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.
Policy Implications
- Policymakers and academics should recognize the dynamic and contested nature of institutional design and avoid oversimplification in their analysis of the relationship between institutional modes of operation and centrality.
- Scholars and practitioners should acknowledge the competitive fragmentation and diversity of institutional design in different regions and recognize that a one-size-fits-all approach may not be appropriate. Southeast Asia is very different from East Africa, and we should expect institutional design to be influenced by a variety of factors including cultural, structural, and systemic dynamics.
- By paying attention to the shifting focus of regional dynamics and evolving sites of contestation, especially in the Indo-Pacific region, policymakers can avoid being caught off guard in terms of distribution of power dynamics such as balancing and bandwagoning.
- Despite the differences in institutional design, the Quad and ASEAN members share overlapping geographic, economic, and security interests. Institutional design alone will not inhibit constructive dialog and cooperation, nor is there any barrier to formal and informal institutions collaborating on shared interests. Rather, old-fashioned power politics and the desire for ‘centrality’ form the biggest impediment to ASEAN and the Quad members developing a shared sense of values and trust in one another.
Photo by Pixabay