
Asia and Europe share some important similarities.
- On the broadest perspective, they are two regions with very long histories, proudly and firmly anchored national cultures and, on a darker note, frequent conflict between their constituting countries. I said earlier that Europe considers itself to have some expertise in regional integration. It is however worth recalling that what we have seen since 1945 is the aberration. Previous attempts at integration were either peaceful and not implemented or implemented and not peaceful.
- Economically, as regions not endowed with many natural resources, they are open to foreign trade and investment, and therefore have a strong common interest in an open international economic and financial system.
- Both regions have been hit in the nineties by serious economic, currency and banking crises, they share the same ambition to better control the forces of economic and financial globalisation, in order to create a stability-oriented economic and financial system that promote high and sustainable growth and improve welfare.
- Both regions have complex models of society, which put a high price on the need to control the forces of globalisation. They are seeking to preserve the positive features of complex economic and social models, while taming the excesses of unfettered globalisation and retaining the capacity to change in the face of rapidly evolving circumstances.
- Finally, neither region is well defined geographically. The land boundary between Asia and Europe is a historical and cultural construct that is subject to various interpretations. For my purposes I will take Europe to mean essentially the EU, while Asia means ASEAN, China, Japan and the Republic of Korea (ASEAN+3).
Source: Google Images
The two regions are also very different.
- Economic diversity is more pronounced in Asia, ranging from countries with highly modern economies to others that are still poor and with traditional, mostly rural, economic structures. In contrast, the European Union has become especially over the last decade a much more homogenous economic grouping. That will of course change in the near future as the EU enlarges towards the east. According to World Bank data, on a purchasing power parity basis, the difference of per capita GNP between the richest (Luxembourg, 38,247$ PPP) and poorest (Greece, 14,595$ PPP) members of the EU amounted to 162% in 1999. The difference is 680% if one takes the poorest of the candidate countries (Bulgaria, 4,914$ PPP). In Asia, the difference amounts to about 2000% between the richest (Singapore, 27,024$ PPP) and the poorest (Cambodia, 1,286$ PPP).
- A more fundamental difference is the degree and timing of efforts made towards deeper regional integration. Since 1945 Europe has been more ambitious than Asia in making explicit a political goal of building an ever-closer union among its peoples. European efforts stem directly from the sheer extent of material devastation and moral exhaustion brought by the two World Wars. They also reflect a longing for the restoration of a probably hypothetical golden age of European unity. This has led Europeans to accept a significant pooling of sovereignty over a whole range of political as well as economic issues.
Now you know the economical issueses of Euroup and Asia. It is a really different from Europ and Asia what are seeing now.




