Indeed, some economies are very open financially, and interest rates and equity prices may be highly correlated across some national borders. Despite this, bilateral financial links in the region are much more limited than bilateral trade links.

In 2009, Asia’s intraregional trade amounted to more than 50 per cent of global trade, compared to less than 35 per cent for foreign direct investment (FDI) and around 6 per cent for portfolio investment. Asia’s so-called market-driven economic integration, therefore, yielded a lopsided outcome. In one sense, this outcome is not surprising. Finance is little affected by distance, whereas for trade distance matters critically. Money should flow to a financial centre that offers the smallest intermediation costs and to a country that offers the highest risk-adjusted returns, regardless of the location.

Even so, regional financial integration remains an important unfinished agenda for Asia. Despite there being no theoretical case for preferring regional to global financial integration, promoting regional financial transactions will have its benefits. As the region integrates in trade and production, information is created through face-to-face contacts and the specifics of economic activities. Given the nature of asymmetric information that characterises financial transactions, such local information is more conducive to making regional financing deals than global ones. If markets and institutions are sufficiently developed, then there should be some ‘home bias’ within Asia favouring regional financial transactions. This should be the case even in situations where global transactions offer absolute advantage. The clear lack of home bias in Asia suggests that there are imperfections to be addressed as well as unmet financing needs.

In this respect there are insights to be gained from taking a close look at the cross-border financial links of Japan, the region’s largest creditor country. In 2009 Japan’s intraregional trade with Asia was more than 40 per cent of its total global trade. In contrast, Asia’s share in Japan’s financial transactions was only 24 per cent for FDI assets, and was even smaller, at less than 9 per cent, for FDI liabilities. The importance of Asia was almost negligible for portfolio investments: 8 per cent for equity assets, 1 per cent for debt assets and l.7 per cent for equity liabilities. The exception is Japan’s debt liabilities, where Asia accounted for 18 per cent at the end of 2009. This indicates that Asian investors are active participants in Japan’s large bond market. In terms of cross-border banking flows, Asia’s share was only 7 per cent, broadly similar to the share in total global cross-border bank claims. This suggests that Japanese banks differ little from other international banks in their lending behaviour towards Asia. In short, Japan’s financial links with Asia are much weaker than the links with North America and Europe, though Asia is by far the most important trading partner.

The pattern of investment activity points to a few possible factors to explain Asia’s lopsidedly small share in Japan’s financial transactions, and hence the lack of regional financial integration within Asia. First are the underdeveloped and small domestic capital markets. Second are the capital account restrictions that limit the scope for two-way capital flows. Third are the licensing and other regulatory practices that discriminate ex post against the cross-border activity of Asia-based banks.

Accordingly, in order to promote regional financial integration, the authorities of many of the region’s economies must develop their domestic capital markets further, and make them deep, liquid and efficient. They should also ease or remove controls on the ability of residents to invest abroad. And finally, they should relax the regulatory barriers on the entry of foreign banks, especially those from within the region. Because Asian financial systems remain largely bank-based, promoting this cross-border activity would be especially important.

Undoubtedly part of the limited financial integration we now observe in Asia is related to the stages of development of many of the economies. Regional financial integration is bound to deepen to a level more commensurate with trade integration as Asian economies grow, per capita incomes rise, and financial wealth is accumulated.

Even so, some of the identified gaps require remedial action by governments. This is likely to be a long process because it involves institution and capacity building. Regional cooperative efforts may be needed to safeguard the process of capital account liberalisation and to relax the licensing standards for Asia-based foreign banks. Similarly, regional cooperation may be useful in setting common standards for domestic capital markets and cross-border issues of financial products. In the long run, a region-wide consolidation of domestic capital markets may help create a market with the size, depth and liquidity that is sufficiently attractive to large international and regional investors.

Shinji Takagi is Professor of Economics at the Graduate School of Economics, Osaka University, Japan.

This article appeared in the most recent edition of the East Asia Forum Quarterly, ‘Asia’s global impact‘.