Do stated goals matter? : regional institutions in East Asia and the dynamic of unstated goals

Abstract

Do stated goals matter for the agents of regional institutions in East Asia? This \n \n \n \nquestion arises from an empirical puzzle described by the endurance of extant institutions and instances of institutional creation despite a poor record of goal \n \n \n \naccomplishment in the region. This paper surveys the stated goals of East Asian \n \n \n \ninstitutions, assesses the quality of these goals in terms of their conceptualization and means-ends relationships, examines the record of goal accomplishment and employs the insights of sociological institutionalism to argue that regional multilateral \n \n \n \ninstitutions in East Asia, in varying degrees, approximate to “institutionalized organizations” which depend less on the efficient fulfillment of stated ends and more \n \n \n \non the adoption of the rational myths of their environment for legitimacy and survival. \n \n \n \nBesides the existence of ambiguous goals, a rich historical experience of institutional \n \n \n \nisomorphism and the evidence of “decoupling”, these institutions are not rational \n \n \n \norganizations—despite their claims to “concrete actions” and “efficiency” in \n \n \n \norganizational discourse—because of the absence of discrete Weberian bureaucracies, \n \n \n \nwhich, in turn, makes them vicariously live off the organizational apparatus of \n \n \n \nnational bureaucracies. The absence of a Weberian bureaucracy, then, forms the context in which national political and bureaucratic elites pursue a range of ‘unstated goals’ or those latent and unacknowledged goals whose formal recognition in stated organizational discourse would cause “organizational stress”. The paper hypothesizes \n \n \n \nthat national elites use regional institutions for three unstated goals: a) for domestic power consolidation, b) gaining legitimacy via association with international \n \n \n \nnormative structures and discourses, and c) for pursuing a range of realpolitik \n \n \n \npractices that emerge from their socialization in realpolitik ideology.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 49 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.