Integration process of EU and ASEAN

Introduction

Regionalism across the globe has continually increased from mid-1980s. A prevalent example of such regionalism is European Union (EU) following its deepening and widening. However, revitalization together with expansion and creation makes regionalism more visible (De Lombaerde, et al. 2010). Currently, regionalism is characterized by the involvement of most of the governments across the world while involving multiple non-state actors; thus results to varieties of formal and informal regionalism in most of the concern areas. In this case, regionalism has a tendency of maintaining a close toe with the global politics, intensification of the globalization process, and international relations. The EU is a politico-economic union established in 2004 that comprised of 25 member states (Berkofsky, n.d.). The union has an estimated population of 510 million people covering an area of 4,324,782 km2. In the coming years, some European countries are targeted to join the EU thus broadening the union; this has made it set an aspiring goal of being the most economical economy in the world by 2010. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is a regional organizational encompassing ten Southeast Asian States. ASEAN was established in Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand and Philippines with its affirmation also known as the Bangkok Declaration in 1967. The purpose of this association is to enhance intergovernmental cooperation and facilitate economic integration between its members (Brussels, 2014). Besides, ASEAN has a primary role in speeding up the economic progression, sociocultural evolution, social progress of its members while at the same time preserving the regional stability and facilitate peaceful coexistence among these members. The primary focus of this paper, therefore, is to carry out a comparative analysis of these two bodies where a comparison on the regional integration (RI) of the two blocs is carried. The study also aims at identifying the key problems that scholars encounter when carrying a comparative analysis in the regional integration

Origin and Achievements

Despite the various comparative issues of EU and ASEAN based on their roots and goals, there exist few aspects of carrying a successful comparative analysis on their respective achievements Murray (2010). RI, in this case, is effective in carrying out a policy output when the regions are grouped together and having robust commitments even from its members mandated to accept or reject the shared objectives, governance structure, and leadership matters Murray (2010). The EU, in this case, is categorized under common economic philosophy, which is based on a variety of capitalism (Kim, 2009). EU was supported in its basic endeavors by the United States as asserted by Murray (2010). The driving force of the EU came from the external Western Europe, which was as a result of both the American foreign policy and Cold War. Despite the fact that the support from the U.S. was crucial in the initial stages of the European integration, other factors such as the Messina meetings, The Hague Summit, the European Coal and Steel Community, as well as other incentives had a substantial role in motivating the development of this union (Pollack, 2001). Nevertheless, the Marshall Plan together with the military embankment of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization were also the endeavors of forming the EU.

Another fundamental aspect of the EU is on the intra-regional distribution of resources. This aspect distinguishes EU from other organizations following its policy distribution. As a result, the EU is different from other intergovernmental cooperation compared to other forms of regionalism (Beeson, 2005). In conjunction with this feature, EU made a decision of implementing cohesion policies used to complement and offset the adverse influence of the establishment of an individual regional goods, capital, labor, and services. This affirms why EU has continued to be an exception in achieving the free mobility of the factors of production (Murray, 2010). Besides, EU has agreed on various economic policies in its functional integration used to complement the common currency as well as the single market. As a result, market and regulatory mechanisms applied in the EU bloc is effective in facilitating the economic integration. Moreover, Murray (2010) adds that enhancing the economic integration is essential in the intra-regional trade as it is the key to the victory of the EU. In a cultural and societal perspective, functional integration constitutes to multiple remunerations as well as the comparability of these mobility experiences.

On the contrary, ASEAN did not have any ideology in its formation but rather it was established in communism as well as capitalism. As such, the concern of intimidation of war and yearning for stability and peace became the heart of the origin of ASEAN compared to EU (Murray, 2010). As a result, ASEAN was formed to achieve a variety of objectives such as accelerating social growth, economic advancement, and cultural developments in the Asian region. Portela (2013) claims that the core purpose of this union was “to promote regional peace and stability through abiding respect justice and the rule of law in the relationship among countries of the region and adhere to the principles of the United Nations Charter (pg. 5)”. As a result, the member states of this bloc expressed their readiness to promote collaboration in regard to the common interest from an expansive series of fields such as cultural, economic, technical, scientific, social, and administrative with the motive of hastening “economic growth, social progress, and cultural development in the region (pg. 5)”. In addition, the US has a different role in the formation of ASEAN compared to EU. Murray (2010) state that the U.S. obligation was to initiate a core relationship with the East Asian countries. As such, the United States did not provide any of the political or financial support during the formation of this bloc compared to the formation of the EU. The ASEAN union did not have effective cohesion policies even though it aims at alleviating poverty (Murray, 2010). Consequentially, ASEAN does not have a market for the factors of production; thus lacking effective mechanisms in the unity of its policies.

Nevertheless, the two regions have a point of commonality following their objectives and the means of achieving them. According to Murray (2010), the EU is characterized by promissory rhetoric that ensures that it achieves its goals within the time set by the leaders. Similarly, EU has essentially attained the economic integration. However, regarding the international role, ASEAN is non-economic political in most of the debated subjects. The EU is characterized as post-Westphalian while the ASEAN confidently remains Westphalian (Murray, 2010). The involvement of both Cold War and Second World War left incredible results in both of these two unions. The EU has achieved most of the nation and state building in large extent while ASEAN has recently completed some of these buildings while others remain incomplete.

As a result, ASEAN was developed by the norms of respecting national sovereignty together with non-interference in all of the inner concerns that followed a different intertwined rationale. First, the formation of ASEAN reflects the acceptance by all the affiliates of the existence of each other as well as the right to statehood needed in the establishment of friendship relations that is consolidated through the formation of ASEAN (Laursen, 2003). The next reason for the formation of this union was fear of being overtaken by an external sovereignty; thus, the formation of ASEAN was an effective way of establishing anti-communist alliance purposed to prevent the market economy system. Finally, the bloc was formed under non-interference principle in the internal affairs (Laursen, 2003). ASEAN was based on this principle to evade similar instances witnessed in the neighboring Indochina that extended internal insurgencies calling for the external alien power to intervene and guide by the logic of the ideology used to characterize the Cold War (Murray, 2010). The principles of respect for power and non-intervention were essential in maintaining the independence from alien rule achieved by most of the Southeast Asian countries.

Problems of comparative aspects of regional integration of EU and ASEAN

Despite the mounting number of detailed comparisons on various aspects of regionalism, especially role of power and regional integration there lacks a systematic approach of debating the basis of these comparisons. The major problems and weaknesses of a regionalism study relate to the fragmented nature of the comparative analysis. As such, De Lombaerde, et al. (2010) claim that the challenges of carrying an effective comparative study on the regional integration fall under “three interrelated problems: the conceptual problem, theoretical problem, and methodological problem (pg.2)”. These problems are the one that determines the effectiveness of the comparison done in the field of regionalism.

Conceptual Problem

The conceptual problem is one of the greatest barriers that students face when carrying a comparative regionalism. There exist a variety of definitions of terms such as region, regionalism, regional integration, regionalization, and other interrelated concepts in literature. DeLombaerde, et al. (2010) assert that conceptual problem is prominent to the extent of challenging the existence of the comparative regionalism itself. The ability to define these terms is of significant effect in carrying the comparative investigation as these definitions and the selection of perceptions determine the ability to compare and generalize the study. Despite the circumstance that the meaning of a region relies on the problem definition, it is essential to establish a standard definition to ensure that when policy makers and academics communicate about regions and its related concepts, it is easy to understand.

Despite the acknowledged problems regarding the definition of a region, debates concerning regional integration emphasizes on the sovereignty definitions of states and regions as actors. In this instance, DeLombaerde, et al. (2010) note that regional institutions and organizations are key components of comparative regionalism, thus the need for establishing an effective way of guiding the research design together with the conceptualization. Thus, the researchers will have to gain a comprehensive insight of what a region is for them to develop an effective comparative regionalism. Along the same argument, DeLombaerde, et al. (2010) claims that one of the effective ways of solving this challenge is first by differentiating between a state and a region as well as a region and a non-region. Besides, an effective way of avoiding spending most of the time trying to define what a region is, but somewhat, emphasis on the important aspects of a regional spectacle is by distinguishing a non-region from a region (Laursen, 2003). “It is therefore recommended to distinguish classes of definitions that are characterized by a ‘hard core’ consisting of essential elements, rather than to engage in trench-wars over specificities of particular definitions (DeLombaerde, et al. 2010, pg. 9).” This affirms the fact that conceptual problem is inevitable for a successive regional comparative. The definition and understanding that one takes depend on the type of discourse taken as well as the research question that a study takes. DeLombaerde, et al. (2010) recommends that scholars and students should take ‘hard core’ definitions and discursive contexts used in a study.

Theoretical Problem

A variety of theories of regional integration and regionalism exist. Most of these theories according to the DeLombaerde, et al. (2010) do not compete in trying to explain the indistinguishable phenomena in different techniques; rather, they center on various aspects of a wider view of the regional phenomenon. In most of the cases, Western standpoints are typical; thus, the key delinquent is the understanding of these concepts is at times distorted, despite the dominating perspective that shapes the paradigm from which other views are arbitrated. There exist a robust favor on the European integration theory, which determines the way comparison is made by scholars. Despite the tendency of the regional specialists treating their regions as special and unique, they always use the European integration theory as their backdrop used to compare with other studies. Thus, European experience is used as the foundation of the production of generalization concerning the predictions of any regional integration carried in a different place. As a consequence, it becomes difficult to identify the comparable cases of defining regional integration; thus resulting to the n=1 dilemma.

The fact that European integration is used as the prime model of most of the regional integration and regionalism studies yields the primary challenge of contrast in this study area. According to DeLombaerde, et al. (2010), there are two extensive attitudes of carrying a comparative analysis in the field of decentralization, which is discernable as they revolve around the European integration theory. The two standpoints obfuscate the improvement of more candid comparative regionalism. The first perspective, in this case, is dominated the need of explaining the variation from the standard European model (Brennan & Murray, 2015). This develops biases of assuming and understanding the nature of regionalism that at most times sprout from the European integration that influences the perception of the progress of regionalism in other parts of the universe.

The second perspective targets the developing world and vigilant about EU style institutionalization that is integral in most of the classical policies. Nevertheless, these perceptions tend to reflect the Europe-centered perception; hence considering the alterations in practice and theory persisting between regionalism in developing world and that of Europe. The regionalism discussions of the developing countries are reduced to the EU/EC community market. This calls for the alternative options of evaluating how other actors conceptualize the regionalization process. As such, DeLombaerde, et al. (2010) posit that a successive debate of the comparative regionalism can be reached by not celebrating the differences or similarities between European integration and other regionalism from other corners of the world. Instead, these debates should go past the prevalent interpretations of the European integration by drawing more broadly to the non-European conceptualizations as well as the alternative theories aiming at drawing attention to the aspects of European integration. However, neglecting Europe is similar to missing the opportunity of exploiting the EU laboratory and project (Brennan & Murray, 2015). As such, there exist a challenge in conducting a comparative regionalism where one have to transcend and include European integration concept and exercise, which, in turn, necessitates more heightened communication between theoretical standpoints and numerous specializations. Lastly, more devotion should be paid to theories, ideas, and theories emerging from outside Europe such as Pan-Africanism, Pan-Americanism, and open regionalism. Moreover, it is important to explore the extent to which the importance of comparative analysis surpasses regional accuracies.

The Problem of Empirical Methodology

As stated earlier, most of the discussion on the relative regionalism is subjugated by Europe that is used as the chief model of the local integration. This aspect constitutes to the development of a barrier on failing to broaden and deepen the insightfulness of regionalism beyond EU while failing to acquire a deep insight of the EU improved comparative regionalism. A major problem in this perspective regards the acuity of the EU as ‘sui generis’ (Laursen, 2003). As a result, there is a stern absence of collaboration and communication between regionalism and EU studies across the globe, despite the current attempts of addressing this deficiency (DeLombaerde, et al. 2010). Rather, EU is considered as a dogmatic system instead of a regionalism project; thus downplaying the similarities between other regionalist projects and EU. The corollary of this aspect is that recognized techniques of political science calling for the exploitation of the comparative politics in EU studies, international trainings, and global studies, which are not fortified to handle current difficulties facing EU.

The absence of comparable circumstances as well as the complication of the regional occurrence aid at explaining the preference of a sole case study method. Similarly, many scholars have a tendency to use a particular contextual language in describing similar phenomenon instead of using general concepts and coming up with study questions and transferable hypotheses to the cross-regional comparisons (Laursen, 2003). This is accountable for the increased tightness in the field of regionalism between comparative analysis and regional specialization where the latter has been prevalent in the current studies leading to an intense focus on this method. According to DeLombaerde, et al. (2010) this case study method has a variety of advantages since the context, and the nuances of every regionalization process can be simply clasped. Besides, the use of this method guarantees the use of ‘within-case’ analysis as well as process tracing that is significant to the study of regionalization and in the alteration of actors to organized changes. Significantly, the case-study method should be expounded on the base of composite features of an instance, and even concerning disciplinary traditions as well as practices in international relations and political science. However, the use of the case-study method faces a major drawback since a sole case is a feeble base for developing new generalizations and nullification of the existing generalizations.

The preference of a single case technique is that most of the scholars tend to specialize on a specific region irrespective of the discipline they emanate from, for example, area studies, comparative politics, and international relations. In addition, some of the comparisons are carried from a single region such as comparing various regions in Europe, while a some scholars tend to relate across different areas. DeLombaerde, et al. (2010) deduce that the lack of equivalent cases and the mixture of complication in regional studies is an instance of the challenge in the comparative studies that makes it problematic to establish robust conclusions concerning the relationship between the evaluated variables. As such, there is a need for increasing the number of the cases in this instance while concentrating on a few number of variables and allow cross-case assumption.

In conjunction with these remedies, DeLombaerde, et al. (2010) recommends that one should be in a position to differentiate regional institutions and regions as cases since a single region can yield a number of cases depending on the research question of a study. In relation to selecting a case, it needs to be grounded on the importance and the aims of the project. This accounts for the problem that most of the case selection of the comparative regionalism take a ground of the more or less accidental circumstances depending on the availability of study data. Moreover, the selection relies on the opportunities of the researcher as well as the view that regional intergovernmental organizations and regional trading organizations can be compared across the board.

Another effective approach selecting a case is by using primary quantitative study to monitor the process by facilitating the centering on the outliers. Using this approach provides a blend of methods as a way of generating synergies applicable in most of the nested analysis. Opting for this approach should, however, take into account the research projects of a minimum scale that can potentially go past the normal scale of a distinct research activities. Applying this concept to the EU implies that it can be learned in multiple ways where the comparison relies on the issue under study. The social realm of EU both individual and general aspects of other regional entities, it becomes easy for one to compare with other forms of regionalism. Simultaneously, EU can only be matched to a limited number of entities following the unique properties that it possesses. This leads to the argument that EU in some instances like other regional organizations and others like no other regional organizations.

Regional Integration 

Scholars who have attempted to carry out this practice often faces various difficulties that obscure them from carrying a successful comparative analysis of these regions. “Students of comparative regionalism face two methodological obstacles (Wunderlich, 2012 pg. 654).” The prime problem is the supremacy of EU strategies of regional assimilation. This problem moves along with the precise problems linked to it such as focusing on the distinctiveness of the European capability of viewing EU as ‘sui generis’; thus resulting to the commonly known ‘n=1 problem’. Another issue, in this case, is the teleological chauvinism linked to the assumption that advancement of the regional amalgamation is defined grounded on the institutionalization style of EU. As a result, any regionalism that tends to defer from this standard EU model is termed as inefficient and weak. In contrast, European assimilation together with the specter of the EU loom are the core barriers to carrying out a successful regionalism comparison.

Conceptual in nature is the second challenge for most of the scholars. Most of the literature lack an outline to enhance their comparative activities. For example, Wunderlich (2012) claims that there lacks a standard definition of what a region is. This according to his study is a concept with a variety of meanings. “The main problem is identifying the distinctiveness of a particular geographic space as a unit characterized by enhanced political, economic, and social interaction (Wunderlich, 2012, pg. 654).” Besides, over emphasizing on the regional idiosyncrasies have a potential of impeding any meaningful comparison carried between two regions. This concept entails the much-assembled ideas from new regionalism approach (NRA) that lays focus on the construction and deconstruction of the regions under comparison. Wunderlich (2012) notes that the construction of a region can be deduced from shared interests or a thereof perception, and as a consequence forms a particular regional identity, which according to NRA is ‘regioness’. NRA in the 1990s discovers regional phenomena in the perspective of globalization as well as systematic powers instead of focusing intra-regional aspects; thus, it continues to be a substantial feature in the scholarship of European integration. The concept of ‘regioness’ as per Wunderlich (2012) accentuates the possibility for regional social projects; thus devising human actor in the attempt of protecting the existing structures.

Wunderlich (2012) assert that, a regioness is where individuals can be located, which includes areas like states and regions possessing geographical contiguous. The social interaction together with dealings on these cross-regions take part in the transformation of the regional space to the regional complex, which develops to regional society (Wunderlich, 2012). Regional society is cross-border of the regional transactions that in turn intensifies some non-state actors that surpass state spaces to take part in regional authority. The next level of regioness is the regional society where the region comes up as a dynamic focus of its diverse distinctiveness. The following phase of regioness refers to the rise of a region-state. Wunderlich (2012)  claim that understanding and comprehending the concept of the regions is key to carrying out an effective comparative analysis of a study, which is applicable in most of the regional projects.

Before going to the extent of carrying out this study, it is important to define and explain what is meant by regional integration. Wunderlich (2012) defines it as the “creation and maintenance of intense and diversified patterns of interaction among previously autonomous units, which may be economic, political, and social in character (pg. 655)”. This clearly shows that regional integration closely relates to the regionalization and regionalism. Regionalization signifies the procedure that forms patterns of the integration, cooperation, convergence, and complementarity in a specific geographical space. Regionalism relates to a programme and a scheme, which might lead to the recognized institution building. Combining the two definitions according to Wunderlich (2012) leads to a single definition, which is regional integration. Regional integration, therefore, refers to the “state-driven process of increasing economic, political, or social interdependencies (pg. 655)”. Regional integration defines fresh multinational economic, social, and political spaces, which can lead to the development of new regional desires and norms and even to the extent of developing new identities (Wunderlich, 2012). This definition is important accounts for the variety of the regional projects where they do not have similar dogmatic aspect. Supporting these claims, Wunderlich (2012) adds that superficial glances at the ASEAN and EU state that, various regional projects comprises of a variety of notches of institutionalization.

Regional Model Integration of EU

The experience of the European Union (EU) has been in many instances used as an example as well as a model for the regional economic integration. This follows the success this bloc has incurred through high-level integration for its affiliate states over a period of fifty years; thus becoming a motivating model for the regional assimilation across the globe. The EU is ‘sui generis’ in nature as it is neither a nation-state nor an international state in an old-fashioned sense. The EU is best known for the way it pursues trade treaties. Apart from promoting economic ties, EU has used these treaties to export its regulatory approach away from tariff and non-tariff obstacles. In the recent times, EU has stepped up to shape the process of regional integration of the developing countries by taking complex covenants with regional groups that not only cover trade but also political aspects and development concerns.

As a corollary, EU has served as a reference point for most of the regional organizations. Following the long history, broader scope, successive enlargements, and further deepening, the EU has served as the embodiment of the regional integration, thus setting up a model that other blocs across the globe follows. This explains why most of the regional integration across the globe are compared against European model. Moreover, the EU for a long time favored regional integration among other countries, neighbors, and other parts of the world. Extending its performance, the EU has supported such wits that have facilitated its entering to more economic cooperation and formal political treaties with some regions. Besides, the EU has experienced these benefits due to the effective strategies used. According to Kircher (2006) such strategies include mode of decision making qualified for majority voting, use of ECJ in solving conflicts, revenue collection and distribution as a way of arranging budget, and involving citizens through direct elections. Using these facets is not common to most of the international organizations; thus suitable in referring it as a model.

Besides, many regional integration initiatives take the EU experience as their inspiration in terms of institutional development and policy agenda (Kircher, 2006). As such, most of these organizations attempt to mimic some of the EU’s norms, values, and policies to facilitate their operations. ASEAN being one of the perfect examples of the organizations that follows economic integration in Asia. The design and objectives of ASEAN closely relates to that of EU following the similar goals that each aim at achieving. However, despite the urge of developing a regional union that emulates the European approach, it is important to take into consideration the economic and political reality of the concerned regions. Correspondingly, the EU model comprises of a comprehensive mixture of intergovernmental and supranational approaches, which have not been implemented in most of other regional groupings. ASEAN in this case has neglected the supranational involvement in its activities as well as sovereignty delegation of such participation. As such, despite the inspiration that EU has over other regional integration, national leaders of these organizations have not embraced the origin of these integration agenda.

Differences in Regional Integration in the EU and ASEAN

Both EU and ASEAN has similar goals and roots of enhancing the economic integration such as creating stability in the post-war era, fostering economic growth, and gaining a stronger voice. However, despite these common goals, their directions are different as Bollinger (2013) notes. In the attempt of distinguishing the roles of these corporations, it is essential to consider the dynamics to use in defining the economic amalgamation. Do declaring the intent of creating a collective market enough for shaping upcoming projects or are there other factors with significant roles to that determine the direction of the market integration? The ability to answer such questions is key to defining the diverging aspects that these corporations have despite having similar goals. The attempt of differentiating these roles, it essential to consider the problems that influence the integration of these corporations.

The differentiating factors of the integration of these two corporations as per Bollinger (2013) affect the market integration; thus accounting for the diverging trajectories of these corporations. Three factors affect the market integration of these two corporations. The first factor is institutionalization that encompasses the issues like institutional capacity and institutional structure enforcing the universal decisions. The second factor is regional political condition including the internal and external factors that determine the alternative and hegemons for economic integrations (Bollinger, 2013). The last factor is regional economic conditions, which involves the internal and external trade as well as the presence of alternative trade agreements. The three factors are key to the existing diversions between EU and ASEAN.

Institutionalism

A key area of contrast between ASEAN and EU regional assimilation is grounded on their distinct institutional capacities as well as their structures. The EU is grounded on a struture designed to substitute international body via its institutions, which involves an environment for the EU interests above national (Berkofsky, n.d.). Nevertheless, this environment introduces the democratic element for the representation of its citizens as well as judicial to facilitate obedience to the Constitution. As a result, theorists have applauded the European bodies as the constructive, inspiring factors for the commercial integration while condemning these institutions for the depth of the Euro crisis as well. This crisis was as a result of adopting a monetarist union as opposed to the fiscal policy or rather taking into account the shortcomings of the universal democratic process. As a result, this created a democratic discrepancy at the EU level.

Contrary to this, ASEAN has retained a communion-based system of the interactive national institutions positioned to within the ASEAN conference (Portela, 2013). Besides, ASEAN supranational institutional structure excludes both judicial and the court remedy. Apart from this exclusion, ASEAN constantly follows a non-intervention principle in the operations of its affiliate states; thus being criticized for being a ‘talk shop’. This puts a clear distinction between these two organizations based on structures, which as a result, has allowed scholars to extensively study the two regions.

Despite the varying functions and structures of these regions, the institutional capacity of these two blocs has been extensively studied for their obligation in the economic incorporation. In the instance of the EU, there exists an cooperative relationship between the subsequent EU organizations and players in the form of procedural policies. The cycle of relations between the actors and institutions are exploited in shaping the EU policies and its governance as well. Notwithstanding the dynamic political realities and burdens, all EU institutions are adaptable as they change to adapt to the circumstances, which in return contribute a substantial part in shaping the growth of the EU integration (Berkofsky, n.d.). In this case, the early committee such as committee of the governor and monetary committee allowed the institutional capacity to be debated on its policies and their implementation. Besides, the European Commission (EC) uses supranational authority to implement competitive policies as a way of demonstrating the significant roles of the European institutions in EU economic integration. In addition, EC enforces guidelines used to prevent national governments from assisting the private institutions as this distorts the markets.

Equally, the official volume of ASEAN has been studied especially the institutional aptitude to address their mandates. Bollinger (2013) argues that the office of the secretariat and secretary general are the crucial dynamic forces behind the commercial integration. ASEAN is approaching the culmination of development; thus, there is a possibility of making through the integration driven by facto that as well requires the robust local political organizations to commence and enforce a vertical approach. As a result, institutions have a role in identifying and shaping the economic integration of the ASEAN region. This according to Bollinger (2013) has inhibited the ASEAN economic integration through the separation of the political consistency and economic integration, which leads to pursuing them separately as each has independent goals. Moreover, this distinction has contributed to uneven progress in both the political and economic sphere of ASEAN future growth. This is still evident in the EU, as both the legislative and judicial integration has parted EU from the likelihood of establishing a shared market. Legal integration has a tendency of moving towards deregulation and liberation, which due to the high agreement requirements cannot be politically corrected.

Under this perspective, regional integration is viewed in terms of regional identity and a set of fundamental norms as well, which are prerequisite to the internal relations of the state within the region. ASEAN emphasizes on the ASEAN way, which is analyzed through constructivist theorists while EU is used as the center of this analysis (Portela, 2013). Constructivist concept is applicable to the European institutions in interpreting their centralization of the authority. Likewise, the theory is applicable in explaining the simultaneous state-centric regionalization, which is as a result of the developed sovereign identities that allows the government to interact with governance at national and international level. It is the theory that the operation of ASEAN is understood as alluded by Bollinger (2013). Constructivists are used to shaping the development of ASEAN norms while the same norms are used to shape the expansion of the region.

Institutional Structure

Another major difference between ASEAN and EU is their institutional structures. The structure of the institution is of equal importance as it shapes both the processes of decision-making and their enforcement. EU has a matchless institutional system with the international institutions authorized to set the schedule for the Union while at certain instances, the EU has authority over the governments of the various state members (Berkofsky, n.d.). To facilitate this function, the EU contains three basic groups: the Council of the European Parliament, the European Union, and the European Commission. This Commission comprises of 27 commissioners whose task is to represent the interests of the Union as a whole while inventing the legislature for the EU. The European Parliament is mandated to bring an exceptional level of international egalitarianism, where the delegates are openly elected after a count of five years and their seating is based on the party instead of the nationality (Portela, 2013). The last institution is the Council of the European Union that functions as a representative of the governments of the state members. The council has a role of holding meetings used to make decisions of evaluating the relevant policies for the institution.

Apart from the three core institutions, Bollinger (2013) claims that there are other European Institutions that take part in determining the direction of the European regional combination. Firstly, the European Council composes of the leaders of subsequent states of the EU nation even though there is no definite approach of making ability. Secondly, the ECJ superintends the elucidation of the EU laws, their implementation as well as settling inter-state disputes. A close view of these two roles represents the wide degree of international authority with capability of boosting economic integration using multiple strategies.

However, ASEAN takes a different institutional approach meant to promote the organizational structure based on both the institutionalization and informality. The institutional structure of the ASEAN is centered on the summit meetings and a set of agency (Kim, 2009). In the center of this system, there is ASEAN Summit comprising of the head of national of entire ASEAN governments mandated in making decisions during the two annual meetings. Besides, the ASEAN Coordinating Councils, which is composed of ASEAN Community Council and ASEAN Foreign Ministers, supports the ASEAN Summit. It is the role of the ASEAN Community Council to overlook the ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community Council together with the ASEAN Economic Community Council. The effectiveness of these committees depends on the efficiency of the supplementing ASEAN organizations. The principal Committee of Permanent Representatives located in Jakarta comprises of the selected diplomats from individual nation, who later act as a team to enforce the resolutions by the Sectoral Ministerial Bodies. The ASEAN Secretary General and Secretariat has an obligation of supervising the daily work of ASEAN objectives and programs as well as the entire how the entire administration is carried.

Another significant aspect differentiating the institution integration is an evocative institution. This facet incorporates the democracy of citizens of the European state members in taking part in the decision-making process; thus by extension, it allows the people to decide what they want for the prospect of Europe and the economic integration in the EU (Berkofsky, n.d.). However, such a form of legitimization is not available for the ASEAN committee as there is no representative body and ministers for the government appointees (Portela, 2013). As a result, legitimacy is compulsory as a way of altering the national regulations that are based on the international governance, which would be hard for the ASEAN; thus unable to represent the will of the people. This, therefore, affirms why there exist different strategies of commercial integration between EU and ASEAN.

Decision-Making Rules

The mode of making decisions as well as the rules and norms involved is a substantial aspect of determining the forward trajectory and momentum of regional organizations. As such, both ASEAN and EU inaugurated with decision rules that were based on heavy accord. For instance, the Council of the European Union started with the objective of facilitating unanimous voting for the majority of the people in its decisions precisely that of Common Wealth. Since then, EU has continuously changed its voting system by facilitating ease of making decisions. Bollinger (2013) postulates that upon the alteration of this making-processes, most of the European level institutions have increasingly become activists; thus being able to make 1,000 upward decisions per year. Equally, these decisions have less impact in making changes in EU, but they are worth noting as they influence their market sheer and its structure.

On the other extreme, ASEAN started with unanimity approach of making decisions as it referred to its core methodology of ‘consolation and consensus’. Bollinger (2013) add that the use and overreliance of this system were to assure the member states that decisions made within this regional corporation had their full support while ensuring that the decision by the majority could not be used to outdo that of the minority. Unlike EU, ASEAN has not moved far away from its initial agreement as it has continued to hold on to its basic values, which has supported its ‘ASEAN Way’. Nevertheless, there have been a few clarifications and reformations in the mode of making decisions after the enactment of 2007 Charter. Bollinger (2013) claims that Chapter VII of this Charter was dedicated to both unanimity and decision-making where Article 20 states, “As a basic principle, decision-making in ASEAN shall be based on consultation and consensus (pg. 19)”. Nevertheless, this Charter failed to make a concession of requiring other forms of decision-making processes. The significant deviation is evident in Article 21 that instigated a new flexible involvement process for economic commitments through ASEAN Minus X formula. This approach as noted by Bollinger (2013) exhibits various similarities with the integration used by EU inclusive of proposing two speed Europe while allowing states to choose membership aspects.

It is important to note that the difference that persists between these regional institutions in making decisions is one of the key determinants leading to the dissimilarity in development towards market integration (Bollinger, 2013). With a compromise-based system, it is easy for any of the participants to break this progress. The process of market integration is not easy by any means for the involved countries as each of the country advocate for radical and extensive changes in the existing economic systems and policies, which is risky for these regions. However, if the progress stops once a single participant has trouble in making a decision, progress will be slow, which was a case with EU in the late 1960s and 1970s (Bollinger, 2013). ASEAN has maintained its core values through compromise based decision-making system; thus valuing its normative identity together with the process-based strategy while following the ASEAN Way; thus experiencing more hasty advancement towards integration. Besides, consensus-based systems demand slower development since it consumes a lot of time required to reach consensus among the involved parties. In return, the EU alienated itself from this approach as a way of increasing probability of experiencing rapid integration, which as a result diverse in approaches, unlike ASEAN.

Rule of Law

Another important institutional difference between ASEAN and EU persists on the rule of law together with the measures and institutions responsible for overseeing the national enactment of the international resolutions. Upon the founding of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) mandated to facilitate the enactment of pacts and directions, the EU developed a jurisdictive remedy to account for legal defiance (Portela, 2013). Nonetheless, ASEAN operates on the non-interference when handling the affairs of the member states; thus precluding judicial remedy as it would call for a behavioral change of the member states for them to meet the international regulations.

The ECJ is prominence as being influential with the role of supervising other institutions. Similarly, ECJ has a major part in influencing the economic integration procedure in the EU. Along the same argument, ECJ interprets EU law and assess their compatibility with the agreements (Bollinger, 2013). Moreover, ECJ evaluates whether national governments have met their duties under EU laws. When the EU progress was delayed in the Council when the Empty Chair Crisis together with the accumulation of the de facto veto integrated with the Luxembourg Compromise (Portela, 2013). The intervention of the ECJ became a key appealing factor for amalgamation by taking an innovative strategy than the existing one (Bollinger, 2013). As a result, the ECJ made landmark decisions used as a framework for easier and faster economic integration.

The state regimes of the EU member countries are authorized by an international authority in case of the constitutional disobedience, which is evident on the level of delegation that is different compared to that of ASEAN. This difference exist as ASEAN made a conscious decision to stress the normative value set as well as the process rather than the results compared to EU that is result oriented throughout its development (Portela, 2013). The decision by ASEAN to remain as non-interference results from the history of colonialism that was absent for the EU. This is evident since the colonized nations were not in control of their national decision-making processes; thus, they are reluctant to delegate their hard-won power to another foreign country (Bollinger, 2013). Conversely, this mode of decision-making process has an impact on the speed at which economic integration is developed. Significantly, the ECJ is used to strike down multiple barriers preventing the enactment of the four freedoms in Europe.

A hint of the significance of the European Court of Justice is the transposition degree of the EU law at the domestic level that is high. For instance, Greece, the least compliant members of EU, transferred 95.6% of the EU level legislature in handling the interior market compared to other 27 members that have achieved 100% compliance (Bollinger, 2013). This explains why most of the EU success can be endorsed to the activist role of the ECJ. ASEAN, on the other extreme, does not impose international covenants among its members because of the non-interference policy. As a result, there are no mechanisms that cannot be used to assure implementation or compliance of the international decisions.

Clearly, it is evident that the ability of an institution to make decisions and implement the Rule of Law at the national level is a core factor determining the speed at which these two regional institutions progress close the accomplishment of the single market. ASEAN as the study has revealed on the consensus and consultation, where the majority voice cannot outdo the minority voice (Bollinger, 2013). In this case, the advancement of economic integration tends to be slower and more cautious since every made step must be complete for the member states to support it. However, EU has parted with the process-oriented system to result-oriented one. This is facilitated through the introduction of qualified majority voting; thus simplifying the binding of decisions as well as the progress.

The EU permitted the ECJ and judicial remedy for constitutional rebellion certified setting of the legal standard for the EU (Bollinger, 2013). As such, in case the development of the institution flagged, the ECJ acted as the incentive to facilitate further development. The effectiveness of this motivation calls for substantial delegation of authority to the international level. Such a rule made ASEAN take a different tactic of the non-intervention policy on the state level; thus, state governments cannot account to any of the supranational decision. As such, the two approaches are key in determining the direction, that each of these two unions takes; thus, the way they pursue their economic integration especially the formulation of a single market that each pursues.

Regional Politics

Bollinger (2013) claims that when assessing the regional formation, internal dynamics are often assessed. However, it is essential to look into the external aspect as it plays a significant role too. In this regard, the assessed blocs were developed under two diverse regional settings. The EU developed under the base of the Franco-German axis that aimed at integrating regional power, which was a source of controversy. However, ASEAN covers a small set of post-colonial nations that united to confront a major external sovereignty. This is evident of the distinction between the internal and external hegemons that are key in determining the direction of these two areas.

The origins of the EU are based on the European Coal and Steel Community together with the ideas of decentralizing dynamics of production and resolutely removing Germany in a nonviolent manner. Such kinds of improvements were surfaced with the 1963 Treaty of Friendship amid Germany and France (Beeson, 2005). From that moment, Bollinger (2013) claims that the Franco-German Axis has continued to be the key growth factor of EU. Besides, the association of these countries is known as the engine of the European Integration. Scholars have it that in the instance where associates are thought to be equivalent, the presence of Germany and France is used as the interior hegemons, thus providing excessive impact on determining the trail of the organization, mainly in the awake of the crisis where Germany plays a substantial part.

Importantly, the partnership is characterized with difficulties, which is the case with the Germany and France leadership that is central to the development of most of the European projects. The partnership between these two countries began from the founders of the European project, Robert Schuman and Jean Monnet from France and Konrad Adenauer from Germany (Bollinger, 2013). The relationship between these fellows persisted through the 1970s with cooperation being facilitated by Chancellor Schmidt and President Giscard d’Estaing who lead to the formation of the European Council as well as the European Monetary System (EMS) in 1974 and1979 respectively. This partnership was core to the EU in the attempt of addressing the power debt crisis.

ASEAN has as well experienced a variety of external hegemons that continue to shape its growth both in economic and political power. After the establishment of ASEAN in 1967, both Korea and Japan arrived into moments of explosive economic development that lasted from the early 1960s to the 1990s where it started slowing down. In 1997, both Korea and Japan struggled from ASEAN countries from the Asian Financial crisis, an instance that never stopped their long-term economic power. As ASEAN, the two countries, Korea and Japan started to convalesce from the crisis introducing more antagonism within the section. India, on the other hand, started liberalizing the markets from the mid-1980s where it later went through a major reform in 1991 and early 2000s. From that moment India has witnessed enormous economic development; thus becoming a primary economic power outside to ASEAN (Bollinger, 2013). On the same, China started liberalizing its economy following the reformation policy in 1978 opened under Deng Xiaoping. This, therefore, accounts for the growth experienced in the 1990s, which started picking up by extraordinary progress throughout 2000s.

The advancement of the external economic powers had the potential of affecting ASEAN bloc in two distinctive ways. First, the forces reinforce ASEAN nations to execute as a bloc while facing the expanding external competition and second, the outside hegemons can be viewed as a threat to the growth of the ASEAN for double problematic reasons (Kim, 2009). One actors like China does not aim at seeing a robust, successful region in its vicinity. The dangerous thing is that such countries act as the alternatives of ASEAN concerning the economic cooperation, an instance that has left ASEAN region a bit different from the one facing EU. Despite the advancing Euroskepticism, there has not been the growth of the Europe countries that can be perceived as real threats or alternatives of EU. In consequence, ASEAN has not incurred similar impetus towards market integration using its external hegemons compared to EU. On the contrary, ASEAN faces threats from these external hegemons; but they have the potential to bring the best out of ASEAN.

Forum Shopping

Forum shopping is yet another difference between these two blocs under the political setting. Across Asia, there exist varieties of regional mediums that provide developments based on free trade agreements. These regions according to Bollinger (2013) provide a variety of benefits that can be deprived of ASEAN; thus a wide range of forums that one can choose from. As such, ASEAN experiences threats from Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) that comprises of 21 nations including some ASEAN state members. Moreover, the negotiations of new Trans-Pacific Partnership between Chile, New Zealand, Peru, United States, Australia, Vietnam, and Brunei Darussalam includes a number of the ASEAN members; thus increasing the alternatives of regional organizations that a country can join. In this case, the increased options within this region expand the choices from which a country can forum shop a paramount contract for economic integration.

Clearly, the mass of varieties leaves ASEAN contending with regional organizations for it to demonstrate to be worth the medium for the economic integration. However, EU is the only prominent union in Europe; thus in case it slows down, its members does not have an alternative scheme to look for (Bollinger, 2013). Nevertheless, it is not purely away from competition as it faces two similarities to ASEAN condition. First, EU faces security issues, which as postulated by Bollinger (2013), the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) continues to be the basic of European security while the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) has a crucial part (Bollinger, 2013). The two organizations offer stiff competition to the EU Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP). Equally, these organizations do not offer direct competition to the EU economic integration. In the attempt of mitigating the influence of other organizations, EU has provided levels of the institutional belongings where non-members are tied to the organization. These levels are important as they offer the non-members with the opportunity to join as well as to eliminate certain EU members who have chosen to quit. The basic options are for the members to join EU or at least one of its results or else to remain out of the union (Kim, 2009). This puts a clear distinction between the Asian nations and European one since EU does not encounter direct competition or a real option for shopping, unlike ASEAN that has a variety of direct options.

Intra versus Intra-Regional Trade

Regional trade is a major element determining the direction of the economic integration between the two blocs. The EU contains broad intra-regional trade that accounts for all of EU trade. The intra-trade of EU comprises of the exported and imported services that make up 56% and 58.4% respectively in 2010. This is a similar case with the EU foreign direct investment (FDI), which contained 56.1% of the total EU-27 member states. This shows that EU has concentrated to its internal trade, which according to Bollinger (2013) has an impact on the economic amalgamation in two distinctive ways. First, it is simpler to combine marketplaces for the increased demand of the processed goods. As a result, a series is created following the market integration; thus becoming cheaper and easier to trade within. Consequentially, this increases the inducements for internal trade; hence increasing the inducements for deepening the integration within the market, therefore, simplifying the trade.

Rather than having markets with dense internal trade ASEAN comprises of the countries with markets motivated in making exports from other regions. This accounts for why the Intra-ASEAN trade statistics are beneath those of EU (Bollinger, 2013). In this case, Intra-ASEAN trade contains 25.4% of total trade in 2010 compared to the EU that has more than 50% of the goods and services. As a result, the trade barriers of ASEAN have less destructive externalities that affect the entire ASEAN trade compared to similar obstacles facing EU; thus leaving ASEAN with little enticements to chase deeper integration.

The Role of Regional Trade Agreements

Another major difference concerning dynamics of regional trade of the two blocs concerns the quantity and type of trade treaties between these unions as well as their affiliate nations. The EU is an entity containing multiple trade agreements between multiple regional blocs countries across the globe (Bollinger, 2013). These agreements take a standard structure to fit the EU as a union inclusive of the member states as well as other negotiating parties. Any arrangements between individual member countries and other nations have a potential of providing an unfair advantage to trade to the affected states, as it has conflicting tenets of a single market (Bollinger, 2013). In return, all new free trade arrangements influence business for the entire union in the same way while the member states share the benefits.

This is contrary to the ASEAN union as there are no such embargos against individual bilateral arrangements. As a matter of fact, the quantity of the consensual trade covenants arrived to the Asian states from the previous period both internal and external of ASEAN has increased. The region is referred to as ‘noodle bowl’ following the multifaceted system of bilateral trade negotiations (Bollinger, 2013). Adding on the same, Bollinger (2013) claims that between 2001 and 2006 there were more than fifty trade arrangements being proposed or negotiated between ASEAN affiliates and other countries. Despite the prevalence of this trend, there lacks an increase in intra-regional trade. Actually, the area has experienced over the past years a decline in intra-regional trade in subsequent years (Bollinger, 2013). This explains why entering into a bilateral agreement by the member nations have not increased the economic integration or regional trade within the Southeast Asia. Conversely, the presence of a variety of paths for the ASEAN affiliate states has assisted in addressing the trade issues as well as the economic integration (Kim, 2009). Moreover, this has an impact on the inducement of these member states for them to pursue the in-depth integration through the channels provided by ASEAN.

Importantly, the two corporations were formed after the World War II, but each of the corporation was launched at its separate time. Warleigh, Robinson, & Rosamond (2011) claim that EU was established following of the post-1945 political and economic reconstruction. Even though the ideals of the cooperation were available, more influential drivers constituted to the formation of the organization in Europe. Initially, there was a need for the West European to re-establish themselves peacefully. Besides, the United States policy existed and it favored innovation forms of European cooperation as it was an effective way of revising the world economy while maintaining communism. As a result, there was the urge of maintaining both soft and hard security, which was a key concern at the moment as U.S. was the superpower providing financial aid through the Marshall Plan, encouragement as well as the indispensable security guarantee through North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). According to Warleigh, Robinson, & Rosamond (2011), it has always been hard for the EU to combine with the foreign and defense policies notwithstanding the current developments that it has incurred. Correspondingly, the participation and integration process was availed to each of the European states which they were to accept the offer by signing up. The Cold War obscured many nations in the Central and Eastern Europe to be accessed, while the absence of liberal democracy barred the early access of Spain, Greece, and Portugal.

ASEAN, on the other hand, was formed under a rationale similar to that of EU regardless of the different historical and political context as its stats were subjected under colonialism instead of the devastation of the 1939 to 1945 war. “Also, the U.S. played a less economically generous role (Warleigh, Robinson, & Rosamond, 2011, pg. 29).” The formation of this regional bloc was seen as a way of cementing and ensuring the independence of the member nations. In addition, this formation facilitated in legitimizing the domestic regimes in the counter of the political unrest, especially communist forces for both local and foreign. Despite the fact that the new regional entity aimed at creating a social community instead of an economic bloc or a military alliance, the organization had various security functions.  First, it was mandated at preserving the new states together with other governments from the foreign powers. Moreover, the union was to ensure that there is a reduced interdependence on both the colonial masters and the U.S. as an effective way of reducing the influence of these foreign nations. The last function that ASEAN has was to contain any aggression by Indonesia while at the same time ensuring that each state had a peaceful coexistence with its leadership role. Another intended security function for this union as per Warleigh, Robinson, & Rosamond (2011) was to provide an embankment against China. More important, the association of identity and mechanism of exclusion and inclusion are always the norm-driven instead of relying on the historically based senses of mutuality; thus centering on the adhesion of the ‘ASEAN Way’ where geopolitics determined the scope of membership Warleigh, Robinson, & Rosamond (2011). The EU security concerns had a substantial role in determining the recent ASEAN role in facilitating the institutional enlargement as well as its creativity.

Functionality

The EU primarily operates on an array of decision-making procedures, where it shares power between the EU organizations and its national institutions, which differs according to both the EU’s evolution stage and policy issue as well. The key objective of EU is to reaching greater supranationalization of policy-making while increasing the number of the policy issues that depend on the EU level as well as the EU institutions, especially the European Parliament, which is embedded with more power. The union has as well embraced  the majority voting system where decisions are made and agreed upon this policy. Warleigh, Robinson, & Rosamond (2011) notes that the European Central Bank has the central role of monetary policy within the Eurozone while the ECJ has a key duty in ensuring that EU is not constrained by the national law which is inferior in the face of the Europe.

The results of decision-making from the contestation and network-creation are used to empower the civil society together with other interest groups. Besides, these results ensure that the de facto stability of power within these organizations is mostly less vivid than what is indicated by the Treaty rules. Equivalently, EU operates under three caveats to facilitate its operations. First, all the member states are the ones who set the EU’s overall agenda and determine the new treaties. Secondly, the member states are the decision-makers of the daily activities of the EU, especially in specific areas of policy such as tax. However, the states do not have power over some of the policies such as defense policy that is decided at the EU level. The last caveat is that EU makes use of the ‘soft law’ as an effective way of making decisions. As a result, most of the cases the shift of national power is less than it seems in the first instance.

Following an effective cost-benefit calculation, EU can expand on its policy scope together with its membership’ thus allowing it to take into new competencies. This calculation is done by the international policy entrepreneurs and the member states as well. Warleigh, Robinson, & Rosamond (2011) add that the EU reforms and competency change tend to be reactive; thus responding to most of the external challenges such as a change in geopolitical circumstances in 1989 or enhancing its economic competition. Equally, the major competences of EU are in environmental, economic, and agricultural policies. Moreover, redistributive ‘cohesion policy’ compensates the EU budget areas of the affiliate states, which are disadvantaged upon the formation of the internal market (Warleigh, Robinson, & Rosamond, 2011). Franco-German, the axis in the union is used to provide strategic leadership notwithstanding the role played by the commission in most of the conspicuous moments like early and mid-1980’s as well as the ECJ, which has intermittently fashioned the integration process. Besides, the EU coexists with both the rival policy regimes as well as the opt-outs. Along the same line, the EU have a tendency to replicate its norms through the process of enlarging to its neighboring developing countries through the Europeanization strategy, which has been successful in developing aid

The functions of ASEAN are based on the ASEAN Way with the predominance of the non-interference and informality. As a result, ASEAN has managed to establish external policy through the development of the ASEAN Regional Forum together with the ASEAN Plus Three Projects that have enabled ASEAN to export both its norms and its influence. The reformulation of the ASEAN Way has been ongoing over some period where revision of the core standards is done to meet the difficulties of increased interdependence among the member states as well as the increased diversity in the dawn of the expanding Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, and Myanmar (Warleigh, Robinson, & Rosamond, 2011). This diversity and economic has been value-based following the talk of a multi-tier ASEAN as the conventional demanding for an active sense of regional unity. Equally, the occurrence of the financial crisis in 1997broadened the number of issues requiring the engagement of ASEAN. As such, the decision-making process of this bloc depends on the hands of the affiliate states, which is implemented through consensus. The non-state actors also have a primary role in shaping the agenda in various new policies addressed by ASEAN through Track Two measures that blur the distinction of the government. The deepening and widening of the ASEAN agenda are best explained through the crisis- response measure and the quest of the continued association that is relevant to the Cold War. This is evident on the security issues as asserted by Warleigh, Robinson, & Rosamond (2011) that ASEAN addresses issues like migration and environment. moreover, ASEAN has taken new approaches to the economic cooperation by agreeing to form ASEAN Free Trade Area together with Vision 2020, which is a programme meant to facilitate cooperation across the wide range of concerns. nevertheless, doubts exist concerning the way Vision 2020 will be achieved due to the persistence of the vacuum leadership in ASEAN.

Socialization

The EU had a vivid socialization influence over its associate states. EU is a security union that has fundamentally changed the approaches used by the member states to deal with each other regarding security and defense. Warleigh, Robinson, & Rosamond (2011) notes that the joining of the EU and national levels of governance implies that EU has two more important socialization impacts: on world view and actor behavior. This explains why most elite actors see EU as legitimate in approaching the daily policy that has widely become ‘Europeanized’. The conditionality measures together with Copenhagen Criteria have a role in setting the values and standards to which the aspirant affiliate states and those seeking assistance from EU must first conform with as a way of abiding with liberal democracy (Warleigh, Robinson, & Rosamond, 2011). Consequentially, EU has a Charter of Fundamental Rights used as the binding law that has a substantial impact on interest group using legal and political opportunity structures. However, this aspect of the EU has clear constraints regarding the progress of the shared values from a wide perspective. Through this effect, the member states governments enjoy the unique legal status as national citizens as well as EU members. Nevertheless, this aspect has not changed the primacy of national identity of these member states.

The socialization impact of ASEAN is impressive. The coherence and durability of this bloc reflect the member state socialization into a new uniqueness and set of standards that were previously covert at best. As a result, ASEAN tends to bite deeper into the domestic structures and the standards of the member states. For instance, the conditionality placed on Cambodia’s membership as well as the new active policy placed to aid the third world members after the enlargement of the CLMV. Since the commencement of CLMV, new nations have joined ASEAN and embraced its norms as a way of transitioning from communism. In addition, ASEAN has benefited from the exportation of the norm to other networks, an aspect that enables it to socialize with the third world countries. Nonetheless, ASEAN has failed to establish a joint Southeast Asian political culture; thus creating a division among the member states on certain issues, for instance human rights. Besides, the commencement of the CLMV has diluted the sense of the ‘we-ness’ among the member states even though it calls for active policy development.

Impact

The EC law, explicit agreement by affiliate governments, and de facto constitutionalization of Treaties has facilitated EU in transforming the definition and meaning of the national sovereignty around its borders. In an attempt of conforming to EU policy and systematic needs, major policy and structural adjustments have been implemented and in some instances, member states have abandoned their sovereignty when faced with some issues. More important, as a security community, EU has had a substantial influence on the relations of the member states, which has joined this with integral successes in the economic integration such as the advancement of the internal markets of the member states. Warleigh, Robinson, & Rosamond (2011) posit that the economic power of the EU has a role in enhancing the trade politics across the globe, which is as well a key actor in the non-trade facets. Despite the fact that EU has incurred a variety of failures or incompleteness of its achievements such as limited advancement in its defense policy, it is evident that both structural and material effect on the bloc’s progress both locally and internationally.

On the other hand, ASEAN has as well had a limited influence on the structure of the associate nations mainly the progress made towards the improvement in security as well as in the improvements trade patterns among the member states. However, following the multiple revisions on the ASEAN Way, it has started to deepen its capacity; thus advancing in its capacity. This has, as a result, eased the shifting of this union towards addressing a wider range of issues facing its member states. Moreover, it has gained institutional depth that has allowed it to lend some credibility to its Vision 2020 strategy. According to Warleigh, Robinson, & Rosamond (2011), the major impact that ASEAN has on its members to date is the way it has facilitated reinforcement of its member states as a collection in various forums such as ARF and APEC. Consequentially, ASEAN has influenced the foreign policies within the regional supremacies as well as beyond its membership, China, and Japan.

EU Integration-Avoiding Wars

Reconciliation and political assimilation in Europe started alongside European commercial integration that took place after periods of conflict and war. After WWII, Europe has shattered a phenomenon that made its political leaders realize the need for integration within the continent in the attempt of evading further wars together with rivalry within Europe itself. As a result, Franco-Germany reconciliation was the fundamental political agenda of Europe Berkofsky (n.d.). The peaceful coexistence of these two nations that had struggled for more than 50 years became the basis for the establishment of a meaningful economic integration in Europe Berkofsky (n.d.). This lead to supporting the European reconciliation and integration by the United States through the use of the Marshall Plan, which resulted in the retrieval of the Europe’s economies.

Coordinating the intra-European commercial activity in major segments such as steel together with coal that became the root for the Jean Monnet’s vision of a peaceful and a united Europe leading to the formation of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). Berkofsky (n.d.) adds that the core goal of fostering of European assimilation was due to the choice of EU policymakers to react to the problem caused by developing economic interdependence by creating a shared market in Europe. As a result, none of the member states wanted to lag behind this idea; thus facilitating the way each of these nations took their initiatives as a way of achieving the economic and political integration in Europe.

Conclusion

Over the past decades, regionalism has become a point of interest in the social science specializations. The approach that the academicians take in this field is of various types implying that regionalism has various meanings to diverse people. Besides, the disintegration of this field has yields comparative aspects within regionalism study accounting for underdevelopment in this field. The study has found that there exist disagreements on what to compare, how the comparison should be carried, and why should the comparison be made. The study has clarified that the differences and tensions in this field are due to the regional phenomenon is a multifaceted arena. Along the same line, the study has identified the appropriate features of comparative research in a regionalism study. Such features include clarity of a concept, sounder case selection when different cases are to be compared, and a careful use and elucidation of formal facts.

The study has as well clarified the fact that both EU and ASEAN were established with similar goals of creating a sole regional bloc. The establishment of these unions according to the study was in the dawn of the increased violence of World War II, while in the case of ASEAN colonization. As a consequence, these blocs projected to create peace within their respective regions via regional interconnectedness. More important, these organizations opted to pursue market integration as a way of enhancing their economic competitiveness with their neighbors and other global and regional hegemons. As a result, the two organizations established longlasting goals such as freedom of transfer of capital, labor, goods, and services.  Nevertheless, each of these organizations pursued these goals using different approaches that shape their effort as revealed in the study. This explains why the two blocs are now at different stages of market integration even if they are pursuing similar objectives.

The study has as well revealed that the success of EU is perceived as the reference point to most of the regional organizations around the world. This has contributed to mimicking their norms, values, and policies as a way of pursuing the goals of each regional organization, which according to this study is a key problem in carrying a comparative analysis of regional integration. However, these organizations do not wholly imitate the European model as the objectives of each organization determines their endeavors. This is a key differentiating point between EU and ASEAN as ASEAN employs two key principles: non-interference and informality, while EU four crucial approaches: ECJ, majority voting, budgetary arrangement, and citizen involvement. These different approaches ensure that EU effectively acts as ‘sui generis’ by not being a supranational or a national state, while ASEAN prevents delegation by international sovereignty. Most of the ASEAN member states were from colonialism; thus seeking any organization that will prevent degradation of their hard earned supremacy. The EU institutions aimed at ensuring that member states will be firmly joined. The study has emphasized the fact that ASEAN faces threats from external economic hegemons with Japan, Korea, India, and China. As a result, ASEAN needs to unite these member states rather than competing with international blocs together with its advancing members. The existence of other organizations in Asia poses a threat to the growth of ASEAN following the freedom embedded to its affiliate members to join any organization, which is not the case with the EU as it is the only prominent organization in nations.

The study, therefore, shows that it is important to understand the factors that shape the economic integration at the regional level. The attempt to understand this aspect calls for more detailed comparative analysis instead of evaluating each bloc on its own. As such, the assessment of the expansion of the economic amalgamation in the ASEAN and EU is a major comparison of the possible comparison of diverse regional integration across the universe. This opens a way for deeper understanding of the comparative regionalism. Finally, the dynamics defining the approach that a region takes in pursuing economic integration depends on the goals and intentions of a union as well as the course of market integration projects universally.

References

Agbonkhese, A.O., & Adekola, A.G., (2014). Regional Economic Integration in Developing Countries: A Case Study of Nigeria; A Member of ECOWAS.  European Scientific Journal, 10(19), 359-375

Beeson, M., (2005). Rethinking regionalism: Europe and East Asia in comparative historical perspective. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(6), 969-985.

Berkofsky, A., (n.d.). Comparing EU and Asian Integration Processes-The EU a Role Model for Asia? Retrieved from http://www.epc.eu/documents/uploads/606968147_EPC%20Issue%20Paper%2023%20EU%20Asian%20Integration.pdf

Bollinger, Z., (2013). Diverging Paths: Economic Integration in the EU and ASEAN. Claremont-UC Undergraduate Research Conference on the European Union, 2013(4), 10-35.

Brennan, L., & In Murray, P. (2015). Drivers of integration and regionalism in Europe and Asia: Comparative perspectives.

Brussels, (2014). The European Union and the Association of South East Asian Nations: Towards an Ever Stronger Natural Partnership. Retrieved from http://www.eeas.europa.eu/statements/docs/2014/140722_03_en.pdf

DeLombaerde, P., Soderbaum, F., Van Langenhove, L., & Baert, F., (2010). The Problem of Comparative Regionalism. Review of International Studies, 36(3), 731-753.

Jachtenfuchs, M., (2001). The Governance Approach to European Integration. Journal of Common Market Studies, 39(2), 254-264.

Kim, N., (2009). European Experience for East Asian Integration: Ideas, National Interests, and the International Circumstance. Asian European Journal, 7, 295-312.

Kircher, E.J., (2006). The European Union as a Model for Regional Integration: The Muslim World and Beyond. 6(1), 1-14.

Laursen, F. (2003). Comparative regional integration: Theoretical perspectives. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

Murray, P., (2008). Model Europe? Reflections on the EU as a Model of Regional Integration. 11(44), 272-286.

Murray, P., (2010). Comparative Regional Integration in the EU and East Asia: Moving Beyond Integration Snobbery. International Policies, 47(3), 308-323.

Pollack, M.A., (2001). International Relations Theory and European. Journal of Common Market Studies, 39(2), 221-244.

Portela, C., (2013). The association of SouthEast Asian Nations (ASEAN): Integration, Internal Dynamics and External Relations. Retrieved from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/note/join/2013/433713/EXPO-AFET_NT(2013)433713_EN.pdf

Warleigh, A., Robinson, N., & Rosamond, B., (2011). New regionalism and the European Union. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon [England]: Routledge.

Wunderlich, J., (2012). The EU an Actor Sui Generis? A Comparison of EU and ASEAN Actorness. Journal of Common Market Studies, 50(4), 653-669.

Need Help with Your Assignment? Let us Help you

Place Your Order

We guarantee you the following if you order your paper with us

High Quality Papers

All papers are written by ENL (US, UK, AUSTRALIA) writers with vast experience in the field. We perform a quality assessment on all orders before submitting them.

Timely Delivery

Do you have an urgent order?  We have more than enough writers who will ensure that your order is delivered on time. 

100% Original

We provide plagiarism reports for all our custom written papers. All papers are written from scratch.

24/7 Customer Support

Contact us anytime, any day, via any means if you need any help. You can use the Live Chat, email, or our provided phone number anytime.

Confidential and Secure

We will not disclose the nature of our services or any information you provide to a third party.

Stressed? We got you covered

Money-Back Guarantee

Get your money back if your paper is not delivered on time or if your instructions are not followed.

We Guarantee the Best Grades

Get a Professional Answer