Coping with a New Monetary Order after the Global Crisis
When East Asia and Europe are compared, their suitability for regional integration may initially not seem so different from each other. For instance, as Willet emphasized, ‘post World War II developments in Asia were quite similar to those in Europe with Japan playing the role of Germany’ (Willett, 2005, p.6). However, unlike in the EU, where the economic bloc was formed by mutual agreement at government level for the purpose of integrating the market, economic cooperation in East Asia was a natural consequence of increasing globalization and interdependence. What are the factors that prevent East Asian countries from emulating Europe’s institution- led regionalization? Why do they simply accept market- driven regionalization? There are in fact important differences between the two regions. For instance, according to Katzenstein (1996), ‘the US encouraged bilateralism in East Asia, but multilateralism in Europe because it had more power in the former region than in the latter’. Also in East Asia ‘the relations between the state and society were governed by social rather than legal norms and East Asian governments inherited the colonial radition of “rule by law” rather than the West European tradition of the “rule of law”.’ (p.146). No matter how important these differences may be, many obstacles prevent East Asian countries from establishing regional institutions. In particular, economic, political, and social obstacles are noteworthy.
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.