Search

This paper asks the following two sets of questions. First, why and how did Asia-Pacific institution-building finally take off in 1989, while previous proposals for multilateral institution-building in the Asia-Pacific had failed to gain support from potential members? Why and how did the ASEAN Plus Three (APT) process emerge, while the earlier proposal for the formation of the East Asian Economic Grouping (EAEG) failed? Second, why did APEC and APT take the institutional form that they took and why did they evolve in the way they did? I present a framework for analyzing the origins, creation, and form of institutions that incorporates both demand- and supply- conditions in a temporal perspective by combining insights from historical institutionalism, constructivism, and policy network approaches. In each case, I examine a path-dependent nature of institution-building development and the role of a sense of crisis as a trigger to induce institutional creation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper employs the concept of “regional governance” to explore the relationship between state and non-state actor in the emerging regional architecture which aims to address shared problems on a regional basis. The paper first examines how and why ma ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper seeks to account for the emergence of Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) in 1989 and the ASEAN Plus Three (APT) in 1997 by examining the shift in state preferences and a catalytic role of weaker powers as initiators. To this end, I employ a two-stage theoretical framework. The first stage deals with demand-side conditions by addressing the question of why regional institutions are created, while the second examines supply-side conditions by exploring how they are created. The first stage of analysis examines the shift in state preferences with regard to regional cooperation as domestic responses to the external political and economic challenges. In particular, the paper suggests that a sense of crisis perceived by national governments and the recognition of the inadequacy of the existing policy apparatus to address the external challenges altered the configuration of state preferences in favor of regionalist approaches. In the second stage, it argues that weaker powers played an important role as initiators for creating regional institutions by taking advantage of a window of opportunities generated by a shared sense of crisis. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper first asks why and how the ASEAN+3 process got off the ground in the late 1990s. It will be argued that ASEAN took a catalytic role in bringing together major powers in Northeast Asia at the historical critical juncture precipitated by the Asian financial crisis. The paper then explores a major shift in both Japanese and Chinese policies toward East Asian regionalism, suggesting that full support from the two was crucial for moving the ASEAN+3 process forward. It highlights the different approaches that Japan and China employed in order to strengthen their relationships with ASEAN countries in trade initiatives, financial cooperation, and development cooperation. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]