![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
Abstract
The current East Asian regional cooperation framework is a complex system with multiple fields, levels, and players. In terms of social network theory and analysis, the East Asian regional cooperation framework can be defined as an affiliation network of cooperative mechanisms and players. Combing through the process of East Asian regional cooperation and constructing an East Asian regional cooperation network on the basis of the affiliation network model shows that the network has distinct characteristics in terms of cooperation mechanisms, cooperation entities, inter-entity relations, and the interaction of various fields of cooperation. These characteristics are apparent in concentrated form in the dynamics and limitations of East Asian regional cooperation networks. Describing and analyzing the structure and characteristics of the regional cooperation network of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) can help us conduct a comprehensive examination of the current regional cooperation framework, grasp the developmental prospects of East Asian regional cooperation, and provide reference material for China’s path choice in the process of future regional cooperation.
Notes
1 Huang Dahui and Sun Yi, “Leadership of East Asian Regional Cooperation and Sino-Japanese Institutional Competition”; Zhang Qun, “Institutional Gaming in Asia-Pacific Regional Economic Cooperation.”
2 Wei Ling, “Regionalization in East Asia: Perplexities and Prospects”; Li Wei, “The End of East Asian Economic Regionalism?: The Dilemma of Institutional Surplus and Economic Integration.”
3 See Jagdish N. Bhagwati, The World Trading System at Risk; and “Introduction: The Unilateral Freeing of Trade Versus Reciprocity,” in Going Alone: The Case for Relaxed Reciprocity in Freeing Trade, pp. 1-47; Richard E. Baldwin, “Multilateralising Regionalism: Spaghetti Bowls as Building Blocs on the Path to Global Free Trade,” pp. 1451-1518.
4 See Xu Jin, “The Multilateral Security Cooperation Mechanism in East Asia: Issues and Concepts”; Sun Xuefeng, “The East Asian Quasi-Anarchy System and China’s East Asian Security Policy”; Wang Shengjin and Zhang Jingquan, “The Relationship between Military Alliance and Regional Cooperation in East Asia: An Analysis from the Perspective of Mechanisms”; Zhu Feng, “Sino-US Strategic Competition and the Future of the East Asian Security Order.”
5 Wang Mingguo, “The Complexity of International Systems and the East Asian Integration Process.”
6 Liu Feng, “Security Expectations, Economic Gains and the East Asian Security Order.”
7 See Qin Yaqing, “Relational Orientation and Process Construction: Implanting Chinese Ideas into International Relations Theory”; “A Relational Theory of World Politics” (Chinese version)”; “A Relational Theory of World Politics” (English version)”; and A Relational Theory of World Politics.
8 Qin Yaqing, Relationship and Process: Cultural Construction of China’s International Relations Theory, p. 216.
9 Emilie M. Hafner-Burton, Miles Kahler and Alexander H. Montgomery, “Network Analysis for International Relations.”
10 Walter Powell, “Neither Markets nor Hierarchy: Network Forms of Organization.”
11 Zeev Maoz, Networks of Nations: The Evolution, Structure, and Impact of International Networks, 1816-2001, p. 7.
12 Barry Wellman, “Structural Analysis: From Method and Metaphor to Theory and Substance,” in B. Wellman and S. Berkowitz, eds., Social Structures: A Network Approach, pp. 19-61.
13 See Yang Song, Franziska B. Keller and Zheng Lu, Social Network Analysis: Methods and Examples, pp. 4-5.
14 See Georg Simmel, The Sociology of Georg Simmel, p. 90; Harrison C. White, Identity and Control: How Social Formations Emerge; and Markets from Networks: Socioeconomic Models of Production; Mark Grannovetter, “Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness”; and Embeddedness: Social Network and Economic Action; Mark Granovetter and Richard Swedberg, eds., The Sociology of Economic Life.
15 See James S. Coleman, “Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital”; Lin Nan, “Social Resources and Instrumental Action,” in Peter V. Marsden and Lin Nan, eds., Social Structure and Network Analysis, pp. 131-145; Lin Nan, Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action; Ronald Burt, Structural Hole: The Social Structure of Competition; Bian Yanjie et al., Social Network and Status Acquisition.
16 David Knock and Yang Song, Social Network Analysis (2nd ed.), p. 13.
17 See Stanley Wasserman and Catherine Faust, Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications, p. 109.
18 Zeev Maoz, Networks of Nations: The Evolution, Structure, and Impact of International Networks, 1816-2001, p. 6.
19 Miles Kahler, “Networked Politics: Agency, Power, and Governance.”
20 See Zhou Xueguang, Ten Lectures on Organizational Sociology, pp. 150-151.
21 See Liu Jun, ed., Holistic Network Analysis: A Practical Guide to UCINET Software (2nd ed.), p. 5. “Mode” refers to the set of actors, and the number of modes refers to the number of types of actor set. A network consisting of the relationships among actors within a set of actors is a one-mode network that presents the relationships at a certain level of analysis; a network consisting of the relationships between one set of actors and another is a two-mode network that presents the connections between two sets of nodes at different levels of analysis.
22 Source: Composed by author, April 27, 2021.
23 In this paper, members of the East Asia Summit are considered to fall within the scope of this study of East Asian regional cooperation networks is that they are the most representative of the regional cooperation process in terms of both influence and depth and breadth of cooperation. In the East Asian geopolitical sense, the East Asia Summit members are best able to represent the main body of East Asian regional cooperation.
24 Source: Composed by author. It should be noted that although ASEAN is not a member of APEC as a whole, the seven ASEAN countries that have joined APEC (Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam) account for 75 percent of ASEAN’s land area and 87 percent of its population, as well as more than 95 percent of both its GDP and total trade. They thus occupy an important position in APEC. At the same time, the ASEAN Secretariat, one of APEC’s three observers, is also extensively involved in the organization’s meetings and affairs. Therefore, this paper identifies ASEAN’s participation in APEC as “Yes.”
25 Density measurements provide an indicator of the degree of network connectivity, while centrality results reflect the position of each node in the network structure. Different centrality indicators reflect different content, with degree of centrality reflecting the number of relationships between some nodes and others in the network, proximity centrality reflecting the degree of direct or indirect proximity between some nodes and others, and intermediary centrality reflecting the association between some nodes and others and also the bridging role of nodes in the network. For a detailed introduction, see David Knock and Yang Song, Social Network Analysis (2nd ed.); Liu Jun, ed., Holistic Network Analysis: A Practical Guide to UCINET Software (2nd ed.); Katherine Faust, “Centrality in Affiliation Networks,” pp. 157-191.
26 Calculated using UCINET software. Software source: S.P. Borgatti, M.G. Everett and L.C. Freeman, UCINET for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis.
27 Liu Jun, ed., Holistic Network Analysis: A Practical Guide to UCINET Software (2nd ed.), p. 284.
28 Source: Analysis using NetDraw software, based on the results of the centrality analysis above.
29 See Qin Yaqing, Relationship and Processes: Cultural Constructions of China’s International Relations Theory, pp. 220-225.
30 Tan See Seng, “Conclusion: Trends and Driving Forces in East Asian Regionalism,” in Ralf Emmers, ed., ASEAN and the Institutionalization of East Asia, pp. 192-196; Evelyn Goh, “Institutions and the Great Power Bargain in East Asia: ASEAN’s Limited ‘Brokerage’ Role”; Lee Jones, “Still in the ‘Driver’s Seat,’ But for How Long? ASEAN’s Capacity for Leadership in East-Asian International Relations”; Richard Stubbs, “ASEAN’s Leadership in East Asian Region-Building: Strength in Weakness.”
31 Mely Caballero-Anthony, “Understanding ASEAN’s Centrality: Bases and Prospects in an Evolving Regional Architecture.”
32 Mark Granovetter, Embeddedness: Social Network and Economic Action, pp. 56-77.
33 Robert Hanneman and Mark Riddle, Introduction to Social Network Methods, p. 240.
34 Andrew MacIntyre and John Ravenhill, “The Future of Asian Regional Institutions,” in Miles Kahler and Andrew MacIntyre, eds., Integrating Regions: Asia in Comparative Context, pp. 245-263.
35 Han Caizhen and Shi Yinhong, “Bottlenecks in East Asian Regional Cooperation and China.”
36 Wang Mingguo, “Institutional Practice and China’s Regional Governance in East Asia.”
37 See R.S. Zaharna, Ali Fisher and Amelia Arsenault, eds., “Introduction: The Connective Mindshift,” in Relational, Networked and Collaborative Approaches to Public Diplomacy: The Connective Mindshift, pp. 1-14.