As Western powers debate universal AI regulation, the diverse economies of APEC have forged a distinctly practical governance model - by balancing regional coordination with practical deployment and normative principles with operational standards - revealing how regions spanning different political systems and development stages may create more resilient AI frameworks.
The future of international artificial intelligence (AI) governance will likely emerge not from Brussels, Washington, or Beijing but from an overlooked forum representing 62% of global GDP. While western policy debates fixate on a tripartite contest between the European Union’s regulatory approach, America’s innovation-first model, and China’s state-directed development, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) has quietly pioneered a distinctive ‘cooperative implementation’ model that defies these simplistic categorisations.
This alternative approach – balancing regional coordination with practical deployment and normative principles with operational standards – offers crucial insights for a world struggling to govern AI effectively. In the Bennett Institute’s AIxGEO project, examining geopolitical dimensions of AI policy and governance across different regional frameworks, our analysis of 72 APEC policy documents and press releases spanning from 2015 to late 2024 reveals a sophisticated evolution that challenges fundamental assumptions about how effective technological governance emerges.
From cautious recognition to practical implementation
Unlike the reactive policies seen elsewhere, APEC has developed its AI approach methodically through four distinct phases, each building strategically on the previous.
During its initial ‘cautious recognition’ phase (2015-2017), APEC acknowledged AI primarily as a potential labour market disruptor. Yet even then, APEC demonstrated unusual foresight about public engagement: “When it comes to artificial intelligence… if we don’t work with society and see that there is a culture of co-design and co-production between the scientific community and the community as a whole then we’re going to see more of these collisions.“
This cautious beginning evolved into ‘strategic integration’ (2018-2020), positioning AI as a transformative economic force – “given the level of private equity investment in artificial intelligence startups, which in 2018 was estimated to be USD 50 billion, the rapid development of new, low-cost 4IR solutions is likely to continue.” APEC also began addressing specific governance challenges, for example noting Amazon’s discontinuation of an AI recruiting system that was “not rating candidates in a gender-neutral way.”
By 2021, APEC had entered a ‘governance development’ phase, developing institutional frameworks and exploring region-specific approaches. Rather than simply adopting external models, APEC began explicitly considering regional alternatives to the European approach, noting that while “the European Commission published its Proposal for a Regulation… a similar undertaking could be initiated for the APEC region.“
Most recently, in late 2024, APEC has pivoted decisively toward ‘operational implementation’ – moving beyond frameworks to practical deployment. This shift appears in concrete applications like “using artificial intelligence for container scanning, implementing container track-and-trace services” and in success stories like Peru’s digital transformation, which “offers a tangible example of how regional cooperation can accelerate AI governance.“
Thus, APEC has charted a middle path that bridges principle and practice. This evolutionary approach offers a vital lesson: effective governance emerges through iterative, context-sensitive development, not from comprehensive but abstract frameworks.
Regional coordination over global uniformity
APEC’s approach is distinctive in prioritising regional coordination over global frameworks – a crucial distinction that mainstream governance discussions routinely overlook. While other multilateral efforts aspire to universal principles, APEC has deliberately created regionally-appropriate frameworks that acknowledge the Asia-Pacific’s economic, social, and technological diversity.
This regional emphasis reflects a fundamental insight: “The Asia-Pacific region, with its mix of advanced and developing economies, offers a prime example of the potential – and necessity – of collaborative efforts in AI governance.” By focusing on regional interoperability rather than global uniformity, APEC has created space for policy experimentation appropriate to its members’ diverse circumstances, while maintaining sufficient coordination to prevent fragmentation, explicitly recognising that “in the rapidly evolving world of artificial intelligence, no single economy can manage its governance alone“.
This regional orientation positions APEC as a pioneering model for multi-level governance – operating at the optimal level of aggregation rather than posing a choice between national sovereignty or global coordination. The result is a more adaptive and responsive approach than ambitious global frameworks that struggle with implementation across vastly different contexts. APEC’s experience suggests that regional frameworks serve as crucial sandboxes for governance innovation in complex technological domains. This insight extends beyond AI to fundamental questions of how emerging technologies should be governed in an increasingly multipolar world.
Inclusivity as foundation, not afterthought
APEC has positioned gender equality as foundational from the beginning: “gender equality and women’s economic inclusion and empowerment are central…” (2017) with understanding the gender gap in tech: “women account for only 20 percent of professionals in the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector” (2020), and developing a structural governance approach reflecting that if women are not at the center of our thinking in APEC – whether we are considering matters of trade policy, skills frameworks, new technologies, structural and institutional reform, the green transition, artificial intelligence, disaster recovery etc…” (2024) then governance itself is fundamentally flawed.
This statement reflects APEC’s recognition that gender considerations should be integrated horizontally across all aspects of technological governance, not siloed into dedicated ‘women and technology’ initiatives. The focus extends beyond gender to broader concerns about digital access and participation, consistently emphasising the need for “innovative, inclusive, interconnected and sustainable growth” in AI development. APEC operationalises this inclusivity through specific attention to preventing algorithmic discrimination, as seen in references to using: “AI can help us remove biases from hiring processes, paving the way for a more diverse and inclusive workforce.” What distinguishes APEC’s approach is the integration of inclusivity directly into implementation frameworks rather than as separate considerations.
Environmental integration as a strategic priority
APEC similarly uniquely integrates AI governance with environmental objectives. Rather than treating environmental considerations as constraints on technological development, APEC positions sustainability as a core objective of AI deployment. This strategic integration appears in APEC’s consistent framing of artificial intelligence as “an important tool for driving innovation, promoting sustainable economic growth, and transforming various aspects of daily life across our economies.” The integration materialises through specific applications supporting “the context-specific development and utilisation of digital and innovative technologies, such as smart farming, agricultural biotechnology, data analytics, Artificial Intelligence, the Internet of Things, e-certificates, and food packaging.“
By aligning AI governance with environmental objectives from the outset, APEC avoids the policy conflicts that often emerge when technological and environmental governance evolve separately. This integrated approach reflects a sophisticated understanding of how emerging technologies intersect with complex socio-ecological systems – a perspective increasingly essential as AI applications proliferate across environmentally sensitive domains. This practical, implementation-focused approach to sustainability exemplifies APEC’s broader governance philosophy: principles matter, but operational frameworks matter more.
This integration of inclusivity and sustainability represents APEC’s distinctive understanding that technological governance cannot be separated from social and environmental contexts. Both should be woven into governance frameworks rather than addressed as separate domains.
Implementation before principles
While Western frameworks often begin with abstract ethical principles, APEC has prioritised practical implementation – an approach that addresses the notorious implementation gap plaguing technology governance. This pragmatic orientation appears in calls for “policies and regulations that support the adoption of these technologies while aligning with international standards.” The documents in 2024 reveal a decisive shift toward concrete implementation strategies, with a granular focus on specific applications from container scanning to smart tourism.
Capacity building as governance strategy
APEC’s most distinctive contribution may be its recognition that effective governance requires active capability development – not just rules and principles. While other frameworks assume relatively uniform implementation capabilities, APEC positions knowledge sharing and capability development as fundamental governance mechanisms. This emphasis appears in commitments to “enhance our capacity building, technical cooperation efforts and information sharing in support of peer learning, transparency and economies’ understanding.” Such statements reflect APEC’s understanding that governance effectiveness depends fundamentally on implementation capabilities that vary dramatically across the region. By recognising that “the disparity in AI readiness between economies underscores the importance of regional cooperation,” APEC addresses power asymmetries that many governance frameworks ignore. This capacity-building emphasis suggests a model where governance evolves not through power projection but through collaborative capability development – a perspective with significant implications for effective global governance in an era of technological transformation.
Beyond the western governance paradigm
APEC’s ‘cooperative implementation’ approach represents not just an alternative governance model but potentially a special one for diverse regions navigating technological transformation. Its distinctive features collectively challenge prevailing assumptions about how emerging technologies should be governed. The dominance of the tripartite framing – EU regulatory, United States (US) market-driven, and Chinese state-directed – obscures the sophistication of regional approaches while perpetuating the problematic assumption that effective governance models must originate in Western contexts. APEC’s experience suggests instead that regions with diverse economic, political, and cultural compositions may develop more adaptive governance approaches precisely because they must function across significant differences.
As AI reshapes global power dynamics, APEC’s quiet evolution from principles to practice may prove more consequential than the high-profile governance contests that dominate headlines. The future of AI governance will depend not on which single approach prevails but on how effectively diverse regional and national frameworks interact to create a functional global governance ecosystem. APEC’s contribution lies in demonstrating how practical cooperation, capacity building, and context-sensitive implementation can bridge the persistent gap between governance aspirations and operational reality.
This APEC analysis represents one component of the AIxGEO project examining international approaches to AI governance. Forthcoming analyses of South East Asian countries (ASEAN), the African Union, and G20 (intergovernmental forum comprising 19 sovereign countries, the European Union, and the African Union) initiatives will provide further insights into how diverse multilateral forums develop distinctive governance models adapted to their regional contexts offering a more nuanced understanding than western-centric debates of how effective governance emerges across different geopolitical environments.
The views and opinions expressed in this post are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the Bennett Institute for Public Policy.
