The Concept of Regional Architecture

(B)

Regional architecture is a concept that needs to be distinguished from various community

building projects. By introducing an architectural metaphor to the study of regional community
building, we can have a better idea of what the region would look like in a longer term. The regional
architectural viewpoint is not la mode, rather, it is designed to provide a more structural and
holistic view of regional community building and the major powers roles in it. Yet, regional
architecture is a slippery concept. Strangely, it is often used as if its meaning is self-evident. While
policy practitioners utilize it to refer to a vague regional structure or system of alliance, scholars
typically use it interchangeably with terms like regional system, infrastructure, framework, and
structure.
In establishing what regional architecture is, it is important to clearly define what it is not. It
is not, for instance, the same as a regional system. Within a regional system, states are linked by
geographic proximity and other political, economic, and cultural traits. They are perceived as
sharing common interests and in need of common regional architecture that prompt them to a
particular degree of regularity and unique patterns of behavior in relating to each other. Some
scholars use the term regional system to describe this set of linkages that produce strategic and
other substantive forms of interactions central to intra-regional relations. According to David Lake
and Patrick Morgan, using the regional system perspective allows for a fairly comprehensive
analysis of the magnitude and pattern of the structure, transaction costs, and regional externalities
of different states interactions with one another. Like the concept of regional security complex
(RSC), regional system is a useful analytical concept for organizing inquiry into an overall view
of regional organizational mechanisms. When compared to the concept of regional system,
regional architecture is still a loosely defined term.
One problem associated with defining the term regional architecture is the issue of different
geopolitical boundaries and regional functional cooperation. For instance, we often hear terms
such as the East Asian regional architecture, Asian architecture, or Asian Pacific
architecture. Nobody, however, seems to know how to distinguish one from another. Does
regional architecture mean a mix of mechanisms and arrangements or a single overarching regional
institution? Should regional architecture be viewed more as a coherent structure for organizing the
region or is it just a loose bundle of divergent regional arrangements collected together? How do
we define the geographic boundaries of East Asia or Asia Pacific in a way that clarifies who
can and cant be members of a particular organization? These questions will continue to be the
focal point in the on debate issues of regionalism and regional community building in years to
come.
Regional architecture refers to a reasonably coherent network of regional organizations,
institutions, bilateral and multilateral arrangements, dialogue forums, and other relevant
mechanisms that work collectively for regional prosperity, peace, and stability. In every region
there are multiple and even competing projects and arrangements for community building. These
projects and arrangements should be viewed as building blocks (sometimes, stumbling blocks)
for the formation of regional architecture. If regional architecture is the forest, various
community building projects and arrangements are trees in the forest. Take the European
regional architecture as an example. A collective defense system (NATO) and highly
institutionalized regional integration, anchored by the European Union (EU), have formed the core
of the continents regional architecture. Supplementing the institutional core is a network of
bilateral and multilateral mechanisms, such as the Council of Europe, the Western European

Union, and the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Underlying the
institutional arrangement is a sense of shared values, norms, and interests among regional states.
Institutions & Institutionalization
- Institutions
Institutions are the rules of the game of a particular social group, or a set of norms that shape
behavior in a social space. They define and condition the choices of individuals.
Institutions can be understood as persistent and connected sets of rules (formal and informal) that
prescribe behavioral roles, constrain activity, and shape expectations, and such institutions may
include organizations, bureaucratic agencies, treaties and agreements, and informal practices that
states [as well as non-state actors] accept as binding.
- Institutionalization
Institutionalization is a process that varies in formality.
Institutionalization is a core progress in the creation and perpetuation of enduring social groups.
Institutionalization is an equilibrium phenomenon and is associated with better policies and better
results in terms of economic development.
Institutionalization is the process by which norms, or shared standards of behavior, are created and
developed.
Regional institutionalization refers to the degree of the functional activity and political authority
that states delegate to their regional integration arrangement.
Approaches to Regional Integration
Regional integration is a process in which states enter into a regional cooperation framework in
order to enhance regional cooperation and reduce regional tension. Regional integration is the
joining of individuals states within a region into a larger whole. The degree of integration depends
on the willingness and commitment of independent sovereign states to share their sovereignty.
In theory, regional integration can be divided into two categories:
1. Regionalism: the process of institutionalized cooperation in top-down manner that
normally requires formal government approval and includes the establishment of
permanent organizations (government-driven integration). Simply put, it refers to those
state-led projects of cooperation that emerge as a result of intergovernmental dialogues
and treaties. European integration is the best example for this approach of integration.
2. Regionalization: a progress in bottom-up cooperation & relationships which take place
outside the governmental framework (market-driven integration). It simply refers to those
processes of integration that arise from markets, private trade and investment flows, and
from the policies and decisions of companies rather than the predetermined plans of
national or local governments. East Asian integration is primarily based on this approach.