Introduction: ASEAN since 1967 — Origins, Evolution and Recent Developments

Frost, Frank J.

doi:10.1007/978-1-349-20886-9_1

Cited by 19 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…More importantly, their political connections and their new social standing have afforded them access to senior officials and statemediated resources such as franchises, licences and contracts (McVey 1992). With the end of the Cold War, threats to national security receded, permitting ASEAN member states to focus upon economic and trade concerns (Anatolik 1990;Frost 1990). States have recognized the benefits of trade and have taken some halting steps towards regional economic integration (Wu 1991).…”

Section: Endogenous Influencesmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Both events are exogenous influences in terms of the co-evolutionary framework (Figure 2 (Anatolik 1990;Frost 1990), the Plaza Accord stimulated the movement of capital into and within the region. After the Plaza Accord, a wave of Japanese foreign direct investment flooded into the Southeast Asia region and was followed in the early 1990s by an even larger in-flow of Western and Japanese portfolio investments and bank lending (OECD 1999).…”

Section: The Modern Era: Environmental Influencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Co-evolution of Institutional Environments and Organizational Strategies: The Rise of Family Business Groups in the ASEAN Region

Carney

Gedajlovic

2002

Organization Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we consider Southeast Asian Family Business Groups (FBGs) as a form of business enterprise as well as existing theoretical accounts of their behaviour. To do so, we develop and describe a co-evolutionary framework that incorporates notions of interdependence, path dependence, and 'system openness.' This co-evolutionary framework is used to anchor a case study describing the developmental paths of FBGs and their institutional environments. Because such neoevolutionary perspectives bring back into account adaptive behavior motivated by human agency and interests, they offer a promising means of capturing the dynamics (Fligstein and Freeland 1995) and complexity (Baum and Singh 1994) of the interaction between institutions and organizations.

show abstract

Section: Endogenous Influencesmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: The Modern Era: Environmental Influencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Co-evolution of Institutional Environments and Organizational Strategies: The Rise of Family Business Groups in the ASEAN Region

Carney

Gedajlovic

2002

Organization Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to Dewitt's argument cited by Khong (1997:326), in the terminology of post-Cold War expressions on Southeast Asia's security, from the outset, ASEAN may be perceived to have adhered to the idea of comprehensive security. Although some scholars (Buzan, 1988;Frost, 1990) have argued that the formation of ASEAN was aimed at creating a group of anti-communist states in a volatile region, others (Acharya, 1998;Irvine, 1982;Khong, 1997;Leifer, 1989) have pointed out that ASEAN member countries were not meant to be a military alliance-oriented security group. In this period, as Leifer (1989:5) notes, the member states were only too conscious of the danger of provoking a violent reaction through a premature attempt to confront the problems of regional security head on in forming a military alliance.…”

Section: The Evolution Of Asean Regionalismmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Historical Evolution of ASEAN and Regionalism in Southeast Asia: With a Special Reference to ASEAN’s Role in the Cambodian Conflict (1978-1989)

2019

JAAS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 1967, when the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) was established, its members (then Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand; Brunei joined in 1984) found themselves plagued by a wide range of security problems. These included intra-regional conflicts, domestic instability, extra-regional intervention, and latent inter-ethnic tensions. It was not accidental that the ASEAN states as a group of newly independent (with the exception of Thailand, which had never been a colony) developing countries prioritized 'respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states' and 'non-interference in the affairs of States'. Rather, the commitment of ASEAN members to the principle of the modern Westphalian state system should be understood in the context of the search for internal stability and regime security as newly independent countries engaged in nation-building and state-making. What made ASEAN politico-security regionalism (driven by nation-state centrism) really distinctive were the norms and values which came to be known as the 'ASEAN Way', Within the ASEAN Way context, in particular, this article explores ASEAN's role in the Cambodian conflict (1978)(1979)(1980)(1981)(1982)(1983)(1984)(1985)(1986)(1987)(1988)(1989) for the purpose of tracing the scope of which it contributed to the consolidation of ASEAN's norms and principles regarding the way of conflict management in Southeast Asia. Indeed, ASEAN had considered the feasibility of accepting Vietnam (as well as Laos and Cambodia) within its group. However, Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia in December 1978 undermined an initial idea on the part of ASEAN to include Vietnam within its regional grouping. Therefore, by 1978 the intensifying conflict between Vietnam (supported by the Soviet Union) and Cambodia (backed by China) was a great difficulty to ASEAN for achieving the goal of 'One Southeast Asia' concept through including the rest of Southeast Asia. Against this background, this article analyses the creation, evolution and process of ASEAN politico-security regionalism up to the end of Cold War in order to highlight ASEAN's approach to conflict management in the Cambodian crisis.

show abstract

“…It aimed to promote cooperation in many different areas, with the objective of furthering "economic development, peace and stability in Southeast Asia." (12) It also codified "respect for the independence, sovereignty, equality, territorial integrity and national identity of all nations." (13) This overview of ASEAN's security initiatives underscores two points.…”

Section: Managing Regional Security: Asean's Security Initiativesmentioning

confidence: 99%

ASEAN and the Management of Regional Security

Narine¹

1998

Pacific Affairs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper is a discussion and evaluation of ASEAN's efforts to manage its regional security environment (i.e., to affect the actors and events shaping security in Southeast Asia). The main argument of this paper is that ASEAN's ability to manage regional security in Southeast Asia has been, and is, limited by two factors: one, the interests and actions of the great powers, which have defined the parameters of ASEAN's security policies; and two, divergent security perceptions and interests within ASEAN, which have defined the limits of intraorganizational cooperation and made it difficult to evaluate the significance of ASEAN's stated security objectives.

show abstract

Introduction: ASEAN since 1967 — Origins, Evolution and Recent Developments

Cited by 19 publications

References 9 publications

The Co-evolution of Institutional Environments and Organizational Strategies: The Rise of Family Business Groups in the ASEAN Region

The Co-evolution of Institutional Environments and Organizational Strategies: The Rise of Family Business Groups in the ASEAN Region

The Historical Evolution of ASEAN and Regionalism in Southeast Asia: With a Special Reference to ASEAN’s Role in the Cambodian Conflict (1978-1989)

ASEAN and the Management of Regional Security

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About