Competitive Intelligence in China–Japan–Asean Relations: A Comparative Analysis of Strategic Cooperation in Southeast Asia, 2022–2025

Abstract

Purpose: This study operationalizes Competitive Intelligence (CI) in two empirical domains: as a reproducible intelligence cycle for strategic trade monitoring and as a formative organizational-system construct measuring observable CI capability in public statistical organizations.

Methodology/Approach: Official JETRO and Japan Customs trade data for 2022–2025 were analyzed using a pooled log-linear model with HC3 robust inference. Monthly 2022–2024 data provided robustness checks through Newey–West HAC models, correlations, seasonal controls, and lag specifications. Organizational CI capability was measured using the 12-item formative Observed Organizational Competitive Intelligence Capability Index (OOCICI), covering planning, collection, analysis, dissemination, utilization/feedback, and governance.

Originality/Relevance: The study distinguishes intelligence-analysis outputs from organizational CI capability by observing formal mandates, collection systems, analytical architectures, dissemination channels, decision-support mechanisms, feedback, and governance controls. It converts official open data into a reproducible CI framework for trade-promotion agencies, policy units, and research organizations.

Key Findings: From 2022–2025, Japan’s exports to ASEAN increased annually by 0.88% and imports by 0.29%, while exports to China decreased by 0.40% and imports increased by 2.42%. However, China-versus-ASEAN trend differences were not statistically significant for exports (β = −.0098, p = .828) or imports (β = .0182, p = .609). Monthly robustness analyses confirmed no statistically detectable partner-specific divergence. OOCICI scores were 100.0 for Japan Customs/MOF and ASEANstats and 83.3 for JETRO and World Bank WDI.

Theoretical/Methodological Contributions: The study integrates classical CI, organizational intelligence capability, intelligence governance, information asymmetry, dynamic capabilities, and the resource-based view. It separates econometric trade monitoring from organizational CI capability measurement through an empirically audited formative index.