Regionalization and Regionalism in East Asia

Kim, Samuel S.

doi:10.1017/s1598240800004380

Cited by 46 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It should be noted that I use the term 'negotiation' in a particular way. Following from Kim's characterization of regionalism as a normative concept that expresses shared values, norms, identity and aspirations (Kim 2004), the negotiations highlighted below are thus more than the utilitarian kind used in discussions of strategic bargaining. They are also more than mere 'interactions'.…”

Section: Regionalism's Multiple Negotiationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As Samuel Kim notes, it is not particularly unique to East and Southeast Asia that 'structural and policy changes' at the global level of politics would heighten the 'significance of the intrinsic dynamics of regional forces' (Kim 2004), but for ASEAN-Southeast Asia, there was also the additional challenge of having to re-relate to Northeast Asian regional powers that had been kept at a distance. In the end, only Singapore was really convinced and Mahathir was unable to marshal sufficient support within ASEAN for the EAEG.…”

Section: Southeast Asia and East Asiamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Regionalism's multiple negotiations: ASEAN in East Asia

2009

Cambridge Review of International Affairs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article explains East Asian regionalism as the product of two sets of negotiations. The first negotiation is between East Asia on the one hand and global forces and structures on the other. The second negotiation is intra-regional and includes a critical negotiation between the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)-Southeast Asia and East/Northeast Asia, which also provides the primary focus of this article. This article details ASEAN's extensions into East Asian regionalism as part of interdependent efforts to adapt transitioning global and regional systems. Conceiving these regional negotiations to be not just economic and utilitarian but first and foremost normative, this article details the opportunities and dilemmas represented by 'East Asia' for ASEAN, ASEAN-Southeast Asia and Southeast Asia as a meaningful organizing principle. Dilemmas associated with the ASEAN Plus Three process, an East Asia free-trade area and the ASEAN Charter provide illustrations of East Asia's understood challenges for Southeast Asia in addition to the ways that Southeast Asian agencies have been shaping the form and content of recent East Asian efforts and also how regional-global and intra-ASEAN negotiations continue to provide key constraints.

show abstract

Section: Regionalism's Multiple Negotiationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Southeast Asia and East Asiamentioning

confidence: 99%

Regionalism's multiple negotiations: ASEAN in East Asia

2009

Cambridge Review of International Affairs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The focus here is on both regionalisation and regionalism, where regionalism refers to formal institutional processes and regionalisation to the economic, social and political relations between nations and their impact on the development project in each country (Breslin and Higgott 2000;Birdsall and Rojas-Suarez 2004: 2;Kim 2004). There is clearly much grey between what constitutes regionalism and regionalisation, nevertheless, it is a useful distinction.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The international development institutions and regionalism: the case of South-East Asia

Engel¹

2010

Australian Journal of International Affairs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Why is it that the World Bank has failed to effectively incorporate the impact of regionalisation within its economic development strategies and policy advice for borrowing countries? This is an interesting puzzle given the increasing importance that scholarly observers, policy practitioners and development agencies have attached to regionalism and regionalisation in recent years. In the fiscal years 1995-2005, the World Bank provided only $1.7 billion in support for regional (or multicountry) operations across the globe, this is less than one per cent of its project and other funding overall. In Southeast Asia, while the Asian Development Bank (ADB) has had a particularly strong engagement with regionalism, the World Bank has only recently started to come on board with regional analysis and programs. The paper proposes that the gap is due to a combination of institutional and ideological factors and explores this proposition through a study of the World Bank in Vietnam.

show abstract

“…Peter J. Katzenstein, “Regionalism and Asia,” in Shaun Breslin, Christopher W. Hughes, Nicola Phillips, and Ben Rosamond, eds., New Regionalism in the Global Political Economy (London and New York: Routledge, 2002), p. 105; See also Samuel S. Kim, “Regionalization and Regionalism in East Asia,” Journal of East Asian Studies , 4 (2004), pp. 39–67.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

EastAsianFinancial Regionalism and the Politics of Global Financial Governance: Structural and Institutional Power in Global and Regional Governance

Choi

2013

Pacific Focus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Asian Financial Crisis in 1997–1998 and the mishandling of the crisis by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the United States catalyzed the rise of East Asian financial regionalism. In spite of skepticism, region‐wide financial arrangements in East Asia have continually evolved and a new multilateral financial lending facility in the region was finally launched. However, the financial lending facility in East Asia is still linked to the IMF, a global institution, and has significant limits in its capacity. In the wake of the Global Financial Crisis, mounting criticism resurfaced against the IMF's legitimacy and effectiveness, but its reform process has been sluggish and its outcome remains uncertain. My argument here is that the limits of East Asian financial regionalism and the slow and uncertain reform process of the IMF, which is the linchpin of global financial governance, are attributed to the path‐dependent nature of the structural and institutional power of the United States. This study aims to show that power is an integral element of global and regional governance, and global structures and institutions, originally created by a hegemonic state, can have long‐lasting effects even though the hegemon is in decline.

show abstract

Regionalization and Regionalism in East Asia

Cited by 46 publications

References 15 publications

Regionalism's multiple negotiations: ASEAN in East Asia

Regionalism's multiple negotiations: ASEAN in East Asia

The international development institutions and regionalism: the case of South-East Asia

EastAsianFinancial Regionalism and the Politics of Global Financial Governance: Structural and Institutional Power in Global and Regional Governance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About