The Dynamics of Regionalization

The degree of "regionness" of particular areas can increase or decrease depending on regional dynamics, in which global as well as national/local forces of course have an impact. Regionalization affects and is affected by many levels of the world system: the system as a whole, the level of interregional relations, and the internal structure of the single region. It is not possible to state which of these levels comes first or which is the more important, since changes on the various levels interact. There are also different dimensions of the process relating to each other.

Regional integration was traditionally seen as a harmonization of trade policies leading to deeper economic integration, with political integration as a possible future result. The concept "new regionalism" refers to a transformation of a particular region from relative heterogeneity to increased homogeneity with regard to a number of dimensions, the most important being culture, security, economic policies and political regimes. The convergence along these four dimensions may be a natural process or politically steered or, most likely, a mixture of the two. A certain level of "sameness" is a necessary but not sufficient condition.

Culture takes a long time to change. Of importance here is rather the inherently shared culture which usually is transnational, since national borders in many cases are artificial divisions of a larger cultural area.

A transformation of the security regime (from security complex towards security community) is perhaps the most crucial factor.

Changes in political regimes today typically mean democratization.

Changes in economic policies nowadays normally go in the direction of economic openness.

The dynamics of regionalization thus constitute the interaction between these dimensions and can, furthermore, be found at different levels of world society:

On the global level, the changing structure of the world system provides room-for-manoeuvre for the regional actors, at the same time as the process of regionalization in itself constitutes a structural change towards multipolarity.

On the level of interregional relations the behaviour of one region affects the behaviour of others. European regionalism is, for instance, the trigger of global regionalization, at least in two different ways: one positive (in promoting regionalism by providing a model) the other negative (in provoking regionalism by constituting a protectionist threat).

The regions themselves constitute arenas for sometimes competing, sometimes converging "national interests". If the overall trend within a particular geographical area is convergence of interests, we can speak of an emerging regional actor.

The actual process of regionalization is triggered by events on the sub-national level as well. One example is the "black hole" syndrome or the disintegration of nation states due to ethno-national mobilization. A less violent form of national disintegration is the emergence of economic micro-regions as the geopolitical environment creates a more direct access to the macro economy for dynamic sub-national regions.

Although the region is slowly becoming an actor in its own terms, the nation states typically still conceive it as an arena where so-called "national interests" could be promoted, and these interests are, of course, differently conceived by different social groups in society. Whereas certain groups may find it rewarding to move into the supranational space, others cling to the national space where they have their vested interests to protect. Regionalization thus creates its own counterforces.

The Crucial Role of State Behaviour

Regionalization does not come about unless the states in a particular region want it. It may come about through a more or less spontaneous or unintended convergence in terms of political regime, economic policy or security, but often one can identify a triggering political event which sets the process in motion. Naturally, this political event is related to the main players in the region, the policy makers, in contradistinction to policy takers, the smaller players. In order to understand the regionalization in various areas of the world, it is thus wise to observe the behaviour of the policy makers.

We can divide the policy makers into two categories, those whose influence goes beyond a particular region, the world powers, and those whose influence is confined to a particular region, the regional powers.

World powers may not be able to achieve hegemony on the world level, which, since the range of their influence is undefined and varying, means that there will be a certain competition among them.

The regional powers may be hegemonic in their own regions (which implies a general acceptance or at least tolerance of their leadership throughout the region) or simply dominant (which means that they are looked upon with suspicion and fear among the minor players).

The policy takers can be further subdivided into:

those who are supportive of the regionalization process (sometimes the smaller players are the main proponents), the "supporters",

those who try to find their own path or, rather, several paths (since they would be welcome into more than one regional organization), "the multi-trackers",

and those who are left in the cold (since they are seen as liabilities rather than assets), "the isolated".

In some cases regionalism grows from extended bilateral relations, for instance in the Americas, where both Nafta and Mercosur resulted from a situation where third parties (Canada and Uruguay) became anxious not to be left in the cold. The regional powers (in these cases the USA and Brazil) usually prefer bilateralism to regionalism. This is also the case in South Asia, where the small players softly imposed regionalism on the regional power. India was always more in favour of bilateralism. The same behaviour seems to be repeated by China in East Asia.

The change from bilateralism to regionalism is thus one crucial indicator of increasing regionness of a region, but as here defined, increasing regionness can also result from overlapping bilateral agreements within a region, since such agreements imply policy convergences in various fields. It is therefore important to take the point of departure in the geographical area as such, and not from the formal regional agreements.

Date: 2015-01-11; view: 990