\n<\/p>\n
The first is scope. While Singapore and New Zealand are vulnerable to economic disruptions, both have different economic resources and areas of concern.\u00a0These differences are clearly apparent in AOTES which basically trades energy for food.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n But not every economic disruption will affect these two sectors in the same way, as the Iran war and disruption in the Strait of Hormuz have. Hence, the basic bargain may be less relevant if, for instance, trade is disrupted by a health crisis or conflict in another part of the global economy.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The second reason for some scepticism is scale. The benefits of such an arrangement could be harder to maintain with more partners.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Imagine if, say, Australia asked to join. It is a much bigger economy and the balance between fuel and food supply and demand could be quite uneven.\u00a0What seemed like a fair trade-off between two parties may look less appealing with more states involved.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Third, sharing essential goods will inevitably come with political challenges during a crisis. It will be hard for any government to be seen to provide something called \u201cnecessary\u201d to outsiders, especially if domestic needs are pressing. What if the items are in short supply in both markets? Would Singapore or New Zealand really agree to an equitable split if both were down to their last stocks of something critical?<\/span><\/p>\n This is not to discount the importance of thinking creatively about how to navigate an increasingly uncertain economic environment. In a world where the instinct of governments under pressure is to hoard, Singapore and New Zealand have shown a flexibility and willingness to try new arrangements that keep the door open.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Whether others see this as a useful framework to guard against future disruptions will be worth watching.<\/span><\/p>\n