Theories of Regionalism Article by Tanja Borzel Presentation by Dominique (Dom) Minteer Theories of Regionalism

Regionalism: What it is Regionalism: the political/economic trend toward cooperation and integration of states within a region, where region has an equal or greater focus as the state. i.e. for law-making, rule-enforcing, and economic regulation/constraints Why it matters: Surge in regionalism after the Cold War, expansion in depth and scope of regional powers. (preferential trade agreements, ROs get more authority) Problem: Gap in the ability of theories to explain and describe this change

Borzel’s Article: thesis and points Borzel is here attempting to explain this phenomenon via mainstream theories of regional cooperation and integration (TRCI) Holds that mainstream theories don’t adequately explain the differences between major regional organizations and their effects “Governance” concept as a patch to make these theories more effective and applicable.

Main Drivers of Regionalism Material gains “that states expect to reap from trading with each other” PTAs and FTAs Specifically: reduced transaction costs, policy externalities, economies of scale, technological innovation (via greater competition), more direct foreign investment, and greater political and economic weight (strength in numbers ideology)

Early Regionalism– explaining the EU Note: “regionalism has sought from the very beginning to go beyond trade liberalization through inter-state bargains” (42) (about the EU specifically) “Old regionalism”– intergovernmentalism, liberal intergovernmentalism, neo-functionalism, multilevel governance (focus more on alliances and domestic interest groups) “New regionalism”– criticizes state-centrism, focuses on social construction of regions and markets, civil society actors.

Emergence theories (INSTRUMENTALIST-RATIONALIST) (SOCIAL) Power-based Alt. rationalist Liberal (society- Constructivist centered) Neo-realism Neo-liberal Neo-functionalism focus on instutionalism ideas, norms, HST identities Rationalist functionalism

Rationalist theories (pre-Cold War) Assumes constant state of anarchy Neo-realism: cooperation is risky for states without a central power, concludes that regionalism is unlikely Hegemonic Stability theory: powerful state acts as an arbitrator, “mitigating the security dilemma” Problem: powerful states not always willing Regional alliances to balance powerful states (NATO))

Other Rationalist theories Neo-liberal institutionalism, rationalist functionalism: Rationalist, state-centered. Emphasize complex interdependence (think Keohane and Nye) Globalization as a driver for regionalism (negative externality threats) Industrialized countries: Grouped to fight externalities Developing countries: Grouped defensively, to reduce dependency on former colonial powers Later to access global markets and attract foreign investment Authority via size “Regime-boosting” regionalism

Liberal (society-centered) “Presupposes liberal democracy and advanced market economy” (46) Problem: limits the field for comparison Formal focus Discounts non-Western motivations

Constructivist Ideational drivers of regionalism. Assumes that “a sense of community” is a precondition for the creation of an RO (or at least a major indicator) Also theorizes that conflict would disappear completely because of this shared identity.

Outcome theories (post Cold War) IR and PE theories begin to converge, fewer differences between EU and other countries Most notable shift: internal (endogenous) drivers become more apparent (“lock in” democratic developments, human rights) reduce instability effective approach to externalities

Effect theories? (post-9/11-ish) New trend: Europeanization– evolving of a new identity, sharing of traits and “good governance” None of the theories can really explain the effects of regional organizations effectively

The issue with these theories Takes states as the main drivers of regionalism problem: limits the field for comparison Focuses on formal institution-building at the state level problem: excludes informal networks, also limiting comparison Analyzing the EU as a separate, “special” case problem: no real distinctions that make the EU special, except that it was one of the first. Also counterproductive to real analysis

Euro-focus as as obstacle Difference between cooperation and integration: Cooperation is forming mutually-beneficial agreements that tend to be limited in scope and time frame. Integration is the expansion of interconnectedness, where power, control, etc. is being pooled and dealt with on a regional level (TRUE regionalism) (This distinction was one positive thing that came about as a result of the EU vs. rest of the world split) EU treated as special from the beginning, unwillingness to find similarities Assumes all instances of regionalism will look/act the same Discounts alternative, informal systems that have arisen elsewhere in the world

Governance as a solution Opens the floor for focus on non-state actors, equal focus “governance is not wedded to the state” (53) Includes informal and society-based organizations Makes the connection between the EU and the rest of the world. Types of institutionalized rule structures recognized: Hierarchy (authoritative vs. voluntary) Market (negotiation, bargaining, and incentives) Networks “Shadow regionalism”: formal regional institutions provide framework “Spaghetti bowl” of complicated and interconnected business networks in Sub- Saharan Africa. Formal agreements allow for easier individual connections, and these individual connections form an interconnected web across the continent

Governance sets the stage for comparative regionalism