The Development of Sub-Regional Institutions in Southeast Asia: The Case of BIMP-EAGA (Pembangunan Institusi Sub-Wilayah di Asia Tenggara: Kes Kajian BIMP-EAGA)
Abstract
The relationship between economics and sub-regionalism remains relatively unexplored, particularly in the Asia-Pacific context. This article seeks to broaden the comprehension of various dimensions of this relationship. One of the focuses is to understand the circumstances in which sub-regional institutions have come to be defined as components of economic development in Southeast Asia. Another is to develop a more nuanced approach to regional studies, one that recognizes that institutional changes can occur in many forms, like Historical Institutionalism. This paper’s starting point is on the emphasis that institution is a social construction: political contestations between the social forces in the domestic often influences how state shaped regional institutions that would serve their interest. It uses the critical juncture framework championed by the Historical Institutionalist approach during that particular period to produce divergent outcomes. This study uses BIMP-EAGA to provide some grounds for optimism on the relationship between institutional changes and economic development in the region.
Keywords: Historical Institutionalism, critical juncture, economic development, institutional changes, sub-regional institutions, and BIMP-EAGA
Abstrak
Hubungan antara ekonomi dan sub-regionalisme masih belum banyak diterokai, terutama dalam rantau Asia-Pasifik. Artikel ini bertujuan untuk lebih memahami bagaimana pelbagai dimensi mengenai hubungan ini terbentuk. Salah satu tumpuan kajian adalah untuk memahami keadaan dan kedudukan institusi-institusi sub-wilayah yang boleh dikategorikan sebagai komponen yang boleh membantu di dalam pembangunan ekonomi di rantau Asia Tenggara. Perspektif lain adalah untuk melihat sejauhmana perubahan konteks serantau, dan jika ada pendekatan yang lebih bernuansa yang boleh membantu kajian yang besifat serantau ini. Dari itu, memang ada perubahan dan perkembangan dalam institusi dan sub regionalism, seperti Institutionalisme Sejarah. Kajian ini memfokuskan kepada sejauhmana penekanan dalam institusi berhubungkait dengan pembinaan sosial: persaingan politik dalam setiap negara yang menjurus kepada kekuatan sosial, dan ini boleh mempengaruhi bagaimana institusi itu terbentuk mengikut apa bentuk kepentingan sebuah negara untuk menuju kepada pembangunan negara. Sewajarnyalah kajian ini menggunakan pendekatan Sejarah Institutionalisme yang mungkin berubah mengikut konteks tempat dan masa. Kes Kajian BIMP-EAGA adalah yang terbaik untuk melihat bagaimana hubungan antara perubahan institusi dan pembangunan ekonomi di rantau ini terbentuk dan berubah
Kata kunci: Institutionalisme Sejarah, titik/tahap kritikal, pembangunan ekonomi, perubahan institusi, institusi sub-wilayah, dan BIMP-EAGA
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Alice Ba, A. D. 2009. (Re) Negotiating East and Southeast Asia: Region, Regionalism and The Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Amitav Acharya. 2012. The Making of Southeast Asia: International Relations of a Region. Ithaca: Cornell University Press
Amitav Acharya. 2014. Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia: ASEAN and The Problem of Regional Order. 3rd Edition. London: Routledge.
Axelrod, R., & Keohane, R. O. 1985. Achieving cooperation under anarchy: Strategies and institutions. World Politics 38(1): 226-254.
Azrul, A. 2018. Hubungan ASEAN-Sino: Antara Orde Asia Atau Dilema “China Rise”. Akademika: Journal of Southeast Asia Social Sciences and Humanities 88(3), 5-18.
Banlaoi, R. 2009. Philippine Security in The Age of Terror: National, Regional and Global Challenges in The Post-9/11 World. London: CRC Press.
Beeson, M. (ed.). 2002. Theorising institutional changes in East Asia. In Reconfiguring East Asia: Regional Institutions and Organizations After the Crisis, 7-30. London: Curzon.
Bertrand, J. 2004. Nationalism and Ethnic Conflict in Indonesia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brunei Darussalam-Indonesia-Malaysia-Philippines East Asian Growth Area. 2006. BIMP-EAGA Roadmap to Development 2006-2010. Manila: Asian Development Bank
Brunei Darussalam-Indonesia-Malaysia-Philippines East Asian Growth Area. 2017.BIMP-EAGA Vision 2025.
https://bimp-eaga.asia/sites/default/files/publications/bimp-eaga-vision-2025.pdf. Retrieved on: 15 January 2021
Brunei Darussalam-Indonesia-Malaysia-Philippines East Asian Growth Area. (n.d.). History of BIMP-EAGA. https://www.bimp-eaga.asia/about-bimp-eaga/history-bimp-eaga. Retrieved on: 15 January 2021
Capoccia, G. & Ziblatt, D. 2010. The historical turn in democratization studies: A new research agenda for Europe and beyond. Comparative Political Studies 43(8/9): 931-968.
Croissant, A., Kühn, D., Chambers, P. W., Völkel, P. & Wolf, S.O. 2011. Theorizing civilian control of the military in emerging democracies: Agency, structure and institutional change. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft 5(1): 75-98.
Davies, M. 2018. Ritual and Region: The Invention of ASEAN. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Davies, M. 2019. Sub-groupings and a shifting role for ASEAN. The Asia Dialogues, 10 April. https://theasiadialogue.com/2019/04/10/sub-groupings-and-a-shifting-role-for-asean/. Retrieved on: 1 October 2020.
Dent, C. 2008. East Asian Regionalism. London: Routledge.
Dent, C. M. & Richter, P. 2011. Sub-regional cooperation and developmental regionalism: The case of BIMP-EAGA. Contemporary Southeast Asia: A Journal of International and Strategic Affairs 33(1): 29-55.
Elumbre, A. L. 2014. Interpreting ASEAN developmental regionalism through discursive institutionalism. Kasarinlan: Philippine Journal of Third World Studies: 29(1): 75-108.
Ever, H. D, et al.2014.Tadbir Urus Pengetahuan: Sudut Pandang dari Brunei Darussalam dan Malaysia. Akademika: Journal of Southeast Asia Social Sciences and Humanities 84(1-2), 29-43.
Firdausi Suffian. 2019. The role of institutions and development: The political economy of Malaysia's industrial policy-making. Journal of Administrative Science, 16(1): 1-33.
Ganesan, N. 1995. Testing neoliberal institutionalism in Southeast Asia. International Journal 50(4): 779-804.
Goldstein, J. & Keohane, R.O. (eds.). 1993. Ideas and Foreign Policy: An Analytical Framework. Ithaca: Cornell University Press
Haacke, J. 2003. ASEAN’s Diplomatic and Security Culture: Origins, Development and Prospects. London: Routledge.
Haggard, S. 1997. Regionalism in Asia and the Americas. In The Political Economy of Regionalism, edited by Edward D. Mansfield and Helen V. Milner, 20-49. New York: Columbia University Press.
Hall, P. 2016. Politics as a process structured in space and time. In The Oxford Handbook of Historical Institutionalism, edited by Orfeo Fioretos, Tulia G. Falleti and Adam Sheingate, 31-50. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hameiri, S. & Jayasuriya, K. 2010. Regulatory regionalism and the dynamics of territorial politics: The case of the Asia-Pacific region. Political Studies 59(1): 20-37.
Helen E. S. Nesadurai. 2014. The political economy of Southeast Asia's foreign economic policies and relations. In Oxford Handbook of The International Relations of Southeast Asia, edited by John Ravenhill, Rosemary Foot and Saadia Pekkanen,
-240.
Helen E. S. Nesadurai. 2003. Globalisation, Domestic Politics, and Regionalism: The ASEAN Free Trade Area. London: Routledge.
Helen E. S. Nesadurai. 2008. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). New Political Economy 13(1): 225-239.
Herschede, F. 1991. Trade between China and ASEAN: The impact of the Pacific Rim era. Pacific Affairs 64(2): 179-193.
Japan International Cooperation Agency. 2007. A Report from The Study Group on Assistance to the Southeast Asian Region, Institute for International Cooperation. https://www.jica.go.jp/jica-ri/IFIC_and_JBICI-studies/english/publications/reports/study. Retrieved on: 15 January 2021
Jayasuriya, K. 2003. Introduction: Governing the Asia Pacific—beyond the ‘new regionalism’. Third World Quarterly 24(2): 199-215.
Jessop, B. 2008. State Power: A Strategic–Relational Approach. Cambridge: Polity.
Johnston, A. I. 2001. Treating international institutions as social environments. International Studies Quarterly 45(4): 487-515.
Jomo Kwame Sundaram & Wee Chong Hui. 2002. The political economy of Malaysian federalism: economic development, public policy and conflict containment. Journal of International Development 15(4): 441-456.
Jones, D. M. & Smith, M. L. R. 2002. ASEAN’s imitation community. Orbis 46:(1) 93-109.
Jones, L. 2012. State power, social conflicts and security policy in Southeast Asia. In Routledge Handbook of Southeast Asian Politics, edited by Richard Robison, 346-360. London: Routledge.
Keohane, R. O. & Milner, H. V. 1996. Internationalization and Domestic Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lipschutz, R. (ed.). 1995. On Security. New York: Columbia University Press.
Mahoney, J. & Thelen, K. (2010). Explaining Institutional Changes: Ambiguity, Agency and Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
March, J. G. & Olsen, J. P. 1998. The institutional dynamics of international political orders. International Organization 52(4): 943-969.
Mellejor, L. 2019. PRRD calls on BIMP-EAGA to band vs. drug trade, security threats, Philippine News Agency, 20 February. https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1062399. Retrieved on 15 January 2021.
Pierson, P. 2004. Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Robison, R. & Hadiz, V. R. 2004. Reorganising Power in Indonesia: The Politics of Oligarchy in An Age of Markets. London: Routledge.
Sanders, E. 2009. Historical institutionalism. In The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions, edited by Sarah A. Binders, R. A. W. Rhodes and Bert A. Rockman, 39-55. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Sewell, W. H. 1996. Three temporalities: Toward an eventful sociology. In The Historic Turn in The Human Sciences, edited by Terrence J. McDonald, 245-280. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Simon, S.W. 1995. Realism and neoliberalism: International relations theory and Southeast Asian security. The Pacific Review 8(1): 5-24.
Skocpol, T. 1985. Bringing the state back in: Strategies of analysis in current research. In Bringing the State Back In, edited by Peter B. Evans, Dietrich Rueschemeyer and Theda Skocpol, 3-38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Slater, D. 2010. Ordering Power: Contentious Politics and Authoritarian Leviathans in Southeast Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Steinmo, S. 2008. Historical institutionalism. In Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences: A Pluralist Perspective, edited by Donatella Della Porta and Michael Keating, 118-138. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stubbs, R. & Underhill, G. R. D (eds.). 1994. Political Economy and The Changing Global Order. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Thelen, K. 1999. Historical institutionalism in comparative politics. Annual Review Political Science 2: 369-404.
Thelen, K. & Steinmo, S. 1992. Historical institutionalism in comparative politics. In Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis, edited by Sven Steinmo, Kathleen Thelen and Frank Longstreth, 1-33. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thoenig, J. 2011. Institutional theories and public institutions: new agendas and appropriateness. In The Handbook of Public Administration, edited by B. Guy Peters and Jon Pierre, 101-185. London: Sage.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
ISSN: 0126-5008
eISSN: 0126-8694