Abstract
The chapter focuses on trade, which is a dynamic aspect of economic relations in international society. It puts into question the existence of geopolitical and geo-economic blocks in the Asia–Pacific area and critically examines the thesis that changes in trade relations reflect a geopolitical transition in the Asia–Pacific area. First, it presents the mainstream power transition theories and their critics in the context of the rise of China and Asia–Pacific trade. Second, it develops the argument of power transition in the contexts of international institutions. Third, it presents the role of ASEAN countries in the development of the WTO’s trade rules. Fourth, it examines the use of trade rules in the context of East–West trade disputes in the WTO. Finally, it analyzes the role of minor powers in the possible power transition concerning trade arrangements in the Asia–Pacific area.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
On mainstream theories, see Walton (2016, 1–4).
References
Acharya, A. (1997). Ideas, identity, and institution-building: From the ‘ASEAN way’ to the ‘Asia-Pacific way’? The Pacific Review, 10(3), 319–346.
Acharya, A. (2014). Power shift or paradigm shift? China’s rise and Asia’s emerging security order. International Studies Quarterly, 58, 158–173.
Bloomfield, A. (2016). To balance or to bandwagon? Adjusting to China’s rise during Australia’s Rudd—Gillard era. The Pacific Review, 26(2), 259–282.
Bull, H. (1977). The anarchical society: A study of order in world politics. MacMillan Press LTD.
Buranelli, F. C. (2018). Global international society, regional international societies and regional international organizations: A dataset of primary institutions. In T. B. Kundsen & C. Navari (Eds.), International organization in the anarchical society (pp. 233–263). Palgrave Macmillan.
Buzan, B. (2004). From international to world society? English school theory and the social structure of globalization. Cambridge University Press.
Buzan, B. (2010). China in international society: Is “peaceful rise” possible? The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 3. The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 3(1), 5–36.
Buzan, B. (2014). An introduction to the English school of international relations: The societal approach. Polity Press.
Buzan, B., & Cox, M. (2013). China and the US: Comparable cases of ‘peaceful rise’? The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 6(2), 109–132.
Chan, S. (2005). Is there a power transition between the U.S. and China? The different faces of national power. Asian Survey, 45(5), 687–701.
Clark, I. (2011). Hegemony in international society. Oxford University Press.
Cox, M. (2016). Asian century—Western decline: Critical reflections. In D. Walton & E. Kawalski (Eds.), Power transition in Asia (pp. 13–25). Routledge.
Das, S. B. (2012, August 27). Asia’s regional comprehensive economic partnership. East Asia Forum. http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2012/08/27/asias-regional-comprehensive-economic-partnership/
Das, S. B., & Jagtiani, R. B. (2014). The regional comprehensive economic partnership: New paradigm or old wine in a new bottle? ISEAS Economic Working Paper No. 2014–3. Singapore: ISEAS.
Felker, G. (2001). ASEAN Regionalism and Southeast Asia’s systemic challenges. In J. C. Hsiung (Ed.), Twenty-first century world order and the Asia Pacific: Value change, exigencies, and power realignment (pp. 213–225). Palgrave.
Foot, R. (2014). ‘Doing some things’ in the XI Jinping era: The United Nations as China’s venue of choice. International Affairs, 90(5), 1085–1100.
Ford, J. (2003). A social theory of the WTO: Trading cultures. Palgrave Macmillan.
Fukunaga, Y. (2014). ASEAN’s leadership, in the regional comprehensive economic partnership. Asia & Pacific Policy Studies, 2(1), 103–115.
Gaskarth, J. (2017). Rising powers, responsibility, and international society. Ethics & International Affairs, 31(3), 287–311.
Haas, M. (1997). ASEAN’s pivotal role in asia-pacific regional cooperation. Global Governance, 3(3), 329–348.
Hamanaka, S. (2014, December). Trans-pacific partnership versus regional comprehensive economic partnership: Control of membership and agenda setting. (ADB Working Paper Series on Regional Economic Integration No. 146). Metro Manila: Asian Development Bank
He, K. (2017).Explaining United States—China relations: Neoclassical realism and the nexus of threat—Interest perceptions. The Pacific Review, 30(2), 133–151.
Hicks, R., & Kim, S. Y. (2012). Reciprocal trade agreements in Asia: Credible commitment to trade liberalization or paper tigers? Journal of East Asian Studies, 12(1), 1–29.
Ikenberry, G. J. (2018a). The future of liberal order in East Asia. In P. Hayes & C. I. Moon (Eds.), The future of East Asia (pp. 81–101). Palgrave.
Ikenberry, G. J. (2018b). The end of liberal international order? International Affairs, 94(1), 7–23.
Keohane, R. O. (1986). Reciprocity in international relations. International Organization, 40(1), 1–27.
Kim, W. (1991). Alliance transitions and great power war. American Journal of Political Science, 33(4), 833–850.
Kim, W. (2015). Rising China, pivotal middle power South Korea, and alliance transition theory. International Area Studies Review, 18(3), 251–265.
Kim, W., & Gates, S. (2015). Power transition theory and the rise of China. International Area Studies Review, 18(3), 219–226.
Knudsen, T. B. (2016). Solidarism, pluralism and fundamental institution change. Cooperation and Conflict, 51(1), 102–109.
Knudsen, T. B. (2018). Fundamental institutions and international organizations: Theorizing continuity and change. In T. B. Kundsen & C. Navari (Eds.), International organization in the anarchical society (pp. 23–50). Palgrave Macmillan.
Kopra, S. (2018). China and great power responsibility for climate change. Routledge.
Lemke, D., & Tammen, R. L. (2003). Power transition theory and the rise of China. International Interactions, 29, 269–271.
Mastanduno, M. (2020). Trump’s trade revolution. The Forum, 17(4), 523–548.
Narlikar, A. (2003). International trade and developing countries: Bargaining coalitions in the GATT & WTO. Routledge.
Navari, C. (2016). Primary and secondary institutions: Qua vadit? Cooperation and Conflict, 51(1), 121–127.
Navari, C. (2018). Modelling the relations of fundamental institutions and international organizations. In T. B. Kundsen & C. Navari (Eds.), International organization in the anarchical society (pp. 51–75). Palgrave Macmillan.
Palit, A. (2017). Mega-regional trade agreements and non-participating developing countries: Differential impacts, challenges and policy options. Competition & Change, 21(5), 417–434.
Palmujoki, E. (2001). Regionalism and globalism in Southeast Asia. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Palmujoki, E. (2018). Competing norms and norm change: Intellectual property rights and public health in the World Trade Organization. In T. B. Kundsen & C. Navari (Eds.), International organization in the anarchical society (pp. 203–230). Palgrave Macmillan.
Panda, J. P. (2014). Factoring the RCEP and the TPP: China, India and the politics of regional integration. Strategic Analysis, 38(1), 49–67.
Qin, Y. (2010). International society as a process: Institutions, identities, and China’s peaceful rise. The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 3(2), 129–153.
Rapkin, D., & Thompson, W. R. (2003). Power transition, challenge and the (re)emergence of China. International Interactions, 29(3), 315–342.
Ricupero, R. (1998). Integration of developing countries into the multilateral trading system. In J. Bhagwati & M. Hirsch (Eds.), The Uruguay round and beyond (pp. 9–36). Springer.
Ruggie, J. G. (1982). International regimes, transactions, and change: Embedded liberalism in the postwar economic order. International Organization, 36(2), 379–415.
Schaffer, G., Manfred, E., & Pollack, M. (2017). U.S. threats to the WTO Appellate Body. Legal Studies Research Paper Series No. 2017–63. Irvine: School of Law, University of California
Snyder, R. C. (1940). The most-favored nation clause and recent trade practices. Political Science Quarterly, 55(1), 77–97.
Solis, M., & Wilson, J. D. (2017). From APEC to mega-regionals: The evolution of the Asia-Pacific trade architecture. The Pacific Review, 30(6), 923–937.
Tammen, R. L., Kugler, J., & Lemke, D. (2017). Foundations of power transition theory. Online publication. https://doi.org/10.1092/acrefore/9780190228637.013.296
Tang, S. (2018). China and the future international order(s). Ethics & International Affairs, 32(1), 31–43.
Walton, D. (2016). Continuity and change in Asia to the power shift to the East. In D. Walton & E. Kawalski (Eds.), Power transition in Asia (pp. 1–10). Routledge.
Wilson, J. D. (2015). Mega-regional trade deals in the Asia–Pacific: Choosing between the TPP and RCEP? Journal of Contemporary Asia, 45(2), 345–353.
Yates, R. (2017). ASEAN as the ‘regional conductor’: Understanding ASEAN’s role in Asia Pacific order. The Pacific Review, 30(4), 443–461.
Yates, R. (2020). The English school and postcolonial state agency: Social roles and order management in Southeast Asia and the Asia-Pacific. International Theory. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1752971919000265
Primary Material
ACFTA, Agreement of Investments. (2009). Agreement on investment of the framework agreement on comprehensive economic Co-operation between the association of Southeast Asian Nations and the People’s Republic of China. http://www.asean.org/images/archive/22974.pdf
Ciobo, S. (2017). Australian Minister for trade, tourism and investments: Speech the importance of Asia in the 21st century. https://trademinister.gov.au/speeches/Pages/2017/sc_sp_170123.aspx?w=tb1CaGpkPX%2FlS0K%2Bg9ZKEg%3D%3D
CPTPP Preamble. Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, Preamble, Article 1. https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/cptpp-ptpgp/text-texte/cptpp-ptpgp.aspx?lang=eng
Lee, H. L. (2020). The endangered Asian century. America, China, and the Perils of confrontation. Foreign Affairs, 99(4), 52–64.
New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. (2005). Trans-pacific strategic economic partnership agreement. Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Press Release. (2017). Ministry of trade, industry and energy, Republic of Korea, 2017, May 8. http://english.motie.go.kr/en/pc/pressreleases/bbs/bbsView.do?bbs_cd_n=2&bbs_seq_n=554
RCEP Agreement. (2019). Legal text of the RCEP agreement. https://rcepsec.org/legal-text/
Schwab, S. (2008). Schwab Statement on launch of the U.S. negotiations to join the trans-pacific strategic economic partnership agreement, September 22. https://ustr.gov/schwab-statement-launch-us-negotiations-join-trans-pacific-strategic-economic-partnership-agreement
USTR. (2008). The Office of the United States Trade Representative. Trans-pacific partners and United States launch FTA negotiations. https://ustr.gov/trans-pacific-partners-and-united-states-launch-fta-negotiations
USTR. (2018a). Office of the United States Trade Representative. 2018 Trade policy agenda and 2017 annual report of the President of the United States on the trade agreements program.
USTR. (2018b, January). United States Trade Representative. 2017 Report to the congress: On China’s WTO compliance.
Vitalis, V. (2017). Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Opening statement to the foreign affairs, defence and trade committee: The National Interest Analysis (NIA for the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), 3 May 2018. https://www.parliament.nz/resource/en-NZ/52SCFD_EVI_76583_999/0886a670ec6aa58cfc5e47172141ad4ab3e66cbc
WTO. World Trade Organization. Dispute settlement: The disputes, chronological list of disputes cases. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_status_e.htm
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Palmujoki, E. (2022). Power Transition and the Economic Order: How Much Change?. In: Knudsen, T.B., Navari, C. (eds) Power Transition in the Anarchical Society. Palgrave Studies in International Relations. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-97711-5_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-97711-5_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-97710-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-97711-5
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)