Search

The article challenges the view that democratisation is a recipe for regional disorder in East Asia. This view is not supported by evidence. Critics of democratisation fail to consider a number of mitigating factors that may check the destabilising consequences of democratisation while accentuating its peace-causing effects. These factors are not necessarily other liberal forces, like economic interdependence, or regional institutions, although these do matter. Certain dynamics associated with democratisation, such as focus on economic rebuilding for regime legitimation, positive nationalism ('democratic pride'), involvement of civil society, etc., may lessen the potential for inter-state conflict. These mitigating factors do not necessarily correspond with the normative and institutionalist logic underpinning the democratic peace theory, and they have been largely overlooked by the critics of that theory. After identifying them, this paper shows that the East Asian experience does not show that democratisation leads to greater conflict between states. On the contrary, democratisation might create better prospects for cooperative peace in the region. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

If the assessment of ASEAN's success in the past is difficult, speculations on whether ASEAN will be a success will be close to impossibility. Yet this is what is intended in this article. However, this is done by first defining robust criteria of success of conflict prevention. Conflict prevention is successful if conflicts and battle deaths can be avoided, either by means of conflict resolution or transformation, or simply by means of conflict avoidance. By starting with this criterion the article will argue that ASEAN peacefulness cannot be explained by durable objective conditions. Instead, it is built on imagined realities. The imagined realities of the ASEAN Way are getting more difficult to sustain due to their interaction with material and normative/institutional developments. Many of the constructed foundations of the ASEAN Way are unsustainable in the new realities where communication has become easy and uncontrollable, and societies have become wealthier and more democratized. However, the article will show that evidence of existing conflict violence suggests that ASEAN has started to reformulate its approach to conflict prevention and that this has largely been successful. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines policy networks in South Korea and Taiwan during the democratic era. Policy networks are the core mechanisms of developmentalism in the two countries. However, democratization affects policy coordination differently in the two countries. By focusing on policy networks as their core mechanisms of developmentalism, this article shows that the fate of developmental states in the democratic period is not fixed. The Korean state fails to maintain policy networks, thus becoming less developmental. Its economic policies become inconsistent, short-term-oriented, over-politicized and poorly monitored. Meanwhile, Taiwan further develops policy networks, so becoming more developmental. These two contrasting experiences of network management and policy choice help account for the differential impacts of the financial crisis on South Korea and Taiwan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]