Routledge Handbook of Asian Regionalism

Mark Beeson, Richard Stubbs, Mark Beeson, Richard Stubbs

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2012
• eBook ISBN: 9781136634727
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Política y relaciones internacionales
• Subtopic: Relaciones internacionales

The Routledge Handbook of Asian Regionalism is a definitive introduction to, and analysis of, the development of regionalism in Asia, including coverage of East Asia, Southeast Asia and South Asia. The contributors engage in a comprehensive exploration of what is arguably the most dynamic and important region in the world. Significantly, this volume addresses the multiple manifestations of regionalism in Asia and is consequently organised thematically under the headings of:

• 
  
  

• conceptualizing the region

• 
  
  

• economic issues

• 
  
  

• political issues

• 
  
  

• strategic issues

• 
  
  

• regional organizations

As such, the Handbook presents some of the key elements of the competing interpretations of this important and highly contested topic, giving the reader a chance to evaluate not just where Asian regionalism is going but also how the scholarship on Asian regionalism is analysing these trends and events.

This book will be an indispensable resource for students and scholars of Asian politics, international relations and regionalism.

PART I

Conceptualizing the Asian Region

1

Theories of Regionalism

Fredrik Söderbaum

Introduction

This handbook underlines the multidimensionality and pluralism of contemporary regionalism¹.As a discipline, regionalism has become a research field in itself, rather than being limited to a more narrow state- or policy-driven process conceptualized in terms of ‘regional integration’ in the traditional sense. This has given rise to a number of new puzzles and challenges for both academics and policymakers, with a subsequent proliferation of a very large number of theories and concepts. A single chapter such as this cannot do justice to the diverse theoretical landscape. The goal of this chapter is, therefore, limited to giving an overview of some of the key theoretical debates and controversies that are particularly relevant for the study of Asian regionalism. More specifically, it will relate Asian regionalism to the historical development of the field in general, and to the overemphasis on European integration theory and practice in the field, as well as considering the crucial relationship between formal and informal regionalism. The study builds upon the understanding that it is not relevant to develop a theory about Asian regionalism per se. Rather, it is of specific interest to situate it within a more general theoretical and comparative discussion. It will be assumed, however, that Asia is crucial to the further development of the field.

The chapter is divided into four main section. The first provides an overview of the early and more recent debates and theories; the second addresses the problem of Eurocentrism in theory-building and its implication for the study of Asian regionalism; the third gives an overview of theoretical perspectives on formal and informal regionalism; and the fourth outlines more specifically the discussion about formality and informality in Asia and the implication for comparative regionalism.

Early and Recent Debates on Regionalism

The early debate covers research undertaken between the 1950s and 1970s: the relevant theories were federalism, functionalism and neofunctionalism (Rosamond 2000; Hettne and Söderbaum 2008). Federalism, which inspired the pioneers of European integration, was more a political programme than a theory – it was sceptical of the nation state, although what was to be created was rather a new kind of state. Functionalism was also an approach to peace-building rather than a theory. In contrast to federalism, it was primarily associated with one particular scholar, David Mitrany (1966), and the burning question was on which political level various human needs (often defined in a technical way) could best be met – claiming the best way was to go beyond the nation state but not necessarily to go ‘regional’.

Neofunctionalism became the most influential approach during the early debate. It combined the method of functionalism with the ultimate objective of federalism. Ernst Haas (1958) was the central theorist, who put forward the ‘community method’ of Jean Monnet. Although the outcome of this method could be a federation, it was not built by constitutional design – i.e. form would follow function. The basic mechanism was ‘spillover’, the key concept defined as ‘the way in which the creation and deepening of integration in one economic sector would create pressures for further economic integration within and beyond that sector, and greater authoritative capacity at the European level’ (Rosamond 2000: 60; cf. Haas 1958). Bela Balassa (1961a) applied a similar logic to economic integration. A free trade area would lead to a customs union and further to the establishment of a common market, economic union and political union. Other leading authors who wrote about early regionalism include Karl Deutsch (1957), Joseph Nye (1971), and Philippe Schmitter (1970).

At the time of these debates, European integration theories were developed for and from the European experience and then more or less reapplied or exported around the world. Although the neofunctionalists were somewhat conscious of their own Eurocentrism, in their comparative analyses they searched particularly for those ‘background conditions’ and ‘spill-over’ effects that could be found in Europe (Haas 1961; Hettne 2003). All too often (but not always) the European Community (EC) was seen and advocated as the model, and other looser and informal modes of regionalism were, wherever they appeared, characterized as ‘weaker’ or ‘failed’ (i.e. with no ‘regional integration’ according to the dominating definition).

In the 1960s the fit between the neofunctional description (and prescription) and the empirical world, dominated by de Gaulle’s nationalism, disappeared. Stanley Hoffman (1966) challenged the (neo)functionalist prescription that integration would spread from low politics (economics) to the sphere of high politics (security). The image of the EC began to diverge. According to the intergovernmentalist turn in the study of European integration, regional integration happened only as long as it coincided with the national interest – as a ‘rescue of the nation-state’ (Milward 1992). The ontological shift thus meant an epistemological shift towards a more state-centric, realist analysis. Puchala (1971) famously used the fable of the elephant and the blind men to underline the fact that different observers highlighted different aspects of the same broader phenomenon. He stressed the need for reconceptualization based on empirical observation, and preferred to see the EC as a concordant system.

The 1970s was a period of ‘Eurosclerosis’ within the EC, but the 1985 White Paper on the internal market and the Single European Act (SEA) resulted in a new dynamic process of European integration. This was also the start of what has often been referred to as ‘new regionalism’ on a global scale. To some observers, regionalism was ‘new’ mainly in the sense that it represented a revival of protectionism or neo-mercantilism. However, most observers highlighted the fact that the closure of regions was not on the agenda. Indeed, the recent debate is to a large extent generated by the transformation of the Westphalian nation state, the erosion of national borders and the pressing question of how to navigate politically in the context of globalization (Söderbaum and Shaw 2003; Cooper et al. 2008).

Regionalism needs to be understood both from an exogenous perspective (outside-in) and an endogenous perspective (inside-out) (Hettne 2002; also see Neumann 2003). The former perspective refers to the fact that regionalization and globalization are intertwined articulations of global transformation, whereas the latter implies that regionalization is shaped from within the region by a large number of different factors. Even if neorealist scholarship emphasizes systemic variables, the exogenous perspective has developed primarily in the course of the recent debate and the intensification of globalization, which also explains why scholars such as Hettne referred to it as ‘new regionalism’ (i.e. in order to distinguish earlier from more recent processes). The endogenous perspective finds much more continuity with functionalist and neofunctionalist theorizing about regional integration, the role of agency and the long-term transformation of territorial identities. As a result, endogenous theories usually do not rely on (or acknowledge) distinctions about old and new regionalism. Yet it is quite obvious that in contrast to the time when Haas, Deutsch and the early regional integration scholars were writing, today’s scholars identify many regionalisms. This in turn provides a very different base for theorizing regionalism. It is apparent that neither the object of study (ontology) nor the way of studying it (epistemology) has remained static. Indeed, current regionalization may be seen as a new political landscape in the making, characterized by an expanding cast of actors (state and non-state) operating in the regional arena and across several interrelated dimensions: security, development, trade, environment, identity and so on.

The multidimensionality and pluralism of the regional phenomenon, both in Europe and the rest of the world, has resulted in the proliferation of a large number of revitalized or (partly) ‘new’ theories and approaches to regionalism. There has been an explosion during the last decade of theoretical explorations in the field. Some edited volumes including Söderbaum and Shaw’s (2003) collection, Theories of New Regionalism, draw attention to variants of institutionalism, security complex theory, and a variety of constructivist, critical and ‘new regionalism’ approaches, such as the world order approach (WOA), new regionalism approach (NRA) and region-building approach. Mansfield and Milner’s (1997) The Political Economy of Regionalism highlights a variety of neorealist and neo-liberal institutional theories, new trade theories and new institutionalism. Laursen’s two separate volumes on comparative regional integration (2003, 2010) emphasize a variety of governmentalist, power, constructivist, neofunctionalist and historical institutionalist perspectives, whereas Wiener and Diez (2009) is a coherent and stimulating exposé of the richness of European integration theory, highlighting federalism, neofunctionalism, liberal intergovernmentalism, multilevel governance, policy networks, new institutionalisms, social constructivism, integration through law, discursive approaches and gender perspectives. With regard to theoretical innovation, it is also important to stress the leading role played by scholars such as Amitav Acharya (2001) and Peter Katzenstein (2005). Their work has been groundbreaking not only for understanding regionalism in Asia but also for comparative regionalism. It is clear that since the late 1990s (after the slow start of the recent debate that was dominated by single or parallel case studies), comparative analysis has now become one of the most important trends in the contemporary study of regionalism (also cf Mattli 1999; Breslin and Higgott 2000; Rosamond 2000; Farrell et al. 2005; Acharya and Johnston 2007; Warleigh-Lack and van Langenhove 2010; van Langenhove 2011; Warleigh-Lack et al. 2011).

There has been intense debate (and much confusion) about what is ‘old’ and ‘new’ in the study of regionalism (see Söderbaum 2003, 2004). One prominent scholar of the recent debate, Björn Hettne, who is very much associated with the label in the first place, forcefully states that after more than two decades of the so-called ‘new regionalism’, the distinction has lost much of its original meaning and that it is time to bury it (or at least move beyond it) (Hettne 2003, 2005). However, having made this point, Hettne states that it may still be relevant to identify continuities and discontinuities.

One change in thinking is related to the conceptualization and understanding of ‘region.’ During the early debate about regional integration a large amount of research capacity was invested in trying to define regions scientifically (Cantori and Spiegel 1970) and a plethora of opinions were advanced regarding what mutual interdependencies mattered the most, such as economic, political and social variables, or historical, cultural and ethnic bonds. The results of this research were not compelling, and parsimonious attempts to define regions have basically come to an end. Most scholars engaged in the contemporary debate agree that there are no natural or ‘scientific’ regions, and that these definitions vary according to the particular problem or question under investigation. Many scholars solve the problem by concentrating on regional organizations and regional economic frameworks (Fawcett and Hurrell 1995; Acharya and Johnston 2007), or security complexes/communities (Adler and Barnett 1998; Buzan and Waever 2003).

Yet there is a difference between mainstream (rationalist and ‘problem-solving’) and critical and constructivist scholarship regarding the conceptualization and treatment of regions. Mainstream (early) theorists usually take regions as pre-given, and often define them as particular interstate or policy-driven frameworks. Integral to this reasoning is that regions are believed to be identifiable through material structures and formal regional organizations. The argument that regions are not best understood in terms of regional intergovernmental organizations has been stressed in recent constructivist and post-structuralist scholarship. From this perspective, all regions are deemed to be socially constructed and hence politically contested. Emphasis is placed upon how political actors perceive and interpret the idea of a region, notions of ‘regionness’ and region-building (Hettne and Söderbaum 2000; van Langenhove 2011). According to these lines of thought, there are no ‘natural’ regions; all regions are (at least potentially) heterogeneous with unclear territorial margins.

Since the 1990s, research has also started to place greater emphasis on ‘soft’, de facto or informal regionalization, acknowledging the fact that a range of transnational (non-state) actors have begun to operate at the regional level, within as well as beyond state-led institutional frameworks. For instance, business interests and multinationals are not only operative in the global sphere, but they also tend to create regionalized patterns of economic activity. Oft-cited examples include the regional production systems in East and Southeast Asia and the informal market exchanges in Africa. Similarly, civil society is often neglected in the study of regionalism, despite the fact that its impact is increasing, as it becomes evident in the transnational activist networks and processes of interaction in civil society emerging at the regional level around the world, including Asia (Armstrong et al. 2010).

The Problem of Eurocentrism

The study of regionalism has been dominated by European integration theory and practice. Eurocentrism still prevails in large parts of the theoretical and comparative discussion on comparative regionalism – even if it has increasingly been challenged hand in hand with the acknowledgement that regional integration and regionalism may appear in many guises. One problem from a comparative perspective is that regionalism in Europe is often, according to the Europe-centred view, considered multidimensional and highly institutionalized – both a descriptive and prescriptive contention – whereas regionalism/regional integration in the rest of the world is seen as only weakly institutionalized and reduced to either an economic or security-related phenomenon. Even if there are some good reasons why these notions developed in the first place, such generalizations tend to be problematic (Söderbaum 2009; Söderbaum and Sbragia 2010; Warleigh-Lack and van Langenhove 2010; Warleigh-Lack et al. 2011).

The uneasy relationship between EU studies and comparative regionalism is confirmed by two renowned scholars of European integration, Alex Warleigh-Lack and Ben Rosamond (2010), who argue that in much of recent European Union (EU) studies scholars have considered the EU as a nascent, if unconventional, polity in its own right (‘the famous N = 1 problem’), exploring issues such as Europeanization and the EU’s own political system. This perspective has generated useful insights, but as Warleigh-Lack and Rosamond assert, it has also carried a certain intellectual parochialism and thereby kept us from deepening our understanding of the EU as a political system. Further, it has ironically also reinforced the notion that the EU is sui generis, thereby downplaying the respects in which the EU resembles either federal nation states or other regionalist projects around the world, even if recent work on the EU also includes explicit comparisons with federal systems in advanced industrial states, with the United States playing a prominent role in such comparisons (Fabbrini 2007).

Few can dispute that the EU as a region is diverse and, as a result, there has been an explosion of interesting theorizing on European integration. Hence, there is no consensus in a single EU mode of governance but a series of different interpretations of the EU (see Wiener and Diez 2009). This diversity ought, at least potentially, to have a positive influence on the broader regionalism literature.

It is evident that European integration theory and practice affects the study of regionalism in all corners of the world, including Asia. Somewhat simplified, it is possible to identify two broad attitudes towards European integration theory and practice in the field of regionalism. One strand of thinking tends to elevate European integration, while the other is considerably less convinced of the advantages of Eurocentric theories and generalizations. These two perspectives are similar, regardless of whether we talk about Asian, African or Latin American regionalism. Neither of these attitudes is fruitful for the development of theories of regionalism. The first perspectiv...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Illustrations
• List of Contributors
• List of Abbreviations
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• Part I: Conceptualizing the Asian Region
• Part II: Economic Issues
• Part III: Political issues
• Part IV: Strategic Issues
• Part V: Organizations
• Conclusion: The Future of Asian Regionalism
• Bibliography
• Index