Models of Regional Integration: A Comparative Analysis between the Approaches of Europe and

East Asia Towards Regional Integration

A Research Paper
Presented to the Faculty of
De La Salle University
College of Liberal Arts

In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements in
EUROECO A51

By:
Ong, Desiree Maegan L.

March 2015

Models of Regional Integration

Abstract: Regionalism has played an increasingly important role in todays globalized world.
The European Union has been the most prominent model of regional integration while the East
Asia region has had the most impressive economic growth in recent decades. There has been a
growing question in the international community on whether Asia should follow the EUs
footsteps in order to develop. This paper compares the EU and East Asia in terms of their
integration and achievements and comments on the possible lessons that can be derived from
the said approaches. This paper therefore aims to draw out the parallelisms and differences
between the two approaches to regionalism by exploring the evolution of the EU and the
achievements of East Asia. This paper also seeks to answer the question on whether East Asia
should adopt the EUs integration strategies or not. Information used in this paper were
gathered from online articles and electronic databases accessible through the De La Salle
University (DLSU) Library website.
Keywords: Regionalism, European Union, East Asia, integration, similarities, differences,
lessons, achievements, strategies
Key Questions: To what extent are the EU and East Asian approach to regionalism similar and
different from each other? Can the EU experience be replicated in Asia?
1. OVERVIEW OF REGIONALISM
1.1 What is regional integration?
Over the last few years, Europe and Asia has shaped the worlds civilizations. Both
regions have been engaged in integration and have made efforts to advance regionalism. Now,
in order to understand the approaches of both regions towards regionalism, it is best to first
explain the concept of regional integration as a background for the comparative analysis. In this
section, regional integration will be defined as well as its two forms: economic and political
integration, and the concept of a single market will be explained. Following this part is an
overview of the European Unions evolution and the achievements of East Asia, and finally a
comparison between the approaches of both regions, with a particular focus on their political
union and institutions.
Regional integration, as defined by McCormick and Olsen (2003) is the process by
which two or more nation-states agree to cooperate and work closely together to obtain peace,
stability and wealth. Integration usually involves written agreements that explain the areas of
cooperation in detail and also the coordinating bodies representing the involved countries. This
kind of cooperation normally begins with economic integration and as it progresses, it then
comes to include political integration.
Table 1.1 Integration Scale
0
10

Models of Regional Integration

No Integration

Single Market

Total Integration

In the table above, integration can be described as a scale, with 0 representing no

integration at all between two or more countries while 10 represents complete integration
between two or more countries. This means that the integrating states would actually become a
new country in other words, total integration. It could also be said that on the table above, the
numbers 1-4 represent economic integration while 6-10 represent political integration. The
halfway stage, 5, represents the single market, or the completion of economic integration.
There are generally two kinds of integration, as described by McCormick and Olsen
(2003). The first type is called economic integration. It is the process by which several states
agree to remove trade barriers among them, which take the form of tariffs, quotas, and border
restrictions. An example of this is NAFTA, and if a scale like the one above would be used, its
integration scale would be about 2 since Canada, the U.S. and Mexico are still free to set their
own trade barriers on goods from other countries. Economic integration can be positive, in
which instruments and institutions are modified or created to enable the market of the integrated
area to function properly, or negative, in which obstructions to trade between member states are
eliminated (Tinbergen, 1954). According to El-Agraa (2011), the degrees of economic integration
can be divided into five steps:
1. Free trade area (no internal tariffs on some or all goods between the participating
countries)
2. Customs union (same external customs tariffs for third countries and a common trade
policy)
3. Common market (first stage in building a single market; common product regulations
and free movement of goods, capital, labor and services)
4. Complete economic union (all of the above plus harmonized fiscal and other economic
policies).
5. Complete political union (member states become one nation and the central authority
needed for complete economic union is paralleled by a common parliament and other
institutions needed)
The next type is a political integration, which is cooperating countries having common
policies and political institutions as their economies become completely integrated into a single
market. Its culmination occurs when the cooperating countries become so integrated that they
merge their armies and share the same foreign policies. In effect, it seems like they are acting
as a new country altogether (McCormick, 1999).
1.2 What is a single market?
The single market, according to McCormick (1999), is the midpoint of the integration
scale between political and economic integration. It is the point at which the economies of the
co-operating states become so integrated that all barriers to the movements of labor, goods and
capital are removed. At this stage the integrating states set a common external tariff on goods

Models of Regional Integration

from other countriesthis is called a customs union, with some common policies on product
regulation, and freedom of movement of the factors of production (capital and labour) and
of enterprise and services. The goal is that the movement of capital, labour, goods, and services
between the members is as easy as within them (Gandolfo, 1998). A further step in the process
of economic integration might be adoption of a common currency, with monetary policy
regulated by a single central bank, as what will be seen in the case of the EU in the later
paragraphs.
2. EVOLUTION OF THE EU INTEGRATION
This part explores the evolution of the EU integration by looking into its institutions, its
progression from being a common market, its common agricultural policy, its treaties such as
the Treaty of Rome and the Lisbon Treaty, and its monetary union.
Europe has been a land of trade and wars over the centuries, but as the Second World
War came to an end, with the Soviet Union dividing Europe in two and leaving Western Europe
insecure and threatened, there was a need and a strong desire for lasting peace. Europe was
also economically devastated by the war (Zubok & Pleshakov, 1997). Within this idea, the
creation of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) in 1951 of the Six marked a
considerable shift from nationalism to regionalism. The vision for integration was even bolder in
1952 when the European Defense Community (EDC) was formed, but it collapsed because
France did not ratify it (Dinan, 2004). Today, the EU represents the latest and most successful
attempt to unify Europe among all the efforts to achieve unity (Wallace, Pollack, & Young, 2010).
The Treaty of Rome (1957) left open the possibility of moving forward to a political union, even if
there was no explicit reference to it. The EEC (until the late 1980s it was known informally as
the Common Market) and Euratom were also established by the Treaty of Rome in 1958. A
series of treaties followed: the Single European Act (1987), the Maastricht Treat (1993), the
Treaty of Amsterdam (1999), the Nice Treaty (2003), and the latest, the Lisbon Treaty (2009)
(Dedman, 2006). On one hand, the attempts of Europe for integration seemed economic on
firsthand observation, but the latent objective was also political since it was meant to contain
Germany from starting another war again and cease the longtime conflict between Germany
and France (Eichengreen, 2008).
2.1 Governance and Institutions
The success of economic integration is also due to the creation of EU institutions
(Berkofsky 2005). However, these institutions have somewhat become a benevolent dictator,
in which the heads of state or government hold the powers to legislate. The EU Council and the
Commission propose, legislate, and execute: the former primarily legislates, while the latter also
has some exclusive capabilities, particularly in trade and competition policies. The Commission
is independent of the national governments and its commissioners, the highest officials, do not
represent their governments even if they are chosen by them. The European Parliament,
meanwhile, is gaining more powers and, last but not least, there is the Court of Justice that
upholds the EU law (Cram, 1998). There seems to be too much power in the hands of the
Commission, and so there is a need for revisions as this could lead to further democratic deficits

Models of Regional Integration

in the EU (Hix & Hyland, 1999). An organic solution to this is the Lisbon Treaty, which gives
more power to the democratically elected European Parliament and has provided the election of
a President of the European Council (Piris, 2010).
2.2 Progressing from the Common Market
Another important feature of the EU is its steady progression from a common market to
a single market, to a monetary union, to a set of better-coordinated fiscal policiesand waiting
for the last step, full economic union and a possible complete political union. This process has
progressed alongside successive enlargements, bringing the original 6 states to 28, more than
trebling its area, more than doubling its population, and almost doubling its GDP as per the
2007 figures. It has been both a deepening and a widening of the integration process (Dinan,
2014).
2.3 The Common Agricultural Policy
The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is the agricultural policy of the European Union.
It implements a system of agricultural subsidies and other programs. It was introduced in 1962
and has undergone several changes since then (Glenny, 2008). The Common Agricultural Policy
(CAP) is the most important issue on the expenditure side of the EU budget and it has garnered
many criticisms. The reasons for its original set- up and shape were sensible and reasonable
enoughself-sufficiency in food and fair income to farmers, stabilize agricultural markets, and
assure availability of affordable produce throughout the EU, among others. However, the degree
of contention on agricultural and fisheries issues within the EU can be seen in the fact that
nearly 70 percent of EU expenditures are allotted to address agricultural issues, even though
agriculture only employs less than 8 percent of the EU workforce. Although the CAP has
mitigated conflicts within the EU, it has also led to overproduction of many goods such as butter,
wine, and sugar), corruption, potentially inefficient measures, disagreements involving the EU
and agricultural exporting nations including the United States and Australia, and of course high
food prices (Glenny, 2008).
2.4 The Lisbon Agenda or Growth and Jobs
After the oil price shocks of the 1970s, the end of the Golden Age, as put by
Eichengreen (2008), it became evident that EU economic growth was dragging the USnot to
mention Japan, the newly industrialized economies and, later, the Peoples Republic of China
(PRC). In response to this, in March 2000, the EU Council launched the Lisbon Agenda or
Strategy with an ambitious aim, which is to become the most competitive economy in the world
in ten years. There were two evident stumbling blocks: rigidities in most sectors and markets
and the inefficient use of information and communications technology (Rodrigues, 2009). By
2005, however, progress was quite modest and the Lisbon Agenda was simplified, and de facto
given another name, hence the term growth and jobs. Only two targets were emphasized: to
spend at least 3% of GDP on research and development, and to reach an employment rate of
70% by 2010. The implementation of the Agenda was simplified as well and, while trying to

Models of Regional Integration

maximize cooperation, delegated mainly to national governments. By 2010, most of the goals of
the Agenda were not achieved (Krzyanowski & Wodak, 2011).
2.5 Enlargement
Many new members have joined the European Union up to the last threeBulgaria,
Romania, and Croatia, bringing the EUs member states to a grand total of 28 this looked
quite normal and almost no debate was raised. To North, South and West, nature had given
Europe clear-cut boundaries in the form of the Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean.
However, when it comes to the East, the issue is not clear. There are questions on whether the
Urals are the boundary, on the exclusion of the Russian Federation, and on the case of Turkey,
Ukraine and Belarus. The issue was whether the EU could accept any country and enlarge
without limits or whether there were peculiar or specific requirements (Mattli & Plmper, 2002).
There has been a way to address this issue, although not entirely, through the Copenhagen
criteria, which requires states to have a functioning market economy, institutions to preserve
democratic governance and human rights, and the will to accept obligations of the EU (ElAgraa, 2011).
2.6 Monetary Union
As stated by Gros & Thygesen (1992), the Delor report of April 1989 named after
Jacques Delors marked the commencement of the European Monetary Union (EMU). Three
stages were set in order to join the euro. In May 1998, the Council decided that 11 countries had
accomplished the conditions and could adopt the euro. The EMU's progression over the EMS
transpired through a three-phase process, with the third and final phase initiating the adoption of
the euro currency in place of previous national currencies. This has been completed by all initial
EU members except for the United Kingdom and Denmark, who have decided not to adopt the
euro. Meanwhile, the European Central Bank (ECB) imposes monetary policy, with price
stability as the main objective. The euro has definitely been one of the EUs huge successes. At
present times, it is adopted by most of the EUs member states and is progressivley used as an
alternative to the US dollar. The success of the Euro is a clear indication of the need to proceed
both towards political union and fiscal decentralization (Pisani-Ferry & Posen, 2009).
3. EAST ASIAN INTEGRATION: ACHIEVEMENTS AND PERSPECTIVES
3.1 Intraregional Production Networks
In East Asia, regionalism is the result of free market powers bringing closer financial
association and reliance. Economic cooperation among national authorities across the region
has generally played a moderately less vital part. On the other hand, as markets took the lead,
government activities took after to harvest the profits of regional collective action and make up
for market failures. Undoubtedly, while the adoption of national economic policies has been a
fundamental aspect in support of individual states' development strategies (Su, 1999; Asian
Development Bank, 2008), regional priorities began to rise just as of late, particularly after Asia
was hard hit by the financial crisis of 1997/98, The crisis prompted the region to react

Models of Regional Integration

aggregately. This significant characteristic of Asian regionalismdriven by market integration

and just of late supported by intergovernmental policy cooperation (Shujiro, 2004)not just
constitutes a noteworthy contrast with Europe, it likewise profoundly influences the nature,
sequencing, and timing of the regionalization process itself.
The last two decades, however, has shown that East Asian economies have started to
strengthen their interdependence through the establishment of production networks connecting
countries across the region prompted by the growth of the electronics and automotive industries
(Athukorala and Yamashita, 2005; Ando, 2006). The flying-geese model explains that industrial
development in East Asia is being relayed from developed countries to the less developed ones
in order to update their production capacity into more technologically sophisticated industries.
Today, the share of intraregional trade in ASEAN+3 is near 50% of the 100% total and has been
growing steadily during the last few decades (Akamatsu 1961; Yamazawa 1990).
3.2 Trade Policy Cooperation
While market integration has continued rapidly, up to this point, Asian governments have
not been especially active in advancing regional cooperation activities in the area of trade and
investment on the grounds that they made generous advance through unilateral liberalization
endeavors or through multilateral arrangements under the General Agreement on Trade and
Tariff (GATT)/World Trade Organization (WTO) framework. The only outstanding exemption is
the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) that began in 1992. Amid the recent few years, on the other
hand, Asian governments have grasped a generous move far from the unilateral and multilateral
liberalization approach in favor of bilateral and plurilateral free trade and investment agreements
(Capannelli, Lee, and Petri 2008).
3.3 Regional Financial Integration and Cooperation
The development of financial market integration and policy cooperation in East Asia is
taking a somewhat inverse way than that of trade and foreign direct investment: the integration
of financial markets among East Asian nations is still low, while regional cooperation is quite
advanced. Cost and amount pointers demonstrate that East Asian financial markets are closely
incorporated with the rest of the world, especially with the US and Europe, while the degree of
intraregional financial integration stays shallow (Asian Development Bank 2008). Since financial
markets in East Asia are still less effective, profound, and fluid than those in the US and Europe,
a lot of Asian investment funds are not invested in the region, but in US and Europe. Japanese
speculators, specifically, have a tendency to look for more gainful open doors in non-Asian
markets, which commonly offer higher risk-adjusted returns than Asian assets resources (Lee
2008; Shin and Sohn 2006).

Since the 1997/98 economic crisis, however, Asian nations have exhibited profound
structural change of their financial frameworks, reinforcing their strength, productivity, and
enhancing their administrative systems. It activated significant activities for regional cooperation,

Models of Regional Integration

as Asian nations understood the significance of collective action as a shield against the repeat
of financial turmoil and also as a stage to advance regional economic development (Capannelli
& Filippini, 2009).
3.4 Asian Institutional Framework for Regional Cooperation
The structural engineering for economic and financial cooperation in East Asia has a
verbalized structure incorporating forums managing an extensive variety of issues.
Bhattacharyay (2010) reports that the regions geological scope compasses subregional
gatherings such as the Indonesia-Malaysia-Thailand Growth Triangle, the Brunei DarussalamIndonesia-Malaysia-Philippines East ASEAN Growth Area, or the Greater Mekong Subregion, to
territorial substances, for example, ASEAN, ASEAN+3, or the East Asia Summit (EAS), to
transregional forums like the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation and the Asia-Europe Meeting.
As economic interdependence develops and Asian governments understand the profits of
regional collective action, the case for a more extensive and deeper regional cooperation
becomes stronger (Bhattacharyay, 2010).
Among existing regional institutions, ASEAN is certainly the most exceptional and
intriguing case, the stand out with a legitimate Secretariat enabled with an expert staff and also
with a lawful status after the adoption of the ASEAN Charter in 2007 (Capannelli & Filippini,
2009). Surely, ASEAN is the first genuine endeavor to overcome national limits; Although
ASEAN economies are by a few measures more incorporated with outer economies than
among themselves, economic interdependence has expanded as of late, particularly following
the establishment of AFTA. The 2003 declaration on the formation of an ASEAN Economic
Community (AEC) was another significant improvement. Embodying not only economic, but also
political and security cooperation, it is planned to be set up by 2015. ASEAN+3 is one more of
the vital foundations to develop in East Asia after the 1997/98 financial crisis. So far, on the
other hand, progress under ASEAN+3 has not been as noticeable as ASEAN, notwithstanding
the number and recurrence of its gatherings (Capannelli & Filippini, 2009).
3.5 Nature of Asian Economic Regionalism
A major characteristic of Asian regionalism is being institution-lite (Asian Development
Bank 2008), meaning that although Asia may need to improve its institutional capabilities for
regional cooperation, it is very difficult to imagine that it will develop any kind of institution or
regional mechanism like those present in Europe today. Many Asian countries are still young
and they therefore need to strengthen their national identities before they can effectively
contribute to developing a regional community whose agenda in certain areas could reign over
national privileges. However, Asia may also willingly choose not to develop heavy regional
institutions to avoid fat bureaucracies and to remain focused on economic integration driven by
market forces more than government policies.
According to Capannelli & Filippini (2009), Asias approach to regional integration and
cooperation is also pragmatic and flexible, mostly pertaining to the regions economic and
political realities, and the substantial difference among Asian economies in income levels,

Models of Regional Integration

institutions, and political stability. Pragmatism and flexibility characterized East Asias approach
in a sense that different members may adapt their speed and depth of integration and
cooperation based on their capabilities and readiness to be part of a regional scheme. For
instance, ASEAN has adopted in various cases the concept of ASEAN-x to enable some
members to join cooperation initiatives only when they are internally ready, but without
preventing other members to move faster toward closer cooperation. In connection to the
economic and geographical diversity of Asian countries is also Asian regionalisms bottom-up
approach, whereby subregional markets and subregional cooperation make up the building
blocks of a more extensive and more integrated regional economic structure (Narine, 2002).
4. EUROPEAN AND EAST ASIAN APPROACHES COMPARED
We can now attempt to compare the European and the East Asian approach to
regionalism can now be a based on the observations in the previous sections. In this section,
the differences of the integration in Europe and East Asia are highlighted, most especially their
attitude towards political union, and reciprocal lessons are also suggested.
4.1 Europe versus Asia
Firstly, after the destruction and difficulties caused by two world wars, Europeans
realized the importance of sharing and cooperating with regional neighbors to establish more
integrated economies and societies; they understood that sharing sovereignty with regional
partners in certain areas could garner much higher benefits than acting as a sum of individual
policies. East Asian integration, however, was only realized because of the 1997/98 financial
crisis, but there was no underlying political agenda present, and sovereignty is still very much
protected.
Second, the European model is based on a legalistic approach to regional cooperation
and encompasses the development of wide and deep regional institutions. It was able to
generate considerable economic gains through the creation of a single market, a monetary
union, and by close coordination among national authorities in several economic, political, and
social issues, including the creation of the Parliament and the Court of Justice. The East Asian
model, however, has a more pragmatic, bottom-up, and flexible approach. It is based on the
transferring of industrial development from more- to less-developed countries in the region and
an open approach to non-regional members, seeking a concurrent deepening of regional as well
as global interdependence. Based on the effort of regional authorities to maintain economic
integration brought about by market forces through cooperation initiatives, regionalism in Asia is
a less ambitious process than in Europe, encompassing only a few institutions (mostly
economic), with limited power and mandate from national authorities to regulate external shocks
and regional spillover and to provide regional public goods.
Third, a good synopsis of the major steps followed in creating the EU can be: a free
trade area, a customs union, a single market, and a common currency, and a political union.
Today the EU depends on a broad institutional structure, a large bureaucracy, and close
intergovernmental cooperation in foreign and security policy, as well as in justice and domestic

Models of Regional Integration

affairs. In contrast to this, the sequencing of cooperation in Asia is based more on parallel than
sequential improvements in trade and monetary areas. While regional trade policy cooperation
has obtained momentum amid the most recent 56 years, cooperation in money and finance
and account couldn't wait for the production of a regional free trade area or a single market; the
1997/98 crisis created a need for closer macroeconomic and financial cooperation over a
decade ago, while East Asian economies are currently confronting a world where capital records
are as of now exceptionally liberalized.
Finally, another significant difference between the EU and East Asian models of
regionalism regards rules for entering regional groupings. While entry rules in the EU are clearer
(democracy, market economy, and the complete acceptance in national systems of the EU body
of rules and regulations), it is difficult to identify in East Asia an apparent set of rules governing
the issue of membership. The ASEAN enlargement process and the creation of groups such as
ASEAN+3 or the East Asia Summit fall under this category, creating a sense of instability over
the evolution of the Asian economic architecture.
4.2 Political Union
Probably the most striking difference between the European and the East Asian
approach towards integration is their attitude towards political union, and so the paper will delve
deeper into this aspect. The EU has exhibited the usual pattern of an economic integration
gradually leading to a political integration. While the EU is on its way to complete political
integration, East Asia is quite the opposite, as what is particularly reflected by ASEAN. Given
the general principles of ASEAN: 1. Respect for the independence, sovereignty and territorial
integrity of member states, 2.Peaceful settlement of disputes, 3. Non-interference in member
states' internal affairs, and 4. Right to live without external interference (A. S. E. A. N.
Secretariat, 2008), there is a clear indication that no country in ASEAN is willing to give up their
sovereignty, in contrast to the miracle of sovereignty that occurred in the EU (Eichengreen,
2008). The ASEAN Charter generally reflects how the sovereignty of member states is
protected. In relation to this Beeson (2004) states that:
While economic integration may have been proceeding apace in East
Asia, and is largely driven by the activities of the private sector, a similar
degree of political integration has been much harder to achieve. The only
indigenous long-standing regional institution is the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), which as the name suggests is
confined to Southeast Asia. Even here, ASEAN is not comparable with
the EU, either in terms of political integration, or in the extent and
sophistication of the region-wide institutions that have developed to
manage transnational relations. (Beeson, 2004)
On the contrary, part of ASEANs latent rationale has been to provide a mechanism to
protect, rather pool sovereignty as the EU does. As a consquence, ASEAN has a comparatively
small secretariat with little power to ensure member compliance with regional agreements.
Indeed, non-interference in the affairs of other member states has been a significant part of the

Models of Regional Integration 10

ASEAN way of doing things a manner of operating that emphasizes consensus and
informality, rather than the sort of legalism that characterizes similar regional agreements in
Western Europe and North America (Acharya 2014; Kahler 2000). Then again, as what was said
earlier, ASEAN might be choosing this on purpose in order to avoid fat bureaucracies and to
remain focused on economic integration.
Another indication of the absence of political union in East Asia is the lack of political
institutions. East Asian countries, along with ASEAN, do not have common policies and political
bodies unlike those of the EU. Unlike other regional institutions, ASEAN does not maintain a
peacekeeping force; have the authority to enforce human rights, or posses a formal mechanism
for conflict resolution (Acharya 2014). Unlike ASEAN, which has a rather simple set-up, the EU
has four main institutions. There is an equivalent of these bodies in ASEAN. But the council of
ministers of ASEAN normally meets only once a year. This council shapes common positions
amongst member states, but it does not have a legislative function. This is a major difference
between ASEAN and the EU. There is no institution equivalent to the European Commission
and the European Parliament in ASEAN. Furthermore, ASEAN does not have an institution like
the European Monetary Union and the European Central Bank that fosters the use of common
currency in the EU, another significant difference between Asia and Europe (Gramegna, 1997).
4.3 Reciprocal Lessons
The two regions can also learn from each other. For example, Asia can incorporate
some EU principles for governance. These entail the combination of majority ruling and
decisions that oblige consensus among all members, the subsidiarity principle in which
decisions are taken at the lowest level of government as much as possible; and the utilization of
the open method of coordination, which allows member states to agree on several initiatives for
intergovernmental cooperation without legal constraints. In addition, East Asia could be inspired
from the enthusiastic approach Europe followed in creating common institutions (Capannelli &
Filippini, 2010). Europe, on the other hand, can learn important lessons from the Asian pattern
of industrial development, which is based on the principles of pragmatism and flexibility,
encompassing high flexibility of labor markets. Such model indicates a high degree of
adaptability as industries are being transmitted from more to less advanced economies in the
region. The other two aspects of the Asian approach that Europe should regard with interest are
the attention placed on innovation and investment in research and development, which
eventually generates advances in productivity and competitiveness, and the idea of open
regionalism, with the least discriminatory impact on nonmembers (Chang, 2006).
5. CONCLUSIONS
Over the last few years, the EU has been deepening and widening their integration
internally and externally at different speeds. In recent years, most of East Asian countries have
also been integrating with the world economy at full speed and have grown rapidly in a
successive manner, following a geese flock formation. Asian governments are acknowledging

Models of Regional Integration 11

the mutual benefits of economic integration and interdependence. East Asia is likely to become
a central economy in the world. However, its integration process is quite recent and informal.
To answer the key questions, the differences between Europe and East Asias
integration ultimately outweighs their very minimal similarities. Both countries are similar in a
sense that they both face difficult but different challenges, as their current priority is to formulate
a response to the ongoing economic crisis. Both have also achieved several successes, but
have failed in some areas of integration that are in need of major revisions. In a way, their
experiences are somewhat similar, but this is as far as it goes. However similar their
experiences may be, both are immensely different in terms of their triggers (the world wars for
the Europe and the 1997/98 crisis for East Asia), objectives, institutions (or lack thereof in East
Asias case) scope, structure, nature, sequence of cooperation, rules for membership, and
especially their attitude towards political union, with the EU embracing it while East Asia and
ASEAN are adamant on protecting the sovereignty of member states. In other words, their
experiences are generally similar, but when it comes to the specifics and the outcomes of these
experiences, thats where they become so different from each other. The EU integration is seen
to be deeper, complex and formal while ASEANs is much simpler, informal, and just starting.
The EU is often presented almost as the prime model to be followed by other regional
associations, but while one can learn from others experiences, it doesnt make much sense to
replicate decisions and policies adopted by different countries, in different regions and contexts.
At the same time, understanding the workings of the process of regionalism is vital to singling
out the essential factors of success. In other words, it is advantageous to know the objectives,
the amended functions, and the policies adopted in Europe and East Asia and their relationship
to the targets, the factors determining these choices, and the effectiveness and efficiency of the
actions taken comparing the degree of success and the related costs and benefits. The EU-style
integration cannot serve as a role model for Asia and Asian integration. The EU was formed
under very different circumstances that did not, and will most likely not transpire in Asia,
meaning that the strategies that EU applied were brought about by these circumstances, thus
making them inapplicable to East Asian integration. There is no guarantee that the strategies of
the EU will work in East Asia for the regions are quite different from each other.
East Asian integration will, at least for the time being, remain principally limited to
economic integration through the creation of free trade agreements, whereas political integration
in Asia will remain very limited. As for further political integration in Asia, the principle of
noninterference in international affairs of other nations will most likely continue to restrain it.
East Asia has not yet reached the Europes level of integration, but it does not necessarily mean
that it should try to achieve its level. With the EU being deeply integrated and having social
foundations, economic crisis like the European debt crisis can affect all of the economies of its
member states, so it might be best if East Asia studies its capacities and situation more before
advancing the deepening of its integration. Since East Asia is growing, together with ASEAN, it
might be better off proceeding with its own dynamics, as it is not necessary to copy the EU. It
can progress and grow by using its own ways and strategies. Asia has a long way to go, and it
should instead apply the lessons that can be derived from the EU experience rather than copy

Models of Regional Integration 12

its strategies, in order to flourish further as an efficient regional integration. As the ongoing crisis
is reshaping the global financial structure, enhancing Asia's economic communication and
cooperation is an important step to shape and raise its profile in global institutions. Asia must
discover its own path to greater cooperation and integration. This necessitates visionaries with
great ideas such as Jean Monnet, Robert Schumann, and Altiero Spinelli, who can influence
opinion makers, inspire national leaders, and eventually allow the region to speak with a more
striking common voice in global forums.

References
Acharya, A. (2014). Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia: ASEAN and the
Problem of Regional Order: ASEAN and the Problem of Regional Order. Routledge.
Ando, M. (2006). Fragmentation and vertical intra-industry trade in East Asia.The North
American Journal of Economics and Finance, 17(3), 257-281.
Asian Development Bank. (2008). Emerging Asian Regionalism. A Partnership for Shared
Prosperity. Manila.

Models of Regional Integration 13

Beeson, M. (2004). Political and economic integration in East Asia.
Berkofsky, A. (2005). Comparing EU and Asian Integration ProcessesThe EU a role model for
Asia. European Policy Centre Issue Paper, 23.
Bhattacharyay, B. N. (2010). Institutions for Asian connectivity. Journal of International
Commerce, Economics and Policy, 1(02), 309-335.
Capannelli, G., & Filippini, C. (2009). East Asian and European Economic Integration: A
Comparative Analysis (No. 29). Asian Development Bank.
Capannelli, G., & Filippini, C. (2010). Economic Integration in East Asia and Europe: Lessons
from a Comparative Analysis. The Singapore Economic Review, 55(01), 163-184.
Capannelli, G., Lee, J. W., & Petri, P. A. (2009). Developing indicators for regional economic
integration and cooperation. Singapore Economic Review, Forthcoming.
Chang, H. J. (2006). Industrial Policy in East Asia: Lessons for Europe. EIB Papers, 11(2), 106132.
Cram, L. (1998). The EU institutions and collective action. Constructing a European
interest?. Collective action in the European Union, London: Routledge.
Dedman, M. (2006). The origins and development of the European Union 1945-1995: a history
of European integration. Routledge.
Dinan, D. (2004). Ever closer union: an introduction to European integration.Boulder, USA
2005.
Dinan, D. (Ed.). (2014). Origins and evolution of the European Union. Oxford University Press.
Eichengreen, B. (2008). The European economy since 1945: coordinated capitalism and
beyond. Princeton University Press.
El-Agraa, A. M. (2011). The European Union: economics and policies. Cambridge University
Press.
Gandolfo, G. (1998). International trade theory and policy. Berlin: Springer.
Glenny, M. (2008). McMafia: A journey through the global underworld. House of Anansi.
Gramegna, P. (1997). EU and ASEAN Integration Processes: Similar Models? [Public Forum].
Retrieved from http://archive.unu.edu/unupress/lecture18.html
Gros, D., & Thygesen, N. (1992). European monetary integration: from the European monetary
system to economic and monetary union. Longman.
Hix, S., & Hyland, B. (1999). The political system of the European Union (p. 357). London:
Macmillan.
Kahler, M. (2000). Legalization as strategy: the Asia-Pacific case. International
Organization, 54(03), 549-571.
Krzyanowski, M., & Wodak, R. (2011). Political strategies and language policies: the European
Union Lisbon strategy and its implications for the EUs language and multilingualism
policy. Language Policy, 10(2), 115-136.
Lee, J. W. (2008). Patterns and determinants of cross-border financial asset holdings in East
Asia (No. 13). Asian Development Bank.
Mattli, W., & Plmper, T. (2002). The demand-side politics of EU enlargement: democracy and
the application for EU membership. Journal of European Public Policy, 9(4), 550-574.
McCormick, J., & Olsen, J. (2013). The European Union: politics and policies. Westview Press.
Narine, S. (2002). Explaining ASEAN: Regionalism in Southeast Asia. Lynne Rienner
Publishers.

Models of Regional Integration 14

Piris, J. C. (2010). The Lisbon Treaty: a legal and political analysis. Cambridge University Press.
Pisani-Ferry, J., & Posen, A. S. (2009). The euro at ten: the next global currency. Peterson
Institute.
Secretariat, A. S. E. A. N. (2008). The ASEAN charter. Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat, 2.
From EU model to external policy?
Shin, K., & Sohn, C. H. (2006). Trade and Financial Integration in East Asia: Effects on Co
movements. The World Economy, 29(12), 1649-1669.
Shujiro, U. (2004). The Shift from" Market-led" to" Institution-led" Regional Economic Integration
in East Asia in the late 1990s.
Su, Y. Z. (1999). The East Asian Miracle: Economic Growth and Public Policy.
Tinbergen, J. (1952). On the theory of economic policy.
Wallace, H., Pollack, M. A., & Young, A. R. (Eds.). (2010). Policy-making in the European
Union. Oxford university press.
Zubok, V., & Pleshakov, C. (1997). Inside the Kremlins Cold War: From Stalin to Krushchev.
Harvard University Press.