1. ASSESSING PROF. ROSEMARY FOOT’S WORKING PAPER “IDENTITY POLITICS AND THE US REBALANCE TO ASIA: AMERICAN AND NORTHEAST ASIAN PERSPECTIVES” PPT BY VEE CHANSA-NGAVEJ Identities and Interests: The Problem of Endogeneity in Constructivist Approach

2. Overview of Draft Working Paper Rosemary Foot employs Constructivist approach to analyze different responses to US rebalance to Asia IV: state identities DV: policy responses Cases: NE Asia states Foot’s hypothesis: “international identities” can explain different policy responses Country“International Identity”Policy USResident Pacific Power / Benign Hegemon Regional Stabilizer! JapanPacifist / AntimilitaristFull alignment with US South KoreaMiddle Power“Balancer” between US-China TaiwanWe’re “Taiwanese”, mind you…but do continue the status quo with mainland China please…!!) “Informal alliance” with US

3. Flaws of the Paper Two major flaws: 1. Assumption that identities were somehow the cause of policies (as opposed to the consequence!)  Endogeneity…!! Did “identities” really shape state policies? Or were those policies dictated by material considerations (i.e. South China Sea and North Korea issue / rise of China as regional military hegemon and economic power)  Omitted variable bias: State interests were not considered!! 2. Ambiguous usage of “international identity”  Esp. in Taiwan’s case: “Taiwanese” identity is national / ethnic as opposed to US / Japan / S. Korea identities which are constructed in terms of power relations

4. Constructive Criticism for Constructivism Two Key Methods 1. Include the omitted variable: Embed the cases within their geopolitical context – Analyze interests!  Foot actually does this, but then reverts her analysis back to the concept of “identities”  Consider these quotes from her work…  “At the 2010 ARF meeting, Secretary Clinton for the first time indicated that the United States had a national interest in peaceful resolution of the South China Sea issue, a policy change that the Chinese later linked to the rebalance. They deemed that change in US policy to be highly significant in its geostrategic implications.”

5. Shooting Herself in the Foot? “Over the last two decades or so, the ROK has had a desire consciously to be seen as having adopted a middle-power strategy, a strategy that comes directly from a strategic culture that has long-depicted Korea as a ‘shrimp among whales,’ and thus for geopolitical reasons particularly vulnerable to great power rivalry.” “Taipei’s indirect relationship with the rebalance satisfies an immediate Taiwanese and US desire for a form of independence that does not invite a coercive PRC response.” Despite providing these evidences throughout the work, Foot somehow maintains that identities are the reason for policy shifts!

6. Constructive Criticism for Constructivism 2. Improve Research Design / Methodology – Attempt to show that ideas are exogenous and are in fact causally significant.  Increase observations (ASEAN responses to US rebalance?)  Provide counterfactual evidence (historical cases with similar contexts such as Eastern European states’ responses towards NATO after the end of the Cold War?) Still, endogeneity is a very common and fundamental problem for Constructivism  Do interests shape state policies and identities? Or do identities causally impact policies and interests? Or do they mutually sustain one another in a symbiotic synergy?

7. The Chicken or the Egg? Endogeneity: It’s in fact the classic Chicken and Egg Problem! (Actually, in 2010 a British scientific study discovered a protein substance found only in chicken ovaries that can produce egg shells, thereby concluding that the chicken came first!)

8. Thank you!