Formed in 1967, ASEAN is one of the more successful examples of regionalism. It has come a long way since then in forging sub-regional and supra regional linkages. The rise of Southeast Asian regionalism can be seen as a response to the larger changes occurring at the global level like the politico-economic integration of Western Europe into the ‘European Union’, and the economic integration of North America and South America into NAFTA and MERCUSOR respectively. ASEAN also reveals the powerful forces working within the region that are catalyzing regionalism. Whatever be the case, globalization is giving regional organizations a stronger rationale.

     The realization of ASEAN + 3 is an achievement at the supra-regional level. Taking the cue from an initial overture from Japan in 1997 for an ASEAN-Japan Summit, the countries of ASEAN responded by suggesting a summit involving the other two major constituents of Northeast Asia, namely China and North Korea. The 1998 meeting in Hanoi saw an agreement to institutionalize what came to be known as the ‘ASEAN + 3’ Summit, something that has occurred every year since then with an increasing degree of formality and effectiveness. ASEAN + 3 seeks to improve the leveraging capacity of this group in international forums, especially those dealing with Southeast Asian issues like APEC; apart from bettering relations, particularly economic, by providing greater accessibility to markets.

     At the sub-regional level, three economic zones have been created within the broader framework of ASEAN: (1) the Indonesia-Malaysia-Singapore Growth Triangle (IMS-GT) popularly known as Southern Growth Triangle; (2) the Indonesia-Malaysia-Thailand Growth Triangle (IMT-GT) also known as the Northern Growth Triangle; and (3) the East ASEAN Growth Area (EAGA) better known as Eastern Growth Triangle, comprising Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines and Brunei.

     In South Asia, the concept of sub-regional cooperation through SAGQ (South Asian Growth Quadrangle) was explored in December 1996 when the governments of four geographically contiguous nations, India, Bangladesh, Nepal and Bhutan met to discuss harnessing the complementarities among them in a manner that could mutually benefit all. Taking a cue from one such effort, the Greater Mekong sub-regional grouping, SAGQ sought to transcend the legacies of political history in a bid to benefit from the ‘economics of neighbourhood’.

     SAGQ can become one of the fastest growing regions in the world with ample investment opportunities. Areas that can be exploited include textiles, leather, rubber, jute, fisheries, tea, tourism, hydel power, mineral based industries, coal, oil and gas, just to list a few. SAGQ can enhance the global competitiveness of the participating countries by sharpening their competitive edge through synergies existing between them. Improved economic cooperation can lead to increased volumes of trade by providing better access to markets within the region and beyond. This, in turn, will ensure economies of scale from large-scale production and stimulate the creation of common infrastructure. The success of SAGQ lies in developing integrated production networks and joint export activities. It facilitates specialization on the basis of the comparative advantage a country enjoys in terms of its resource base and labour skills. SAGQ is capable of substantially increasing the GDP of the participating countries, since it possesses a huge middle-class population of approximately 250 million people. A small addition of $4 to the income of these 250 million people will result in a $1 billion wealth creation in the middle class alone apart from its ‘trickle–down’ effect. The potential is immense.

     Despite the numerous benefits listed above, the SAGQ initiative is still at the conceptual level and no concrete action has occurred at the ground level. There are two basic reasons for this:

• Perceived negative impact of SAGQ on the SAARC process. Contrary to popular beliefs, an effective way of revitalizing regional cooperation is to work out new avenues of cooperation at the sub-regional level. SAARC is bound to gain, as regional cooperation will then be placed on the ‘dual track’ of regionalism and sub-regionalism. 

• India Factor. There are apprehensions that India might appropriate a major portion of the benefits accruing from SAGQ. This demand for distributional parity is slowing down the process of sub regionalism in South Asia.

     Despite these shortcomings, SAGQ is not a zero sum game but a win-win exercise, with all the participants standing to gain. Hence its smooth functioning is in the best interests of all.