| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
134963
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Southeast Asia shares many similarities with Europe, among others, deep economic, historic and cultural ties, as well as the trauma of wars, which led to the desire to turn battlefields into marketplaces. However, in Southeast Asia, regional economic integration has preceded institutional integration, reversing the order of European integration. Despite drawing on different models of integration, programmes favouring the setting up of cross-border and transnational areas have burgeoned both within the European Union (EU) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). The Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS) development programme, supported by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) since the early 1990s, is currently one of the most dynamic transnational integration processes occurring in mainland Southeast Asia. Among the flagship initiatives of the programme are three economic corridors that have revived the ancient caravan trade routes and networks, which once traversed the Indochinese peninsula. This article sketches out the specificities of the GMS integration by examining the “corridor approach”. As institutional regionalism in Europe appears to have encountered problems, and Southeast Asia seems to have stretched its open and network-based integration model to a great extent, the main argument of this essay is that reflections on the success and the limits of the GMS’ specific type of integration can contribute to a new understanding of regionalism, particularly in Asia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
137127
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
As the EAS completes ten years of its existence this year, India expects to enter into a more holistic cooperation with the EAS. Apart from economic ties, greater cooperation on the challenges of human resource development, renewable energy, transportation infrastructure, public health and scientific research are some of the potential but crucial areas where greater efforts from the stakeholders and respective governments are required. For India, it may also imply that it needs to act fast and in a comprehensive way, if it wishes to engage in the EAS forum to use it as a part of a wider platform to cause a paradigm shift towards “Act East” from its usual “Look East.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
135289
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The European Union's (EU) trade and development ‘partnership’ with the African, Caribbean, and Pacific (ACP) countries has long interested scholars of North-South relations. Historically, the theoretical literature on ACP-EU ties has been characterised by liberal institutionalist accounts of interdependence and critical assessments of Europe's neo-colonialism. In the timeframe of the Cotonou Agreement (2000–20), this division has expressed itself in relation to liberal assessments of Europe's pursuit of pro-poor market reforms in the Post-Washington Consensus and critical accounts of Europe's neoliberal ‘development’ agenda. This article argues that a moral political economy offers an innovative lens for the latter critical assessment of ACP-EU ties. With a constructivist focus on Europe's normative ‘development’ agenda, a moral economy standpoint may draw attention to the EU's role in (re)embedding poverty through recourse to legitimating ethical discourse. This is seen to enable the critical school to more closely consider ideational/discursive power in response to contemporary liberal institutionalist accounts. The article focuses on the European Investment Bank (EIB) and its activities in ACP countries – with particular focus on the Bank's Investment Facility (IF) – as an exemplar of the disjuncture between norms and outcomes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|