Abstract

Since 2010, ASEAN has made efforts to increase its coherence and visibility as an actor in regional infrastructure development, under the umbrella term of connectivity. Its most recent strategy, 2016’s Master Plan on ASEAN Connectivity 2025, is notable for its more focused agenda as well as a tableau of institutional innovations, including new policy coordination mechanisms and a project preparation pipeline. Nonetheless, ASEAN struggles to maintain coherence in the implementation of its connectivity agenda, both internally as well as towards its dialogue partners. Utilizing the concepts of centrality and hedging as parts of a unified theoretical framework, this paper analyzes ASEAN’s efforts to mobilize and manage external resources in connectivity. ASEAN’s resource dependence and its failure to establish institutional centrality creates issues at the regional and the national levels. Regionally, ASEAN’s lack of centrality and its perpetuation of ASEAN+1 relations have contributed to the emergence of contesting agendas and institutional frameworks by external actors. Nationally, the hedging strategies of ASEAN member states are at odds with the regional vision, highlighting a lack of intra-ASEAN coherence. The perpetuation of contesting institutional frameworks by external actors at the national level solidifies existing incoherence in ASEAN’s connectivity governance, further undermining its centrality. ASEAN’s efforts to assert centrality and execute a hedging strategy in connectivity are emblematic of its attempts to extend its reach into new policy areas, but also of its persistent governance constraints.

摘要

自 2010 年以来，东盟在互联互通的总称下，努力提高其作为区域基础设施发展参与者的一致性和知名度。其最近的战略，即 2016 年的 2025 年东盟互联互通总体规划，以其更加集中的议程和一系列制度创新而著称，包括新的政策协调机制和项目准备渠道。尽管如此，东盟仍在努力保持其内部和对话伙伴在实施其互联互通议程方面的一致性。本文将中心性和对冲概念作为统一理论框架的一部分，分析了东盟在互联互通中动员和管理外部资源的努力。东盟的资源依赖及其未能建立机构中心地位在地区和国家层面造成了问题。在区域上，东盟缺乏中心地位及其对东盟+1 关系的长期存在，导致外部行为者出现竞争议程和体制框架。在国内，东盟成员国的对冲战略与地区愿景不一致，凸显东盟内部缺乏一致性。外部行为者在国家层面上对制度框架的长期竞争加剧了东盟互联互通治理中现有的不连贯性，进一步削弱了其中心地位。东盟在互联互通中维护中心地位和执行对冲战略的努力象征着其试图将其影响力扩展到新的政策领域，