Exploring alternative theories of economic regionalism: from trade to finance in Asian co-operation?

Abstract

The financial crises of the late 1990s marked an intellectual watershed for the global economy, and also for regionalism as the Janus face of globalisation. At the beginning of the 21 st century, the theory and practice of regional cooperation and integration may evolve along different lines to how it was understood for most of the second half of the 20 th century. In East Asia, in particular, this will mean that the relationship between multilateralism and regionalism will change. The 'East Asian' region will become an increasingly important domain within which to explore enhanced protection against financial crises. What we might call 'monetary regionalism', sceptical western voices notwithstanding, is now firmly on the regional agenda in East Asia. Within conventional political economy, the theory and practice of monetary regionalism is not as easy to understand as traditional trade driven regional integration. Thus one aim of this paper is to outline a theory of monetary regionalism and demonstrate the degree to which it represents a sharp break with understandings of the regional project that pertained in East Asia prior to the late 1990s. From its start in 1989, APEC claimed to be a new type of regionalism. The promise was that APEC would promote open regionalism, i.e. the development of an approach to regional integration that would not harm the multilateral trading order. APEC, despite substantial peer pressure, did not achieve this goal. That APEC played any significant role in the advancement of regional trade integration cannot be proven. What can be said, however, is that it provided no support to its Asian members during the financial crises of the late 1990s. At the same time, more traditional (what we might call Balassian) understandings of trade driven regional integration are not showing any sign of decreasing importance, To the contrary, there is a growing appeal of trade cooperation , notably an increasing interest in bilateral preferential trading arrangements. This leads to a complex picture of competing regional initiatives across the economic policy spectrum. The paper locates these initiatives in the wider context of the growing politico-economic dialogue between Southeast and Northeast Asia that has developed via the ASEAN+3 process since 1997.

Rethinking regionalism: Europe and East Asia in comparative historical perspective

“…The comparative point to make about East Asia's initial forays into region-wide cooperative arrangements is that they are not dependent on the Americans to provide the material resources to make them work, in the way the Europeans were. On the contrary, East Asia is already well positioned to be a powerful and independent economic actor (Dieter and Higgott 2003). Moreover, the relationship between the US on the one hand, and China and Japan on the other, is fundamentally different form that which prevailed between the US and Europe after the war.…”

Regulatory regionalism and anti-money-laundering governance in Asia

“…Therefore, they have largely asked whether such new modes of governance are steps towards 'deeper' economic and/or political integration, or whether inter-state rivalry and a preference for hard sovereignty will stifle this process. Thus, scholars have questioned whether the CMIM would develop into an Asian Monetary Fund or some another supranational monetary body (Dieter and Higgott 2003;Kawai 2010). Kawai (2010) argues that although this development is desirable, it would require strengthening the regional surveillance mechanism, which currently still relies on governments' goodwill to function.…”

Competing Capitalisms and Neoliberalism: The Dynamics of, and Limits to, Economic Reform in the Asia‐Pacific

“…The emergence of 'ASEAN+3', an exclusively East Asian regional grouping that includes both Japan, China, South Korea, as well as the countries of Southeast Asia, is evidence of a region-wide reaction and resistance to external political and economic pressures (Beeson 2003c). While some of the major cooperative initiatives like monetary cooperation may be somewhat arcane and technical, they reflect a continuing desire on the part of East Asian governments to control the manner and pace of economic integration, a recognition of the growing importance of capital flows as opposed to trade (Dieter and Higgott 2003), and an unwillingness to simply 'leave it to the market', or -more accurately -the agencies and actors that have historically encouraged more radical neoliberal reform.…”