Key Takeaways:

- APEC 2025 reaffirmed commitments to trade, innovation, and digital transformation, but the benefits for developing economies remain uncertain.

- Deep disparities in infrastructure, digital capacity, and institutional readiness mean that many members may struggle to translate the Gyeongju Declaration’s goals into tangible gains.

- Whether APEC delivers meaningful progress will depend on implementation — sustained capacity-building, resources, and political will — not declarations alone.

Introduction

In Gyeongju, the Asia-Pacific economies reaffirmed their commitments to enhancing trade, innovation, and prosperity. For developing members of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), however, it remains uncertain whether these initiatives will generate tangible economic benefits.

As APEC leaders convened in Gyeongju from October 31 to November 1, familiar themes of trade, connectivity, innovation, and shared prosperity dominated the agenda amid global uncertainties and rising trade tensions. Their meeting produced the Gyeongju Declaration, centered on three priorities—Connect, Innovate, and Prosper—and reaffirmed APEC’s long-standing commitment to cooperation on trade, investment, and regional economic integration. Yet a pressing question remains: What tangible benefits will developing APEC economies actually derive?

APEC: History, Mission, and Evolution

To understand the implications of the Gyeongju Declaration, it is useful to consider APEC’s history and its evolving role in shaping regional economic cooperation. Since its establishment in 1989, APEC has grown from a forum of 12 member economies to a robust 21-economy platform. Its founding mission emphasized the promotion of free trade, regional economic integration, and dialogue on economic policy challenges. Over the decades, APEC has facilitated initiatives such as trade facilitation programs, infrastructure financing, and economic cooperation, which have helped developing economies navigate global markets, strengthen institutions, and attract investment.

Development disparities among APEC economies

APEC economies exhibit substantial variation in their levels of development. Of the 21 member economies, seven are highly developed, while the remaining 14 are considered developing. According to the latest World Bank data, Singapore has the highest Gross National Income (GNI) per capita among APEC economies, at $110,344 (constant 2021 international dollars), whereas Papua New Guinea has the lowest, at $3,735 (constant 2021 international dollars).

Developing economies themselves display considerable disparities — from lower-middle-income countries such as Papua New Guinea to upper-middle-income economies like Indonesia and Thailand. This diversity shapes human capital, infrastructure, economic diversification, and institutional capacity, affecting their ability to benefit from APEC initiatives.

Trade and Investment Opportunities

Over the last decades, APEC has provided developing economies with avenues to leverage regional integration, trade liberalization, and investment in strategic sectors. By accessing larger markets, diversifying exports, and attracting foreign direct investment (FDI), these countries can stimulate industrial growth, facilitate technology transfer, and deepen integration into global value chains.

Vietnam, for instance, has seen its manufacturing sector flourish in part due to trade liberalization efforts encouraged under APEC frameworks. FDI from APEC members accounts for over 82% of Vietnam’s accumulated FDI over the past 40 years, supporting technology transfer, skill development, and participation in global value chains.

Other developing economies have similarly benefited from FDI. In Indonesia, for example, FDI inflows into manufacturing, infrastructure, and services have spurred modernization, increased productivity, and integrated the country more deeply into regional and global value chains. These examples illustrate the tangible benefits that investment can bring under APEC frameworks, offering both enhanced growth and opportunities for technological learning.

Digital Economy and the AI Divide

While traditional trade and investment channels continue to provide substantial opportunities, the emerging digital economy presents a new frontier for growth and innovation. APEC has prioritized digitalization and artificial intelligence (AI) transformation, recognizing their potential to drive innovation, economic growth, and regional competitiveness.

However, significant gaps persist between member economies. While advanced members enjoy widespread internet access, robust digital infrastructure, and strong AI capabilities, many developing economies face infrastructural bottlenecks, limited digital skills, and uneven connectivity, which constrain their ability to harness digital technologies for inclusive growth.

In Papua New Guinea, for example, only 32% of the population has internet access, leaving nearly 68% offline. Moreover, more than 86% of the population resides in rural areas, where digital infrastructure is weak and digital literacy initiatives are difficult to scale. These disparities illustrate a broader digital divide in the Asia-Pacific, which, if left unaddressed, could exacerbate economic inequalities and limit the benefits that less developed members derive from digital transformation initiatives.

Capacity-Building as a Development Tool

Addressing these gaps, the Gyeongju Declaration emphasizes capacity-building initiatives as a key mechanism for fostering equitable development. From a development perspective, capacitybuilding strengthens knowledge, skills, institutions, and systems, enabling countries to manage their development sustainably—in contrast to short-term financial aid.

Through technical assistance, training programs, knowledge-sharing initiatives, and policy guidance, countries can implement complex reforms, improve governance, adopt new technologies, integrate more effectively into global markets, and enhance resilience to economic and environmental challenges. By focusing on long-term institutional and human resource development, capacity-building ensures that investments and reforms yield lasting benefits and broader multiplier effects rather than temporary gains.

APEC Commitments, Challenges, and Limitations

The Gyeongju Declaration also emphasizes inclusive and sustainable growth. It stresses that the benefits of prosperity should be shared across the Asia-Pacific and pledges deeper cooperation to address global challenges — from energy and food security to environmental pressures and extreme weather events. Programs supporting SMEs, women’s entrepreneurship, green growth, and digital inclusion aim to narrow persistent development gaps.

APEC leaders endorsed the AI Initiative (2026–2030), which focuses on advancing AI transformation and building AI capacities at all levels. As the host of APEC 2025, South Korea has committed to establishing an Asia-Pacific AI Center to serve as a regional hub for AI capacity building, innovation, and information sharing. These initiatives are further anchored in APEC’s Putrajaya Vision 2040, which commits the region to innovation-driven, inclusive growth, and seeks to enhance the policy influence of smaller economies within the forum.

However, APEC’s non-binding commitments, while offering flexibility, also limit accountability. The Gyeongju Declaration sets an ambitious agenda, but its impact will ultimately depend on whether members translate broad statements into concrete action. Many initiatives rely on voluntary contributions, ad hoc funding, and variable political will rather than enforceable obligations or measurable benchmarks. This creates an uneven landscape in which smaller or lessdeveloped economies must rely on goodwill and alignment of interests.

Stakes for Developing Economies Amid Geopolitical dynamics

The real test lies not in declarations themselves, but in implementation — whether commitments are backed by resources, technical support, and follow-through. In a world shaped by rapid digital transformation, climate pressures, and intensifying geopolitical competition, APEC’s ability to deliver tangible, equitable benefits to developing members will determine both the credibility of the Gyeongju outcomes and the forum’s long-term relevance for developing economies.

Economic integration alone is not the full story; APEC also functions as a diplomatic arena where developing economies navigate complex geopolitical dynamics. For many, the forum provides an avenue to assert independence and highlight collective interests amid rising tensions between the United States and China. For developing economies, what is at stake goes beyond market access or investment flows — it is the ability to shape a regional order that values inclusiveness, sustainability, and resilience, thereby strengthening their position within regional governance structures.