Co-Prosperity Sphere Again? United States Foreign Policy and Japan's "First" Regionalism in the 1950s
Bibliographic record
Abstract
in the Asia-Pacific attracts considerable attention. Since the end of the 1980s, we have witnessed many proposals for creating regional institutions such as APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation), EAEC (the East Asia Economic Caucus) and ASEAN+3 (a so-called East Asian Community). This movement is often called New Regionalism or Second Regionalism together with the expanding and deepening links within the EU (the European Union) and the creation of NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement) ? Adjectives such as new and second indicate that contemporary Asia Pacific regionalism is not unprecedented. Competition in creating regional blocs was one of the contributing factors leading to World War II. In the war's aftermath, attempts to build regional arrangements in Asia continued, especially in the 1950s and 1960s, leading to the so-called First Regionalism phase, which saw the creation of SEATO (the Southeast Asian Treaty Organization) in 1954, ASA (the Association of Southeast Asia) in 1961, and ASPAC (the Asia-Pacific Council) in 1966. However, many of these arrangements never came to full fruition or, once created, soon ceased to exist. Only one state-led regional arrangement has survived to the present: ASEAN (the Association of Southeast Asian Nations). But it is far less formal and institutionalized than its Western counterparts. Why are there no institutions in the Asia-Pacific that are equivalent to those found in Western regions, such as the EU, NATO and NAFTA? Since
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".