No abstract

No abstract

Abstract:Regionally-based processes of political and economic integration, security cooperation, and even social identification have become increasingly important and prominent parts of the international system. Nowhere have such processes gone further than in Western Europe. Somewhat surprisingly, similar patterns of regional integration have been steadily developing in East Asia -a region many observers consider unlikely to replicate the European experience. What are the factors that encourage regional political cooperation and economic integration? Are there common forces encouraging such outcomes in very different geographical areas and at very different moments in history? This paper uses an historically grounded comparative approach to examine the historical pre-conditions that underpinned the formation of the European Union, and then contrasts them with the situation in East Asia today. While the overall geopolitical and specific national contexts are very different, the East Asian experience may ultimately generate relationships and structures that are more like the European Union's than some of the sceptics imagine.One of the most widely noted and counter-intuitive features of the contemporary 'global' era is that it has a distinctly regional flavour. While it is true that some of the globalisation literature has been over-heated and over-generalised, the persistence -if not the intensification -of regional processes is still striking and somewhat surprising. Whether it is measured by trade and investment flows, political cooperation, or even the development of regionally based security communities, it is clear that regionally-based interactions are central components of the international order at the start of the twenty-first century.While there is now a substantial and growing literature on regionalism (see, Mansfield and Milner 1999), this generally focuses exclusively on the 'new' variety, which gathered pace in the aftermath of the Cold War's end, and which is primarily

No abstract

Since the 1980s a remarkable transformation has occurred in the rationale that informs public policy in Australia. This transformation reflects a fundamental change in the way national economies and populations are conceived by policy-makers, and has led to the emergence of new strategies of governance as a consequence. We argue that this change of direction in Australian public policy may be best thought of as a specific neoliberal 'political rationality'. The first section of the paper outlines changes in con ceptions of the economy and subjectivity which are associated with neoliberalism as a political rationality. The second part of the paper examines the articulation and imple mentation of neoliberalism in Australia over the last couple of decades.

In the wake of the crisis that developed in East Asia during 1997, perceptions of the region have been transformed. Critics claim that East Asian political practices and economic structures must be reformed if the region is to prosper in an era of globalization. In short, the region must adopt a different sort of public policy, one associated with an influential agenda of “good governance.” This paper critically assesses this discourse and the predominately “Western” assumptions that underpin it. It is argued that, not only is this reformist agenda likely to be resisted by powerful vested interests, but the institutional infrastructure to support such a style of governance is inadequately developed in East Asia.

The ‘rise of China’ is seen by some observers as a precursor of inevitable hegemonic competition in East Asia. At the very least, it seems likely that China’s influence in East Asia will grow at the expense of the United States. Whether this will eventually amount to a form of ‘hegemonic transition’ is far less clear. It is, therefore, an opportune moment to consider the relative strengths and weaknesses of China and the US in East Asia. This paper suggests that the nature of hegemonic competition and transition is more uncertain and complex than some of the most influential theoretical understandings of hegemony would have us believe.

The ‘rise of China’ means that – once again – China plays a pivotal role in international affairs. China's economic weight and growing political influence means that its foreign policies and the ideas that shape them have major consequences for established ideas about ‘global governance’. Rather than accepting the institutional and ideational status quo, however, Chinese policy makers are actively trying to develop a new international order through the creation of new institutions such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, and the ‘One Belt, One Road’ blueprint for international trade and investment centered on China. The paper explains how this process is developing and assesses its implications for the extant international order.