Search results

This article takes the view that mercantilism can be understood as a pursuit of stateness, an articulation of the nation-state logic vis-à-vis the free play of market forces. The contemporary context of the mercantilist logic is the international political economy, in which `the political' refers to a transnational framework of economic transactions, in brief, a world order. Hence the concept `neomercantilism', to which this discussion is primarily addressed. This conceptualization is somewhat troublesome because of the historical association of mercantilism with the nation-state. The solution to this paradox is to see regionalism as a return of `the political', the need for control, in a transnational context. The argument is pursued in three steps: first the concept is located in the historical political economy discourse, focusing on mercantilism proper; second, a definition of neo-mercantilism is suggested which associates it with `the new regionalism' in a global context, more precisely the pursuit of `regionness'; third, contemporary manifestations of `the new regionalism' are presented as a preliminary attempt to test the hypothesis. In the concluding discussion the significance of these regional manifestations in an international political economy perspective is assessed.

The rise of nationalism, unresolved territorial disputes, an intricate system of alliances, and the perceived breakdown of the balance of power have been identified as the main causes behind the outbreak of World War I. They also are strikingly similar to the challenges East Asia faces today. Will history repeat itself and see East Asia sleepwalking into another hegemonic war? China's future relations with the United States and Japan will be crucial for East Asia's regional order, but its dispute with Japan over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands might lead to a regional war. I argue, however, that a major war is unlikely because pre-World War I Europe and today's Northeast Asia are qualitatively different in terms of what I call multihegemony and sutured regionness. (Asian Perspect/GIGA)

Recent analysis on New Regionalism has, for Bjorn Hettne, raised important ontological questions over 'what we study when we study regionalism'. The paper contributes to this debate by focusing on the shared beliefs, norms and rituals that hold a region together. Working between the New Regionalism literature and thinking on international regimes, this paper - to paraphrase Friedrich Kratochwil and John Ruggie - outlines the 'inescapable inter-subjective quality' of a region. This focus on inter-subjectivity seeks to improve on existing approaches that consider shared social structures as already fixed, and/or as autonomous constructs operating over and above regional actors. In order to appreciate how inter-subjective structures and regional agents interact with each other, the paper explores the social construction of Latin America. Specifically, it examines the politics of regionness - understood here in relation to identity, space and agents - to demonstrate how various regional actors operate within, and reconstruct, shared meaning. In so doing, it interrogates the practices that govern and continually produce the region. Adapted from the source document.

The article looks at regionalism as one of several political responses to globalization with a particular focus on the security dimension. It is shown that regionalisation in Asia takes different forms. Southeast Asia represents an advanced region in terms of regionness (regional society/community), whereas East Asia and South Asia are rather anarchical regional complexes, albeit for different reasons and with different implications. However, South Asia also exemplifies an "inherent regionness" due to a historical legacy of shared experiences. The nature of the security problems is substantively different, and diverse challenges call for different solutions. In the more anarchical East Asia with comparatively consolidated nation-states a regional concert arrangement seems more appropriate. (DSE/DÜI)

AbstractRegionalism has long conceptual and empirical histories across social sciences, and areas of the international and transnational practice of economics, imperialism, and environmental governance. However, energy regionalism remains in the early stages of development both conceptually and empirically. This article reviews three areas of diverse and interdisciplinary scholarship, including international relations, geography, and regional environmental governance, and draws lessons for research agendas associated with energy regionalism. It draws insights from recent work on comparative regionalisms, together with critical perspectives from geography scholarship, conceptualizing regionness as potentially subnational and transnational, as well as inter‐state. Recent geographical literature examines regions and regionalisms as both sets of relational networks and territorial entities, with infrastructure playing a central role around questions of energy. The use of regionalism in international relations literatures, around regionally‐framed environmental cooperation regimes, offers another set of conceptual and empirical lessons for an energy regionalism research agenda. Arguing that these areas have much to contribute to the study of a conceptual and theoretically diverse understanding of energy regionalisms research, the piece concludes by identifying five nodes for theorizing empirical research on energy regionalism: constructing regionness; inequality, money and power; epistemic and normative dimensions; diffusion and institutional hybridization; and scaling regionalism.