Please ensure you are logged in to access the Member Menu

 Facebook   |   Linkedin   |   Twitter   |   YouTube

Appendix: Results of Survey of Asia-Pacific Policy Community

This report presents the findings of a survey of the Asia-Pacific policy community conducted by the Pacific Economic Cooperation Council from 19 May to 12 June, 2020. The survey was disseminated through PECC member committees, as well as the APEC Policy Support Unit, the UN Network of Experts for Paperless Trade and Transport in Asia and the Pacific (UNNExT), the Asia- Pacific Research and Training Network on Trade (ARTNET), ESCAP Sustainable Business Network ESBN.

This is not a survey of public opinion but rather, a survey of those whose views influence policymaking, especially at the regional level. As some of the questions tend to be technical, they require a relatively deep knowledge of developments at regional level. However, we do believe that those surveyed include those who are responsible for influencing and often making decisions on various aspects of their economy’s positions within different regional groups.

The guidance for identifying panelists is as follows:


Panelists should be either decision-makers or senior advisors to decision-makers. As a guide, the government respondents in previous years included a number of former and current Ministers, Deputy and Vice-Ministers, Central Bank Governors and their advisors for Asia- Pacific issues, current APEC Senior Officials, and a number of former APEC Senior Officials.


Panelists should be from companies who have operations in a number of Asia-Pacific economies or conduct business with a number of partners from the region. This might include each economy’s current ABAC members as well as past ABAC members. In last year’s survey, these included CEOs, vice presidents for Asia-Pacific operations, and directors of chambers of commerce.

Non-government: Research Community/Civil Society/Media

Panelists should be well-versed in Asia-Pacific affairs, being the type of people governments, businesses, and the media would tap into to provide input on issues related to Asia-Pacific cooperation. These included presidents of institutes concerned with Asia-Pacific issues, heads of departments, senior professors, and correspondents covering international affairs.


A total of 778 people responded to the survey but after a threshold test of a 30 percent response rate, 710 responses were counted.


We do not present disaggregated results for each economy but rather by sub-regions – Northeast Asia, North America, Oceania, Pacific South America, and Southeast Asia.

  • North America: Canada, Mexico, and the United States
  • Northeast Asia: China, Hong Kong (China), Japan, Korea, Mongolia, Russia, and Chinese Taipei
  • Oceania: Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, and French Polynesia 
  • Pacific South America: Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru 
  • Southeast Asia: Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam

While included in the broader sample we note a significant number of responses from other Asia-Pacific economies and some from multilateral institutions outside the region. From time to time this report has featured prominent sections on India given its membership in the East Asia Summit and until recently the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). The RCEP is considered one of the pathways to the Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP), a long-term goal for the region.

Stakeholder Groups

We also present cross-sectoral results of business, government, and non-government responses. The non-government responses combines responses from panelists who identify themselves as academic/research, civil society, media, and other. Some respondents from statutory boards and independent agencies such as Central Bank identified themselves as ‘Other’, for the purpose of this survey, their responses were counted as government.

Emerging and Advanced Economies

The terms emerging and advanced economies are commonly used in this report. These are used for analytical purposes. For this report we use the International Monetary Fund’s definitions.

Sub-Regional Breakdown of Responses








<< Previous