Abstract
The question of the significance of ASEAN is an important one. Stubbs' observation that different standards have been used to assess the organization is right to the point. This article critically discusses the merits of Stubbs approach and his findings. Our response argues that the binary discussion about ASEAN’s relevance should be replaced by more productive and progressive lines of scientific inquiry, since these questions hardly ever produce the knock-out evidence needed to discard one theory. The more interesting research takes place within paradigms. In the case of institutionalism, this is for example the research program of the design of international institutions. It is here that better data has recently become available, and that some questions that have triggered lively debates on ASEAN can now be answered. We then present select results of a large-N project comparing regional organizations with a view of what we have learned about ASEAN.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
