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.

摘要

东盟的重要性问题是一个重要的问题。Stubbs认为使用不同的标准来评估组织的观点是正确的。本文批判性地讨论了Stubbs方法的优点及其发现。我们的回应认为，关于东盟意义的二元讨论应该由更具生产力和进步性的科学探究路线代替，因为这些问题几乎从来没有产生过抛弃一种理论所需要的淘汰证据。更有趣的研究发生在范式之内。在制度主义的情况下，这是例如国际制度设计的研究计划。在这里，最近可以获得更好的数据，现在可以回答引发东盟辩论的一些问题。