Regionalism IEPS 2011
Regionalism IEPS 2011
net/publication/260228052
Regionalism
CITATIONS READS
0 60,948
1 author:
Fredrik Söderbaum
University of Gothenburg
136 PUBLICATIONS 3,168 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
TRANSFORM: Regional Cooperation and the Transformation of National Sovereignty View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Fredrik Söderbaum on 18 February 2014.
Regionalism refers to the political and cognitive idea of forming regions. It is usually
associated with a formal programme, and since the mid-1980s there has been an explosion of
such regional programmes on a global scale. The broadening and deepening of the European
Union (EU) is perhaps the most obvious example, but regionalism is also evident in the
revitalization or expansion of many other regional projects around the world, such as the
African Union (AU), the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the Economic
Community of West African States (ECOWAS), the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA), the Southern African Development Community (SADC), the Southern Common
Market (Mercosur) and, more recently, the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR).
Today’s regionalism is closely linked with the shifting nature of global politics and the
governments in the world, but it also involves a wide variety of non-state actors. This results
in a multitude of formal and informal regional types of governance and regional networks in
This entry will, firstly, define the terms regions, regionalism and regionalization.
Secondly, it will provide an overview of the continuities and discontinuities between the early
and the more recent debates on regionalism. Finally, it presents a brief discussion of
1
Regions, Regionalism and Regionalization
The concept of region evolved historically to mean a space between the national and the local
within a particular state. This meaning may be captured by the term micro-region, or sub-
national region. The concept of region may, however, also be used to refer to macro-regions
(so-called world or international regions), which are larger territorial units, as opposed to non-
territorial units or sub-systems. They exist between the state level and the global system level.
The macro-region has been the most common object of analysis in International Relations,
while micro-regions have more commonly been considered in the study of domestic politics.
which mutual interdependencies matter most: economic, political and social interrelationships
or historical, cultural and ethnic bonds. It has been argued that the definitions of what
constitutes a region may vary according to the particular issue under investigation. This may
lead to the identification of overlapping types of regions, such as economic regions, security
International Relations has focussed on pre-defined regions in the form of state-led and inter-
state regional organizations and frameworks. Examples include AU, ASEAN, EU, SADC,
ECOWAS. The argument that the composition of regions should not be assumed or limited to
regional intergovernmental organizations has been stressed in recent constructivist and post-
structuralist scholarship. From this perspective, all regions are deemed to be socially
constructed and hence politically contested. Emphasis is placed upon how political actors
perceive and interpret the idea of a region and notions of “regionness”. According to this
school of thought, there are no “natural” regions; all regions are (at least potentially)
2
heterogeneous with unclear territorial margins. Focus is often placed on processes of region-
building and regionalization, which implies that the distinction between regionalism and
regionalization is emphasized.
“Regionalism” means the body of ideas, values and objectives that contribute to the
usually associated with a formal policy and project, and often leads to institution-building.
Furthermore, regionalism ties agents to a specific project that is limited spatially or socially
process by which regions come into existence and are consolidated, their “becoming”, so to
speak. In its most basic sense the term may imply no more than a concentration of goods,
services, investment, peoples and ideas at the regional level. This interaction may lead to the
emergence of regional actors, networks and organizations. When they are active at the
Regionalization may be caused by regionalism, but it may also emerge in the absence of a
regionalist project and ideology. Hence, regionalism may not always have much practical
Experts on the subject often distinguish between the “old” and the “new” regionalism, or what
is more appropriately labelled the early and the more recent debate on regionalism. The early
debate covers research undertaken between the 1950s and the 1970s, and the keyword was
process, that is, a development that arose from conditions internal to and specific to each
3
region in question. With some exceptions, particularly Latin America and Africa, most early
research dealt with European integration, as there were few other regional experiments to
theorize about at this time. The dominant approach was neo-functionalism, which mainly
Europe. Leading authors who wrote of such early regionalism included Ernst Haas and Karl
Deutsch.
The 1970s was a period of “Eurosclerosis” within the European Community, but the
1985 White Paper on the internal market and the Single European Act resulted in a new
dynamic process of European integration. This was also the start of what has often been
referred to as the “new regionalism” on a global scale. To some observers regionalism was
However, most observers highlighted the fact that the closure of regions was not on the
agenda. Indeed, one of the characteristic features of the more recent debate on regionalism,
especially within the field of International Relations, is its focus on the conditions related to
globalization. The recent debate is to a large extent generated by the transformation of the
Westphalian nation-state, the erosion of national borders and the urgent question of how to
find an alternative post-Westphalian order in the context of globalization. Perhaps the richest
literature in this regard is on the role of regionalism in the context of multilateral trade and
security.
One prominent scholar of the recent debate, Björn Hettne, stresses that regionalism
perspective (inside-out). The former perspective refers to the fact that regionalization and
globalization are intertwined articulations of global transformation, whereas the latter implies
that regionalization is shaped from within the region by a large number of different actors.
The exogenous perspective has developed primarily in the course of the recent debate,
whereas the endogenous perspective finds continuity with functionalist and neo-functionalist
4
theorizing about integration (of Europe), the role of agency and the long-term transformation
of territorial identities. By contrast with the time at which Haas, Deutsch and the early
regional integration scholars were writing, today’s scholars identify many regionalisms and
this provides a very different base for comparative studies of regionalism. It is apparent that
neither the object of study (ontology) nor the way of studying it (epistemology) has remained
static. One indication of this is the emergence of a variety of theoretical frameworks for the
and regional network approaches. Indeed, current regionalization may be seen as a new
political landscape in the making, characterized by an expanding cast of actors (state and non-
state) operating in the regional arena and across several interrelated dimensions: security,
Historically the study of regionalism and regional integration has emphasized states as
actors and focussed on sovereignty transfer or political unification within inter-state regional
organizations. Since the late 1990s, research has placed greater emphasis on “soft”, de facto
or informal regionalization, acknowledging the fact that a range of non-state actors has begun
to operate at the regional level, within as well as beyond state-led institutional frameworks.
For instance, business interests and multinationals are not only operative in the global sphere,
but they also tend to create regionalized patterns of economic activity. Oft-cited examples
include the regional production systems in East and Southeast Asia and South African
business expansion in Southern Africa. Similarly, civil society is often neglected in the study
of regionalism, despite the fact that its impact is increasing, as is evident in the transnational
activist networks and processes of civil society interaction emerging at the regional level
The causal relationship between regionalism and regionalization (or formal and
5
recent debate. Key issues are whether or not formal regionalism precedes informal
regionalization and the ways in which state, market, and civil society actors relate and come
together in different formal and informal coalitions, networks and modes of regional and
global governance. Consequently, the study of regionalism is inseparable from the study of
Many regionalists contend that regions have become critical to contemporary word politics.
As Peter Katzenstein points out, “this view is in stark contrast to those who focus on the
political intervention or at least some form of governance is still needed. One way in which
“the political” may return is as a reformed neo-Westphalian order (that is, building on the
a more loosely organized global “concert” of the regional hegemons of the world, such as
6
Fredrik Söderbaum
University of Gothenburg
Further Readings
Acharya, Amitav and Alastair Johnston, eds. 2007. Crafting Cooperation. Regional
Press.
Cooper, Andrew, Christopher Hughes and Philippe de Lombaerde, eds. 2008. Regionalisation
Farrell, Mary, Björn Hettne and Luk van Langenhove, eds. 2005. The Global Politics of
Katzenstein, Peter J., 2005. A World of Regions: Asia and Europe in the American Imperium.
Söderbaum. Fredrik, and Timothy M. Shaw, eds. 2003. Theories of New Regionalism. A