Institutionalizing ASEAN: celebrating Europe through network governance

Abstract

This article provides a new piece for two of the puzzles of institutionalized cooperation in Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). First, with regard to the organization's four decades of existence, there has always been a marked gap between ASEAN's rhetorical goals of cooperation and its actual achievements. What explains these systematic failures of implementation? Second, from the outset, ASEAN was criticized for its light institutionalization, which failed to deliver the substantial cooperation goals. Despite selected institutional reforms, ASEAN's autonomy has not increased remarkably and it has not made any major institutional innovations. Why does ASEAN design institutions it does not use? Why does this transformation gap occur? The author suggests a sociological institutional explanation and argues that major impulses for cooperation have come from outside Southeast Asia, most importantly from Europe. By mimicking the European integration process, ASEAN member states have effectively created an isomorphic organization. The Association's institutional development reflects a concern for international legitimacy and less an objective functional demand arising from the specific interactions of member states. This copying process has led to network governance within the organization.

Notes

² Former ASEAN Secretary-General, Narciso G Reyes, as quoted by the ASEAN Secretariat, < www.aseansec.org/11850.htm>, accessed 22 May 2009.

³ ‘Eastern promise fails to lure Europeans’ and ‘Will ASEAN open the door to itself?’ in Far Eastern Economic Review, 3 December 1987.

⁴ I thank one of the reviewers for pointing this out.

⁵ The troika idea for ASEAN originated at the Association's July 1999 informal summit and was pushed on ASEAN by Thai Prime Minister Chuan Leek Pai and Foreign Minister Surin Pitsuwan (Haacke 2003, 71).

⁶ Public lecture held during the conference ‘Security Culture in Africa and Southeast and Central Asia’, London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), London, 10 September 2007. See also Choi 2007).

⁷ I thank Hiro Katsumata for pointing this out.

⁸ Where a distinction was made, hierarchies became associated with the global hierarchy in the form of global empire or hegemony; that is, the power of a preponderant power (see Lake 1996).