APEC 2020: Multiplepaths to Attain the Bogor Goals
This paper is aimed at providing description of the Bogor Goals and the detail pathways to attain iy by 2020. By using the literature survey, especially the original documents related to the Bogor Goals, some previous studies, and descriptive data, this paper find out some conclusions. First, it is not easy to measure the achievement of Bogor Goals because there is no specific definition which encourage multi-interpretations; second, in the beginning, the pathways to achieve the Bogor Goals have been arranged through multilateral liberalization (WTO) and Osaka Action Agenda (Individual and Collective Action Plans), however, there are new path that have been agreed later by APEC Economic Leaders in Yokohama (2010), namely FTAAP (Free Trade Area of Asia Pacific). Third, the current situation shows that there are many competing patterns toward FTAAP and those patterns could lead to diverting APEC economies or realizing the true FTAAP to achieve the Bogor Goals.
Mapping of Issues Development in Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) and Indonesia Agenda toward 2013: A Historical Perspective
APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) is one of the international economic cooperation which was established 1989. In the beginning of APEC, it was focused only for economic issues, especially related to the trade and investment; however, overtime the issues in APEC have moved into the non-economic issues. This study is aimed to analyze the development issues in APEC, in particular: first, analyzing the process and factor that affect the issues in APEC; second, mapping or grouping issues in APEC that accumulated from 1989 until 2010; third, analyze the potential agenda of APEC meeting in Indonesia 2013. Methods of data collection and information are based on literature studies of APEC meeting documents, interviews with resource persons from within and outside the Indonesia, and Focus Group Discussions (FGD of stakeholders). Method of analysis is based on descriptive analysis and simple statistics. Some findings are: First, issues development in APEC are influenced by two factors:(i) the events or factors related to the development of economic, social, political, and security in global, regional of APEC and APEC host country; (ii) the role of agents that bring the issues to the APEC also plays an important role apart from the government of a country/economy are PECC (Pacific Economic Cooperation Council), ASEAN (Association Southeast Asian Nations), WTO (World Trade Organization), ABAC (APEC Business Advisory Council), ASCC (APEC Study Centre Consortium), EPG (Eminent Persons Group) and PBF (Pacific Business Forum). Second, even though the issues are very broad in APEC which moves from the economic into broader of non-economic issues, the issues are still focused on the achievement of the APEC economic integration, particularly related to the Bogor Goals, as the nucleus of the whole issues. Third, all issues that evolved in APEC are part of the development issues in Indonesia in general; however, from the official documentation development plan document in Indonesia during the period, attention to issues in economic in the APEC begins to decline during the crisis and reform in Indonesia. By putting attention of the latest of issues development in APEC, the possible specific agendas of Indonesia in 2013 summit are inclusive economic growth (developments), connectivity (especially related to infrastructures), and blue economy (especially related to ocean related). All those agendas are inter-related issues of developments that have been developed since the establishment of APEC.
Strategy and Manipulation in Medieval Elections
There are many goals in developing electoral protocols, including a desire for a system which is transparent, in that it is clear what the rule or procedure to follow is; nonmanipulable, in that it is not in a person’s best interest to misrepresent their preferences; honest, in the sense that it elects the ‘right’ candidate; and not open to strategizing, i.e., bribery or collusion. However, these desiderata are in tension with each other: Often, transparent electoral procedures are the least strategy resistant, and many honest procedures encourage manipulation. Thus a balance between these different goals must be sought. In modern times, since the seminal result on vote manipulation, the Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem [5, 6], much attention has been devoted to developing voting rules where manipulation is never in the best interest of the voters [4] or which are computationally too complex for the average bounded agent to be able to manipulate [1]. This focus on computational aspects of electoral methods is one of the hallmarks of modern studies on voting. But pursuit of these goals is not restricted to modern times: Those participating in elections in the Middle Ages also sought transparency, non-manipulability, honesty, and strategyproofness in so far as these properties can be consistently expressed in a single procedure. However, given the lack of computational sophistication in the Middle Ages, alternate approaches were needed in order to promote honesty, discourage strategizing, etc. These approaches can be classified as either external (constraints introduced outside of the electoral procedure, such as incentives for coming to consensus quickly) or internal (constraints introduced within the electoral procedure, such as voting rules which cannot be manipulated without adverse effects, or which are too difficult for the average bounded agent to manipulate). Surveying examples of both approaches in the context of medieval ecclesiastical and secular elections provides an interesting comparison to modern electoral procedures. Elections in the Middle Ages were used for the same reasons that they are today: To select suitable candidate(s) for a particular office, duty, or obligation. However, it is important to note that the term electio was used in the Middle Ages in a broader sense than our modern ‘election’. Its primary sense was ‘selection’ or ‘choice’, and only secondarily ‘election’ in the modern sense. Thus, many records which purportedly discuss elections are not discussing elections of the type which interests us. We can identify four categories of medieval electoral processes: (1) Election by an external authority having no direct interest in the election; (2) Indirect election, where electors name other electors who then select or elect the officials; (3) Election by lot; and (4) Election by ballot. Elections of the first and third types are generally computationally uninteresting; the first type corresponds to dictatorial voting rules, and the third type collapses to probability theory. In general, interesting voting methods are found only in the fourth type, election by ballot, though they can also occur in indirect election.