Review Article: Comparative Regionalism: What Might It Be?

Sbragia, Alberta M.

doi:10.1111/j.1468-5965.2008.00809.x

Cited by 73 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 69 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It adopts a comparative approach to regionalism (Choi and Caporaso 2002;Sbragia 2008;Acharya 2012;Börzel 2013) and links it to the more recent research on diffusion (Simmons et al 2006;Solingen and Börzel 2014;Börzel and Risse 2012;Maniokas 2009). Institutionalization at the regional level of governance standards and instruments for their promotion and protection at the national level is treated as a particular outcome of regionalism that aims at affecting the domestic structures of states.…”

Section: Notementioning

confidence: 98%

Governance Transfer by Regional Organizations

Börzel¹,

Hüllen

Lohaus³

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This groundbreaking monograph series showcases cutting edge research on the transformation of governance in countries with weak state institutions. Combining theoretically informed and empirically grounded scholarship, it challenges the conventional governance discourse, which is biased towards modern developed nation-states. Instead, the series focuses on governance in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, including transnational and transregional dimensions.Located at the intersection of global governance and international relations, on the one hand, and comparative politics, area studies, international law, history, and development studies, on the other, this innovative series helps to challenge fundamental assumptions about governance in the social sciences.

show abstract

Section: Notementioning

confidence: 98%

Governance Transfer by Regional Organizations

Börzel¹,

Hüllen

Lohaus³

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Whatever actual policy or strategic impact the Indo-Pacific idea may (or may not) eventually have, its rather unexpected and recent emergence is a boon for students of comparative regionalism, of which there is a growing number (Sbragia 2008;Acharya 2012). It is, after all, not every day that we get to see a self-conscious effort to create a region out of nothing, or very little, at least.…”

Section: The Rise Of the Indo-pacificmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Future of Asian Regionalism: Not What It Used to Be?

Beeson

Lee‐Brown

2017

Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The largely unexpected election of Donald Trump as President of the United States has overturned many assumptions and expectations about the future of Australia's regional relationships. Even before Trump's election, however, the history of regional evolution in East Asia presented a number of striking paradoxes and raised important questions about the forces that encourage or obstruct integration and cooperation at the regional level. For a region that has frequently been associated with comparatively limited cross-border political institutionalization and development, East Asia has recently been the centre of a large number of initiatives and proposals that are intended to give expression to particular visions of the region. We argue that the outcome of such regional processes is profoundly influenced by both geo-economic and geopolitical forces. We illustrate this claim by looking at the history of institutional development in the 'AsiaPacific', before considering the attempt to create a new 'Indo-Pacific region', which, we suggest, has more to do with contemporary geopolitical concerns rather than any underlying 'natural' coherence. The Australian policy-making community needs to think carefully about the implications of the Trump presidency for such initiatives.

show abstract

“…Although most scholars accept that regionalism is more than legalism, institutions, and supranationality, there is still much misunderstanding (and even bewilderment) about what regionalism beyond Europe means (Sbraglia 2008). Prevailing arguments seem to characterize regionalism as a dichotomy between "old" and "new" regionalism.…”

mentioning

confidence: 95%

Reconstructing Regionalism: What does Development have to do with It?

Riggirozzi

2011

The Rise of Post-Hegemonic Regionalism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

is transiting an era of redefinition through a combination of national level statecraft and the reshaping of the regional political economy. The significance of current transformations is to be seen in political reinvention of democracy and development in response to the legacies of neoliberalism in the region. The extent to which these responses are framing anti-neoliberal or post-neoliberal projects is a matter of debate. This debate is picked up in this chapter by looking at how regionalist projects are part and parcel of how development is thought of and implemented in the region. Regionalism has often been thought as a governance strategy, a pragmatic response to exogenous factors and the challenges of the global political economy. Regionalism in short has been seen as policies pursued by actors (mainly states) directed at enhancing (some aspect of) their capabilities/powers of agency. Without denying the importance of exogenous factors, the aim of this chapter is to rethink the place of development in the current transformations in the political economy of regional governance. We argue that at the core of the new strategies of cooperation and solidarity is a broader question about what sort of development is at stake in a post-hegemonic era. Emergent types of regionalism in the Americas are the embodiment of alternative models of development that contest or reframe the neoliberal orthodoxy prevailing in the 1980s and 1990s. While the terms of integration and regional governance are being redefined, in practice, however, this is not exempt of contradictions. Regional projects are faced with substantially divergent visions of what regional governance should mean and how integration projects should respond to current challenges of development in the new construction of the region Although it would be wrong to assume that we can depict a single, fixed interpretation to what are evolving regional policy responses, we suggest, that the moment of a hegemonic single mode of political economy for the region is over. Latin America is navigating in the absence of one, hegemonic, "meta-narrative" (Whitehead 2009). There is no master history or a single roadmap redefining the political economy in the region. What we rather find is that the many crises of neoliberalism gave way to a redefinition of the regional space and regional politics of cooperation and integration. A new common sense defies the accepted wisdom on development and the common sense model of society of the Washington Consensus. This chapter analyzes the new architecture of regionalism in Latin America in light of these trends, focusing not only on the factors that govern the emergence of alternative projects that contest the "open regionalism" associated with neoliberal governance, but also the factors that address 17

show abstract

Review Article: Comparative Regionalism: What Might It Be?

Cited by 73 publications

References 69 publications

Governance Transfer by Regional Organizations

Governance Transfer by Regional Organizations

The Future of Asian Regionalism: Not What It Used to Be?

Reconstructing Regionalism: What does Development have to do with It?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About