Regionalism in Theoretical Perspective

 

IN SUM

 

Just as in IR, issues need to be looked at from different levels of analysis, so we find this applicable for analysing regionalism in a theoretical perspective.

 

In reading through Andrew Hurrell’s very interesting yet occasionally-tedious essay, you could be forgiven for thinking that regionalism is a myopic area of IR. What one only needs to understand is the “oneness” that is inherent not only in regional initiatives, but also the slow loss of sovereignty that necessarily comes with forming regional blocs.

 

According to the conclusion, there are three important areas that Hurrel argues in his essay. He argues that:

 

1.       debates over the revival of regionalism area deeply connected with the broader theoretical debates that have dominated IR (in this case: Neo-Realism; Neo-functionalism; Constructivism)

2.       theories of regional integration that have dominated the analysis of the EC provide only partial and incomplete guide to understanding contemporary regionalism.

3.       There exists an analysis of three separate clusters of theories on three levels of analysis: the SYSTEMIC; the REGIONAL; the DOMESTIC. Yet again, a great deal depends on how these levels are to be related with each other.

 

IN the FIRST place, theorist can claim that primacy should be given to ONE level of analysis.

è NEOREALISTS: argue for primacy of int’l political system

è INSTITUTIONALISTs: focuses on intra-regional interactions, downplaying the importance of both DOMESTIC-LEVEL factors, and the GEOPOLITICAL CONTEXT.

 

DIFFICULTIES inherent in these claims are that:

I)                   far from clear whether even the main lines of any historical example of regionalism can be plausibly understood by focusing on single level of analysis;

II)                 ii) assumptions about other levels of analysis are often sneaked in then modified to explain anomalies in the theory

 

The SECOND path, therefore, is to explore the nature of the interaction between the different logics that we see at work in contemporary regionalism.

 

Thus, CONSTRUCTIVISM: provides theoretically rich and promising way of conceptualizing the interaction between material incentives…, identity and interests of the actors

 

LIBERAL THEORISTS: increasingly seeking to link institutionalist ideas about interstate co-operation with domestically-rooted theories of preference formation(?)

 

THIRDLY, one can adopt a phased or “stage-theory” approach to understanding regionalism. Historically, it is satisfying though not theoretically satisfying (as Hurrell argues).

 

Might be argued that “early phases of regional co-operation may be result of the existence of a common enemy or powerful hegemonic power. Having been thrown together, different sets of logic begin to develop; the FUNCTIONALIST or problem-solving logic stressed by institutionalists; or the logic of the community highlighted by CONSTRUCTIVISTS.”

 

This kind of approach, Hurrell argues, has a great deal to offer in sharpening our understanding of the moves towards economic integration in the case of NAFTA ; or of the evolving pattern of cooperation within ASEAN; or of the growth of subregional co-operation in South America.

 

 

1.       VARIETIES OF REGIONALISM

i.                     both region and regionalism are ambiguous terms.

ii.                   Regionalism was often analysed in terms of degree of social cohesiveness (ethnicity; race; language; religion; culture; history; consciousness)

 

REGIONALISATION

n       refers to the growth of societal integration within a region and to the often undirected processes of social & economic interaction

n       NOT based on the conscious policy of states or groups of states

n       Patterns of regionalisation do not necessarily coincide with the borders of states

 

REGIONAL AWARENESS & IDENTITY

n       As with nations, so regions can be seen as imagined communities which rest on mental maps whose lines highlight some features whilst ignoring others

 

REGIONAL INTERSTATE CO-OPERATION

n       Unlike some brands of regional integration, such cooperative measures are clearly statist, designed to protect 1 enhance the role of the state and power of govt.

 

 

STATE-PROMOTED REGIONAL INTEGRATION

n       AN important sub-category of regional cooperation concerns regional economic integration.

n       REGIONAL ECNC INTEGRATION:

 

I) involves specific policy decisions by govts designed to reduce or remove barriers to mutual exchange of goods, services, capital, and people;

 

II) Key words: SCOPE; DEPTH; INSTITUTIONALISATION; CENTRALIZATION

 

DOMINATED BY THE EUROPEAN “MODEL”, REGIONALISM IS ALL TOO OFTEN SIMPLY EQUATED WITH REGIONAL ECONOMIC INTEGRATION, EVEN THOUGH THIS IS ONLY ONE ASPECT OF A MORE GENERAL PHENOMENON

 

EXPLAINING REGIONALISM IN WORLD POLITICS

 

1.       NEOREALISM

According to Hurrell, the strongly EUROCENTRIC character of the work of regionalism has prompted analysts to seek another alternative to the dynamics of regionalism – hence the need to turn to systemic theories that buttress the argument of neorealism.

 

He argues that TWO sets of systemic or structural theories are especially significant: the

I)                   NEOREALIST theory ( stresses the constraints of the anarchical international system & importance of power-political  competition) vs

II)                 STRUCTURAL INDEPENDENCE & GLOBALISATION ( emphasizes  the changing character of the intl system & the impact of economic & technological change)

 

n       In one sense, regionalism is anathema to neorealism, because if states live in a state of anarchy, how can they possibly be cooperating?

n       In another sense, neorealism can paradoxically tell us a lot about regionalism:

 

>> Politics of regionalism is, according to Hurrell, a bit like formation of alliance system

 

>> Regionalism is understood by looking at region from outside in and by analysing the place of the region in the broader context of int’l system

 

>> Regional  groupings form in response to external challenges, and there is no essential difference between ecnc & political regionalism

 

It is important to note the impact of the Cold War  in regional group formation:

n       cf conditions of Marshall Aid led to formation of OEEC

n       integration was spurred by direct US encouragement & pressure

n       European integration  was embedded within a transatlantic security framework (NATO)

 

> ECONOMIC REGIONALISM:            strategy in the game of neo-mercantilist competition ; can also be deployed as a bargaining chip in the negotiations that determine the shape of the int’l ecnc order è CF: NAFTA as ‘stick’ to increase pressure on Japan to open its markets; APEC as means of applying pressure on the EU in the final stages of the negotiations on the UR (GATT).

 

REGIONALISM…can also be seen as panacea for smaller countries when they find themselves weak in the face of strong countries. – CF Latin America (MERCOSUR); AFRICA (ECOWAS; COMESA; SADC; etc..)

 

i.                     Hegemony (existence of hegemon within a region may undermine efforts to construct inclusive regional arrangements involving all or most of the states within a region)

à FOUR WAYS IN WHICH HEGEMONY MAY ACT AS POWERFUL STIMULUS TO REGIONALISM:

a.       FIRST, sub-regional groupings often develop as a response to the existence of an actual or hegemonic power.  Formation is a means by which to improve BOP vis-à-vis locally dominant state (CF: ASEAN > Vietnam; GCC > Iran; SADC > South Africa; MERCOSUR > USA

 

b.       SECOND, regionalism can emerge as an attempt to restrict the free exercise of hegemonic power thru creation of REGIONAL INSTITUTIONS. (cf: specific project of regional integration in EU arose precisely as preferred means of dealing with GY (armament + ecnc rehabilitation by tying it into integrated network);

 

 

c.       THIRDLY, tendency of weaker states to seek regional accommodation with local hegemon either in the hope of receiving special rewards (BANDWAGONING)

d.       FOURTHLY, hegemon itself may seek to actively become involved in the creation / construction of REGIONAL INSTITUTIONS. Alternatively declining hegemony may compel hegemon towards the creation of COMMON INSTITUTIONS to pursue its interests, to share burdens; to solve probs; and to generate int’l support & legitimacy for its policies

 

2.       STRUCTURAL INTERDEPENDENCE & GLOBALISATION

FOUR WAYS in which GLOBALISATION MAY ACT AS STIMULUS TO REGIONALISM:

a.       FIRST, ever-deepening integration creates probs that demand collective management & regulation that bite ever more deeply into the domestic affairs & sovereignty. THEREFORE, politically more viable to create institutions at REGIONAL rather than GLOBAL level.

 

b.       SECOND, global character of many issues often exaggerated. In fact, effects (say of refugees) are most likely to be felt WITHIN particular regions. Consequently, at the regional level, states will feel compelled to pull in resources and act as it directly affects them.

 

 

c.       THIRDLY, regionalism is the most VIABLE LEVEL at which to reconcile INTEGRATIVE MARKET with TECHNOLOGICAL PRESSURES towards globalisation & integration, fission &c fragmentation.

 

i.                     Liberal VIEW

è they recognise the strains involved but see process of reconciliation as necessary adjustment to new technological opportunities which will in the long run enhance global welfare.

 

ii.                   Radical Theorists VIEW

è reduction in role of the state, and its replacement by politically weak int’l institutions at BOTH regional & global levels have important t implications for the balance of wealth & power among social groups within & across regions.  POLITICS OF REGIONALISM ARE THEREFORE CENTRALLY ABOUT ISSUES OF INEQUALITY & REDISTRIBUTION

 

d. FOURTHLY, Economic regionalisation may be driven by TNCs, and the politics of regional integration can be understood in terms of A CONVERGENCE OF INTERESTS BETWEEN STATE ELITES & FIRMS IN RESPONSE TO CHANGES IN THE INT’l ECONOMIC STRUCTURE.

 

3.       REGIONALISM & INTERDEPENDENCE

i.                     Neofunctionalist VIEW

ii.                   Constructivist VIEW

 

4.       REGIONALISM & STATE COHERENCE

5.       REGIME-TYPE & DEMOCRATISATION

6.       CONVERGENCE THEORIES