Contested informality in regional institutional design: A comparative analysis of ASEAN and the Quad

Andrew F. Cooper and Brendon J. Cannon

Global Policy, 2024, vol. 15, issue 1, 40-52

Abstract: In terms of institutional positioning, the quartet of Indo‐Pacific states – Australia, India, Japan, and the United States – firmly endorse ASEAN. ‘ASEAN centrality’ is clearly highlighted in all Quad statements. Yet, the Quad presents an organizational and substantive challenge to the core institutional model of ASEAN. This competitive dynamic, with respect to style of associational methods (the how) as opposed to organizational purpose (the why), has not received the scholarly attention it deserves. If the literature does focus on the comparative approaches of ASEAN and the Quad, the prism is for the most part targeted on the differences with respect to the engagement with China. Our analysis is different and emphasizes the contrast between two types of institutional informality exhibited by ASEAN and the Quad. By situating our analysis in the context of contested informality, we point out that both ASEAN and the Quad are signposts showing that the foundational privilege of formal international organizations is under stress, albeit from a wide range of institutional designs. Only by detailing and evaluating the critical divergence in modes of informality can an appreciation of the nature and impact of the contest between ASEAN and the Quad be fully understood.

Date: 2024
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.13335

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bla:glopol:v:15:y:2024:i:1:p:40-52

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.blackwell ... bs.asp?ref=1758-5880

Access Statistics for this article

Global Policy is currently edited by David Held, Patrick Dunleavy and Eva-Maria Nag

More articles in Global Policy from London School of Economics and Political Science Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().