Original Article

Comparative regional integration in the EU and

East Asia: Moving beyond integration snobbery
Philomena Murray
School of Social and Political Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia.
E-mail: pbmurray@unimelb.edu.au

Abstract In comparative regional integration (RI) analysis, the European

Unions (EU) advancing of its own experience as a model is a significant problem.
This article explores this problem by focusing on comparative aspects of RI in the
EU and East Asia. It argues that there are important and valid aspects of
comparison, such as the origins and objectives of these two regions, but fewer
points of comparison between the two when it comes to achieving their objectives.
It suggests that historical differences between the two regions constitute the major
reason that a direct comparison is neither useful nor productive. It analyses the
centrality and the exceptionalism of the EU in much of the comparative RI
literature. It agues that the promotion of the EU experience as a form of model or
paradigm is far from analytically helpful the method of comparative analysis
needs be the focus of our study as much as the objects of comparison. The article
examines how the centrality of the EU in some analysis can amount to a form of
de facto snobbery in the positioning of the EU on a rather unsteady pedestal.
This integration snobbery to coin a phrase utilized by an EU official is not
constructive for comparative analysis of the EU and East Asia.
International Politics (2010) 47, 308323. doi:10.1057/ip.2010.13;
published online 26 March 2010
Keywords: regionalism; institutionalization; treaty; Charter; regional integration;
model

Introduction
In comparative regional integration (RI) analysis, the EUs (European Union)
advancing of its own experience as a model is a significant problem. This article
explores this problem by focusing on comparative aspects of RI in the EU and
East Asia. It argues that there are important and valid aspects of comparison,
such as the origins and objectives of these two regions, but fewer points
of comparison between the two when it comes to achieving their objectives.
r 2010 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1384-5748 International Politics
www.palgrave-journals.com/ip/

Vol. 47, 3/4, 308323

Comparative regional integration in the EU and East Asia

It suggests that historical differences between the two regions constitute the
major reason that a direct comparison is neither useful nor productive. It
analyses the centrality and the exceptionalism of the EU in much of the
comparative RI literature. It agues that the promotion of the EU experience
as a form of model or paradigm is far from analytically helpful the method
of comparative analysis needs be the focus of our study as much as the objects
of comparison. The article examines how the centrality of the EU in some
analysis can amount to a form of de facto snobbery in the positioning of the
EU on a rather unsteady pedestal. This integration snobbery to coin a
phrase utilized by an EU official is not constructive for comparative RI
analysis of the EU and East Asia. The article draws on interviews conducted
with European Commission officials,1 taking as its starting point a quote from
a European Commission official interviewed by the author, who stated that:
people in the Commission are integration snobs in the sense that weve
done something and, because it worked, as far as were concerned
completely successfully, we sort of think we know it all y and generally
that everybody else is sort of muddling along trying to emulate what
were doing and I think that we come across as being very arrogant
sometimes.2

Approaches
The EU is considered the most advanced form of integration in the world and
has been proposed as a putative regional model, including for the Association
of South East Nations (ASEAN) (Angresano, 2004; Rosamond, 2005). There
are problems with this approach. The EU promotes itself as an integration
exporter and an integration entrepreneur, while attempting to be a norms
entrepreneur or norms diffuser in the East Asian region. Yet its relative
successes as an integrated body within Europe might not be exportable.
Research perspectives on comparative regionalism range from admiration
for the EU to a perception that it constitutes a closed regionalism that should
not be examined comparatively (Acharya and Johnston, 2007) or that, as it
is exceptional (sui generis) and not comparable, it is not a helpful focus for
RI scholars.
On the one hand, the EUs institutional architecture and multi-level
governance make it both a reference point, or yardstick, for RI experiments
in other parts of the world (Beeson, 2005; Rosamond, 2005). On the other
hand, these features render the EU an exception to the development of RI
elsewhere. The EU is both central to the analysis of RI and an exception to it
r 2010 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1384-5748

International Politics

Vol. 47, 3/4, 308323

309

Murray

(Murray, 2008a), and a tension remains regarding the extent to which the
EU forms part of the study of comparative RI or remains an exception that
is not comparable with other regional bodies (Breslin and Higgott, 2000).
A further challenge for scholars is that many of the EU actors themselves
actively promote RI elsewhere (Murray, 2008b), and particularly the EU
experience as a putative paradigm. No other region in the world is seen as,
first, a model, second, a yardstick, third, an integration exporter, and fourth, as
a norms exporter. These four characteristics suggest that the EU constitutes an
exception within comparative regionalism.
There is no single approach to the study of regionalism (Warleigh-Lack,
2006; Sbragia, 2008). RI, like its scholarly analysis, has developed according to
distinctive cultures, objectives and time periods. The first approach that is
pertinent to this article is the examination of institutional architecture, a key
feature of the study of the EU and, to a lesser extent, of ASEAN. This has been
framed as the choice between institutionalization and flexibility (Acharya,
2007) or between closed and open regionalism (Ravenhill, 2001). The second
approach relates to the role of the state, with two tendencies particularly
pertinent. The first tendency regards the vulnerability of the state, and in
particular its policymaking role, as a justification and context for regionalism
to become a viable approach to cooperative decision making. The second
tendency examines the role of state sovereignty, a focus of much of the
literature on ASEAN. Linked to this is the third scholarly approach, that of
regarding increased interdependence and the need to tackle globalization,
especially in trade as an impetus for the creation of regional bodies or the
intensification of regional linkages and transnational cooperation (Baldwin,
2006; Pomfret, 2007; Cooper et al, 2008). Tackling issues of transnational
security, both traditional and non-traditional security, feature in this approach
(Ogilvie-White, 2006; Caballero-Anthony, 2008). This article now examines RI
in terms of these three factors institutional architecture, the role of the state,
and interdependence and globalization. These factors feature consistently in
the comparative RI literature, especially in terms of what leads to institutional
choices in RI, and what outcomes are both sought and achieved.

Comparable Factors
The institutional structure in the EU and ASEAN
A scholarly account of a region characterized by a century-old history of
internal divisiveness, war, conflict and territorial disputes, and which is
culturally and linguistically diverse, could be a description of either Europe
or Asia. This particular description concerns East Asia (Pempel, 2005, p. 1).
310

r 2010 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1384-5748

International Politics

Vol. 47, 3/4, 308323

Comparative regional integration in the EU and East Asia

Both Europe and Asia have experienced conflict, geopolitical challenges and
considerable diversity. Both engage in debates about values and culture such
as Asian values and European identity. Both face challenges of terrorism and
instability in their neighbourhoods. Each seeks increased and intensified
transnational linkages, in recognition of interdependence. Each region seeks to
confront these challenges in ways that reflect the historical specificity of their
experiences of nation-state building and sovereignty. The roles played by
history and the nation state, therefore, are crucial to an understanding of
comparative RI in Europe and East Asia.
The reasons why some states choose to participate in a regional grouping,
often creating new institutions constitute a research focus in RI (see, for
example, Hurrell, 1995; Mattli, 1999; Hidetaka, 2005). Although many states
face similar challenges, they do not respond in similar ways. The desire to form
an institutional structure or set of mechanisms is based on specific experience
and historical context. Variation in the design of regional security and
economic institutions is based on divergence of political culture and historical
experience (Acharya and Johnston, 2007, p. 2). Decisions, therefore, regarding
the form and function of the regional body relate to history and perceptions of
what is required as well as the historic role played by external and internal
drivers of integration for example the influence in each region of the United
States. A recent study notes that both regions share a Cold War history of
division caused by the rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union
(Stanley Foundation/SIPRI, 2008, p. 3).
Regions are formed on the basis of geography and recognition by
participating states of common aims and benefits, with advantages appearing
to outweigh disadvantages. Their results, according to many analysts,
determine their success and are influenced by policy commitment. Higgott
(quoted in Pempel, 2005, p. 4) suggests that the yardstick of regionness
will vary by the number of policy issues or questions present and above all by
what the dominant actors in a given group of countries at a given time see as
their political priorities.
The question of whether an independent and distinct institutional
architecture is needed for effective regionalism has been asked in the
comparative literature. Scholarly analysis, when focusing on the EU, tends
to neglect the issue of consensus. The EUs RI is characterized by
supranational institutions and pooling of sovereignty and the 27 states
regularly engage in inter-state bargaining. In ASEAN, national sovereignty
remains the focus of cooperation as the ASEAN Charter remains intergovernmental (ASEAN, 2008a). To state that ASEAN has no institutions with
supranational competences although it has a secretariat is to underestimate
the desire for an increasingly formalized decision-making milieu within
ASEAN, especially since the Asian Financial Crisis. The ASEAN Charter
r 2010 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1384-5748

International Politics

Vol. 47, 3/4, 308323

311

Murray

was signed by all ASEAN states to both consolidate and formalize existing
practices and to introduce some institutionalization. Features of institutionalization include the ASEAN Summit meetings twice yearly; the designation
of the ASEAN Foreign Ministers as the ASEAN Coordinating Council;
a Single Chairmanship for key high-level ASEAN bodies and the formation
of the Committee of Permanent Representatives to ASEAN, based in Jakarta
(ASEAN, 2008a: Article 12). These developments are not accompanied by
any EU-style qualified or weighted majority, but rather consensus and
consultation remain key characteristics as follows:
1.
2.
3.

4.

As a basic principle, decision-making in ASEAN shall be based on

consultation and consensus.
Where consensus cannot be achieved, the ASEAN Summit may
decide how a specific decision can be made.
Nothing in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article shall affect the
modes of decision-making as contained in the relevant ASEAN
legal instruments.
In the case of a serious breach of the Charter or non-compliance,
the matter shall be referred to the ASEAN Summit for decision.
(ASEAN, 2008a, Article 20, Chapter VII: Decision-Making)

Thus the role of institutions reflects the historical circumstances of the region
and the decisions of its decision-making elites to pursue a Charter, a treaty or
informal mechanisms of cooperation. Although there is a clear commitment
to a more formalized structure in the ASEAN Charter, scholars differ as to
ASEANs value in promoting regional integration and further institution
building; its mandate and influence are limited (Stanley Foundation/SIPRI,
2008, p. 9). ASEAN patterns of inter-state cooperation are looser and less
regulated than the EUs codified methods of decision making. By way of
contrast, qualified majority voting is a distinctly EU practice.

The role of the state and sovereignty

According to Rosamond (2000, p. 10), in the 1950s social scientists perceived
the European Community-building project as a radical experiment, with the
key question being the role of the nation-state in the construction of a
supranational entity. The terms of reference for European integration studies
were also established at this early stage in a manner that was not to occur in
East Asian regional studies. Integration was established as the self-conscious
project of European nation-states, the nature, meaning and extent of which
needed to be examined and explained in European integration analysis. In the
312

r 2010 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1384-5748

International Politics

Vol. 47, 3/4, 308323

Comparative regional integration in the EU and East Asia

East Asian context, the role of the state actors remains the focal point, with
non-interference being a key ASEAN norm. Moreover, the role of the region
in East Asia is not only the project of the nation state it also can involve,
in a process known as regionalization, elite actors in key corporations and
non-government organizations (NGOs) (Pempel, 2005, pp. 1324).
ASEAN mechanisms differ from the EU, owing to different emphases on
sovereignty. Since 1967 there have been major political accords among
ASEAN states that indicate the role of binding or non-binding rules. The first
is the Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality Declaration of 27 November
1971, committing all ASEAN members to exert efforts to secure the
recognition of and respect for Southeast Asia as a Zone of Peace, Freedom
and Neutrality, free from any manner of interference by outside powers and to
make concerted efforts to broaden the areas of cooperation, which would
contribute to their strength, solidarity and closer relationship. It recognizes
the right of every state, large or small, to lead its national existence free from
outside interference in its internal affairs as this interference will adversely
affect its freedom, independence and integrity (ASEAN, 2008b). The second is
the Declaration of ASEAN concord of 24 February 1976, which for the first
time saw member countries expand political cooperation. It also adopted
principles for regional stability and a programme of action for political
cooperation: holding summits; settling intraregional disputes by peaceful
means as soon as possible; extradition agreements; promoting harmonization
of views and positions; and taking common action. On the same day, the
Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC) in Southeast Asia was signed, to
which other countries could accede. It enshrines the principles of mutual
respect for one anothers sovereignty; non-interference in internal affairs; the
peaceful settlement of intraregional disputes; and effective cooperation. It also
provided a code of conduct for the peaceful settlement of disputes and
mandated the establishment of a high council made up of ministerial
representatives from the parties as a dispute settlement mechanism. The
TAC is the only indigenous regional diplomatic instrument providing a
mechanism and processes for the peaceful settlement of disputes (ASEAN,
2008b). The Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone was signed by all 10
ASEAN members in Bangkok on 15 December 1995 and included provision
for the establishment of a Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone
Commission and Executive Committee (ASEAN, 2008b). Yet the ASEAN
states are relatively powerless within the Asian region as a whole, although the
ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) provides a means to discuss regional security
and to create opportunities for socialization. Recently, the ARF Ministers
reaffirmed the importance of the ARF as the main multilateral political and
security forum in the region, and reiterated their support for ASEAN as the
primary driving force of the ARF (ASEAN Chairman, 2008).
r 2010 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1384-5748

International Politics

Vol. 47, 3/4, 308323

313

Murray

The development of common rules and regulations has taken a distinctive

trajectory in ASEAN owing to security concerns, historical developments
and to the need to protect state sovereignty, as reflected in their origins and
goals. There is no commitment to an EU-style system of exclusive and shared
competences, nor to a treaty base. Notwithstanding the ASEAN Charter,
ASEAN remains largely intergovernmental in format, with non-interference
principles. Further, the EU system of having its own budget own resources
is not under consideration in ASEAN.
Despite many divisions, the EU can be described, from outside, as
characterized by relative homogeneity of religion, race and historical
experiences. The EU is further characterized by a high level of economic and
social development. East Asia is very heterogeneous in race, ethnicity, religion
and the different historical experiences in different parts of the region such
as colonialism. Further, most of East Asia has varying levels of development
and lower standards of living than most European countries.
Despite these differences, Levine (2007) sees evidence of unifying views
among the countries of East Asia in an increased awareness of globalization,
the development of broader perspectives, such as commitments to democracy,
human rights, cooperation, friendship among nations, and finally, common
values against war, exploitation, racism and injustice.

Interdependence and confronting globalization

Scholars have examined regionalism and multilateralism as a means of
dealing with the challenges of globalization and the changing geopolitical
structures of world politics (for example, Acharya, 2007; Cooper et al, 2008).
Acharya and Johnston (2007, p. 1) suggest that regionalism received
increasing attention over the last decade as it constitutes a major potential
force for global change. Ravenhill (2001, pp. 1215) relates growing
interdependence to increasingly open domestic economies and to changing
perceptions of states identities and interests, as well as to the political decision
to pursue interdependence. Acharya (2001, p. 32) argues that some scholars
regard economic and political integration as a necessary pre-condition for
peaceful communities. Scholars differ considerably, however, regarding the
imperatives of economic and political integration and how they interact.
Interdependence also characterizes the response to globalization in the last
decade. For the EU, the integration of nation-states took place within the
context of a rise in global economic and political cooperation and conflict,
the global diffusion of institutional norms, codes of governance, and a
consciousness of individual rights. The emergence of transnational (and global)
NGOs and other non-state actors, and the attempts at the construction of
314

r 2010 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1384-5748

International Politics

Vol. 47, 3/4, 308323

Comparative regional integration in the EU and East Asia

global civil society have been important features of the agendas of those
who seek to understand interdependence beyond its economic definitions
(Rumford and Murray, 2003). Within East Asia, there have been transnational
NGOs emerging at a number of levels, as Pempel (2005) has pointed out, with
a distinctively Asian dimension. Warleigh-Lack (2008, p. 23) explains that:
No matter when they began, all processes of regionalization in the
contemporary global political economy can be understood as products of
member state (or member economy) adaptations to globalization, with
particular dynamics dictated by the interplay of national interests,
culture, norms and geopolitical context.
The relationship between interdependence and connectedness, to use Pempels
term, is evident in both regions. Connectedness is an increasingly important
theme in East Asia, in terms of culture, NGOs and business in other words,
in terms of non-state actors developing contacts that Karl Deutsch would
have dubbed transactionalism. Pempel (2005, p. 2) compares the pan-Asian
interest in cultural activities such as karaoke and multinational singing groups
with the political tendencies towards interdependence, connectedness and
cohesiveness based on trade, investment, technology-sharing, transportation
and environmental cooperation. This is not to underestimate inter-state
tensions and adherence to state sovereignty, but he seeks recognition of more
prevalent multilateral ties and cross-border connectedness than hitherto.
Regions are thus the product of both top-down and bottom-up processes.
Increasingly, a desire for a multipolar and multilateral approach to global
challenges is manifested by ASEAN, ASEAN Plus Three (China, Japan,
South Korea) and the EU, as seen in the Asia Europe Meetings response to the
financial crisis in October 2008, which emphasizes on regulatory norms and
obligations (ASEM, 2008).

Origins and Achievements

Although there are valid aspects of comparison between the EU and ASEAN,
such as their origins and objectives, there are fewer areas of fruitful
comparative analysis when it comes to their achievements. RI is effective in
policy-output if the regional grouping has a strong commitment and will
among its members, who agree to, and carry out, shared objectives; agree
concerning leadership, governance structure and who the main actors are;
and, finally, are committed to the entity as a regional actor.
The EU is characterized by a common economic ideology based on varieties
of capitalism. It was supported in its original integration endeavours by the
r 2010 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1384-5748

International Politics

Vol. 47, 3/4, 308323

315

Murray

United States. Beeson (2005, p. 970) argues that the early EUs driving force
came from outside of Western Europe and was a consequence of both the Cold
War and American foreign policy although he accords little credit to the
internal dynamics and the desire for Franco-German reconciliation within
Europe. Although US support was vital in the earliest phase of European
integration, the European Coal and Steel Community, the Hague Summit, the
Messina meetings and other initiatives were essentially European endeavours,
notwithstanding the Marshall Plan and the military bulwark of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization.
A key feature of the EU has been its intra-regional distribution of resources.
No other regional entity has such a policy of redistribution. This places the EU
outside of the pattern of largely intergovernmental cooperation in other forms
of regionalism. For the EU, this political decision to implement cohesion
policies complements and offsets the negative impact of the creation of a single
regional market for goods, services, labour and capital. The EU remains
the exception in having largely achieved the free movement of all of these
factors of production. A commitment to agreed economic policies, in
functional integration, complements the single market and the common
currency, the euro. Market and regulatory mechanisms have been features
of EU integration. The benefits of economic integration include an increase in
intra-regional trade, which has been a key success of the EU.
In a broader societal and cultural context, functional integrations spillover
leads to benefits such as educational and other mobility, transparency of
educational qualifications and comparability of mobility experiences. A recent
EU publication lists a number of advantages that accrue to EU citizens3 and
are not replicable in other regional entities.
By contrast, East Asia has no single common economic ideology but rather
communism coexists with capitalism. The concern regarding the threat of war
and the desire for peace and stability were at the basis of the original ASEAN,
although differently from the EU. The original objectives of ASEAN were to
accelerate economic growth, social progress and cultural development in the
region. ASEAN has been effective in achieving peace and increased intraregional trade. It has managed to avoid war though not all tension among
its member states, based on its Treaty of Amity (for example, Ruland and
Jetschke, 2008). East Asia is also characterized by international agreements
and treaty-like documents. In East Asia, although intra-regional trade is
increasing, it still not very high in ASEAN this stands at just over 25 per cent,
as most manufactured goods and produce are exported to non-ASEAN
developed nations.
In East Asia, unlike the experience of the EU, the US role was to instigate a
hub and spokes relationship with the nations of East Asia (Calder and
Fukuyama, 2008). No key political or financial support from the United States
316

r 2010 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1384-5748

International Politics

Vol. 47, 3/4, 308323

Comparative regional integration in the EU and East Asia

was provided for the creation of a regional entity, in stark contrast with the
EUs origins. The East Asian region has no effective cohesion policies,
although there is a commitment to poverty alleviation, and there has not been
a single regional market for goods, services, labour and capital to date. The
ASEAN structure is not based on a desire that it becomes a politically
integrated body per se, although it instigated the ARF.
What renders regions effective varies. What is common and comparable
is that they establish objectives and means to achieve them. The EU has long
been characterized by promissory rhetoric and has often not achieved its
objectives within the time frame set by its leaders. Yet it has largely achieved
economic integration. Its non-economic political persona is more subject to
debate, in terms of its international role (for example, Manners, 2002; Sjursen,
2006). While the EU can be characterized as post-Westphalian, East Asia and
ASEAN in particular remains firmly Westphalian. The experiences of the
Second World War and Cold War have left indelible marks in both parts of
the world, albeit with very different results. Nation- and state-building are
largely completed projects in EU Europe but they are incomplete or recent
completions in most ASEAN countries.

Integration Snobbery: Moving Beyond the Centrality of the EU

Considerable scholarly attention has been accorded to the advantages and
disadvantages of membership of an RI bloc, such as the EU. The EU advances
its experience of integration as a potential model for other parts of the world.
For example, the European Commissions Multi-Annual Indicative Programme for Asia focuses on three main areas of intervention, the first of
which is to support RI (European Commission, 2007, pp. 3, 58). Both policy
and scholarly debate portray the EU as a potential paradigm. So are any
aspects of the EUs experience useful in a comparative context for the East
Asian region? How might we compare interstate bargaining in the two different
regional groupings? Are there some aspects of the EU experience that are more
appropriate to consider than others? Which type of integration is pertinent
economic, social, institutional, financial or other? What sort of community
is being constructed in East Asia? Must RI encompass institutionalization?
What and who determines the pathways to RI and under what type of
leadership? Who are the important actors? What are the drivers of integration
in the regionalizing states? What role, if any, is accorded to non-state actors,
corporations and civil society (Pempel, 2005, pp. 1324)? What transformation
has come about? What debates, both theoretical and policy-driven, are evident,
which reflect or differ from those in Europe? These questions continue to
require rigorous analysis.
r 2010 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1384-5748

International Politics

Vol. 47, 3/4, 308323

317

Murray

It is accepted that the EU has reordered relations among its nation states,
altered some dynamics of international relations more broadly, propelled
a range of new actors onto the international stage, and challenged
established boundaries between domestic and international politics. These
wide-ranging changes in Europe have led scholars to re-conceptualize
their fields of enquiry, elaborate their conceptual and analytical tools, and
rethink some basic assumptions about the dynamics of international politics
and inter-state relations. They have also been the context for much
comparative RI analysis. The Europeanization of the economic sphere within
the EU has been accompanied by Europeanization of economic, political and
even social spheres. These have been achieved with much deliberation,
considerable conflict and several setbacks. One Commission official interviewed stated:
Well, we are very proud of what we have done y we dont pretend to
posit ourselves as a model for anybody else, we like to point out look,
difficult things can be done y . This is how weve done it. If there is
anything in our experience that might inspire you, wed be happy to share
it and to tell you how we did it y. and we would also be happy to tell
you where we messed up and what dead alleys we went into before we
found the way that works y . We have a predilection for encouraging
people doing similar things.4
The analysis of the EU does not necessarily find parallels in the study of East
Asian regionalism. While, for many years, in EU studies, there was a central
cleavage between the neo-functionalists and the intergovernmentalists, this is
not the case in comparative regionalism studies. It is only in the EU context
that there is an argument in favour of understanding the EU as a nascent
super-state, or an entity with significant supranational qualities or as the
outcome of intergovernmental bargaining between nation-states. This method
of understanding the EU and the battles of the scholars in EU studies has
effectively demarcated and insulated the study of the EU from comparative
RI studies, in the past.
Acharya (2006, p. 312) correctly suggests that European regionalisms
problems with supranationalism have not overcome state sovereignty. Like
many comparative regionalism analysts, he correctly warns of stark contrasts
between a superior European model and the Asian experience: he suggests
that analysis focuses especially on process, as regional cooperation is a
difficult and contested process, with no single model. The problem of the
scholarly focus on EU achievements in integration and of the EU advancing
its own achievements as a paradigm means that there remains a perception of
the EU as an integration snob.
318

r 2010 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1384-5748

International Politics

Vol. 47, 3/4, 308323

Comparative regional integration in the EU and East Asia

This centrality of the EU experience is evident in studies that argue that

the EU constitutes the most advanced example of regionalism. This can lead
to a tendency to regard the EU as the final or near-final stage of teleological
steps towards an ideal-type of RI. Scholarly literature tends to enumerate
factors that render RI a success, including culturally similar countries, shared
objectives, binding agreements, an institutionalized system, a defined geographic region, a commitment to a legal patrimony or acquis and sectoral
integration of policies. The EU seems to manifest these criteria precisely
because such lists tend to be based on the EUs own experience! It is a challenge
to conceptualize RI when the terms have often been set, formed and framed by
the EU experience.
European Commission officials who were interviewed by the author have
commented that even though we are relatively advanced in integration, its an
evolving concept and so there is no blueprint5 and we have always tried to see
if we could somehow influence their [ASEANs] process of economic
integration on the basis of our own experience.6 Another noted that we have
a predilection for encouraging regionalism. We are happy to see ASEANs
efforts and we wish them well.7 A cautious note was set by a smaller number of
officials, who suggested that the concept of war for France and Germany is
not the same for China and Japan. The EU cant be a model as such8 and we
are careful not to talk about models,9 a view not shared by an official who said
our model is inspiring.10
Some scholars suggest that the EU is not a model for East Asian
policymakers, as the scope, depth and sequencing of the integration process
in the East Asian region have to be their own (Ruffini, 2006) and as there are
profound historical differences (Hale, 2008, p. 59). Therefore, it is unproductive to draw on European or other regional experiences to critique East Asia
for lagging behind as it does not shed light on existing cross-border links
(Pempel, 2005, p. 5). Further, some countries and regions participate in a
number of regional-type entities, with distinctive functions, such as the EU,
Council of Europe, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe
and Nordic Council in Europes case, and ASEAN, ASEAN Plus Three, the
East Asia Summit and the ARF, in Asia.
The EU is also different in a further, normative manner, as it projects and
promotes regionalism as a model and the basis of relationships in interregionalism. This renders the EU a different type of regional actor, as scholars
seek to examine how the EU differs, in its regional structures, forms and
functions; its integration promotion; and its activism in advancing its
experiences in international dialogue.
Further, the EU does not constitute a political integration model, as East
Asian society is religiously and culturally more heterogeneous than Europe,
with significant minorities and little multiculturalism. It has different experiences
r 2010 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1384-5748

International Politics

Vol. 47, 3/4, 308323

319

Murray

of society, civil society and the role of the state, as a force for cohesion
(Moxon-Browne, 2008).

Conclusion
This article concludes that there are valid points of comparison between the
EU and East Asia. However, it urges caution in recognizing that there is
no single integration approach and that no entity has a monopoly on
integration experiences. The EU should not be regarded in its entirety as a
model or laboratory. The urge to integration snobbery is to be avoided.
The European experience of inter-state cooperation is based on characteristics of institutional architecture. The East Asian one is largely economic,
with little pursuit of a political project. Integration is not a zero sum game.
The EUs development has been unpredictable, with no single pathway
of stages of integration. Further, the development of East Asian and EU
integration depends on the role of national interest and on the number, scope
and type of their policies. In addition, integration is influenced by external
factors, such as the role of the United States.
The value of comparison is that it can connect islands of theory and
understanding. It can lead to a dialogue of disciplinary and area specialists.
It gives us better understandings of EU and Asian regionalism and
regionalization. However, we are also cognizant of the fact that comparison
can be limited in scope, that there are contested terms and definitions, as in the
meaning of region, Europe and Asia. Finally, future research could usefully
examine the link between the EUs norms-exporting and integration, the EU
as an integration entrepreneur, the EU as an integration promoter and, finally,
the unintended consequences of EU integration.

About the Author

Philomena Murray is Associate Professor in the School of Social and Political
Sciences at the University of Melbourne. A former diplomat, she runs training
courses on negotiating with the EU for the Australian government. She is a
research associate of the Institute for International Integration Studies at
Trinity College Dublin; Visiting Professor at the College of Europe, Bruges;
and an associate research fellow at United Nations University Comparative
Regional Integration Studies, Bruges. Her research interests are in EU
Australia relations; EUAsia relations; EU governance and comparative
regional integration. Her recent books include Australia and the European
320

r 2010 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1384-5748

International Politics

Vol. 47, 3/4, 308323

Comparative regional integration in the EU and East Asia

Superpower (Melbourne University Press, 2005) and P. Murray (ed.) Europe

and Asia: Regions in Flux (Palgrave, 2008).

Notes
1 The interviews were conducted in Brussels in June 2006 2007. The author thanks the
Commission officials for their participation.
2 Commission official number 1.
3 The European Commissions multimedia yearbook presenting some of the EUs most
important achievements of 2008 lists the following 10 topics: controlling the use of chemicals in
Europe; a joint response to the financial crisis; better rights for temporary workers; acting to
keep children safe; equal rights for passengers with reduced mobility; a helping hand for
stability and democracy; keeping Europes lights on without risking the planets health; healthy
eating made easier; EU countries help each other cope with disaster; and EU funding becomes
more transparent (see European Commission, Europe and you in 2008, ec.europa.eu/
snapshot2008).
4 Commission official 2.
5 Commission official 3.
6 Commission official 4.
7 Commission official 5.
8 Commission official 6.
9 Commission official 7.
10 Commission official 8.

References
Acharya, A. (2001) Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia. London, New York:
Routledge.
Acharya, A. (2006) Europe and Asia. Reflections on a tale of two regionalisms. In: B. Fort and
D. Webber (eds.) Regional Integration in East Asia and Europe. Convergence or Divergence?
London, New York: Routledge, pp. 312321.
Acharya, A. (2007) The emerging regional architecture of world politics. World Politics 59:
629652.
Acharya, A. and Johnston, A.I. (2007) Comparing regional institutions: An introduction. In:
A. Acharya and A.I. Johnston (eds.) Crafting Cooperation. Regional International Institutions in
Comparative Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 131.
Angresano, J. (2004) European Union integration lessons for ASEAN +3: The importance of
contextual specificity. Journal of Asian Economics 14: 909926.
ASEAN. (2008a) ASEAN Charter, Singapore, http://www.aseansec.org/21069.pdf, accessed 12
September 2008.
ASEAN. (2008b) ASEAN: An overview, http://www.aseansec.org/92.htm, accessed 12 September
2008.
Asia Europe Meeting (ASEM). (2008) Statement on the international financial situation. Beijing,
24 October, http://www.aseminfoboard.org/content/documents/ASEM7_Statement-InternationalFinancial-Situation.pdf, accessed 5 December 2008.
r 2010 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1384-5748

International Politics

Vol. 47, 3/4, 308323

321

Murray

ASEAN Chairman. (2008) Chairmans statement of the 15th ASEAN Regional Forum. Singapore,
24 July, http://www.aseansec.org/21781.htm, accessed 12 September 2008.
Baldwin, R.E. (2006) Multilateralizing regionalism: Spaghetti bowls as building blocs on the path
to global free trade. The World Economy 29(11): 14511518.
Beeson, M. (2005) Rethinking regionalism: Europe and East Asia in comparative perspective.
Journal of European Public Policy 12(5): 969985.
Breslin, S. and Higgott, R. (2000) Studying regions: Learning from the old, constructing the new.
New Political Economy 5(3): 333352.
Caballero-Anthony, M. (2008) Non-traditional security and infectious diseases in ASEAN: Going
beyond the rhetoric of securitization to deeper institutionalization. The Pacific Review 21(4):
507525.
Calder, K.E. and Fukuyama, F. (2008) Introduction. In: K.E. Calder and F. Fukuyama (eds.) East
Asian Multilateralism: Prospects for Regional Stability. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins
University Press, pp. 112.
Cooper, A.F., Hughes, C.W. and De Lombaerde, P. (eds.) (2008) Regionalisation and Global
Governance: The Taming of Globalisation? New York: Routledge.
European Commission. (2007) Multi-annual indicative programme for Asia 20072010, http://ec/
europa.external-relations/asia/rsp-0710_en/pdf, accessed 8 May 2008.
European Commission. (2008) Europe and you in 2008, http://ec.europa.eu/snapfshot2008,
accessed 14 November 2008.
Hale, D. (2008) The outlook for economic integration in East Asia. In: K.E. Calder and
F. Fukuyama (eds.) East Asian Multilateralism: Prospects for Regional Stability. Baltimore,
MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 5877.
Hidetaka, Y. (2005) Political leadership, informality, and regional integration in East Asia:
The evolution of ASEAN plus three. European Journal of East Asian Studies 4(2):
205232.
Hurrell, A. (1995) Explaining the resurgence of regionalism in world politics. Review of
International Studies 21: 331358.
Levine, S. (2007) Asian values and the Asia pacific community: Shared interests and common
concerns. Politics and Policy 35(1): 102135.
Manners, I. (2002) Normative power Europe: A contradiction in terms? Journal of Common
Market Studies 40(2): 235259.
Mattli, W. (1999) The Logic of Regional Integration Europe and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Moxon-Browne, E. (2008) Political integration in the European Union: Any lessons for ASEAN?
In: P. Murray (ed.) Europe and Asia: Regions in Flux. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan,
pp. 84101.
Murray, P. (2008a) Regional power Europe? The place of the EU in comparative regional
integration analysis. In: A. Kosler and M. Zimmek (eds.) Elements of Regional Integration:
A Multidimensional Approach. Baden-Baden, Germany: NOMOS, pp. 5771.
Murray, P. (2008b) Advancing regionalism: The EUs policy towards Asia. In: B. Andreosso
OCallaghan and M. Bruna Zolin (eds.) Asia and Europe: Connections and Contrasts. Venice,
Italy: University of Venice Press, pp. 3448.
Ogilvie-White, T. (2006) Non-proliferation and counter-terrorism cooperation in Southeast Asia:
Meeting global obligations through regional security architectures? Contemporary Southeast
Asia 28(1): 126.
Pempel, T.J. (2005) Emerging webs of regional connectness. In: T.J. Pempel (ed.) Remapping East
Asia: The Construction of a Region. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, pp. 128.
Pomfret, R. (2007) Is regionalism an increasing feature of the world economy? The World Economy
30(6): 8931032.
322

r 2010 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1384-5748

International Politics

Vol. 47, 3/4, 308323

Comparative regional integration in the EU and East Asia

Ravenhill, J. (2001) APEC and the Construction of Pacific Rim Regionalism. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Rosamond, B. (2000) Theories of European Integration. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave.
Rosamond, B. (2005) Conceptualising the EU model of governance in world politics. European
Foreign Affairs Review 10(4): 463478.
Ruffini, P.-B. (2006) Regional integration in East Asia: Which lessons to draw from the European
experience? Paper presented at the Asia-Pacific Economic Association Conference; 2930 July,
University of Washington, Seattle, USA.
Ruland, J. and Jetschke, A. (2008) 40 years of ASEAN: Perspectives, performance and lessons for
change. The Pacific Review 21(4): 397409.
Rumford, C. and Murray, P. (2003) Globalization and the limitations of European integration
studies: Interdisciplinary considerations. Journal of Contemporary European Studies 11(1):
8593.
Sbragia, A. (2008) Review article: Comparative regionalism: What might it be? Journal of Common
Market Studies 46(Annual Review): 2949.
Sjursen, H. (2006) The EU as a normative power: How can this be? Journal of European Public
Policy 13(2): 235251.
Stanley Foundation and Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) and the
Swedish School of Advanced Asia Pacific Studies of The Swedish Foundation for International
Cooperation in Research and Higher Education. (2008) Challenges to Effective Multilateralism:
Comparing Asian and European Experiences. Sweden: Sigtuna.
Warleigh-Lack, A. (2006) Towards a conceptual framework for regionalisation: Bridging
New Regionalism and Integration Theory. Review of International Political Economy 13(5):
750771.
Warleigh-Lack, A. (2008) The EU, ASEAN and APEC in comparative perspective. In: P. Murray
(ed.) Europe and Asia: Regions in Flux. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 2341.

r 2010 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1384-5748

International Politics

Vol. 47, 3/4, 308323

323