Comments on: Asian regionalism: How does it compare to Europe’s? http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/04/21/asian-regionalism-how-does-it-compare-to-europes/ Economics, Politics and Public Policy in East Asia and the Pacific Fri, 19 Mar 2010 22:12:37 +1100 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Thanawat Pimoljinda http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/04/21/asian-regionalism-how-does-it-compare-to-europes/comment-page-1/#comment-48295 Thanawat Pimoljinda Fri, 07 Aug 2009 14:43:57 +0000 http://www.eastasiaforum.org/?p=3635#comment-48295 The study of regional integration is helpful in understanding the determinant factors that make integration possible and the potential impact on member states. But it would be of no avail if we set in motion a distinctive form of what integration should be. Significantly, successful regional integrations should not be measured on how closely they are integrated. Instead, they should be measured on how effectively they are in dealing deal with cooperation. As mentioned in regard to the experience of European regional integration, it evolved within a distinctive configuration which in turn has produced a distinctive model of internationalization of its own. It is for this reason that such a model should also be used to explain the distinctive model of ASEAN regional cooperation as well. Like benchmarking, a comparative approach is mainly done to analyze the evolution of regional cooperation and integration rather than looking at the possibility or the way to accomplish the ultimate goal of cooperation. Importantly, there is not an explicitly explanatory factor to assert that the pattern of European regional integration is an advantageous style of regional integration when it is adopted by other regional organizations, especially in the case of ASEAN or even elsewhere in the rest of the world. Thanawat Pimoljinda The study of regional integration is helpful in understanding the determinant factors that make integration possible and the potential impact on member states. But it would be of no avail if we set in motion a distinctive form of what integration should be. Significantly, successful regional integrations should not be measured on how closely they are integrated. Instead, they should be measured on how effectively they are in dealing deal with cooperation. As mentioned in regard to the experience of European regional integration, it evolved within a distinctive configuration which in turn has produced a distinctive model of internationalization of its own. It is for this reason that such a model should also be used to explain the distinctive model of ASEAN regional cooperation as well. Like benchmarking, a comparative approach is mainly done to analyze the evolution of regional cooperation and integration rather than looking at the possibility or the way to accomplish the ultimate goal of cooperation. Importantly, there is not an explicitly explanatory factor to assert that the pattern of European regional integration is an advantageous style of regional integration when it is adopted by other regional organizations, especially in the case of ASEAN or even elsewhere in the rest of the world.

Thanawat Pimoljinda

]]> By: Professor Rameshwar Tandon http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/04/21/asian-regionalism-how-does-it-compare-to-europes/comment-page-1/#comment-33048 Professor Rameshwar Tandon Thu, 04 Jun 2009 06:14:52 +0000 http://www.eastasiaforum.org/?p=3635#comment-33048 While in the new millennium, the bandwagon of regional integrtion is on a roll again; what we are now confronting is a 'second regionalism'. But if an open world trading system continues to be our ultimate goal, then several questions arise as to whether we should welcome these RTAs as a step that will ultimately reinforce global free trade. We are highly skeptical about the value of these RTAs; and whether these RTAs are building blocs or stumblign blocs in a globalising wrold, is still an open issue. As Paul Krugman recently observed, we still need to ask why such regional blocs are emerging. Also why nations feel that they are able to negotiate better at a regional level than at global level. While for SEAsian region, I am dead sure nothing in the form of any formal institutin will ever come up here; as since the early 1960s, several doyens of integration- Prof Kiyoshi Kitamura, K.Kojima toiled for years to develop PAFTA, AFTA, APEC, Asian common Market but governments in the region did not bother for their innovative ideas; even now after years, ASEAN is a closed group promoting interests of its own group only Raemshwar Tandon While in the new millennium, the bandwagon of regional integrtion is on a roll again; what we are now confronting is a ’second regionalism’. But if an open world trading system continues to be our ultimate goal, then several questions arise as to whether we should welcome these RTAs as a step that will ultimately reinforce global free trade. We are highly skeptical about the value of these RTAs; and whether these RTAs are building blocs or stumblign blocs in a globalising wrold, is still an open issue.
As Paul Krugman recently observed, we still need to ask why such regional blocs are emerging. Also why nations feel that they are able to negotiate better at a regional level than at global level.
While for SEAsian region, I am dead sure nothing in the form of any formal institutin will ever come up here; as since the early 1960s, several doyens of integration- Prof Kiyoshi Kitamura, K.Kojima toiled for years to develop PAFTA, AFTA, APEC, Asian common Market but governments in the region did not bother for their innovative ideas; even now after years, ASEAN is a closed group promoting interests of its own group only
Raemshwar Tandon

]]> By: Andrew Elek http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/04/21/asian-regionalism-how-does-it-compare-to-europes/comment-page-1/#comment-23298 Andrew Elek Thu, 23 Apr 2009 02:17:49 +0000 http://www.eastasiaforum.org/?p=3635#comment-23298 A positive feature of the article is that it does not fall into the trap of seeing a regional preferantial trade bloc as the ultimate aim of regional integration. PTAs only address the old issues of shallow integration. A weakness is that the article does not acknowledge that APEC is providing a model for the kind of integration feasible among very diverse groups of economies, such as the Asian group of economies. Why promote Asian-only forums, as against trans-Pacific cooperation at the same time? Perhaps it is also time to think about globalism again: the G20 could also draw on APEC's experience to begin work to promote genuine economic integration, going beyond the limited idea of 'free trade'. Please see my post <a href="http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/01/20/economic-integration-an-opportunity-for-the-g20/" rel="nofollow">Economic integration: an opportunity for the G20</a> A positive feature of the article is that it does not fall into the trap of seeing a regional preferantial trade bloc as the ultimate aim of regional integration. PTAs only address the old issues of shallow integration.

A weakness is that the article does not acknowledge that APEC is providing a model for the kind of integration feasible among very diverse groups of economies, such as the Asian group of economies.

Why promote Asian-only forums, as against trans-Pacific cooperation at the same time?

Perhaps it is also time to think about globalism again: the G20 could also draw on APEC’s experience to begin work to promote genuine economic integration, going beyond the limited idea of ‘free trade’.

Please see my post Economic integration: an opportunity for the G20

]]> By: Yiping Huang http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/04/21/asian-regionalism-how-does-it-compare-to-europes/comment-page-1/#comment-23152 Yiping Huang Wed, 22 Apr 2009 04:28:25 +0000 http://www.eastasiaforum.org/?p=3635#comment-23152 Giovanni, Nice piece. Not many people are in a position like you who have looked at both regions very closely. I do not have lots of views that are different from those of yours. I conqur that Asia should collaborate much better, in areas of economic and financial policies. Latest development confirms that Chiang Mai is way insufficient. And, Asia as a group can certainly play a greater role in the G20 process. The question I like to raise is what kind of regional integration will take place in Asia? I will look at the EU model (in which equal parties reach agreement) and the NFTA model (in which smaller economies integrate with a large economy). As you suggested, there are many reasons, historical, political and economic, why regional integratuion is very difficult. What are the chances that regional cooperation will remain in a loose framework until some superpower emerge? Cheers, Yiping Giovanni,

Nice piece. Not many people are in a position like you who have looked at both regions very closely.

I do not have lots of views that are different from those of yours. I conqur that Asia should collaborate much better, in areas of economic and financial policies. Latest development confirms that Chiang Mai is way insufficient. And, Asia as a group can certainly play a greater role in the G20 process.

The question I like to raise is what kind of regional integration will take place in Asia? I will look at the EU model (in which equal parties reach agreement) and the NFTA model (in which smaller economies integrate with a large economy).

As you suggested, there are many reasons, historical, political and economic, why regional integratuion is very difficult. What are the chances that regional cooperation will remain in a loose framework until some superpower emerge?

Cheers,

Yiping

]]>