New Approaches to Measuring and Assessing Regional Cooperation and Integration: Workshop Highlights

Regional cooperation and integration (RCI) is pivotal to enhancing economic growth, fi nancial stability, and social inclusion and important for tackling poverty and enhancing institutional stability. Better RCI measures can allow researchers and policy makers to assess the costs and benefi ts of RCI policies in greater detail. This publication presents highlights of the sessions during the Asian Development Bank’s workshop on regional cooperation and integration held on 16 and 17 April 2020. The workshop gathered academics, policy makers, and regional and international organizations to discuss relevant approaches to measuring RCI and its implications for policy assessment.


Introduction Welcome Remarks
Objectives, Outcomes, and Timeline Day Session : Methodological Approaches to Measuring Regional Integration Session : Special/New Dimensions for Measuring Regional Cooperation and Integration Country Performance in the CAREC Regional Integration Index Improving the ARCII for the Pacific Region

SASEC RCI Indicators
Measuring RCI in the Greater Mekong Subregion Introduction Regional cooperation and integration (RCI) is pivotal in enhancing economic growth, financial stability, and social inclusion, and important for tackling poverty and enhancing institutional stability. It features in national development strategies generally and is central in implementing the Agenda for Sustainable Development.
In recent decades, Asia and the Pacific has made significant progress toward regional integration, driven by trade and investment and the growing role of global production networks. Institutional arrangements for regional cooperation have followed. The region can do more to support RCI policies, however, and as such adequate metrics are therefore needed to properly monitor and assess progress in this area. A number of initiatives have thus emerged to improve measurement and capture the increasingly complex dimensions of RCI. Most approaches are aimed at capturing relevant dimensions for regional integration, including infrastructure and connectivity, trade and investment flows, regional value chains, movement of people, and institutional and social integration, among others.
At the same time, the nature of regional integration is changing. Digital technologies are defining new forms of connectivity, including e-commerce. The sharing of regional technology and collaboration in research and development are increasingly driving innovation. And environmental cooperation is evolving through the inclusion of environmental provisions in trade and investment agreements or environmental goods trade, all from the perspective of biodiversity and natural endowments as regional public goods. As the channels of regional cooperation and integration increase, its impact will need to be further assessed. Better RCI measures can allow researchers and policy makers to assess the costs and benefits of RCI policies in greater detail.
This workshop gathered together academics, policy makers, and regional and international organizations to discuss current approaches to the measurement of RCI and its implications for policy assessment. The workshop also convened representatives of di erent Asian Development Bank (ADB) departments (regional, knowledge sharing, strategy and policy, research) involved in RCI, to identify the needs and possible approaches to improving the measurement of RCI in the region.

Three Main Workshop Objectives
• To present progress on the Asia-Pacific Regional Cooperation and Integration Index (ARCII) methodology and database. Improvements to the current ARCII methodology, including the identification of new RCI-related indicators will be presented, to ensure that they are relevant and aligned with ADB's strategy and Operational Plan. New approaches to measuring RCI includes areas such as digital connectivity, environmental sustainability, technology transfer and innovation, air transportation, regional health programs, and institutional stability.
• To discuss current needs in RCI operations and agree on expected improvements. Regional departments and subregional cooperation programs will be invited to share their perspective on RCI measurement and comment on possible improvements to the current methodology for their operations. Other regional and international organizations will present RCI indicators currently used in internal reporting.

•
To agree on research areas based on RCI indicators that respond to ADB's and external needs. Researchers working in relevant, unexplored areas of RCI will be invited to present their work and link with the ARCII. Proposed areas include the impact of RCI policies on poverty and income inequality, linkages between RCI policies and competition policy, new approaches to assessing inter-subregional linkages and regional integration, and linkages between regional integration and small and medium-sized enterprises, and taxation policies.

Welcome Remarks
Joseph Ernest Zveglich, Jr. Deputy Chief Economist, Economic Research and Regional Cooperation Department (ERCD), ADB It is my pleasure to welcome you to the Asian Development Bank's (ADB) workshop on New Approaches to Measuring and Assessing Regional Cooperation and Integration. Let me start by thanking all the participants, both external and ADB colleagues, for your flexibility and willingness to participate in this virtual meeting. While the circumstances made our physical meeting not possible, we appreciate your support and involvement for this workshop.
Regional cooperation and integration (RCI) remains a key component for economic growth, poverty reduction, and institutional strengthening. In Asia, trade and investment channels have led this transformation. Today, the uncertain global economic environment underlines the importance of monitoring regional dynamics and interdependence. This is the main goal of ADB's Asian Economic Integration Report, now in its fifth edition. The report monitors regional trends in economic cooperation, o ering timely information and analysis on how economies connect through trade, infrastructure, migration, and other channels.
To properly monitor and evaluate the progress of RCI, quantifiable measures and indicators are needed. In , ADB published the first version of the Asia-Pacific Regional Cooperation and Integration Index (ARCII). The ARCII assesses the extent of economic integration in the region by monitoring progress in six dimensions (and indicators): (i) trade and investment, (ii) money and finance, (iii) regional value chains, (iv) infrastructure and connectivity, (v) movement of people, and (vi) institutional and social integration. Latest ARCII estimates show a broadly steady, yet modestly strengthening, trend of regional integration in Asia during -. Infrastructure and connectivity appear to be the most forceful and stable foundation for Asia's regional integration.
The index has been used for analyzing long-term trends and assessing RCI as a development strategy. It is also a leading indicator of ADB's corporate results framework. The production and use of the indicator have stressed possible improvements in the medium term, and that is the main purpose of this initiative: to improve the availability, quality, and consistency of data, and to ensure that the indicator fully captures the role and mechanisms of RCI in the region.
The process of regional cooperation is changing rapidly. For example, digital technologies have made regional integration more complex and di cult to measure. We are starting to understand these channels and defi ne common metrics to analyze them. We hope the ARCII can help us to understand the role of digital connectivity in the region's interconnectedness. Our next Asian Economic Integration Report will also study the role of digital platforms in developing Asia. Through this project, we want to better capture these dimensions and their impact.
I hope this inception workshop will allow us to better understand these emerging dimensions and their relevance for the work that ADB is conducting to enhance RCI policies. Thank you again for your participation and I wish you all a productive discussion.

Objectives, Outcomes, and Timeline
Cyn-Young Park Director, Regional Cooperation and Integration Division, ERCD, ADB Let me welcome everyone to our meeting and provide some context before we start our first session.
The need for adequate regional cooperation and integration (RCI) indicators emerged from the demand of policy makers to monitor and evaluate progress in economic integration and judge it against set goals. In support of this objective, in the Asian Development Bank (ADB) embarked on the production of the first Asia-Pacific Regional Cooperation and Integration Index (ARCII), which was first published in ADB's Asian Economic Integration Report. Similar e orts have been undertaken by many institutions, including United Nations (UN) agencies, think tanks, and development banks.
The ARCII entailed several innovations, in terms of both data quality and methodology. The index, for example, incorporated measures of cross-border (bilateral) flows, providing much-needed granularity for regional analysis. It also recognized the importance of linkages between key integration channels in the economic literature, for instance, between trade and foreign direct investment flows. Also, the construction of the index, as we will discuss today, allowed the capture of the most essential information to measure RCI and avoid possible biases from previous approaches.
Our workshop today aims at continuing this work, discussing possible approaches toward the enhancement of the ARCII, and establishing some priorities for the future. The objective of the workshop is threefold: • to present progress on the ARCII to ensure that the index remains at the forefront of RCI indicators and improvements are aligned with ADB's strategy and Operational Plan; • to discuss current needs in ADB operations and agree on expected improvements; and • to identify future areas for research based on RCI indicators that respond to the current environment and priorities.
We have three sessions between today and tomorrow. The first session will focus on the di erent methodologies for RCI measurement, including ARCII, that will allow the audience to become familiar with these indicators and get acquainted with recent developments.
The second session will be dedicated to exploring new or potential dimensions for RCI, including digital connectivity, energy, and environmental sustainability. The third session will focus on current ADB needs for RCI indicators. ADB departments and subregional programs will share their perspectives and recommendations on RCI measurement.
This workshop marks the fi rst step of the ARCII project, which includes di erent products and outcomes: • an extended database and methodology made publicly available, with a user's manual and visualization; • knowledge-sharing events, including conferences with regional think tanks (we recently signed an agreement with the DOC Research Institute) and other institutions (e.g., the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development) working in RCI; and • research outputs (working papers) using the ARCII, including subregional analysis (e.g., the Eurasia Integration Index) and other products.
Much remains to be done in the development of better RCI metrics, with regard to data quality, methodology, and research. For example, assessing the extent to which regional economic integration and global economic integration are related is still pending. The distinction between intraregional and extraregional forces that propel global economic integration is particularly important today when we see the slowing pace of globalization and a broader potential role for regional integration. We also need to understand better how regional public goods can be part of a measurement framework and how this framework will respond to the priorities for Asia in the next few years.
At ADB, we are trying to understand this process, through a similar index, the global economic integration index, which may provide an additional layer of information to assess the e ects of regional integration.

DAY
Session : Methodological Approaches to Measuring Regional Integration Moderator: • Cyn-Young Park, Director, Regional Cooperation and Integration Division, ERCD, ADB

Session Overview
The session presented the methodology currently used for the Asia-Pacific Regional Cooperation and Integration Index (ARCII) and looked into possible improvements. A proposal for an enhanced ARCII framework was followed by presentations of leading experts, who discussed the main considerations in building indicators for RCI monitoring, recent methodologies for measuring RCI employed by other agencies (development banks, think tanks), and useful guidelines for constructing robust composite indicators.

Highlights of Presentations
Introducing an Enhanced Framework for ADB's Asia-Pacific

Regional Cooperation and Integration Index
Hyeon-Seung Huh, Professor, Yonsei University The first presentation reviewed the current framework and key features of the ARCII and directions for enhancing the index.
Overview of current ARCII framework and key features. The composite index is aimed at capturing the multidimensional nature of RCI in Asia and the Pacifi c. As such, it covers indicators apportioned among six dimensions: trade and investment, money and fi nance, regional value chains, infrastructure and connectivity, movement of people, and institutional and social integration. Out of indicators, are bilateral data expressed as a country's regional activity relative to its global activity. The ARCII therefore uses the most comprehensive bilateral set of indicators relative to other indicators of regional integration. The index is constructed as follows: imputation of missing data through various methods depending on the indicator, normalization via panel min-max scaling, and weighting and aggregation using a two-step panel principal component analysis (PCA) procedure.
To compare the performance of Asia and the Pacifi c with that of other regions, corresponding integration indexes were constructed for the European Union (EU), Latin America, and Africa. Results indicate that Asia and the Pacifi c comes second only to the EU, which is undoubtedly the most integrated region in the world. Meanwhile, Africa lags behind all the other regions in integration. Moreover, the dimensional weights derived for the four regions vary quantitatively. This fi nding lends support to the use of PCA-derived weights in lieu of equal weights in compiling the ARCII.
Proposed enhancements to the ARCII framework. To keep up with evolving regional integration and to align ARCII further with ADB's strategic goals and operational plans, the following enhancements were proposed: • New dimensions. It was suggested that two dimensions be added to the current six of the ARCII: (i) technology and digital connectivity, covering measures of technology sharing and digital connectivity; and (ii) environmental cooperation that would include indicators of trade in environmental goods and natural resources, ratifi cation of environmental agreements, and ecological footprint of exports or imports ( Figure ).
Fi gure : Proposed Enhanced ARCII Framework

Trade and investment
Money and finance ARCII Asia-Pacifi c Regional Cooperation and Integration Index, RPG regional public goods.
Other dimensions relevant to ADB's operations are also being considered for incorporation into the framework. These include air transportation, power generation and distribution, and energy fl ows, and regional cooperation for natural disasters and public health/vaccination programs.
• Proposed new indicators to existing dimensions. To ensure that current ARCII dimensions adequately capture underlying RCI subprocesses, it was proposed that new indicators be added to existing dimensions. In particular, fi ve of the present six dimensions would cover additional indicators: » Money and fi nance-Chinn-Ito index (de jure) as measure of capital account openness and co-movements of exchange rates relative to the US dollar » Regional value chains-value added contributed by regional trading partners relative to that contributed by all trading partners » Infrastructure and connectivity-international fl ight passenger capacity » People and social integration (formerly movement of people)-cultural goods/ services trade, trademark applications » Institutional arrangements (formerly institutional and social integration)-number of international intergovernmental organizations • Customizing ARCII. The current ARCII framework allows fl exibility in the inclusion or exclusion of dimensions. Hence, the original six-dimensional ARCII could be utilized as the baseline index and the proposed eight-dimensional ARCII as an extended version. In addition, the construction of the ARCII could be adjusted according to the specifi c needs of regional departments and subregional initiatives, and to the availability of data in certain countries.

Indicator-Based Monitoring of Regional Economic Integration
Philippe De Lombaerde, Director, UNU-CRIS This presentation o ered general guidelines and advice on building and enhancing indicator systems. It also included specifi c comments on how the current ARCII version and the proposed strategies for upgrading the ARCII framework conform with those guidelines.
General guidelines for building and enhancing regional indicator systems. The following points related to building and enhancing indicator systems were emphasized: • Every step in the process of building indicator systems, from formulating the objective(s) to interpreting the results, is important. • The purpose of constructing the regional indicator system must be looked into very closely to ensure coherence in the strategic choices to be made in the construction process and in the further development of the indicator system. • Whether the objective of building a regional integration index is to monitor regionalization or to monitor regionalism, or both, should be ascertained. In case of the latter, it must be decided whether two separate sub-composite indicators or one composite index should be constructed. • The purpose of making a comparative analysis and the defi nition of the geographic units to be compared (subregions or regions across the world) also needs to be clarifi ed at the start of the process of constructing the regional integration index.
• The initiatives to build indicator systems and the e orts to maintain and improve them should be sustained over time. • Inter-institutional collaboration in constructing indicator systems would be of paramount importance as it provides opportunities for data sharing (e.g., global bilateral matrices) and enhances the policy relevance of indicator systems.
Specifi c comments on the ARCII relative to the prescribed guidelines. Relative to the guidelines outlined above, several issues pertaining to the current ARCII version and to the proposed ARCII framework enhancements were raised. These issues were as follows: • On the PCA as the basis of weights for the dimensions and the indicators for each dimension: Users must be aware of the pros and cons of the PCA procedure, particularly of its implications for the comparability of index results over time and across countries. It may be worthwhile to consider alternatives for obtaining weights for the dimensions and for the indicators within dimensions. • On the choice of indicators: The following observations and suggestions on some ARCII indicators merit careful consideration: » It may be useful to separate policy and outcome indicators, and possibly to construct distinct sub-composite indexes that distinguish between policy and outcome indicators. » The choice of indicators should be limited to those that inform the regional integration process. For instance, it is not evident how some country-level indicators, such as the Logistics Performance Index and the Ease of Doing Business Index, gauge regional integration. » The interpretation of some indicators, particularly regarding whether they a ect regional integration positively or negatively, needs to be determined. Examples include the ratios of trade complementarity indexes and trade concentration indexes. » The incorporation of structural indicators (e.g., cultural proximity), which are timeinvariant, should be revisited. These indicators may not be helpful in tracking the progress of regional integration. » Systematic treatment of intraregional fl ow variables across dimensions (for instance, adjusting for the size of regions, as in the case of intraregional trade intensity index) is necessary to ensure robustness of index results.
• On the interpretation of ARCII results: Results need to be interpreted cautiously as this depends on country coverage (in the case of inter-regional comparisons) and the methodology for constructing intra-subregional integration indexes (in the case of intraregional comparisons). • On the proposed enhancements to the ARCII framework: The two new dimensions in the ARCII-namely technology and digital connectivity, and environmental cooperation-are indeed important and relevant ( Figure ). Nevertheless, incorporating additional variables resulting from the introduction of new dimensions engenders several issues, as follows: » The possibility of double counting arises, for instance in the case of digital trade. In this regard, the allocation of new indicators across dimensions should be carefully considered. » Adding new indicators could face data availability issues (e.g., services trade). » The conceptual link between the new indicators and the regional integration process need to be ensured. This requires putting new indicators through transformation procedures to render them relevant in monitoring regional integration.

Perspectives on Regional Integration from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
Alexander Chirmiciu, Economics, Policy and Governance Department, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) This presentation reviewed the measurement of integration within the EBRD mandate, as well as existing methodology, latest results, current issues, and future directions.
Background: The EBRD regional integration monitoring system is lodged within the assessment of transition qualities framework. Assessment of transition qualities are a set of composite indexes introduced in to track and monitor progress of EBRD countries on cooperation operation along six qualities or characteristics of a sustainable market economy: competitive, inclusive, resilient, wellgrounded, integrated, and green. The assessment of transition qualities covers EBRD member countries and utilizes more than indicators obtained from a wide range of data sources, including national statistics, international fi nancial institutions, surveys, and internal EBRD assessments.
Methodology for monitoring regional integration: The "integrated" quality of assessment of transition quality measures how EBRD countries are integrated globally and domestically. Accordingly, the measure consists of two dimensions: external integration and internal integration. External integration covers trade in goods and services and investment fl ows and internal integration focuses mainly on infrastructure such as domestic and cross-border transport, and energy and information and communication technology (ICT).
As a subset of the assessment of transition qualities, the "integrated" quality assessment employs indicators derived from external data sources with global coverage (such as the World Trade Organization, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, World Economic Forum, International Telecommunication Union, and International Energy Agency). The indicators are normalized on a scale of to (with as the most integrated) based on the performance of comparator countries. The "integrated" quality measure is updated on an annual basis. Latest results: For , results indicate that European Union (EU) members belonging to the EBRD appear to be the most integrated (externally and internally) and Central Asia and Southern Eastern Mediterranean countries the least (Figure ). Meanwhile, western Balkan and former Soviet Union countries appear to exhibit intermediate levels of overall integration.

Figure : Regional Integration Indicators (Assessment of Transition Qualities) in the EBRD Region
In addition, the EU members scored lower in internal integration than advanced Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. However, the reverse holds for external integration, as the small, open EU members outperformed comparator OECD countries.
North African and Central Asian countries lagged behind in external integration because of geographic factors (landlocked and far from major trading centers), lack of commodities to trade, and country size. Central Asia likewise scored low on internal integration.
Current issues and future direction: The EBRD's integration monitoring system faces issues including the use of survey data which yields high yearly variation in results and potential confl ict in the objectives of the dimensions (e.g., trade openness, in light of the ongoing COVID-pandemic, could jeopardize other sectors). The EBRD intends to employ big data to assess transport connectivity as an improvement in measuring infrastructure for the internal integration dimension.

Economic Integration in Eurasia and Macroeconomic Shocks
Behrooz Gharleghi, Senior Researcher, DOC Research Institute The presentation empirically explored the presence of symmetrical shocks-one of the prerequisites of regional integration-in Eurasia. It laid out the methodology employed, presented the results obtained, and discussed implications for the potential of cooperation and integration in the region.
Background: The emergence of economic integration in various regions has encouraged closer economic cooperation in Eurasia. Considered a bridge between the East and the West, this region has gained increasing attention.
To evaluate Eurasia's potential for regional cooperation and integration, a study was conducted to check for the presence of underlying symmetrical macroeconomic shocks in the region. The presence of such shocks, it was assumed, would indicate that further economic cooperation and collaboration within the region would be feasible.
Methodology: To empirically test for the presence of underlying symmetrical macroeconomic shocks, a structural vector autoregression model was estimated for the region for the period -. The variables included in the model were global and domestic macroeconomic shocks.
Results: Global macroeconomic shocks in the Eurasian economies were found to be positively correlated (and hence symmetrical); domestic macroeconomic shocks in the region, on the other hand, were negatively correlated (and therefore asymmetrical). The impulse response functions derived from the structural vector autoregression estimation indicated that the majority of the region's economies respond positively to both global and domestic shocks ( Figure ).
However, variance decomposition analysis showed that variations in domestic macroeconomic variables are explained more by domestic than by global shocks.
While Eurasia is not an o cial ADB subregion, for the purposes of this project it includes states: Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan (OECD classifi cation). According to optimum currency area theory, the other prerequisites for regional integration are factor mobility, price and wage fl exibility, product diversifi cation, and degree of openness.

Conclusion:
The presence of a precondition for regional integration-symmetry of underlying macroeconomic shocks-in Eurasia implies that the region can benefi t from further regional cooperation. Moreover, as Eurasian economies respond similarly to global shocks (albeit di erent from domestic shocks), regional institutions are needed to foster regulatory harmonization in monetary and fi nancial a airs.

Developing Robust Composite Indicators
Dániel Vértesy, ICT Analyst, International Telecommunication Union This presentation focused on methodological issues in the development of composite indicators. In particular, it set out the qualities of good indicators, explained the rationale for auditing composite indicators, and commented on the proposed upgrading of the ARCII framework.
Qualities of good indicators: Composite indicators carry analytical and advocacy power. To achieve a careful balance between these two, a good indicator should possess the following qualities ( Figure ). It should: • Fit its purpose.
• Embrace rather than fi ght uncertainty. For instance, index score rankings are not deemed absolute but instead fall within uncertainty bands. • Carefully consider every step in the composite indicator construction process (e.g., defi nition, operationalization, data coverage, replicability, sensitivity, and robustness to methodological choices).
. . Rationale for composite indicators: Independent evaluation of composite indicators confers the following benefi ts:

ARM
• It increases transparency.
• It provides tests for statistical coherence which pertains to the alignment of conceptual and statistical frameworks, statistical soundness of the composite indicator structure, and the extent to which the underlying indicators drive the composite index scores. • It allows robustness and sensitivity tests.
Suggestions on proposed enhancements to ARCII framework: The presentation o ered current and proposed enhancements to the ARCII framework, as follows: • On the current framework » One of the main strengths of ARCII is its wealthy set of measurement indicators. » PCA should be considered as an explorative tool to identify latent dimensions rather than as a source of weights, as PCA tends to reinforce correlations. » The defi ned indicators in the ARCII (e.g., measures of intraregional activity relative to global activity) should be able to identify which dimensions contribute the least or the most to overall integration. » Consider showing uncertainly intervals in presenting the results, rather absolute scores or rankings (e.g., through model averaging). » When possible, introduce ways to distinguish input (policy) and output (outcome) mechanisms within the ARCII framework. • On the proposed extensions » Mobile broadband access as well as internet capacity and speed would be good indicators in the proposed digital connectivity dimension as they are considered enablers of integration. » Account for using ICT skills as a basis for weights for digital connectivity indicators. » Test for overlaps/trade-o s and correlation patterns among ARCII indicators. » Possibly consider some indicators in the ASEM Sustainability Connectivity Index for inclusion in the proposed new and existing ARCII dimensions.

Open Discussion
Several issues were raised regarding the ARCII framework in the second and fi fth presentations.
The following points of clarifi cation were made during the open discussion: On the defi nition of regional grouping: It was clarifi ed that ADB's regional members compose the coverage of ARCII. However, the proposed upgrading of the ARCII framework would cover other economies with a signifi cant impact on the Asian region, such as the Russian Federation and Turkey.
On the pros and cons of PCA: The advantages and disadvantages of PCA are recognized. However, there seems to be no better alternative to this procedure, as other weighting schemes have their own positive and negative features. For now, ARCII will undergo robustness checks employing di erent weighting methods.
On separating policy and outcome indicators: In practice, it would be di cult to distinguish between policy and outcome indicators, especially when using bilateral data, which are not that many.
On indicators that do not directly inform about the RCI process: While the Logistics Performance Index and Ease of Doing Business Index pertain to country-level data, they underline opportunities for countries to trade regionally.

On double counting in trade in intermediate goods:
While it is recognized that this practice exists, it should also be made known that currently no data exists that would correct for the double counting.

Session : Special/New Dimensions for Measuring Regional Cooperation and Integration
Moderator: •

Session Overview
This session focused on new dimensions that could be part of the RCI measurement framework. It explored factors linking RCI with emerging policy areas, including digital connectivity, environmental sustainability, and the sustainable development agenda. The session discussed approaches to measure these dimensions and how they impact or are determined by regional integration policy.

Measuring Digital Connectivity for Regional Integration: OECD Experience
Janos Ferencz, Trade Policy Analyst, Trade and Agriculture Directorate, OECD The presentation centered on di erent approaches to assessing digital integration from the perspective of OECD countries. Trends in digital connectivity can be understood through the lens of digital services trade and changes in the regulatory framework. Asian economies have been at the forefront of digital transformation in recent years. It is thus natural that the digital dimension should be considered for the RCI measurement framework. From a regional perspective, digital connectivity and trade are linked dimensions. Even though digitalization removes geographic barriers, economies close to each other (e.g., neighboring countries, regional partners) tend to trade more through digital technology and platforms. This suggests that RCI helps create an environment that fosters economic integration.
A proper environment for increasing connectivity: Relevant policies to consider include more favorable trade environments, such as lower trade barriers, incentives for investment, and a proper competition framework. The digital services sector is increasingly changing the way services operate by deepening integration between services and goods (i.e., more tradability of goods that were previously not easily traded across borders and emergence of new technologies such as D printing and artifi cial intelligence). A number of services sectors dominate digital trade. Telecommunications, fi nancial services, transport, and logistics are essential in enabling consumers to benefi t from digital connectivity. In the current context, digital trade and services tend to be more resilient to external shocks, particularly because more opportunity exists to trade across borders. Digital trade can therefore mitigate the negative impact of COVID-and help speed up recovery e orts.
Improving digital regulatory framework: One key challenge when incorporating digital connectivity in the index is the complexity of the regulations and policies a ecting digital services. To address this issue, the OECD's Digital Services Trade Restrictiveness Index was designed to help governments understand bottlenecks and constraints a ecting digital services and to monitor progress ( Figure ). The index builds on the OECD Services Trade Restrictiveness Index and scores countries' regulatory openness to trade in digital services.  The index shows that digital infrastructure and connectivity barriers can be lowered through regional cooperation.
The Digital Services Trade Restrictiveness Index also shows that regional regulatory heterogeneity for digital services is high in Asia and Latin America, and low in the EU and North America. It also emphasizes di erent policy areas for RCI in digital trade, including (i) infrastructure and connectivity, (ii) electronic transactions, (iii) payment systems, (iv) intellectual property rights, and (v) other barriers a ecting trade in digitally enabled services.
Future directions: The OECD has been working closely with regional partners, including the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Asia-Pacifi c Economic Cooperation (APEC), to adapt its framework to specifi c regional factors. The OECD is looking forward to collaborating with ADB and gleaning insights into how the ARCII was developed.
As part of this collaboration, the ADB could benefi t from OECD's work in measuring digital transformation, including ICT use, broadband, and other digital connectivity indicators for use in enhancing the ARCII framework. The OECD also emphasizes the importance of a long-term perspective to develop indicators that can stand the test of time.

ESCAP Digital and Sustainability Regional Integration Index and Indicator Framework
Yann Duval, Chief, Trade Facilitation Unit, ESCAP Together with other UN agencies (the Economic Commission for Africa and the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia), ESCAP is developing a methodology for improving the measurement of RCI in the region through the Digital and Sustainable Regional Integration Index. The project aims to provide new and improved tools for policy makers to evaluate the performance of economies in regional integration, while encompassing di erent dimensions of sustainable development. The index accounts for the diversity of national economies while refraining from defi ning "optimal" levels of regional integration. It uses aggregation techniques to allow policy makers to easily use and modify the index as they see fi t.
Defi nition of the Digital and Sustainable Regional Integration Index and regional performance: The "DigiSRII . " index has seven dimensions, each incorporating sustainability indicators ( indicators, simplifi ed; , comprehensive), covering countries, and defi ning two modalities of integration: "conventional" integration and "sustainable" integration. On performance, the index suggests that Asia and the Pacifi c varies widely across the seven dimensions, in both the conventional and sustainable versions of the index (Figure ). On average, infrastructure and regulatory cooperation are considered the two most important factors driving conventional regional integration. The same dimensions are the ones where more progress has been made. In contrast to ARCII results, performance in movement of people is more modest. The region is doing best in sustainable fi nance and sustainable infrastructure, the two main contributors to sustainable regional integration. The index trends show that, between and , improvements in infrastructure and participation in the digital economy are driving sustainable regional integration, while trade and investment and regional value chains have remained stable.
Measuring digital integration in Asia: Digital economy integration is measured through a number of indicators, including trade intensity in ICT products and use of the internet to make purchases. It also encompasses government policies on ICT products and regulations on digital goods and services. The corresponding sustainable component focuses on the security and inclusiveness of digital infrastructure. Results reveal a large variance between developing and developed economies in this dimension, with Singapore being the most digitally integrated country in the region. In general, advanced economies are the most regionally integrated in the digital economy, although digital integration varies across the indicators. ICT tari s have a large impact on digital integration, while the region shows room for improvement in regulatory harmonization. A digital regulatory framework indicator: A novel indicator, digital trade regulatory similarity, was collected through a survey for evaluating the similarity of digital policies across countries. The indicator is based on relevant dimensions for digital integration, including trade defense, public procurement, investment, intellectual and property rights, infrastructure and competition regulations, cross-border data policies, data policies, intermediary liability and content access, quantitative access restrictions, standards, and online sales and transactions. The regional digital trade regulatory similarity shows that advanced economies tend to be regionally integrated, while other economies in the region are more restrictive.
Future direction: ESCAP will collaborate with regional partners including ADB for building and disseminating regional integration indicators tailored to their respective organizational mandates.

Shigeru Kimura, Special Adviser to the President on Energy A airs, ERIA
The presentation focused on the current energy outlook in ASEAN and opportunities for improving energy trade and connectivity across the region. The outlook, prepared for the East Asia Summit and including countries, has been used for discussing energy policy and forecasting energy saving potential in East Asia Summit countries.
The approach estimates energy consumption across industry, transport, commercial, and residential sectors. Estimates are collected from ASEAN countries to construct a measure of energy saving potential, based on a number of long-term forecasts (e.g., economic growth, population growth, oil prices). The model predicts that energy consumption (oil, electricity, coal) will grow by a factor of . between and , underlining the importance of regional cooperation in meeting this future demand.
While the demand for oil and gas will be met through higher imports, electricity demand can be met through domestic production and regional trade. Electricity trade transactions are currently based on bilateral transmission lines in the Ayeyawady-Chao Phraya-Mekong Economic Cooperation Strategy (AMECS) region (encompassing Cambodia, the Lao People's Democratic Republic, Myanmar, Thailand, and Viet Nam). The ASEAN Power Grid consists of seven program areas (Figure ). The program could benefi t ASEAN through a regional power development plan, improving electricity supply security and introducing renewables such as solar or photovoltaic and wind.
Regional trade in energy is a relevant dimension or indicator that could be included in the customized version of the ARCII. In particular, it was suggested that the energy components of the trade and investment, and infrastructure and connectivity dimensions of the ARCII be extracted to form part of the set of indicators under the proposed energy dimension of ARCII.

Figure : ASEAN Final Energy Consumption, by Energy and Sector
Coal Oil Gas Electricity Others Industry Transport Others Non-Energy  On the importance of regulation: RCI requires a harmonized regulatory framework for economies to work together. This harmonization should include the free fl ow of data across borders, similar standards of privacy and security across countries, and the capacity of countries to open up digital channels. Privacy and security issues have been at the forefront of the EU discussion, in particular through the General Data Protection Regulation, and Asia should be positioned to do something similar. There is as yet no similar spirit of cooperation to leverage that in ways that make sense for Asian countries.
On the nature of data: The importance of data must be understood. Where data is fl owing and mapping out the data connection-how much data is fl owing and originating from one country to another. They could inform a measure for digital integration in the region. The following questions should be answered: What kind of data is being exchanged and how much? Who is controlling that data? Technologies are moving ahead because of increasing demand for bandwidth. Undersea cables and satellites will continue. Increasing connectivity through satellites will likely continue.
On the use of digital platforms for measurement: The use of specifi c digital interactions and digital platforms-social networking, online jobs, digital advertising, consumption of movies and videos-can be explored. These fl ows can probably be measured and included in the index. One application could be tailored for job search and business process outsourcing (BPO) platforms. An indicator of remote jobs could be built, for example, looking at searches (Google searches, etc.).
Measuring data consumption: Finally, new measures for data consumption and attention could be useful. For example, the distribution of time allocation of data users (e.g., the Philippines, where average mobile use is hours a day) across di erent services. The question of language and how people are becoming increasingly connected (e.g., real-time translation) is di cult to measure, but could be a promising area for consideration.

Session : Identifying the Need for Regional Integration Indicators Session Overview
This session sought to better understand internal demand for RCI indicators among ADB's regional departments and subregional initiatives. It gave a regional and subregional perspective on the current needs for RCI indicators, emerging sectoral or thematic priorities, and ongoing work in measuring the impact of RCI projects. The session also provided the ADB regional departments' perspective on the proposed improvements to the ARCII framework.

Moderator:
• Arjun Goswami, Chief, Regional Cooperation and Integration Thematic Group, SDCC, ADB This presentation focused on the use of the ARCII in ADB's corporate results framework, as shown in Figure . The ARCII is one of the Results Framework Indicators and monitors progress in the region across di erent dimensions, including regional cooperation and integration (operational priority ). For this priority, none of the o cial Sustainable Development Goal indicators could entirely capture what the operational priority sought to achieve (a similar challenge was faced with operational priority on governance and institutional capacity). An adapted version of the ARCII (excluding the money and fi nance dimension) is reported every year. The fi nancial dimension is reported separately as a stand-alone tracking indicator.

Framework Indicators
Some suggestions for future improvements are to focus less on traditional RCI dimensions (e.g., trade and investment) and more on new ones (e.g., regional public goods, social goods). Manageability is also important, so introducing too many dimensions could be counterproductive. Streamlining indicators in existing dimensions might be considered. It would also be important to explore in greater detail the links between dimensions and how the components of the index interact with each other.
Putting what the data means into context and more e ort on interpretation could improve the usefulness of the index in the long term.

Regional and Subregional Initiatives: Progress and Challenges in Measuring Regional Integration in the Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation (CAREC)
Syed Shakeel Shah, Director, CAREC Institute The presentation centered on the CAREC Regional Integration Index (CRII), which builds on the structure of the ARCII and contributes to monitoring progress on the CAREC Strategy. Index results show that integration for this subregion are low (confi rmed by ARCII results), in comparison with other parts of Asia. Kazakhstan and the People's Republic of China (PRC) are doing relatively well compared to the other CAREC members (Figure ). Several challenges identifi ed for the current CRII indicator could be relevant for ARCII. First, country size asymmetries due to the large share of the PRC in the region are important, which explains why the index is computed including and excluding the PRC. Second, CAREC countries di er in stages of development and economic structure. Third, geography is an important determinant of RCI dynamics, with of countries landlocked. Fourth, the region is not fully integrated into the global rule-based system, and CAREC countries are not World Trade Organization (WTO) members. A fragmented regionalism, with multiple and disjointed economic and trade arrangements live together in the region.
Proposed areas of study include exploring formal regional trading arrangements, studying trade-o s between nondiscriminatory regional integration and domestic development challenges, and instruments to balancing regional integration through special and di erential treatment. The CRII results suggest that more openness in trade, full implementation of WTO's trade facilitation agreements, elimination of nontari measures to trade, freedom of transit, and regulatory reforms to formalize informal trade will be important to improving RCI. For monetary integration, possible measures include introduction of sequential fi nancial reforms, liberalization of fi nancial services (General Agreement on Trade in Services Plus), regional arrangements for exchange rate volatilities and balance of payments crises, and the development of CAREC bond markets. On cross-border logistics, well-coordinated platforms for regional value chains, multimodal transport facilities, and reducing time border and cost should be a priority.
Suggestions for improving the ARCII included revisiting the separation between dimension (trade and investment) and (regional value chains), including exchange rates in the money and fi nance dimension (an important parameter for capital fl ows and global trade), exploring new approaches to bridging the data gaps, and incorporating climate-related aspects of RCI.
The scope of the CRII will be revisited, including an extension in the line of the Global Economic Integration Index developed by ADB's Regional Cooperation and Integration Division. A new index based on CAREC's network (diagrammatic representation) is being explored to analyze CAREC's integration with the rest of the world. CAREC is also discussing the refi nement of the index with four dimensions (trade, fi nance, connectivity, and migration) and a switch to factor analysis from PCA.

Measuring RCI in Pacifi c Countries
Emma Veve, Director, Social Sectors and Public Sector Management Division, Pacifi c Department, ADB The presentation focused on trends in regional cooperation in the Pacifi c region and challenges in measurement. The region of countries and million inhabitants of the Pacifi c have a strong RCI history and a complex institutional architecture. Common RCI issues involve fi sheries, environment, trade, and tourism, and there are proposals for a common trade area and a common currency.
However, RCI progress within the region has been quite limited. About of trade is intraregional. Countries' basket products are similar and complementarity in exports is limited. E orts to remove restrictions in trade and people's movement have been made (e.g., Pacifi c Island Countries Trade Agreement (PICTA), Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG)). The Pacifi c has focused on collaborating further with industrialized economies (Australia, New Zealand, the United States) in specifi c markets. Recent developments include the movement of teachers and nurses within the region, as well as investment in tourism, the retail trade, and telecommunications by regional companies.
Meanwhile, several issues inherent in the Pacifi c need to be addressed in the course of enhancing the ARCII framework (Figure ). These include the current data gaps in regional indicators in the money and fi nance dimension that do not refl ect the level of fi nancial development in the subregion, the need to emphasize institutional and regulator cooperation (for instance, in the fi eld of education), and the exclusion of non-ADB members from the index, which could understate the extent of RCI in the Pacifi c.

Priorities for Regional Integration Indicators in SASEC
Ronald Antonio Butiong, Director, Regional Cooperation and Operations Coordination Division, South Asia Department, ADB This presentation focused on the improved measurement of RCI in South Asia. Key elements of an economic union considered in the region are trade agreements, a common market, e cient regional institutions, and funding mechanisms. The South Asia Subregional Economic Cooperation (SASEC), established in , pays particular attention to transport (catering to road tra c increase); trade facilitation (reducing time for trade documentation); energy (enhancing electricity access rates); and, more recently, economic corridor development, as described in the SASEC Operational Plan -.
Output and outcome indicators, as well as contract awards and disbursements, are used in SASEC to measure RCI progress. National indicators with cross-border implications have been used (Figure ). For example, for trade facilitation projects, indicators include improvements in cargo clearance time. Improvements in these indicators have cross-border implications. Transport, energy, and economic corridor development indicators focus on national improvements (e.g., increases in tra c of project roads and electricity access rates). Regional indicators include intraregional trade share, customs revenues in the subregion, and growth of cross-border power fl ows.

Figure : Improving the ARCII for the Pacifi c Region
• Keep plugging the gaps-don't forget the importance of the basic data in changing methodology What Next for ARCII Priority indicators for SASEC are related to the four priority areas. In transport, in addition to cross-country connectivity, indicators measure seamless movement across inter-modal systems along key trade routes. For trade facilitation, SASEC priorities include making trade more e cient, including the time taken for cross-border fl ow and cargo, adopting international standards, and improving compliance. In energy, the objective is to improve energy trade infrastructure, to ease supply constraints, and to diversify the energy mix. In economic corridor development, it is to pursue synergies between national economic corridors to maximize benefi ts for cross-border linkages.
SASEC is also taking a sectoral approach to RCI indicators. In transport, examples include connectivity measures (quantitative and qualitative), such as the length in kilometers of the SASEC Corridor roads meeting AH standards, use of regional ports to handle the cargo of regional members (SASEC has two landlocked countries, Bhutan and Nepal), and the number of passengers fl ying between regional airports. In trade facilitation, the aim is to measure trade e ciency. Novel indicators include regional trade agreements (e.g., negative list of products) and mutual recognition indicators.

Lessons from Measuring Regional Integration in the Greater Mekong Subregion
Alfredo Perdiguero, Director, Regional Cooperation and Operations Coordination Division, Southeast Asia Department, ADB

In
, the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS) established a statistical database that includes economic and sectoral indicators to monitor RCI. The Brunei Darussalam-Indonesia-Malaysia-Philippines East ASEAN Growth Area and the Indonesia-Malaysia-Thailand Growth Triangle have also developed statistical working groups to institutionalize the process together with national statistics o ces. The GMS is developing a new statistical framework with sector groups to improve the availability of RCI indicators. Statistics in the Greater Mekong Subregion, an annual report prepared by the GMS Secretariat, is now in its fourth edition. The secretariat is starting to cover sector indicators (e.g., education, energy) to improve available indicators.

SASEC Project Outcomes
National-level enhancements with regional implications TRANSPORT

TRADE FACILITATION ENERGY ECD
Catering to road tra c increase Reduced time for trade documentation Electricity access rate Increase in GVA per person in manufacturing sector ECD economic corridor development, GVA gross value added, RCI regional cooperation and integration, SASEC South Asia Subregional Economic Cooperation.
Source: R. A. Butiong. . Priorities for Regional Integration Indicators for SASEC. Presented at the Virtual Inception Workshop on New Approaches to Measuring and Assessing Regional Cooperation and Integration.
-April. Asian Development Bank.
Some of the indicators the GMS Secretariat is developing cover intraregional trade, participation in global value chains, intra-GMS migration, cross-border trade in energy, international internet bandwidth, and volume of intraregional investment. Some of these indicators are inspired by ADB's monitoring framework and the ARCII to strengthen the GMS' own results framework and indicators. One recommendation is that, as the ADB results framework has several levels, it would be worthwhile to incorporate some indicators of ARCII's enhanced framework discussed during the workshop. Much of the work of the GMS group has involved improving data quality for RCI indicators ( Figure ). Working with national statistical o ces, the GMS worked on the defi nition and consistency of indicators, intending also to strengthen database management and institutionalizing mechanisms for data production and dissemination. Data comparability has improved signifi cantly as a result. In addition, subnational data are also incorporated in this framework to have consistent indicators and is an avenue for ADB's future work. The GMS is also shifting toward making data more accessible. Some important lessons from the GMS experience can be drawn for the ARCII project. First, the costs of measuring indicators should be balanced against the value of the additional information they provide. Second, how indicators can be used to identify areas for improved policy guidance should be understood. Third, it should be emphasized that indicators do not capture causal e ects of specifi c dimensions. Interpretation of the indicators are important. Fourth, while not the focus of the current project, provincial data are a general trend for indicators in many sectors, so these will need to be considered in the future. Finally, while composite indicators are useful, they may not refl ect the specifi c issues in a given country and only refl ect aggregate changes. It is therefore important to complement the analysis with a national-level perspective.

Discussion and Concluding Remarks
Discussants: Safdar Parvez, Director, Regional Cooperation and Operations Coordination Division, Central and West Asia Department, ADB; Behrooz Gharleghi, Senior Researcher, DOC Research Institute After the presentation of ADB regional departments, some points were raised during the discussion to be considered in future improvements of the ARCII. A fi rst consideration is tracking how the data are being used to make policy decisions and factoring in the trade-o s between the complexity of the index and the attention it can receive for policy making. Second, many sectors could be considered for inclusion in the ARCII in the future (e.g., water, education, health). A more systematic approach to prioritizing these dimensions would be benefi cial. Third, for comparability, new metrics should account for di erent initial conditions, economic systems, or production structures across Asian economies. Fourth, while the ARCII refl ects intraregional integration, capturing extraregional and global linkages can provide a more complete assessment and account for some relevant economies (i.e., the Russian Federation, Iran) that are not part of the intraregional perspective. Fifth, it is important to look further at the inter-dimensional linkages of the index, particularly when trying to look at economic corridor development, which essentially is an aggregate of di erent dimensions. Finally, a refl ection on analyzing regional integration versus regionalism, considering the geopolitical role and asymmetries of some economies, will be important.
The session concluded with an update from ADB's ARCII team on next steps for the project. First, there is broad consensus on the utility of incorporating the two new dimensions and enriching existing dimensions for the work of ADB's ARCII. A closer look at non-member countries will give a more comprehensive and better picture of where RCI is headed. Second, while doing this, assessing trade-o s between the complexity of the index and the ability to provide policy advice is important. The index is specifi cally designed to balance these two aspects, having an overall index score to provide information to the policy maker and dimensional indexes to complement and tailor this information. Third, the team will continue aligning the enhanced framework to ADB's RCI Strategy, in particular through a dimension of regional public goods. Finally, the team will publish a user's manual to access the new ARCII methodology and explore its di erent features.

Speaker Profiles
Opening Session

Introduction
Cyn-Young Park Director Regional Cooperation and Integration Division Economic Research and Regional Cooperation Department ADB (Introduction and Session Moderator) Cyn-Young Park is the director of the Regional Cooperation and Integration Division in the Economic Research and Regional Cooperation Department of the Asian Development Bank (ADB). In her current capacity, she manages a team of economists to examine economic and policy issues related to regional cooperation and integration (RCI) and develop strategies and approaches to support RCI. During her progressive career within ADB, she has been a main author and contributor to ADB's major publications, including the Asian Development Outlook (ADB's fl agship publication), the Asia Capital Markets Monitor, the Asia Economic Monitor, the Asia Bond Monitor, and the ADB Country Diagnostic Study Series. She has also participated in various global and regional forums, including the G Development Working Group, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), ASEAN , the Asia-Pacifi c Economic Cooperation, and the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM), and has written and lectured extensively about the Asian economy and fi nancial markets. Her work has been published in peer-reviewed academic journals, including the Journal of Banking & Finance, the Journal of Futures Markets, the Review of Income and Wealth, and The World Economy.
Prior to joining ADB, Ms. Park worked as an economist ( -) at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), where she contributed to the OECD Economic Outlook. She received her PhD in Economics from Columbia University. She holds a Bachelor in International Economics from Seoul National University.

Hyeon-Seung Huh
Professor Yonsei University Hyeon-Seung Huh is a professor of economics at Yonsei University, Republic of Korea. Prior to his tenure at Yonsei, he held positions at Hallym University and the University of Melbourne. He was also a Fulbright scholar at the University of Washington. His main research interest includes macroeconomics, applied econometrics, and time series analysis. He has published over papers in international refereed journals. He was a member of the board of directors of the Korean Economic Association and an editor of The Korean Journal of Economic Studies.
Philippe De Lombaerde is the director ad interim at the United Nations University Institute on Comparative Regional Integration Studies (UNU-CRIS). He is also an associate professor of international economics at NEOMA Business School (Rouen). Previously, he worked for UNU-CRIS, Universidad Nacional de Colombia (Bogotá), University of Antwerp, and the National Institute of Development Administration (Bangkok). Mr. De Lombaerde (PhD, from RWTH Aachen University in Germany) studied economics, econometrics, and political science at the universities of Ghent, Brussels, Antwerp, and Aachen. His research interests include regional economic integration, international trade and investment, monitoring tools and indicators, Latin American and Southeast Asian regionalism, comparative regionalism, globalization, and regionalization indicators.
His recent co-edited volumes include Regionalism (London: SAGE, ; four volumes); Migration, Free Movement and Regional Integration (Paris: UNESCO Publishing and UNU Institute on Comparative Regional Integration Studies, ); Indicator-Based Monitoring of Regional Economic Integration (Dordrecht: Springer, ); and The Political Economy of New Regionalisms in the Pacifi c Rim (London: Routledge, ).
Alexander Chirmiciu is associate director and lead infrastructure economist in the Economics, Policy and Governance Department of the EBRD. He is responsible for project and policy assessments for infrastructure-the transport, municipal, and environmental sectors. He has more than years of experience in policy analysis and project design and implementation across the entire range of infrastructure sectors. His research interests include infrastructure, energy, and climate change, as well as development and transition economics. Mr. Chirmiciu is an alumnus of King's College and holds a PhD in Economics from Cambridge University.

Philippe De Lombaerde
Director United Nations University Institute on Comparative Regional Integration Studies (UNU-CRIS)

Yesim Elhan-Kayalar
Advisor O ce of the Chief Economist ADB (Moderator) Yesim Elhan-Kayalar has years of work experience in development agencies, the private sector, and the academe in countries. She has worked at the regional, national, and local levels to create long-term development solutions in the energy, fi nance, public management, transport, and water sectors, with private sector and benefi ciary participation. As country director, Ms. Elhan-Kayalar led ADB's country partnership strategy and program in Georgia, and innovative regional development initiatives for the Caucasus. She develops policy and knowledge solutions for high-impact development assistance in Asia and the Pacifi c in her current role. Ms. Elhan-Kayalar has a PhD in Economics from the University of California. She has published and taught in the fi elds of economics and fi nance, and led research on behavioral fi nance and competitiveness policy.

Janos Ferencz
Trade Policy Analyst Trade and Agriculture Directorate Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Janos Ferencz is a trade policy analyst at the Trade in Services Division of the OECD. He analyzes policy trends a ecting services trade globally using OECD's Services Trade Restrictiveness Index (STRI) and manages the annual update of the STRI regulatory database and indices. Additionally, his work covers digital trade, focusing on lowering trade barriers for digitally enabled services. He developed the OECD Digital STRI tool and contributed to an analysis of digital trade and market openness, crossborder data fl ows, and the trade implications of new digital technologies such as artifi cial intelligence. He also engages with various international and regional partners, including the Asia-Pacifi c Economic Cooperation (APEC) and ASEAN, to assist interested economies in benefi ting from the STRI tools. He is a jurist with a background in international trade law.
Yann Duval is chief of trade policy and facilitation in the Trade, Investment and Innovation Division of the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacifi c (ESCAP). Since joining the United Nations Secretariat in , he has designed and delivered capacity-building programs and advisory services in trade policy and facilitation throughout the ESCAP region, including the trade facilitation segment of the Regional World Trade Organization (WTO) Trade Policy Course at the National University of Singapore. He has been instrumental in the development of the United Nations Network of Experts for Paperless Trade and Transport in Asia and the Pacifi c, a community of experts dedicated to making trade more transparent and e cient through the digitalization of trade procedures. He and his team serve as the secretariat for the Framework Agreement on Facilitation of Cross-border Paperless Trade in Asia and the Pacifi c, a United Nations treaty adopted in to accelerate the electronic exchange and legal recognition of trade data and documents across borders.
Mr. Duval has also been instrumental in the creation and development of the Asia-Pacifi c Research and Training Network on Trade, a network of leading research and academic institutions in developing countries in the region aimed at building capacity in trade and investment policy and facilitating research for evidence-based policy making. His contributions to policy research includes a global bilateral trade cost database developed in collaboration with the World Bank, and the UN Global Survey on Digital and Sustainable Trade Facilitation conducted biennially in collaboration with other United Nations regional commissions.
Prior to joining the United Nations, Mr. Duval was assistant professor of international business at the Asian Institute of Technology in Bangkok, and assistant professor of agricultural economics at Washington State University, respectively. His work has been published in various academic journals, including International Tax  His areas of expertise are World Trade Organization law; international, regional, and preferential trade; economic corridors, customs laws, reforms, and automation, including single windows for trade; and ease of doing business in trading across borders indicator.

Emma Veve Director Social Sectors and Public Sector Management Division ADB
Emma Veve is the director of the Social Sectors and Public Management Division in the Pacifi c Department of ADB. The division is responsible for the following sectors and topics: (i) social development, (ii) public management and economics, and (iii) fragile and confl ict-a ected situations.
Previously, she was a principal economist in the Pacifi c Department responsible for macroeconomic monitoring, research, and regional programming for the Pacifi c. She also worked with ADB's Pacifi c Subregional O ce in Suva, Fiji.
She joined ADB in following a stint as economic adviser with the Pacifi c Islands Forum Secretariat in Suva, Fiji. Prior to this, she held various positions in the Australian commonwealth public service, predominantly in economic research. She completed a double degree in agricultural science and economics at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, and holds a master's degree in economics from the University of New England, Armidale, Australia. He also coordinated the activities of ADBassisted economic cooperation program for the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS). He joined ADB in February as Programs Specialist-GMS in the former Mekong Department. He was promoted to programs economist in June and, following a reorganization in , was re-designated as economist (regional cooperation) in the Southeast Asia Department. He led the organization of the Third GMS Summit in Vientiane in -the only summit where the GMS leaders signed a joint declaration and adopted the Vientiane Action Plan. He progressed to senior regional cooperation specialist in June and transferred to the former Central and West Asia Country Coordination and Regional Cooperation Division as Head, Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation Unit in February . Mr. Butiong has extensive background in regional cooperation and integration and solid experience in country programming and operations.

Ronald Antonio Butiong
New Approaches to Measuring and Assessing Regional Cooperation and Integration: Workshop Highlights Alfredo Perdiguero

Director Regional Cooperation and Operations Coordination Division ADB
Alfredo Perdiguero is the director of the Regional Cooperation and Operations Coordination Division in the Southeast Asia Department of ADB. He has worked in Southeast Asia for the last years, and has broad exposure, deep knowledge, and extensive work with ADB on regional cooperation and integration issues in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the Brunei Darussalam-Indonesia-Malaysia-Philippines East ASEAN Growth Area, and the Indonesia-Malaysia-Thailand Growth Triangle, and the Greater Mekong Subregion. Mr. Perdiguero also acts as the administrator of the ASEAN Infrastructure Fund, the largest initiative of the ASEAN in its history based on the member countries' funding contributions.
Prior to joining ADB, Mr. Perdiguero was an economist in the Delegation of the European Union to South Africa. He also worked as a trade specialist in the Spanish Embassy in Egypt and in several nongovernment organizations in Latin America. He has been a lecturer in universities in Madrid, Spain; and at the Graduate School of European Studies of the Ateneo de Manila University. His career spans the private sector, government, and the academia.

Safdar Parvez
Director Regional Cooperation and Operations Coordination Division ADB Safdar Parvez has years of experience, including years at ADB. He holds master's degrees in Economics from Cambridge University, and Quaid-i-Azam University, Pakistan and a Bachelor of Economics from Government College, Pakistan. Prior to joining ADB, he was a program manager/economist at Aga Khan Rural Support Programme, Pakistan where he conducted policy research and analysis, and led overall direction for strategic planning, particularly in areas of growth, equity, and sustainability. He joined ADB in June as programs o cer in the Pakistan Resident Mission. He was appointed as an economist in mission in July and was later assigned to the ADB Headquarters in the Central and West Asia Department's Operations Coordination Division in July . In October , he transferred to the Strategy and Policy Department on a promotion as senior planning and policy economist and was promoted to principal planning and policy economist in April . He was appointed director for Central and Asia Department's Regional Cooperation and Operations Coordination Division in November .
Mr. Parvez has been the team leader for a number of strategy reforms and initiatives, such as the midterm review of ADB's Strategy , ADB's approach to engagement with upper-middle-income countries, and reform of ADB's country partnership strategy business process, and was a lead member of the team that prepared the Strategy . He has also headed the preparation of country partnership strategies for Kazakhstan, Pakistan, and Uzbekistan. Since assuming his current position, he has steered the formulation of the CAREC Strategy, the new long-term strategic framework for the CAREC Program leading up to and supervised and taken charge of economic and sector work and the preparation of country partnership strategies. His extensive knowledge and experience in the Central and West Asia region and his operational and research background serve ADB's knowledge and regional cooperation work in the region.

Behrooz Gharleghi Senior Researcher DOC Research Institute
Behrooz Gharleghi is a senior researcher at the DOC Research Institute in Berlin, Germany. Previously, he was an a liate professor at the Pontifi cia Universidad Católica del Perú. His main areas of research are economic development, and monetary and fi nancial integration. He has published several articles in his fi eld and is currently working on a joint project on the Eurasia Integration Index.

Rolando Avendano
Economist Regional Cooperation and Integration Division ADB New Approaches to Measuring and Assessing Regional Cooperation and Integration

Workshop Highlights
Regional cooperation and integration (RCI) is pivotal to enhancing economic growth, fi nancial stability, and social inclusion and important for tackling poverty and enhancing institutional stability. Better RCI measures can allow researchers and policy makers to assess the costs and benefi ts of RCI policies in greater detail. This publication presents highlights of the sessions during the Asian Development Bank's workshop on regional cooperation and integration held on and April . The workshop gathered academics, policy makers, and regional and international organizations to discuss relevant approaches to measuring RCI and its implications for policy assessment.

About the Asian Development Bank
ADB is committed to achieving a prosperous, inclusive, resilient, and sustainable Asia and the Pacifi c, while sustaining its e orts to eradicate extreme poverty. Established in , it is owned by members -from the region. Its main instruments for helping its developing member countries are policy dialogue, loans, equity investments, guarantees, grants, and technical assistance.