ConclusionThis paper has sought to

Conclusion
This paper has sought to shed light on why there is no consensus as to whether or not ASEAN is powerful. The answer lies in the different definitions of power employed by neo-realists and constructivists when analyzing events in Southeast Asia. If ASEAN’s actions are viewed through the neo-realist lens of power as coercion or dominance then the Association is not seen as powerful. If, however, ASEAN’s actions are viewed in constructivist terms as the ability to act, including the ability to generate norms that define and regulate the behavior of the Association and its members, then ASEAN can be thought of as relatively powerful.
These competing views of ASEAN also have an impact on how analysts see ASEAN’s future. Neo-realists will tend to concentrate on what they see as ASEAN’s attributes that will give in the ability to coerce and mould its own region as well as the wider East Asian Region. Constructivists, for their part, will emphasize the extent to which ASEAN continues through its social interaction to develop a set of norms and an identity that will allow it to act in a coherent manner on specific economic and security issues. This analysis of ASEAN ‘s power will not end the debate between neo-realists and constructivists but it may help to bring into focus what is fundamentally at issue in the debate as it unfolds.