GLOBALIZATION, THE NEW REGIONALISM AND EAST ASIA

Björn Hettne, Professor, University of Gothenburg, Sweden

I. The New Regionalism: A Conceptual and Theoretical Framework

Over the last decade the issue of regionalism has once again "been brought back in", albeit in a different form compared to the debate on regional integration some three decades ago. Thus, I shall argue that we are dealing with a "new" regionalism. I shall also argue that this regionalism can be seen as a response to the process of globalization and the social eruptions associated with this process. The second part of the paper applies the framework to the case of East Asia.1

Globalism versus Regionalism

Globalism can be defined as programmatic globalization, the vision of a borderless world. I see globalization as a qualitatively new phenomenon. If globalization implies a tendency towards a global social system, its origins may be traced far back in history, but one could also argue that the process reached a new stage in the post-Second World War era. The subjective sense of geographical distance is dramatically changed, some even speak of "the end of geography". Also in ecological terms the world is experienced as one. Economic interdependence was made possible by the political stability of the American world order, which lasted from the end of the Second World War until the late '60s or early '70s. Basically, globalization indicates a qualitative deepening of the internationalization process, strengthening the functional and weakening the territorial dimension of development.

Globalism thus implies the growth of a world market, increasingly penetrating and dominating the "national" economies, which in the process are bound to lose some of their "nationness". This means dominance of the world market over structures of local production, as well as the increasing prevalence of Western-type consumerism. From this, there may emerge a political will to halt or to reverse the process of globalization, in order to safeguard some degree of territorial control and cultural diversity. One way of achieving such a change could be through the New Regionalism.

The two processes of globalization and regionalization are articulated within the same larger process of global structural transformation, the outcome of which depends on a dialectical rather than linear development. It can therefore not be readily extrapolated or easily foreseen. But rather it expresses the relative strength of contending social forces involved in the two processes. They deeply affect the stability of the Westphalian state system; and therefore they at the same time contribute to both disorder and, possibly, a future world order.

There is an intricate relationship between regionalization and globalization. Compared to "regionalism", with an impressive theoretical tradition behind it, "globalism" is a more recent concept in social science. Whether its consequences are seen as catastrophic or as the ultimate unification of the world, the concept of globalization is often used in a rather loose and ideological sense.

However, there are also many definitions of the new regionalism, and, just as is the case with globalization, some are enthusiastic, some more alarmist. For the critics, the regionalist trend constitutes a threat to the multilateral system. For the enthusiasts, on the other hand, the new regionalism could form the basis for an improved multilateral system. The basic problem with globalization is its selectiveness. Exclusion is inherent in the process, and the benefits are evenly balanced by misery, conflict and violence. The negative effects are incompatible with the survival of civil society, and thus in the longer run a threat to all humanity.

Date: 2015-01-11; view: 1067