Why do some states develop deeper regionalism while others do not? Comparing European and Asian regionalism, this study provides an alternative explanation of different types of regionalism and the national variations in regionalization since the mid 1980s. It defines regionalism as a strategy pursued by a state that desires to enhance its governability of the national economy when market authority outgrows state authority. The rise of regionalism in the neoliberal world economic order changes the balance between the state’s public power and the state’s market governability, consequently resulting in a political convergence toward a majoritarian political system based on individualism and delegative democracy. However, regionalism is realized in very distinctive patterns across different regions as the different historical paths of regional capitalism shape the state-society relationship and the state’s capability of governing the national economy. European welfare states developed a deeper regionalism because they sought to impose a neoliberal economic transformation on their societies by shifting their economic priority of equality and economic policy making based on social concertation toward efficiency and the formation of an encompassing distributional coalition. In contrast, Asian developmental states prefer preserving national autonomy to relying on a formal regional institution to constrain states’ national authority because they are more capable of implementing the neoliberal economic transformation in terms of market governability and the formation of encompassing distributional coalitions.

No description available.

This thesis set out to ascertain the position of recent Australian Governments on the latest instalments of Asian regionalism in the context of an assessment of whether there has been a redefinition of Asia and thus a redefinition of Australia???s engagement with Asia. It will concentrate on the broad themes of politico-strategic and economic engagement. Whilst there has been extensive research and documentation on the Asian economic crisis there has been less work on the issue of a new Asian regionalism and the implications for Australia???s complex and variable engagement with the region. This is the basis for the claim to originality of this thesis, a claim supported by its focus on the practical and policy implications of Australia???s engagement, or lack of it, with regional institutions. The process of regional integration has been extremely slow, thus supporting the conclusion that there is no evidence of a major redefinition of Asia. Efforts at Asian regionalism are meeting obstacles that pose immense challenges. Asian regionalism remains nascent and poorly defined. This reflects the diversity and enormous disparities in cultures, political systems and the levels of economic development and differences over economic philosophies within East Asia. What is discernible is that the regionalism is proceeding more rapidly on financial issues than on trade, and in the security area it is conspicuously absent. This research highlights the fact that the question of Asian engagement remains a sensitive issue in Australia and continues to grow more complex. Australia???s engagement with Asia since 1996 has been variable because of the Howard Government???s broader balance of priorities between global and regional issues, and because of the changing nature of the Asian region. The perception gleaned from sources is that, for the Australian Government, regionalism initiatives are characterised by much discussion but lack substance. Consequently, this appears to have led the Government to the position that exclusion from some manifestations of regionalism is not so important. Australia is excluded from some of the regional architectures being constructed. In its efforts to seek inclusion in ASEAN + 3 and ASEM, Australia is facing the same barriers that have stood in the way of an AFTA-CER agreement. Exclusion would be important if the performance of regional groupings was not so indifferent. Exclusion from ASEAN + 3 and ASEM, however, does not equate to Australia???s exclusion from the region.

This thesis set out to ascertain the position of recent Australian Governments on the latest instalments of Asian regionalism in the context of an assessment of whether there has been a redefinition of Asia and thus a redefinition of Australia???s engagement with Asia. It will concentrate on the broad themes of politico-strategic and economic engagement. Whilst there has been extensive research and documentation on the Asian economic crisis there has been less work on the issue of a new Asian regionalism and the implications for Australia???s complex and variable engagement with the region. This is the basis for the claim to originality of this thesis, a claim supported by its focus on the practical and policy implications of Australia???s engagement, or lack of it, with regional institutions. The process of regional integration has been extremely slow, thus supporting the conclusion that there is no evidence of a major redefinition of Asia. Efforts at Asian regionalism are meeting obstacles that pose immense challenges. Asian regionalism remains nascent and poorly defined. This reflects the diversity and enormous disparities in cultures, political systems and the levels of economic development and differences over economic philosophies within East Asia. What is discernible is that the regionalism is proceeding more rapidly on financial issues than on trade, and in the security area it is conspicuously absent. This research highlights the fact that the question of Asian engagement remains a sensitive issue in Australia and continues to grow more complex. Australia???s engagement with Asia since 1996 has been variable because of the Howard Government???s broader balance of priorities between global and regional issues, and because of the changing nature of the Asian region. The perception gleaned from sources is that, for the Australian Government, regionalism initiatives are characterised by much discussion but lack substance. Consequently, this appears to have led the Government to the position that exclusion from some manifestations of regionalism is not so important. Australia is excluded from some of the regional architectures being constructed. In its efforts to seek inclusion in ASEAN + 3 and ASEM, Australia is facing the same barriers that have stood in the way of an AFTA-CER agreement. Exclusion would be important if the performance of regional groupings was not so indifferent. Exclusion from ASEAN + 3 and ASEM, however, does not equate to Australia???s exclusion from the region.