Question

With the aid of graphic organizers, answer the following questions.

Show the relationship between regionalism and globalization, and present how state-to-state regionalism differs from non-state regionalism.

Answer 1

'New regionalism' is clearly economic in character, with regional economic blocs tending to be formed in part because of the impact of globalisation on the economic independence of states. As boarders have become porous and economic sovereignty has declined, states have been inclined to work more closely with other states in the region, resulting in the formation of trading blocs. The concept of a 'world without boarders' and increased publicity for the liberal ideals of cooperation bringing increase gain has led to increased economic integration and a decline in economic sovereignty. Regional bodies have often embraced protectionism, with Europe and agriculture being a prime example through the concept of 'the fortress of Europe', but also have been seen as a way of protecting cultural identities in a world which is becoming increasingly Americanised as a product of cultural globalisation, such as is clear with the Arab League. Globalisation has also often been seen to be discriminatory to smaller states with less power and has given increased power to bodies such as the UN, IMF, World Bank and WTO all of which are dominated by the USA in particular by other great powers as well. The 'fortress' concept of regionalism has been compromised by the increase in economic liberalisation in these blocs;

Regionalism studies are those studies that focus on the middle layer of governance, between the state and the global, that emerge out of concerted processes of regional integration like the EU, the Arab League, NAFTA, CARICOM, and ASEAN. The first two theoretical explanations of this process in South America that we will discuss are New and Old Regionalism.

New Regionalism is an outgrowth of the process of globalization “based on the idea that one cannot isolate trade and economy from the rest of society…” The thesis that social development must accompany economic development for integration efforts to succeed stands in contrast to “Old” Regionalism, (also known as “first generation” regionalism, or “classic” regionalism) which was primarily seen as a process of economic integration. According to De Lombarede, this movement began to gather speed in the late 1980s and is associated with changes in Eastern Europe and the end of the Cold War.

Classic regionalism has been defined as “a theory of co-operative hegemony” and a “planned merger of national economies through cooperation” with the State as the primary reference point. This is a teleological view that believes that increased economic cooperation leads to increased political cooperation between two or more nations and that states are less likely to go to war if they have high levels of economic and commercial interdependence.A key difference between the two theories is who is considered a relevant actor. As mentioned, in classic regionalism the Nation-State is the preeminent actor, while new regionalism proponents hold that non-state actors like multinational corporations, non-governmental organizations, and other interested social groups, must be considered when analyzing how and why regions choose to integrate. With this claim, new regionalists also challenge the traditional theories of realpolitik in international relations by recognizing new, multidimensional actors, with varied and complex interests, on whom the threat of coercion has little effect.