Cooperative-oriented Integration in Asia and the Role of China and Japan
∗ This research was funded as a major project in the institute of Asia-Pacific studies of CASS and was also supported by the GMEP Program of Sinosight Thinktank. The views expressed in this
discussing paper are those of the author. The author welcomes any comments. [email protected].
Abstract
This paper argues that a cooperation-oriented integration rather than
European competition-oriented integration may be more desirable in Asia,
especially when considering the enormous heterogeneity in this region. To finish
the great and significant task, all regional member must take the Common and
Differential liabilities. As two biggest powers in the region, China and Japan should
shoulder more responsibilities on investment of regional public goods, in details, for
example, the regional production networks. Their domestic experiences show that
they have the abilities to make the contribution.
Key words
cooperation-oriented integration, competition-oriented integration
1. Introduction
Opinions on the human historical evolution course differ widely. Some support
a unilinear theory that all societies pass through similar developmental stages.
They claim that since contemporary primitive peoples are presumed to represent
stages in the development of more advanced societies, they are thought to
exhibit a kind of arrested development (Steward, 1972: 4). But others argue for a
multilinear approach to macrohistory and think groups in different environments
evolving in different directions (Eisler, 1995: 1; Patrick, 2007: 97).
On the one hand, most economists can easily accept the unilinear theories
since Adam Smith has divided human development process into four stages: the
era of hunting; the era of pasturage and herding; the era of agricultural; and the
era of commercial and exchange economy (Inayatullah, 1998). Following Adam
Smith, Marx and Engels have identified five successive stages of the development
including primitive communism, slave society, feudalism, capitalism, socialism and
communism, which are used to explore the development of the whole human
society (Stalin, 1940), although Marx himself makes no claim to have produced a
master key to history. i
After that, Rostow (1959) also distinguishes five basic stages
of economic growth and claim to find a way of generalizing the sweep of modern
economic history. According to the theories above, less developed countries or
groups will be sure to evolve and forge ahead following the developed countries
or groups’ footsteps, unless they fall into stagnation.
On the other hand, some historian will not agree with the unilinear theories.
Spengler argues that each individual culture has a unique personality with various
distinguishing characteristics. Toynbee also concludes that civilizations may face
different challenges and results hence must go through particular tracks. For these
reasons, a country or group shall and can only find its own way to make progress.
The experiences from other counties or groups have limited reference value and
can not be copied or aped successfully.
There are similar debates on the integration processes, which could be
though as a type of special historical evolution course. Generally speaking, it
seems that the unilinear theories take an advantage since the economists play
key roles in interpreting the economic integration, which is the most fruitful field in
all integration processes. Since Balassa(1961) suggested that regional integration
shall take place in five distinct steps, most policymakers and scholars have used to
judge a regional project by the five stages: Free trade area, customs union,
common market, economic and monetary union or finally political union. ii
Particularly, European experience gives sufficient confidence in regional
integration projects and is thought by some people as the paradigmatic case of
regionalism against which all other regional projects are judged (Higgott, 2006: 23).
It seems that, according to the classic Balassan model, following the steps of EU,
other regions in the world can also make their immediate, or indeed long-term,
future become Europe’s immediate past.
However, in the view of some other, as an exercise in regional integration, EU
experience is a major obstacle to the development of analytical and theoretical
studies of regional integration elsewhere(Higgott, 2006: 23). Judged from the
so-called European paradigm, Asian, African or Latin American regionalisms are
too “loose” or “informal” to be thought as integration processes. Actually, since
Wallace (1990) made a distinction between informal and formal integration and
Higgott(1997) identified the de facto and de jure integration, the former has often
been used to refer non-EU-style regional projects, in which there is no
institutionalized regional arrangement. Peng(2002) finds that some informal
mechanisms have formed a distinguishing regional integration in East Asia
comparing to that in EU. This means that the informal institutional cooperation is
not necessarily a preparatory stage for the formal economic integration and may
create a new way of integration. Moreover, Venables, Winters and Yueh(2008)
suggest that the key driving forces in Europe do not have any close parallels in
Asia. In short, some think EU-type integration theory can not explain the practices
of Asian and other regions.
Furthermore, Euro area’s poor performance in the international financial crisis,
especially in Greece's debt crisis, weakens the authority and universality of
EU-type integration. Since the subprime mortgage crisis triggered the international
financial crisis, fears of Euro area disintegration have become common currency
in the international press (Verney, 2009). Some economists also seriously discuss
the probability of the breakup of the euro area.iii
Inevitably, the frangibility of Euro
area under the global financial turmoil deeply impresses people of rest world,
including Asian. This situation may encourage more policymakers and scholars
outside Europe to manage to explore their regional projects with local
characteristics.
The existence of the Asian Way of regional integration, or the Asia-type
integration, is already being mooted. However, as a kind of proactive experiment,
the author would like to point out the fundamental difference about the concept
of integration between Asia and Europe in Section 2. This is followed by a more
detailed explanation on the pillars of a potential Asia-type integration in Section 3.
The expected role of China and Japan are drawn out in Section 4, and some
concluding remarks are offered in Section 5.
2. Competitive-oriented Integration VS. Cooperative-oriented Integration
2.1 Overview
2.2 Competitive-oriented integration in European
2.3 Potential cooperative-oriented integration in Asia
3. The possibility and pillars of a potential Asia-type integration
3.1 Theoretical pillar: institutional non-neutrality
3.2 Practical pillar: market-facilitating state
3.3 Institutional pillar: strategic income transfer system
4. Expected contributions of China and Japan
4.1 China’s experiences of local distribution and area development
4.2 Japan’s experiences of keiretsu-driven industrial development
5. Some concluding remarks