ASEAN Integration in 2030: United States Perspectives

Pek Koon Heng
{"title":"ASEAN Integration in 2030: United States Perspectives","authors":"Pek Koon Heng","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2101537","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"i»?The paper argues that United States (US) participation in the East Asia Summit (EAS)—regional integration architecture led by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)—was motivated by four changes in the regional economic landscape : (i) the Asian financial crisis of 1997 and emergence of the ASEAN+3 grouping; (ii) the rise of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as the leading regional growth engine and an active player in regional integration arrangements; (iii) the failure of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) arrangement to foster trade liberalization in the region; and (iv) the inability of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Doha Development Round to lower global trade barriers significantly. In joining the EAS, the Obama Administration espoused an approach known as divided functionality, one that would give priority to APEC, and its trade-focused Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement economic engagement with East Asia, and the EAS for addressing political and security issues. Currently, two architectures for regional economic integration are contesting. The first embodies the US vision of a deeply institutionalized Asia-Pacific economic community, as articulated by the ongoing TPP trade negotiations. The second is represented by the Asia-only ASEAN+3 framework, a shallowly institutionalized grouping with weak enforcement compliance mechanisms. However, despite differences in the two approaches, prospects for a healthy complementarity between them—through overlapping memberships, the application of open regionalism, and the benefits of competitive liberalization among specific trade agreements—seem promising.","PeriodicalId":213910,"journal":{"name":"Emerging Markets: Regional Perspective eJournal","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emerging Markets: Regional Perspective eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2101537","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

i»?The paper argues that United States (US) participation in the East Asia Summit (EAS)—regional integration architecture led by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)—was motivated by four changes in the regional economic landscape : (i) the Asian financial crisis of 1997 and emergence of the ASEAN+3 grouping; (ii) the rise of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as the leading regional growth engine and an active player in regional integration arrangements; (iii) the failure of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) arrangement to foster trade liberalization in the region; and (iv) the inability of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Doha Development Round to lower global trade barriers significantly. In joining the EAS, the Obama Administration espoused an approach known as divided functionality, one that would give priority to APEC, and its trade-focused Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement economic engagement with East Asia, and the EAS for addressing political and security issues. Currently, two architectures for regional economic integration are contesting. The first embodies the US vision of a deeply institutionalized Asia-Pacific economic community, as articulated by the ongoing TPP trade negotiations. The second is represented by the Asia-only ASEAN+3 framework, a shallowly institutionalized grouping with weak enforcement compliance mechanisms. However, despite differences in the two approaches, prospects for a healthy complementarity between them—through overlapping memberships, the application of open regionalism, and the benefits of competitive liberalization among specific trade agreements—seem promising.
2030年东盟一体化:美国视角
我”吗?本文认为,美国参与东亚峰会(EAS)——由东南亚国家联盟(ASEAN)主导的区域一体化架构——的动机是区域经济格局的四个变化:(i) 1997年亚洲金融危机和东盟+3集团的出现;(ii)中华人民共和国(PRC)崛起为主要的区域增长引擎和区域一体化安排的积极参与者;(iii)亚太经济合作组织(亚太经合组织)安排未能促进本地区的贸易自由化;(四)世界贸易组织(WTO)多哈发展回合无法显著降低全球贸易壁垒。在加入东亚峰会时,奥巴马政府支持一种被称为“功能分割”的方法,即优先考虑亚太经合组织及其以贸易为重点的跨太平洋伙伴关系协定(TPP)、与东亚的经济接触以及解决政治和安全问题的东亚峰会。当前,两种区域经济一体化架构相互竞争。第一个目标体现了美国对高度制度化的亚太经济共同体的愿景,正如正在进行的TPP贸易谈判所阐述的那样。第二种是以仅限亚洲的东盟+3框架为代表,这是一个制度化程度较浅的集团,执行合规机制薄弱。然而,尽管这两种方法存在差异,但它们之间健康互补的前景——通过重叠的成员资格、开放的地区主义的应用以及特定贸易协定之间竞争自由化的好处——似乎是有希望的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信