SUVANNABHUMI (수완나부미)

Korea Institute for ASEAN Studies (부산외대 아세안연구원)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Indigenization of Global Trade Negotiation Model: Perspective from Southeast Asia

  • Fathana, Hangga (Department of International Relations, Universitas Islam Indonesia) ;
  • Sutrisno, Nandang (Department of Law, Universitas Islam Indonesia, Indonesia) ;
  • Herdianto, Enggar Furi (Department of International Relations, Universitas Islam Indonesia) ;
  • Fauzi, Hilman (Department of International Relations, Universitas Gadjah Mada)
  • Received : 2022.04.11
  • Accepted : 2022.06.30
  • Published : 2022.07.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Over the last few decades, global trade activities showed a significant increase, resulting in a rise of the wider global economic growth. The achievement is partly due to the more integrated global trade system under global trade regime such as World Trade Organization (WTO) that standardized the practice of global trade. On the other hand, it could also be seen that regional trade negotiation became more important part of global trade activity. The trade negotiation itself was pushed and tailored by regional perspective, which indigenized trade agreement. This research aims to analyze the indigenization of ASEAN's trade negotiation model. How has the current trade negotiation model within the region represented indigenous needs and aspirations? This study also offers to revisit the conceptual framework in identifying the trade negotiation model to measure the indigeneity of Southeast Asian automotive industry's policy. This research concludes by explaining the case studies which measure the effect of indigenization to the practice of trade agreement in the region.

Keywords

References

  1. Alatas, Syed Farid. 1993. On the Indigenization of Academic Discourse. Alternative Global Local Politics, 18(3): 307-338. https://doi.org/10.1177/030437549301800303
  2. Anwar, Dewi Fortuna. 1996. Regionalism versus Globalism: A Southeast Asian Perspective. Korean Journal of Defense Analysis, 8(2): 29-52. https://doi.org/10.1080/10163279609464557
  3. ASEAN Secretariat. 2012. ASEAN Sectoral MRAs. https://asean.org/?static_post=asean-sectoral-mras (Accessed November 26, 2020).
  4. ASEAN Secretariat. 2016. Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia. https://asean.org/treaty-amity-cooperation-southeast-asia-indonesia-24-february-1976/ (Accessed November 27, 2020).
  5. ASEAN Secretariat. 2019. ASEAN Integration Report 2019. Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat
  6. Austria, Myrna S. 2012. Moving Towards an ASEAN Economic Community. East Asia, 29(2): 141-156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12140-011-9169-5
  7. Bilal, Sanoussi. 2016. Asymmetric Trade Negotiations. Routledge.
  8. Broome, Andre. 2014. Issues and Actors in the Global Political Economy. Macmillan International Higher Education.
  9. Carroll, Toby. Hameiri, Shahar., Jones, Lee. (Eds.), 2020. The Political Economy of Southeast Asia: Politics and Uneven Development under Hyperglobalisation, 4th ed, Studies in the Political Economy of Public Policy. Palgrave Macmillan.
  10. Cherry, Judith. 2012. Upgrading the 'software': The EU-Korea Free Trade Agreement and sociocultural barriers to trade and investment. Pacific Review, 25(2): 247-268. https://doi.org/10.1080/09512748.2012.658849
  11. Chew, Sing. C. 2018. The Southeast Asia Connection: Trade and Polities in the Eurasian World Economy, 500 BC-AD 500. Berghahn Books.
  12. Ciccaglione, Bruno and Alexandra Strickner. 2014. Global Crises: The Need to Go Beyond Transnational Solidarity in the Struggle Against the Expansion of Free Trade Agreements. Globalizations, 11(1): 143-153. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2014.860805
  13. Creswell, John., Ron Shope, Vicky Clark, and Denise Green. 2006. How interpretive qualitative research extends mixed methods research. Research in the Schools, 13(1): 1-11.
  14. Cuyvers, Ludo. 2014. The Sustainable Development Clauses in Free Trade Agreements of the EU with Asian Countries: Perspectives for ASEAN?. Journal of Contemporary European Studies, 22(4): 427-449. https://doi.org/10.1080/14782804.2014.923752
  15. Cuyvers, Ludo. 2019. The 'ASEAN Way' and ASEAN's development gap with Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam: a critical view. Asia Pacific Business Review, 25(5): 683-704. https://doi.org/10.1080/13602381.2019.1652980
  16. Devereaux, Charan.. Lawrence, Robert Z., Watkins, Michael D.. 2006. Case Studies in US Trade Negotiation: Resolving Disputes. Peterson Institute for International Economics.
  17. Dingwerth, Klaus.. Weinhardt, Clara. 2018. The Language of World Trade Politics: Unpacking the Terms of Trade. Routledge.
  18. Duchesne, Erick.. Morin, Jean-Frederic. 2013. Revisiting Structural Variables of Trade Negotiations: The Case of the Canada-EU Agreement. International Negotiation, 18(1): 5-24. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718069-12341243
  19. European Commission. 2018. Decree 116/2017/ND-CP on business requirements for manufacturing, assembly and import of automobiles, automobiles warranty and maintenance services. https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/tbt/en/search/?tbtaction=search.detail&Country_ID=VNM&num=116&dspLang=en&basdatedeb=01/03/2018&basdatefin=12/03/2018&baspays=&basnotifnum=&basnotifnum2=&bastypepays=ANY&baskeywords= (Accessed November 27, 2020).
  20. Furuoka, Fumitaka. 2019. Do CLMV countries catch up with the older ASEAN members in terms of income level?. Applied Economics Letter, 26(8): 690-697. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2018.1489494
  21. Guan, Benny Teh Cheng. 2004. ASEAN's Regional Integration Challenge: The ASEAN Process. The Copenhagen Journal of Asian Studies, 20(1): 70-94. https://doi.org/10.22439/cjas.v20i0.34
  22. Indorf, Hans H., Suhrke, Astri. 1981. Indochina: The Nemesis of ASEAN?: Southeast Asian Affairs 1981. Leo Suryadinata ed. 62-72. Singapore: ISEAS Publishing.
  23. Islam, Amirul., Bloch, Harry., Salim, Ruhul. 2014. How effective is the Free Trade Agreement in South Asia? An empirical investigation. International Review of Applied Economy, 28(5): 611-627. https://doi.org/10.1080/02692171.2014.918940
  24. Kim, Hyunjeong., 2010. FDI, indigenization policy, and development. PhD Dissertation. KDI School of Public Policy and Management. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.469.5253&rep=rep1&type=pdf (Accessed February 29, 2022).
  25. Lamy, Pascal. 2014. Is trade multilateralism being threatened by regionalism?. Adelphi Series, 54(450): 61-78. https://doi.org/10.1080/19445571.2014.1019718
  26. Lijuan, Xing. 2010. Globalization, Localization, Indigenization, Glocalizationand WTO's Prosperity: New Methodology for Operation. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.613.4895&rep=rep1&type=pdf (Accessed 29, 2020)
  27. Mendoza, Dovelyn Rannveig., Sugiyarto, Guntur. 2017. The Long Road Ahead: Status Report on the Implementation of the ASEAN Mutual Recognition Arrangements on Professional Services. Asian Development Bank.
  28. Mueller, Lukas Maximilian. 2019. ASEAN centrality under threat - the cases of RCEP and connectivity. Journal of Contemporary East Asia Studies, 8(2): 177-198. https://doi.org/10.1080/24761028.2019.1691703
  29. Nischalke, Tobias. 2002. Does ASEAN measure up? Post-Cold War diplomacy and the idea of regional community. Pacific Review, 15(1): 89-117. https://doi.org/10.1080/09512740110110873
  30. Oatley, Thomas. 2018. International Political Economy: Sixth Edition. Routledge.
  31. O'Brien, Robert., Williams, Marc., 2007. Global Political Economy, Second Edition: Evolution and Dynamics. Palgrave Macmillan.
  32. Pelkmans, Jacques. 2005. Mutual Recognition in Goods and Services: An Economic Perspective. The Principle of Mutual Recognition in the European integration Process. Padoa Schioppa, F.K., eds.. 85-128. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  33. Ravenhill, John. 2017. Global Political Economy. Oxford University Press.
  34. Ravenhill, John. 2008. Fighting irrelevance: an economic community 'with ASEAN characteristics. Pacific Review, 21(4): 469-488. https://doi.org/10.1080/09512740802294697
  35. Salazar, Lorraine Carlos., Das, Sanchita Basu. 2007. Bridging the ASEAN Developmental Divide: Challenges and Prospects. ASEAN Economic Bulletin, 24(1): 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1355/AE24-1A
  36. Selmier II, W. Travis, Oh, Chang Hoon. 2013. Economic Diplomacy and International Trade: ASEAN's Quest to Value-claim. World Economics, 36(2): 233-252. https://doi.org/10.1111/twec.12002
  37. Vaubel, Roland. 2013. A Public Choice Approach to International Organization. The Theoretical Evolution of International Political Economy, Third Edition: A Reader. Darel Paul & Abla Amawi Eds. 240-266. Oxford University Press.
  38. VIR. 2018. Decree 116 nearly stops CBU business from developed countries. https://www.vir.com.vn/decree-116-nearly-stops-cbu-business-from-developed-countries-60714.html (Accessed Novemb er 27, 2020).
  39. World Trade Organization, 2020. WTO | Regional trade agreements. https://rtais.wto.org/UI/PublicMaintainRTAHome.aspx (Accessed November 26, 2020).
  40. Wunderlich, Jens-Uwe. 2012. The EU an Actor Sui Generis? A Comparison of EU and ASEAN Actorness. JCMS Journal Common Market Studies, 50(4): 653-669. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2011.02237.x
  41. Yan, Miu Chung. 2013. Towards a pragmatic approach: a critical examination of two assumptions of indigenization discourse. China Journal of Social Work, 6(1): 14-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/17525098.2013.766135