The contested rescaling of economic governance in East Asia: a special issue

Hameiri, Shahar; Wilson, Jeffrey D.

doi:10.1080/10357718.2014.978742

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This assessment comes even with full acknowledgement of the snail’s pace of current negotiations, serious limitations to active participation by all members, and the severely curtailed ability of LDCs to engage in capacity-building policies within the WTO framework (for recent assessments, see also Capling and Ravenhill, 2011; Flentø and Ponte, 2017; Wilkinson, 2015). Thus, despite the veneer of ‘multilateralizing regionalism’ via mega-RTAs (Capling and Ravenhill, 2011), this rescaling of trade governance is an inherently political maneuver that further limits the possibilities for low-income countries to shape global trade architecture (Hameiri and Wilson, 2015).…”

Section: Diminishing Returns To Tradementioning

confidence: 99%

Trade governance at a crossroads: Continuity and change in uncertain times

Cooke

Hamilton

Werner

2017

Competition & Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Diminishing Returns To Tradementioning

confidence: 99%

Trade governance at a crossroads: Continuity and change in uncertain times

Cooke

Hamilton

Werner

2017

Competition & Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…'Regulatory regionalism' has emerged as a promising theoretical response to this conundrum. Jayasuriya (2003Jayasuriya ( , 2009 and Hameiri (see Hameiri and Jayasuriya, 2011;Hameiri, 2013;Hameiri and Wilson, 2015) have sought to overcome an overemphasis on formal regional 'institutions' to the detriment of what they regard as an 'understanding of the domestic political mainsprings of regional governance' (Jayasuriya, 2003: 199). By domestic they mean sub/ national challenges that need to be resolved through new spatial governing projects.…”

Section: Regions As Spatial Frontiers In State Projects Of Transformamentioning

confidence: 99%

Introduction: global regionalisms and higher education

Robertson¹,

Dale²,

Olds³

et al. 2016

Global Regionalisms and Higher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Global regionalisms and higher education Looking back at this period, it is clear a great deal has changed. APEC, for instance, heavily backed by the United States, Australia and Singapore, is now less significant as a regional organization, whilst the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has become increasingly important. As 2015 came to a close, the ASEAN Economic Community was launched. It was also clear some forms of regionalizing are not (national) state-led but rather involve a range of other actors, with or without the state. It is also clear that, over this period of time, higher education has begun to play an increasingly more central role in different kinds of regional projects, for example through student and staff mobility programmes, the development of quality assurance mechanisms, regional qualifications frameworks, sharing best practice, and in some cases, introducing systems of credit transfer for students. But one thing is also clear: our interest in region-building and novel forms of inter-regionalism, and the role that higher education is playing in this, has continued to grow. We were hooked. Regional projects and the spaces that they were creating beyond the national state-from Africa to Latin America, Europe, Central Asia, the Arab world, South East Asia and Oceana-are not just fascinating political developments. They also pose interesting intellectual challenges regarding how best to understand quite what they are, and how to research them. Were they spaces or 'areas', as in the European Higher Education Area or the African Higher Education and Research Space? But what kind of area, or space? Why have they emerged, and at this point in time? What is the source of their authority and legitimacy? How do the agendas of these higher education regional projects get set, and by whom? What is the relationship between different higher education regional projects and spaces, how are these brokered, and by whom? Answers to some of these questions came as a result of a closer engagement with the EU's higher education and economic projects through workshops and conferences (including in Madison, Wisconsin), funded research projects, and contributing as experts to the European Commission and the European University Association. At close range, we could see and meet other key players who were instrumental in the rapid expansion of Europe's 'education space' through instruments like the Bologna Process launched in 1999 (Bologna, 1999). To change the degree architectures of its 29 signatory countries (expanding now to some 48 countries) through this Bologna Process was nothing short of astonishing, especially given the difficulties institutions inevitably present for any grand-scale reform initiative. And in this case, higher education was being enrolled in a regional integration project which had emanated from national governments: a proposal from Claude Allègre, then France's Minister of Education, Higher Education

show abstract

“…To date, there is little explicit focus on analysing such kinds of transnational governance activities in the region. While recent exciting works on multi-level governance in the region such as Jayasuriya (2015) and Hameiri and Wilson (2015) recognise that corporations, NGOs and scholars' networks are crucial players, state bureaucracies are the primary governing agents in these works, which are also less focused on precisely how non-state actors actually govern. This collection of articles attempts to fill this gap in the literature.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%