Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:00:34.406Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Explaining the resurgence of regionalism in world politics*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2009

Andrew Hurrell
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The past decade has witnessed a resurgence of regionalism in world politics. Old regionalist organizations have been revived, new organizations formed, and regionalism and the call for strengthened regionalist arrangements have been central to many of the debates about the nature of the post-Cold War international order. The number, scope and diversity of regionalist schemes have grown significantly since the last major ‘regionalist wave’ in the 1960s. Writing towards the end of this earlier regionalist wave, Joseph Nye could point to two major classes of regionalist activity: on the one hand, micro-economic organizations involving formal economic integration and characterized by formal institutional structures; and on the other, macro-regional political organizations concerned with controlling conflict. Today, in the political field, regional dinosaurs such as the Organization of African Unity (OAU) and the Organization of American States (OAS) have re-emerged. They have been joined both by a large number of aspiring micro-regional bodies (such as the Visegrad Pact and the Pentagonale in central Europe; the Arab Maghreb Union (AMU) and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) in the Middle East; ECOWAS and possibly a revived Southern African Development Community (SADC, formerly SADCC) led by post-apartheid South Africa in Africa), and by loosely institutionalized meso-regional security groupings such as the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE, now OSCE) and more recently the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF). In the economic field, micro-regional schemes for economic cooperation or integration (such as the Southern Cone Common Market, Mercosur, the Andean Pact, the Central American Common Market (CACM) and CARICOM in the Americas; the attempts to expand economic integration within ASEAN; and the proliferation of free trade areas throughout the developing world) stand together with arguments for macro-economic or ‘bloc regionalism’ built around the triad of an expanded European Union (EU), the North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA) and some further development of Asia-Pacific regionalism. The relationship between these regional schemes and between regional and broader global initiatives is central to the politics of contemporary regionalism.

Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 21 , Issue 4 , October 1995 , pp. 331 - 358
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For many analysts trends towards regionalism are well established. Dominick Salvatore, for example, believes that ‘the world has already and probably irreversibly moved into an international trade order characterized by three major trading blocs’: Salvatore, Dominick, ‘Protectionism and World Welfare: Introduction’, in Salvatore, (ed.), Protectionism and World Welfare (Cambridge: CUP, 1993), p. 10CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Peter Drucker believes that the demands of what he calls the ‘knowledge economy’ ‘makes regionalism both inevitable and irreversible’: Drucker, Peter F., Post-Capitalist Society (London: Butterworth Heinemann, 1993), p. 137Google Scholar. Aaron Friedberg argues that ‘recent rhetoric notwithstanding, the dominant trend in world politics today is towards regionalization rather than globalization, toward fragmentation rather than unification’: Friedberg, Aaron L., ‘Ripe for Rivalry. Prospects for Peace in a Multipolar Asia’, International Security, 18, 3 (Winter 1993/1994), p. 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Rostow, W. W., ‘The Coming Age of Regionalism’, Encounter, 74, 5 (June 1990)Google Scholar; Rosecrance, Richard, ‘Regionalism and the Post-Cold War Era’, International Journal, 46 (Summer 1991)Google Scholar; and Ohmae, Kenichi, ‘The Rise of the Region State’, Foreign Affairs (Spring 1991)Google Scholar.

2 For quantitative data on increased involvement in regional organizations in the 1980s see Taylor, Paul, International Organization in the Modern World. The Regional and Global Process (London: Pinter, 1993), pp. 24–8Google Scholar.

3 Nye, Joseph S., Peace in Parts: Integration and Conflict in Regional Organizations (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1971)Google Scholar.

4 The term ‘new regionalism’ has been used by several writers including Palmer, Norman D., The New Regionalism in Asia and the Pacific (Lexington: Lexington Books, 1991)Google Scholar; and Hettne, Bjorn, ‘Neo-Mercantilism: The Pursuit of Regionness’, Cooperation and Conflict, 28, 3 (September 1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Most surveys tend to focus overwhelmingly on Europe, e.g. Webb, Carole, ‘Theoretical Perspectives and Problems’, in Wallace, Helen, Wallace, William and Webb, Carole (eds.), Policy-making in the European Community (Chichester: Wiley, 2nd edn, 1983)Google Scholar; and more recently Hix, Simon, ‘Approaches to the Study of the EC: The Challenge to Comparative Polities’, West European Politics, 17, 1 (January 1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a broader approach see Archer, Clive, International Organizations (London: Routledge, 2nd edn, 1992), especially chapter 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 See, e.g., Russett, Bruce M., ‘International Regimes and the Study of Regions’, International Studies Quarterly, 13, 4 (Dec. 1969)Google Scholar; Cantori, Louis J. and Spiegel, Steven L. (eds.), The International Politics of Regions: A Comparative Approach (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1970)Google Scholar; Thompson, William, ‘The Regional Subsystem: A Conceptual Explication and a Propositional Inventory’, International Studies Quarterly, 17, 1 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Vayrynen, Raimo, ‘Regional Conflict Formations: An Intractable Problem of International Relations’, Journal of Peace Research, 21, 4 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 A good example is Nye, Joseph S. (ed.), International Regionalism: Readings (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1968)Google Scholar.

8 See Russett, Bruce, International Regions and the International System (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1967)Google Scholar.

9 For a still very relevant discussion of the problems of classifying regional systems see Grigg, David, ‘The Logic of Regional Systems’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 55 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 Hormats, Robert D., ‘Making Regionalism Safe’, Foreign Affairs (March/April 1994), p. 98Google Scholar.

11 Contrast with Christopher Bliss's definition of an economic bloc: ‘[Yet] coordination of policy, whether with regard to trade or exchange rates, is at the heart of the idea’. Bliss, Christopher, Economic Theory and Policy for Trading Blocks (Manchester: Manchester U.P., 1994), p. 14Google Scholar.

12 For a fascinating study of this phenomenon see Lowenthal, Abraham F. and Burgess, Katrina (eds.), The California-Mexico Connection (Stanford: Stanford UP., 1993)Google Scholar.

13 Emanuel Adler, ‘Imagined (Security) Communities’, paper presented at 1994 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, New York, 1–4 September 1994. See also Smith, Anthony, ‘National Identity and the Idea of European Unity’, International Affairs, 68 1 (January 1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Wallace, William, The Transformation of Western Europe (London: Pinter for RIIA, 1990), chapter 2Google Scholar.

14 For an example of these perspectives see Neumann, Iver B. and Welsh, Jennifer, ‘The other in European self-definition: an addendum to the literature on international society’, Review of International Studies, 17, 4 (October 1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 Young, Oran, International Cooperation. Building Regimes for Natural Resources and the Environment (Ithaca: Cornell UP., 1989), p. 25Google Scholar.

16 Krasner, Stephen D., ‘Structural Causes and Regime Consequences: Regimes as Intervening Variables’, in Krasner, (ed.), International Regimes (Ithaca: Cornell U.R, 1983), p. 1Google Scholar.

17 Although designed to reinforce state power, there may still be an important difference between intention and outcome. The mushrooming of cooperative arrangements may set in motion changes that ultimately tie down states in a process of ‘institutional enmeshment’ that alters the dynamics of regional politics. See Zacher, Mark W., ‘The Decaying Pillars of the Westphalian Temple: Implications for Order and Governance’, in Rosenau, James N. and Czempiel, Ernst-Otto (eds.), Governance without Government: Order and Change in World Politics (Cambridge: CUP, 1992)Google Scholar.

18 One of the most important classic works is Balassa, Bela, The Theory of Economic Integration (London: Allen and Unwin, 1961)Google Scholar. For an up-to-date analysis of the evolving process of European integration see Tsoukalis, Loukas, The New European Economy. The Politics and Economics of Integration (Oxford: OUP, 2nd edn, 1993)Google Scholar.

19 Smith, Peter H., ‘Introduction—The Politics of Integration: Concepts and Themes’, in Smith, Peter H. (ed.), The Challenge of Integration. Europe and the Americas (New Brunswick: Transaction, 1992), p. 5Google Scholar.

20 Taylor, International Organization in the Modern World, especially chapter 4.

21 Ruggie, John, for example, describes the EC as a ‘multiperspectival polity’ ‘in which the process of unbundling territoriality has gone further than anywhere else’: ‘Territoriality and beyond: problematizing modernity in international relations’, International Organization, 47, 1 (Winter 1993), pp. 171–2Google Scholar. The notion of ‘neo-medievalism’ (and the parallel idea of a ‘Grotian moment’) was developed by Bull, Hedley, The Anarchical Society (London: Macmillan, 1977), pp. 264–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 The useful distinction between ‘outside-in’ and ‘inside-out’ approaches to regionalism has been developed by Neumann, Iver B., ‘A Region-Building Approach to Northern Europe’, Review of International Studies, 20, 1 (January 1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Cloke, Paul, Philo, Chris and Sadler, David (eds.), Approaching Human Geography: An Introduction to Contemporary Theoretical Debates (London: Paul Chapman Publishers, 1991), pp. 8–13Google Scholar.

23 The most influential statement of the structural realist position has been Waltz, Kenneth, Theory of International Politics (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1979)Google Scholar.

24 See, in particular, Walt, Stephen M., The Origins of Alliances (Ithaca: Cornell U.P., 1987)Google Scholar.

25 For a strong restatement of the realist position see Mearsheimer, John, ‘Back to the Future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War’, International Organization, 15 (Summer 1990)Google Scholar.

26 On the multiple uses of the idea and institutions of Europe see Ash, Timothy Garton, In Europe's Name. Germany and the Divided Continent (London: Vintage, 1994)Google Scholar.

27 On traditional realist accounts in which states will always be fearful of unequal power, bandwagoning will be an exception. However, if, as Stephen Walt argues, states seek to balance threats rather than simply power, and if factors such as ideological commonality and institutionalization play a role, then accommodation with the hegemon becomes a less anomalous policy. For Walt's modification of traditional balance-of-power logic, see The Origins of Alliances, especially chapter 1. For a restatement of the view that states will always balance unequal power see Waltz, Kenneth, ‘The Emerging Structure of International Polities’, International Security, 18, 2 (Fall 1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 This argument has recently been made in relation to the Asia-Pacific region by Crone, Donald, ‘Does Hegemony Matter? The Reorganization of the Pacific Political Economy’, World Politics 45, 4 (July 1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In relation to Latin America see Hurrell, Andrew, ‘Latin America and the New World Order: A Regional Bloc in the Americas?’, International Affairs, 68, 1 (January 1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 Thus in Power and Interdependence, which largely set the agenda for this scholarship, Keohane and Nye ‘sought to integrate realism and liberalism using a conception of interdependence which focused on bargaining’ (my emphasis). Keohane, Robert O. and Nye, Joseph S., Power and Interdependence, 2nd edn, (Glenview: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1989), p. 251Google Scholar.

30 O'Brien, Richard, Global Financial Integration: The End of Geography (London: Pinter for RIIA, 1992)Google Scholar; Ohmae, Kenichi, The Borderless World (London: Fontana, 1991)Google Scholar. For a healthy dose of scepticism see Wade, Robert, ‘Globalization and Its Limits: The Continuing Economic Importance of Nations and Regions’, in Berger, Suzanne and Dore, Ronald (eds.), Convergence or Diversity? National Models of Production and Distribution in a Global Economy (Ithaca: Cornell U.R, forthcoming)Google Scholar.

31 See Keohane, and Nye, , Power and Interdependence, pp. 247–51Google Scholar; and Haas, Ernst, The Obsolescence of Regional Integration Theory (Berkeley: Institute of International Studies, 1975)Google Scholar.

32 See Wyatt-Walter, Andrew, ‘Regionalization, Globalization and World Economic Order’, in Fawcett, and Hurrell, (eds.), Regionalism in World PoliticsGoogle Scholar.

33 See, for example, ‘Papers from the International Conference on the NAFTA, Mexico City, March 1993’, Review of Radical Political Economics, 25, 4 (December 1993)Google Scholar. For arguments linking regionalism to ‘a crisis of global economic order’, see Gill, Stephen, ‘Restructuring Global Politics: Trilateral Relations and World Order “After” the Cold War’ (York University, CISS Working Paper, September 1992)Google Scholar.

34 On the importance of changes in the world economy for understanding the 1992 process in Europe see Sandholtz, Wayne and Zysman, John, ‘1992: Recasting the European Bargain’, World Politics, 42, 1 (October 1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Sharp, Margaret, ‘Technology and the Dynamics of Integration’, in Wallace, William (ed.), The Dynamics of European Integration (London: Pinter for RIIA, 1990)Google Scholar.

35 Most of this work has focused on economic interdependence. For a discussion of regional strategic interdependence and the concept of regional security complexes see Buzan, Barry, People, States and Fear (London: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 2nd edn, 1991), chapter 5Google Scholar.

36 The classic texts are Haas, Ernst B., The Uniting of Europe: Political, Social and Economic Forces (London: Stevens, 1958)Google Scholar; and Lindberg, Leon N., The Political Dynamics of European Economic Integration (Stanford: Stanford U.P., 1963)Google Scholar.

37 More recently there has been a good deal of attention on the dynamics of legal integration and the idea of ‘legal spill-over’. See, for example, Weiler, J. H. H., ‘Journey to an Unknown Destination: A Retrospective and Prospective of the European Court of Justice in the Arena of Political Integration’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 31, 4 (December 1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38 Haas, , The Uniting of Europe, pp. xv–xviGoogle Scholar.

39 See, for example, Moravcsik, Andrew, ‘Preferences and Power in the European Community: A Liberal Intergovernmentalist Approach’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 31, 4 (December 1993), especially pp. 474–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Keohane, Robert O. and Hoffman, Stanley, ‘Conclusions: Community politics and institutional change’, in Wallace, (ed.), Dynamics of European IntegrationGoogle Scholar; and Tranholm-Mikkelsen, Jeppe, ‘Neo-functionalism: Obstinate or Obsolete? A Reappraisal in the Light of the New Dynamism of the EC’, Millennium, 20, 1 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40 The literature is enormous. See, for example, Keohane, Robert O., International Institutions and State Power (Boulder: Westview, 1989)Google Scholar; Keohane, , After Hegemony. Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (Princeton: Princeton U.P., 1984)Google Scholar; Baldwin, David A. (ed.), Neorealism and Neoliberalism (New York: Columbia UP., 1993)Google Scholar; Rittberger, Volker (ed.), Regime Theory and International Relations (Oxford: OUP, 1993)Google Scholar; Milner, Helen, ‘International Theory of Cooperation Among Nations: Strengths and Weaknesses’, World Politics, 44 (April 1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

41 Keohane, Robert O., ‘Institutionalist Theory and the Realist Challenge After the Cold War’, in Baldwin, (ed.), Neorealism and Neoliberalism, p. 274Google Scholar.

42 Because it takes states as central this is often seen as a realist theory (for example by Hix, ’Approaches to the Study of the EC). Unlike realism, however, institutionalism accords a major role t o institutions and accepts that sustained cooperation is possible.

43 See, for example, Keohane, Robert O. and Hoffmann, Stanley (eds.), The New European Community. Decisionmaking and institutional change (Boulder: Westview, 1991)Google Scholar.

44 For a discussion of these trends in the European case see Wallace, ransformation of Western Europe.

45 Cooper, Richard N., ‘Interdependence and Co-ordination of Policies’, in Cooper, Economic Policy in an Interdependent World: Essays in World Economics (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1986)Google Scholar.

46 Petri, Peter A., ‘The East Asian Trading Bloc: An Analytical History’, in Frankel, Jeffrey A. and Kahler, Miles (eds.), Regionalism and Rivalry. Japan and the United States in Pacific Asia (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993), pp. 42–3Google Scholar. See also Stephan Haggard's comment on Petri, pp. 48–52.

47 Onuf, Nicholas used the term ‘constructivism’ in his study of rules in international relations, World of Our Making. Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1989)Google Scholar. Its more general use has arisen out of critique of both Waltzian structural realism and rationalist theories of cooperation. For a particularly clear account of constructivism see Wendt, Alexander, ‘Collective Identity Formation and the International State’, American Political Science Review, 88, 2 (June 1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Keohane's, distinction between rationalist and reflectivist approaches: ‘International Institutions: Two Approaches’, in International Institutions and State Power (Boulder: Westview, 1989), chapter 7Google Scholar.

48 For a discussion of the weaknesses of Deutsch's views and the contemporary relevance of the concept of ‘security community’ see Adler, Emanuel and Barnett, Michael, ‘Pluralistic Security Communities: Past, Present and Future’, Working Paper Series on Regional Security, 1 (University of Wisconsin, 1994)Google Scholar.

49 Wendt, , ‘Collective Identity Formation’, p. 385Google Scholar. As this quotation indicates, constructivism can be seen as a systemic theory. Whilst perceptions of a non-regional ‘other’ can indeed reinforce regional identity, it is constructivism's analysis of strategic interaction and cognitive interdependence within the regional that is most relevant for our purposes.

50 For an excellent example see Judt, Tony, ‘The Past is Another Country: Myth and Memory in Postwar Europe’, Daedalus, 121, 4 (Fall 1992)Google Scholar.

51 Waever, Ole, ‘Three Competing Europes: German, French and Russian’, International Affairs, 66, 3 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and ‘Territory, Authority and Identity’, paper for EUPRA Conference on European Identity, Florence, 8–10 November 1991.

52 The literature is expanding very rapidly. But see especially Small, Melvin and Singer, J. David, ‘The War Process of Democratic Regimes’, The Jerusalem Journal of International Relations, 1 (1976)Google Scholar; Rummel, R. J., ‘Libertarian Propositions on Violence Within and Between Nations’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 29 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Doyle, Michael W., ‘Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs’, two parts, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 12, 3 & 4 (1983)Google Scholar; Maoz, Zeev and Russett, Bruce, ‘Normative and Structural Causes of Democratic Peace, 1946–1986’, American Political Science Review, 87 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Russett, Bruce, Grasping the Democratic Peace (Princeton: Princeton U.P., 1993)Google Scholar.

53 Deutsch, K. W. et al., Political Community in the North Atlantic Area (Princeton: Princeton U.P., 1957)Google Scholar; Deudney, Daniel and Ikenberry, G. John, ‘The Logic of the West’, World Policy Journal, 10, 4 (Winter 1993/1994)Google Scholar; Burley, Anne-Marie, ‘Law among Liberal States: Liberal Internationalism and the Act of State Doctrine’, Columbia Law Review, 92 (December 1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

54 Cohen, Raymond, ‘Pacific Unions: A Reappraisal of the theory that “Democracies do not go to War with each other”’, Review of International Studies, 20, 3 (July 1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

55 For a comparative treatment of this issue see Whitehead, Laurence, ‘Requisites for Admission’, in Smith, Peter H. (ed.), The Challenge of Integration. Europe and the Americas (New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers, 1992)Google Scholar.

56 In both cases, however, domestic factors may still have played an important role: changes in societal values and attitudes towards the United States in the case of Mexico; increased awareness of shared social, economic and political values in the case of ASEAN.

57 As Milward, Alan writes, ‘domestic policy was not in the end sustainable unless this neo-mercantilism could be guaranteed by its Europeanization’. The European Rescue of the Nation-State (London: Routledge, 1992), p. 134Google Scholar.

58 See Hix, , ‘Approaches to the Study of the EC’, pp. 7–8Google Scholar.

59 For relevant discussions of the ‘levels of analysis’ problem see Walker, R. B. J., Inside/outside: International Relations as Political Theory (Cambridge: CUP, 1993), especially pp. 130–40Google Scholar; and Moravscik, Andrew, ‘Introduction. Integrating International and Domestic Theories of International Bargaining’, in Evans, Peter B., Jacobsen, Harold K. and Putnam, Robert D. (eds.), Double-edged Diplomacy (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993)Google Scholar.

60 See Waltz, Kenneth, ‘A Response to my Critics’, in Keohane, Robert O. (ed.), Neorealism and Its Critics (New York: Columbia, 1986), p. 329Google Scholar.

61 Moravscik, , ‘Introduction’, pp. 6–17Google Scholar. A good example is Stephen Walt's modification of neorealist alliance theory, noted earlier (see n.27). His argument that states seek to balance against threats and perceived intentions rather than unequal power is certainly plausible. However, enquiring into such perceptions leads unavoidably to an analysis of domestic-level political and cognitive factors, thereby vitiating the much-vaunted parsimony of neorealist theory.

62 For an important move in this direction see Moravscik, ‘Preferences and Power’.