¹ There are numerous definitions of international regimes. I use the term in Kratochwil and Ruggie's sense of “governing arrangements constructed by states to coordinate their expectations and organize aspects of their behavior in various issue areas.” See Kratochwil, Friedrich and Ruggie, John, “International Organization: A State of the Art on an Art of the State,” International Organization 40 (Autumn 1986), 759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Another standard definition speaks of “sets of implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures around which actors' expectations converge.” See Krasner, Stephen, “Structural Causes and Regime Consequences: Regimes as Intervening Variables,” International Organization 36 (Spring 1982), 186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

² It should be noted that this is not an exercise in a priori theorizing but rather is the more mundane process of testing existing theories against new cases and suggesting modifications that extend their range of explanation.

³ Keohane, Robert, “The Theory of Hegemonic Stability and Changes in International Economic Regimes, 1967–1977,” in Holsti, Ole, Siverson, Randolph, and George, Alexander, eds., Change in the International System (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1980), 136.Google Scholar

⁴ Keohane, Robert, After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984)Google Scholar, chap. 3. Oran Young also stresses “entrepre neurial leadership.” See Young, , “The Politics of International Regime Formation: Managing Natural Resources and the Environment,” International Organization 43 (Summer 1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵ Snidal, Duncan, “The Limits of Hegemonic Stability Theory,” International Organization 39 (Autumn 1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶ Gilpin, Robert, The Political Economy of International Relations (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987), 345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷ The combined GNP of just Britain, France, Germany, and Italy was 39 percent of U.S. GNP in 1950; OECD, Statistics of National Accounts 1950–1961 (Paris: OECD 1964).Google Scholar Another with Table 4.

⁸ Snidal (fn. 5), 584.

⁹ The notion of dependence used here draws on the distinctions elaborated by Caporaso, James, “Dependence, Dependency, and Power in the Global System: A Structural and Behavioral Analysis,” International Organization 32 (Winter 1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰ Stein, Arthur, “Coordination and Collaboration: Regimes in an Anarchic World,” International Organization 36 (Spring 1982), 301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹¹ E.g., see Doran, Charles, Modelshi, George, and Clark, Cal, eds., North/South Relations: Studies of Dependency Reversal (New York: Praeger, 1983).Google Scholar

¹² Gilpin, Robert, War and Change in World Politics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 193–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹³ Young (fn. 4), 365.

¹⁴ Krasner, Stephen, Structural Conflict: The Third World against Global Liberalism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985), 29.Google Scholar

¹⁵ The importance of values is explored by Ikenberry, G. John and Kupchan, Charles, “Socialization and Hegemonic Power,” International Organization 44 (Summer 1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁶ Ruggie, John, “International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order,” International Organization 36 (Spring 1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁷ The “mythic” character of hegemony is based on the Atlantic experience and cannot be presumed to apply more broadly. See Grunberg, Isabelle, “Exploring the ‘Myth’ of Hegemonic Stability,” International Organization 44 (Autumn 1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁸ Russett, Bruce, “U.S. Hegemony: Gone or Merely Diminished, and How Does It Matter,” in Inoguchi, Takashi and Okimoto, Daniel, eds., The Political Economy of Japan, vol. 2, The Changing International Context (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1988), 103.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Kurth, James “The Pacific Basis versus the Atlantic Alliance: Two Paradigms of International Relations,” Annals AAPSS 505 (September 1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁰ Krasner (fn. 14).

²¹ For an inside view of this period, see Rostow, Walt, The United States and the Regional Organization of Asia and the Pacific, 1965–1985 (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1986).Google Scholar

²² Japan, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japan's Official Development Assistance, 1989 (Tokyo: Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 1990), 18.Google Scholar

²³ Tokyo Business Today, October 1989, p. 58; Survey of Current Business, August 1989, p.86.

²⁴ Far Eastern Economic Review (January 24, 1991), 46; Los Angeles Times, February 5, 1990, p. D3.

²⁵ The most thorough study of the Pacific economy is Drysdale, Peter, International Economic Pluralism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988)Google Scholar, esp. chap. 3.

²⁶ For a review of perceptions, see Alagappa, Muthiah, “Soviet Policy in Southeast Asia: Towards Constructive Engagement,” Pacific Affairs 63 (Fall 1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar Another Soviet position under Gorbachev is well stated in Bogomolov, Aleksandr, “Problems of Cooperation in the Pacific Region,” International Affairs (Moscow) (January 1987).Google Scholar

²⁷ Gordon, Bernard, “Politics and Protectionism in the Pacific,” Adelphi Papers 228 (Spring 1988), 64.Google Scholar

²⁸ See Haber, Deborah, “The Death of Hegemony: Why ‘Pax Nipponica’ Is Impossible,” Asian Survey 30 (September 1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Saito, Shiro, Japan at the Summit (Londo.: Routledge, 1990), 54.Google Scholar

²⁹ Japan's “Report on Comprehensive National Security,” quoted in Drifte, Reinhard, Japan's Foreign Policy (London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1990), 29.Google Scholar

³⁰ Hollerman, Leon, Japan's Economic Strategy in Brazil (New York: Lexington Books, 1988)Google Scholar, chap. 1; Machado, Kit, “ASEAN State Industrial Policies and Japanese Regional Production Strategies: The Case of Malaysia's Motor Vehicle Industry,” in Clark, Cal and Chan, Steve, eds., The Evolving Pacific Basin in the Global Political Economy (Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner, 1992).Google Scholar Another Arase argues that this is a coordinated government program using private capital, aid, and trade flows. See Arase, , “U.S. and ASEAN Perceptions of Japan's Role in the Asian-Pacific Region,” in Kendall, Harry and Joewono, Clara, eds., Japan, ASEAN, and the United States (Berkeley: University of California, Institute of East Asian Studies, 1991), 268–75.Google Scholar Another also Phongpaichit, Passuk, The New Wave of Japanese Investment in ASEAN (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies), 51–59.Google Scholar

³¹ Japan External Trade Organization, 1986 JETRO White Paper on World and Japanese Overseas Direct Investment (Tokyo: JETRO, 1986), 13.Google Scholar

³² Pacifie Economie Outlook 1990–1991 (San Francisco: Pacifie Economic Cooperation Conference, 1990), Appendix, Table 1.

³³ Japan External Trade Organization, 1989 JETRO White Paper on World Direct Investments (Tokyo: JETRO, 1989), 3Google Scholar; Malaysian Industrial Development Authority (data provided to author by MIDA). Taiwan ranked first in 1990, according to the Far Eastern Economic Review (January 24, 1991), 24.

³⁴ Rostow (fn. 21), 8, 198.

³⁵ See Buszynski, Leszek, SEATO: The Failure of an Alliance Strategy (Singapore: Singapore University Press, 1983).Google Scholar

³⁶ Crone, Donald, The ASEAN States: Coping with Dependence (New York: Praeger, 1983).Google Scholar

³⁷ The best treatments are to be found in Soesastro, Hadi, “Institutional Aspects of Asian-Pacific Trade Cooperation,” in ASEAN and Pacific Economic Cooperation (Bangkok: ESCAP, 1983)Google Scholar; and Drysdale (fn. 25), chap. 8.

³⁸ See Drysdale, Peter, The Pacific Trade and Development Conference: A Brief History, Pacific Economic Papers no. 112 (Canberra: Australia-Japan Research Center, 1984).Google Scholar

³⁹ Reported in New Nation (Bangkok), January 3, 1980.

⁴⁰ See U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Asian and Pacific Affairs, Hearings, “The Pacific Community Idea,” 96th Cong., 1st sess., July 18, October 23, 31, 1979; and Peter Drysdale and Hugh Patrick for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Congressional Research Service, An Asian-Pacific Regional Economic Organization (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service, 1979).Google Scholar

⁴¹ “Report of the PECC I: Pacific Community Seminar, Canberra, September 15–18, 1980,” in Report of the Fifth Pacific Economic Cooperation Conference (Vancouver: Canadian Chamber of Commerce, 1986), 159.

⁴² Drysdale(fn. 25), 217.

⁴³ PECC operates as a series of task forces, each essentially a multicountry committee, as follows: tropical forestry cooperation; trade policy; minerals and energy; transport, telecommunications, and tourism; agricultural policy, trade, and development; fisheries; Pacific island nations; science and technology; Pacific economic outlook.

⁴⁴ Perhaps this is the source of the apparent frustration of one major participant, who argued that PECC should reduce the role of academics and focus on more “relevant” policy proposals.

⁴⁵ Interview with Burns, Arthur, Straits Times (Singapore), January 24, 1980.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Fairbanks, Ambassador, reported in Straits Times (Singapore), June 18, 1985.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ See Akrasanee, Narongchai et al., ASEAN and the Pacific Community (Jakarta: Center for Strategic and International Studies, 1981).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Leviste, Jose Jr, “A Pacific Summit of Developing Countries,” Report of the Fifth Pacific Economic Cooperation Conference (Vancouver: Canadian Chamber of Commerce, 1986), 52.Google Scholar Another was the head of the delegation from the Philippines.

⁴⁹ Prime Minister Mahathir, quoted in Soesastro, Hadi, “Institutional Aspects of Asian-Pacific Trade Cooperation,” in ASEAN and Pacific Economic Cooperation (Bangkok: ESCAP, 1982), 298.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Hitam, Musa, New Straits Times (Malaysia), August 16, 1985.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Quoted in New Straits Times (Malaysia), January 4, 1985.

⁵² Yue, Chia Siow, “ASEAN and the Pacific Community,” Southeast Asian Affairs 1981 (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1982), 47.Google Scholar

⁵³ Chun, President, reported in New Straits Times (Malaysia), August 3, 1982Google Scholar, and reactions, October 21, 1982.

⁵⁴ See Yoffie, David, Power and Protectionism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1983)Google Scholar, chaps. 2, 3.

⁵⁵ The most discussed contribution seems to be Kennedy, Paul, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers (New York: Vintage, 1987).Google Scholar Another validity of the notion is challenged by Russett, Bruce, “The Mysterious Case of Vanishing Hegemony; or Is Mark Twain Really Dead?” International Organization 39 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Nye, Joseph Jr, Bound to Lead (New York: Basic Books, 1990).Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Drobnick, Richard, “The International Economy at a Crossroads: American or Japanese Leadership? Multilateral or Preferential Trade Relations?” Chief Financial Officer (October 1987).Google Scholar

⁵⁷ U.S. Senate, Foreign Relations Committee, Hearings, “Pacific Basin Forum,” 101st Cong., 1st sess., September 21, 1989, 16–17.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Baker, Richard, Asian-Pacific Regionalism: New Structures, Old Impulses, Occasional Papers (Honolulu: East-West Center, 1985), 16–18.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Cranston in U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Hearing, “America's Economic and Security Interests in the Pacific Rim,” 101st Cong., 1st sess., February 14–16, 1989; Baker, , “A New Pacific Partnership: Framework for the Future” (Address, June 26, 1989).Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Reported in Straits Times (Singapore), April 30, 1986, and Tass (Moscow), April 25, 1986.

⁶¹ “OECD Looks East,” Far Eastern Economic Review, March 31, 1988, pp. 48–49; “Clubbing Together,” Far Eastern Economic Review, February 9, 1989, pp. 58–60.

⁶² Press reports, New Straits Times (Malaysia), May 27, 1989; author interviews.

⁶³ See “Privatization and Deregulation in ASEAN,” special issue of ASEAN Economic Bulletin 5 (March 1989)Google Scholar, ed. Ng Chee Yuen and Norbert Wagner.

⁶⁴ On the period of the 1970s, see Crone (fn. 36).

⁶⁵ See Crone, Donald, “The ASEAN Summit 1987: Searching for New Dynamism,” in Ayoob, Mohammed and Yuen, Ng Chee, eds., Southeast Asian Affairs 1988 (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Affairs, 1988).Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Reports in New Straits Times (Malaysia), July 29, 1985, June 1, 1986; and Star (Malaysia), October 8, 1987.

⁶⁷ The former minister, Mochtar, was replaced by Ali Alatas because of his inability to raise Indonesia's foreign policy profile sufficiently (author interview). See Alatas's interview in Straits Times (Singapore), September 3, 1988.

⁶⁸ See, e.g., Mulroney, Brian, “Trade Outlook: Globalization or Regionalization,” Singapore Lecture (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1990).Google Scholar

⁶⁹ APEC, Joint Ministerial Press Conference, Singapore, July 31, 1990.

⁷⁰ See the major government report: Garnaut, Ross, Australia and the Northeast Asian Ascendancy (Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1989)Google Scholar; Higgott, Richard, The World Economic Order and the Trade Crisis (Canberra: Australian Institute of International Affairs, 1987).Google Scholar

⁷¹ Australian, November 9, 1989.

⁷² See, e.g., Straits Times (Singapore), August 10, 1989; Far Eastern Economic Review, November 5, 1989; Washington Post, August 16, 1989.

⁷³ speech, Baker's, “ASEAN: Challenges and Opportunities,” Department of State Current Policy No. 1190 (July 6, 1989)Google Scholar; Solomon, Richard, reported in Straits Times (Singapore), September 23, 1989.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ A meeting of senior officials. Straits Times, February 14, 1990; author interviews, Kuala Lumpur.

⁷⁵ The composition of this group was contrasted favorably with that of APEC in local reports: New Straits Times (Malaysia), June 2, June 4, December 11, 1990; author interviews, Kuala Lumpur, June 1991, March 1991.

⁷⁶ Author interviews, Kuala Lumpur, June 1991.

⁷⁷ Despite numerous expressions of interest in joining, the organization is to be held at this size for the next several years. For a discussion of the formation of APEC, see Crone, Donald, “The Politics of Emerging Pacific Cooperation,” Pacific Affairs 65 (Summer 1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷⁸ E.g., Far Eastern Economic Review, July 20, 1989, p. 10: “Our message to Australia is a storm warning … we cannot accept a forum of this kind.” The Economist sneered, “Puffery in the Pacific,” November 11, 1989, p. 15.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Kng, Chng Meng, “ASEAN's Institutional Structure and Economic Cooperation,” ASEAN Economic Bulletin 6 (March 1990), 273.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ An ASEAN location was always most likely, as a concession from the industrial countries to Southern concerns about power disparities. Singapore, Jakarta, and Bangkok had each been proposed, with vocal support from PECC, ASEAN, and the Thai government, respectively. The Singapore location will further cement ties with PECC. Author interviews, Singapore, March 1992.

⁸¹ The central voice of PECC consistently opposed any level of bureaucracy, even a secretariat.

⁸² Quote from Straits Times (Singapore), August 1, 1990.

⁸³ The program was offered by Secretary Baker at the Singapore APEC II. Straits Times (Singapore), August 1, 1990.Google Scholar Another will also participate.

⁸⁴ Several ASEAN members feared that China would become the central focus of APEC if admitted early, APEC, second ministerial meeting, Joint Statement (Singapore, July 31, 1990)Google Scholar; author interviews, Bangkok and Kuala Lumpur, June 1991; Singapore, May 1991.