• The Southeast Asian review
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• pp.1-40
• /
• 2010

China and Southeast Asia share intimate relationships based on close spatial, temporal and human conditions. Thus, Southeast Asian studies in China boast of a long lineage of 'traditional', 'embryonic', 'closed' and 'opened' Southeast Asian studies. In the modern period the 'embryonic Southeast Asian studies,' professing conservative nationalism based on traditional Sino-centric perspectives, accumulated elementary knowledges on the history of Sino-Southeast Asian relations and Chinese communities in Southeast Asia. On the other hand, 'closed Southeast Asian studies' standing for radical Communism suffered from chronic stagnation. After the Reform and Opening, 'opened Southeast Asian studies' recorded impressive progress in the restoration and development of Southeast Asian studies. Nevertheless, 'opened Southeast Asian studies' are faced with some serious problems such as biased perspectives, traditional methods, and national subjects. Most of all, it is urgent to overcome Sino-centric perspectives on Southeast Asia. Despite the opening of Southeast Asian studies to the diverse methods of modern social sciences, descriptive studies prevail over analytical ones. Regardless of the diversification of subjects, national questions such as the overseas Chinese and cross-border nationalities are prone to excessive nationalism.

• East Asian Economic Review
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.177-215
• /
• 2018

Trump's withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and his "America First" trade agenda ignite a second round of interest in mega-free trade agreements in the Asia-Pacific. Countries are evaluating alternative trade policy actions in a post-TPP era. Using national real GDP gains estimated by a modified GTAP model to construct "preference ordering" for 10 Association of Southeast Asian Nations members and their six regional dialogue partners, this paper comes up with several policy-oriented findings. First, when multilateral agreements are not possible, countries are better off with a regional trading agreement than without one. Second, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership is likely to have higher beneficial impacts than the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. Third, for dual-track countries, implementing both agreements is better than each separately. Fourth, impacts of open regionalism are likely to be higher than those of a closed and reciprocal one. Going forward, this paper argues that countries should adopt a "multi-track, multi-stage" approach to trade policy.