1. FLINGA CODE: FPLQ9SW

2. COMPARATIVE REGIONAL INTEGRATION
PVK-P209 Comparative Perspectives on Political Phenomena
Session 6, September 28

3. SCHEDULE FOR TODAY Text-based discussion
Approaches to comparing regional integration
Comparable factors: EU and ASEAN
Where comparison breaks down
‘Integration snobbery’
Exercise/group work: models of regional integration

4. BACKGROUND
Main argument: the method of comparison should be the focus of study as much as the object of comparison
The lesson from EU-ASEAN: two fundamentally similar entities may not be comparable
The problem with the EU’s model of integration:
EU is a unique form of integration – not comparable
Trying to export an integration model that may not be exportable
But still: treated as a model/yardstick for integration, integration exporter, norms exporter

5. APPROACHES TO REGIONAL INTEGRATION
Ways of examining regional integration:
Institutional architecture – choice between institutionalization and flexibility (EU and ASEAN) or closed/open regionalism
The role of the state – state vulnerability (justification for integration) and state sovereignty
Interdependence – in the context of globalization

6. COMPARABLE FACTORS: EU AND ASEAN
Shared background similarities:
Conflict experience
Cold War division due to USA – USSR conflict
Diversity
Debates about shared values and culture
Asian values/European identity
Seek to grow transnational linkages
Is this enough to justify comparison? What’s missing?

7. COMPARABLE FACTORS: INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE
The extent of ‘regionness’ – the number of policy issues, political priorities
The EU’s institutional structure – supranational institutions and pooling sovereignty
ASEAN: national sovereignty and intergovernmental cooperation
Looser, less regulated than the EU
Other features of institutionalization – ASEAN Summit, ASEAN Coordinating Council, Committee of Permanent Representatives
Consensus, not EU-style qualified majority voting

8. THE ROLE OF STATE AND SOVEREIGNTY
Where comparability stops working:
EU is more internally homogenous:
Religion, race, historical experiences
Higher socio-economic development
Basis for cooperation – shared economic paradigm (capitalism)
ASEAN is more heterogenous:
Religious, racial diversity
Different historical experiences – colonialism
Varying degrees of development/living standards
Also: EU and ASEAN integration mechanisms vary due to emphasis on sovereignty
ASEAN – primary focus on economic cooperation
EU – multi-focus, deep political integration

9. INTERDEPENDENCE AND GLOBALIZATION
Regionalization as a way of dealing with the challenges of globalization – how?
Interdepence: linked to economic openness, but also political
Connectedness: beyond economic openness - transnational/global NGOs, global civil society, diffusion of norms and practices
These trends (and their relationship) – apparent in both EU and ASEAN

10. INTEGRATION SNOBBERY
The centrality of the EU in regional integration discourse
Both in academic literature and on official level
The EU – most advanced form of regional integration
BUT does this imply a teleological view – something others should aspire to?
Criticizing other efforts of integration for ‘falling behind’ the norm
The EU’s ‘image of itself’
An exporter of integration practices
Is the EU really that efficient?

11. EXERCISE/GROUP WORK
The text argues that the EU is not a ‘good’ (exportable) model of regional integration because of its uniqueness, complexity and background conditions. But is a general model of regional integration valid? What factors would you take into account when coming up with such a model?

12. WRAP-UP How we compare is just as important as what we compare
Two apparently similar entities are not necessarily comparable
Approaches to regional comparisons
Institutional structures
The role of state and sovereignty
Interdependence and globalization
Models/norms are not easily exportable – what works well in one context may not work in another
A more critical view of the EU’s success story