produce adverse outcomes not only by causing “spaghetti bowl” effects, but also by
increasing the potential for trade conflicts. Nevertheless, open sub-regionalism in
Northeast Asia could render positive sum outcomes.
Poor performance in the institutionalization of Northeast Asian regional
economic cooperation seems to be an anomaly on several classic accounts (Russet
1967: 11). First, geographical proximity and homogenous historical, cultural, and
linguistic attributes should have led to a higher level of institutionalized regional
cooperation in Northeast Asia. Second, size principle matters. Northeast is composed
primarily of three countries, China, Japan, and South Korea. While China subsumes
Hong Kong and Taiwan in its economic sphere, North Korea can be regarded as an
appropriate candidate for regional cooperation because of its socialist, self-reliant
economic system. Forming a viable regional integrative scheme among the three
countries should be easier than among a larger number of actors. Yet, Northeast Asia is
void of such a scheme. Third, in the past, the Cold War bipolarity brought about a major
barrier to intra-regional cooperation, dividing the Northeast Asian region into two
camps. At present, those geopolitical constraints no longer exist. Finally, since the
early 1990s, economic and social interdependence has been profoundly expanded and
deepened among China, Japan, and South Korea. If regionalism is to emanate from the
“natural forces of proximity, income and policy convergence, and greater intra-firm
trade” (Fishlow and Haggard 1992:12), we can then expect a greater degree of sub-
regionalism in Northeast Asia.
Judged on geographical proximity, historical, cultural, and social homogeneity,
the new security environment, and growing economic interdependence, a greater level
of regionalism should have emerged in the region. Such a regional arrangement seems
essential not only to promote mutual cooperation, but also to regulate and minimize the
negative externality effects from increased transactions. However, Northeast Asian
countries have not worked out any viable institutional mechanism for intra-regional
cooperation. Why the gap between expectation and reality? What factors account for
the anomalous phenomenon in Northeast Asia? This study attempts to elucidate the
Northeast Asian puzzle by looking into the dynamics of nationalism involving
embedded mercantilism, divergent visions of regional community, collective memory of
the historical past and cognitive barriers, and the political abuse and misuse of
nationalism.
Convention