Regionalism: Old and New

Abstract

This review of recent literature on political, economic, and cultural regionalism shows that this area of inquiry has become increasingly fragmented not only as a result of debates between the protagonists of methodological approaches but also because of underlying changes in international relations. Traditional views concerning the state‐centric regional system are being challenged by the concentration of political and military power at the top as well as by transnational networks built around economic ties and cultural identities. Early post‐Cold War expectations that regions and regional concerts would form the foundation for a new international order have proven untenable. Instead, regions appear to arise either through the dissemination of various transactions and externalities or as protection against the hegemony of capitalist globalization and great‐power politics. Older conceptions of regionalism need to be redefined and reintegrated into current international relations theories.

Causes of Regionalism. How ASEAN-China FTA Fits the (New) Wave of Regionalism?

“…Security regionalism manifests itself in the sense of cooperative activities varying from "simple balance of power system or concerns to more comprehensive communities and integrated policies" (Hettne, 2008, p. 404;Rosecrance, 1991;Morgan, 1997). In this regard, concept of security regionalism can be defined as based on the commonly shared identity (Scott, 1999;Väyrynen, 2003;Hemmer and Katzenstein, 2002). Economic regionalism is perceived as a purposeful attempt of a group of countries to collectively reduce trade barriers among themselves Baldwin, 1997;Bhagwati, 1996Bhagwati, , 2008Krugman, 1993).…”

A Importância da Identidade Regional na Configuração de Clusters Turísticos

“…Estas funções nunca são intrínsecas, mas estabelecidas em decorrência dos interesses dos usuários e observadores. (VÄYRYNEN, 2003).…”

La seguridad regional y el papel de los Estados débiles. Una aproximación teórica

“…Avec l'importance accordée au système international, le sous-système inévitablement fini par hériter de leurs principales caractéristiques. En plus, considérant le soussystème comme subordonné au système, cela contribuait à expliquer et prédire les interventions unidirectionnelles à partir du centre vers la périphérie dans la logique de la bipolarité (le contrôle des zones d'influence des superpuissances, les États-Unis et l'Union Soviétique) (Väyrynen, 2003).…”

“…Toutefois, le principal problème de la théorie des hiérarchies locales est la variable de la faiblesse des États en développement. Ici, les problèmes internes des États ne sont pas pris en compte pour mesurer leurs impacts sur les relations internationales (Väyrynen, 2003;Kelly, 2007).…”