
Regional institutions’ contribution to energy market integration in the middle East
2024, Energy Strategy ReviewsPower connectivity in the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS) – The need for a wider discourse
2022, Energy PolicyCitation Excerpt :These institutions are needed to reduce transaction costs and create orders in cross-border electricity trade, as well as to help mitigate the ecological and climatic consequences of electricity generation, transportation, trade and consumption (Aalto, 2014a). Despite their importance, several empirical studies have found a general lack of development in formal institutions for governing cross-border electricity trade in Asia, including the GMS (Aalto, 2014b; Shi et al., 2019). One key issue affecting the institutions-building process is concern about a loss of energy sovereignty, i.e., the ability of a country to make autonomous decisions regarding its electricity supply and policy (Thaler and Hofmann, 2022).
Legal issues regarding energy market integration in Northeast Asia
2021, Energy Strategy ReviewsToward a roadmap for electrification
2021, Electrification: Accelerating the Energy TransitionIntroduction: Electrification and the energy transition
2021, Electrification: Accelerating the Energy TransitionHow to accelerate electrification? The leverage of policies
2021, Electrification: Accelerating the Energy Transition