Managing International `Relations': ASEAN's Dilemma of Attraction-Autonomy Deficits and Ideational Changes after the Cold War
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Under what conditions do ASEAN states adopt foreign ideas? Why do they find the new ideas more attractive at certain times than others? This article offers a new instrumental explanation that idea receiver-promoter relations provide a powerful constraint on the idea diffusion process within ASEAN. Specifically, I develop a concept of `the dilemma of attraction-autonomy deficits.' One commonality among the cases concerned in this study is that the new ideas were exported by foreign policy elites of major advanced power countries in the West (including Japan from the East). As leaders of weak dissimilar states vis-à-vis the idea-promoters, ASEAN elites share concerns over `attraction-deficits' since the major powers' disengagement from the region would disrupt their political survival. Ideational engagement can be one of the measures that ASEAN elites can take to cope with the concerns because it is expected to draw the idea-promoters' attention to the region. However, a straightforward pledge of ideational convergence may allow the promoters' increasing pressure on ASEAN leaders for giving up their `otherness' to an undesirable extent. This could eventually lead concerns over autonomy-deficit to rise. But any divergent moves to buffer autonomy could make the relations with the West distant again, which might lead them to disengage from the region. This can raise their concerns over attraction-deficits again. This article argues that the pattern and timing of the ideational changes at the ASEAN level was a reflection of ASEAN elites' decisions to manage the dilemma of inversely-related deficits. ASEAN's responses to common security, human rights and Asia-Pacific regionalism will be discussed to support this argument.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".