The consolidation of regionalism as a broad field of research attracting scholars across disciplines demands an inquiry on its scientific foundations. This inquiry should consider the object of research, the methods and the theories used. First, regionalism scholars lack a consensually agreed definition of their subject. Second, research focusses mainly in case studies, led by area specialists and comparative research is a rather occasional methodological occurrence. Finally, regionalism has not produced significant theoretical advances vis-à-vis neighbouring disciplines. In summary, regionalism contribution to knowledge is scarce and this paper suggests, instead, applying mainstream political science and international relations objects, methods and theories.
This article provides an account of Our Regionalism to supplement the many accounts of Our Federalism. After describing the legal forms regions assume in the United States — through interstate cooperation, organization of federal administrative agencies, and hybrid state-federal efforts — it explores how regions have shaped American governance across the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. In the years leading up to the New Deal, commentators invoked regions to resist centralization, arguing that state coordination could forestall expansion of the federal government. But regions were soon deployed to a different end, as the federal government relied on regional administration to develop its bureaucracy. Incorporating regional accommodations and regional organization into new programs allowed the federal government to expand its role in domestic policymaking. As interstate regionalism yielded to federal regionalism, the administrative state was propelled forward by a strategy that had arisen to resist it. Even as regions facilitated the expansion of the New Deal administrative state, however, the regional organization and argument that underpinned this development left room for state influence within federal programs and for new projects of multistate and joint state-federal governance. The century's next regional moment brought this potential to the fore, with regions brokering the resurgence of the states in Great Society programs. In the early twenty-first century, new regional undertakings have been celebrated as fluid, nonhierarchical networks. Although the network metaphor has been exhausted, this characterization anticipates the emergence of "regionalism without regions": collaborations among multiple state and federal actors that need not involve contiguous areas. Just as regional improvisation has responded to governance challenges of past decades, this nascent development responds to today's polarized partisanship. It betokens both the revival and the transformation of the political sectionalism that has always informed American regionalism even as it slipped behind an administrative veneer for much of the twentieth century.
This paper aims to elaborate the new circumstances of South East Asia and its impact to form of cooperation and architecture of ASEAN. Despite the ASEAN countries still maintain the state-led regionalism principle, but various changes that took place in this region has risen a various issues that push the emergence of new actors such as seen in the emergence of transnational advocacy netwoks. The limitations of the state-centric regionalism leave the problem of representation. This means that the state perspective will be more determined by political and technocratic calculations. By proposing multitrack regionalism concept, this paper try to show that state-led regionalism is needed to transform into community-led regionalism in order to realize a more democratic regionalism.
Localism and regionalism are normally seen as conflicting, conceptions of metropolitan area governance. Localism is the belief that the existing system of a large number of relatively small governments wielding power over such critical matters as land use regulation, local taxation, and the financing of local public services ought to be preserved. Regionalism would move some power to institutions, organizations or procedures with a larger territorial scope and more population than existing local governments. Regionalism appears to be a step towards centralization, and the antithesis of the decentralization represented by localism. Yet, in the metropolitan areas that dominate America at the end of the twentieth century, regionalism is not just the enemy of localism: It is also localism's logical extension. Localism is based on a set of arguments concerning the role of local governments in promoting governmental efficiency, democracy, and community. But in contemporary metropolitan areas, the economically, socially, and ecologically relevant local area is often the region. In these areas, concerns about efficiency, democracy, and community ought to lead to a shift in power from existing localities to new processes, structures, or organizations that can promote decision-making on behalf of the region. Regionalism is, thus, localism for metropolitan areas. Localists, however, do not become regionalists when they live in metropolitan areas. Indeed, resistance to regionalism is intense in many metropolitan areas. Localism is not simply a theory intended to advance certain normative goals. It is also a means of protecting the interests of those who receive advantages from the existing governance structure. Local self-interest, rather than the political values localism is said to advance, plays a central role in the opposition to regionalism. This essay explores the relationship between localism and regionalism. It considers the meaning of regionalism in contemporary urban policy debates and the reasons why regionalism currently enjoys so much attention from academics, urbanists and policy analysts. It reviews the arguments for localism, and explains how, despite the asserted conflict between localism and regionalism, the theories underlying localism actually make a case for regionalism in contemporary metropolitan areas. Finally, it examines the role of local self-interest in the resistance to regionalism, and the efforts of regionalists to respond by making the case for regionalism in terms of local self-interest as well.
Localism and regionalism are normally seen as contrasting, indeed conflicting, conceptions of metropolitan area governance. Localism in this context refers to the view that the existing system of a large number of relatively small governments wielding power over such critical matters as local land use regulation, local taxation, and the financing of local public services ought to be preserved. The meaning of regionalism is less clearly defined and proposals for regional governance vary widely, but most advocates of regionalism would shift some authority from local governments, restrict local autonomy, or, at the very least, constrain the ability of local governments to pursue local interests. Regionalism would move some power to institutions, organizations, or procedural structures with a larger territorial scope and more population than existing local governments. Regionalism appears to be a step towards centralization. As such, it seems to be the antithesis of the decentralization represented by localism. Yet, in the metropolitan areas that dominate America at the end of the twentieth century, regionalism is not simply the enemy of localism; it is also localism's logical extension. Localism is about the legal and political empowerment of local areas. The theoretical case for localism rests on a set of arguments about the role of local governments in promoting governmental efficiency, democracy, and community. But in contemporary metropolitan areas, the economically, socially, and ecologically relevant local area is often the region. Consequently, in metropolitan areas, concerns about efficiency, democracy, and community ought to lead to support for some shift in power away from existing localities to new processes, structures, or organizations that can promote decision-making on behalf of the interests of a region considered as a whole. Regionalism is, thus, localism for metropolitan areas. Of course, the congruence of the theoretical underpinnings of localism and regionalism does not dispel the real world conflict between them. Localists do not become regionalists simply because they live in metropolitan regions. Indeed, the resistance to regionalism is quite widespread in most metropolitan areas. Localism is not simply a theory of government intended to advance certain normative goals. It is also a means of protecting the interests of those who receive advantages from the existing governance structure, including, but not limited to, local government officials, businesses that reap the rewards of the interlocal competition for commercial and industrial activity, real estate interests that profit from the system's propensity to promote the development of new land, and residents of more affluent areas who enjoy the benefits of ample local tax bases. The relationship between localism and regionalism, and the intense localist resistance to regionalism, tells us as much about the role of local self-interest in promoting localism in practice – and, for that matter, in promoting regionalism – as about the connection between localist values and regionalism in theory. This Article explores the relationship between localism and regionalism. Part I examines the "what" and the "why" of contemporary regionalism: What does regionalism mean and why has it enjoyed so much attention from academics, urbanists, and policy analysts in recent years? Part II reviews the arguments for localism, and explains how, despite the asserted conflict between localism and regionalism, the theories underlying localism actually make a case for regionalism in contemporary metropolitan areas. Finally, Part III considers the prospects in practice for moving from localism to regionalism.
Addresses the issue of preferential trade arrangements, looking first at part of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) which sanctions Customs Unions and Free Trade Areas. During the 1960s, regionalism (preferential trade agreements among a subset of nations) failed, but it was the subject of a revival in the 1980s. The author analyses the second regionalism, from the viewpoint of world welfare, and asks whether non-discriminatory multilateral free trade for all will result, or whether the world economy will become fragmented. Regionalism has political appeal and thus will expand; if it is contained and shaped then maximum benefits may be obtained whilst any damaging effects are minimalised.
Comparative Environmental Regionalism focuses on environmental governance as a key issue of analysis to provide an important new conceptualisation of 'region' and regional power. Examining both interregionalism and regional integration, the book goes beyond the traditional study of micro-regions within the EU to examine regions and regional institutions across Asia, Africa and the Americas. The focus on forms of governance allows a consideration of the variety of processes and mechanisms developed to deal with collective issues in addition to formal institutional cooperation. Using globally based case studies, Comparative Environmental Regionalism will be of interest to students and scholars of environmental and regional politics, and international relations.
After the restoration of independence, Lithuania faced a rather difficult task: in a period of several years it hadto catch up with the democratically, economically and socially developed countries of the western world that hadsucceeded to achieve their present level over many decades. The ambition to produce fast results preconditioneddifferent problems in a number of political spheres.The creation of the regional policy was not an exception either. Despite the fact that quite a speedy improvementof the regions shows a positive progress in this sphere, problems could not be avoided in the process offormation and implementation of the regional policy. Hesitation in solving these problems may bring the situationunder threat.The article analyses factors that have contributed to the problems in the sphere of regional policy, and stressesthe significance of regionalism on the regional development.
Introduction. The new regionalism paradigm formation in Ukraine requires further research and substantiation of its theoretical and methodological principles, including the establishment of the classification features of the new regionalism.Purpose. The purpose of the article is to establish the classification features of the new regionalism; for this purpose, various scholars clarified the classification features of regionalism and the reasons for the emergence of a new regionalism were identified.Methods. In order to find out the classification features of the new regionalism, general scientific methods of research and special methods of scientific knowledge were used, namely dialectical, monographic, analysis and synthesis, as well as a systematic approach.Results. The article clarifies the classification features of regionalism. It was established that E. Harrel considers regionalism at the same time as a certain special relationship of regions with the world economy and as a policy, classifying it divides into five varieties, namely: regionalization, regional awareness and identity, regional intergovernmental cooperation, state regional integration and regional consolidation. B. Hettne, using the macro-approach, sees in regionalism the positioning of the region in the world economy, which in its further development may lead to multi-regionalism in the form of a new structure of the world economy, and considers regionalism from three positions: the measurement of the region, the evaluation of actors, the level of the region. M. Kitting gives a more branched classification of new regionalism, singling out the six main "ideal" forms of regionalism: conservative, "bourgeois", modernist, progressive, populist, and separatist regionalism, which gives a clear idea of regionalism that can be manifested in conservatism and separatism, and also have a "golden mean" in the form of progressive regionalism. The article substantiates the reasons for the emergence of a new regionalism.Originality. Because of the research, further development of the scientific and methodological principles of a new regionalism classification using the system approach, which gave the opportunity to identify the main causes of the emergence of new regionalism.Conclusions. The definition of the classification features of regionalism has made it possible to establish that new regionalism should be viewed not as a process but as a phenomenon and to justify the reasons for the emergence of a new regionalism. The various approaches to the classification of regionalism substantiate the existence of a large number of interpretations of the "regionalism" concept's essence and different views of scholars. It has been established that regionalism must be divided into economic and political regionalism, as well as distinguish between regionalism and new regionalism.
The end of the Cold War opened a Pandora's box of regionalism and separatism across Europe, and today they once again pose a significant threat to the territorial and political integrity of the traditional nation-states. Yet, the existence of various subnational groups is inevitable in democratic states. The scope of separatism and regionalism in Europe is quite wide. It includes de facto states, such as Kosovo, Transnistria, and North Cyprus; strong separatist movements aimed at achieving independence, like Catalonia, Basque Country, Scotland, Flanders, and Faroe Islands; strong movements aimed at achieving a more regional autonomy, for example, Lombardy and Veneto; and weaker regional movements, which could potentially escalate in the future, such as Transylvania in Romania or Vojvodina in Serbia. This edited volume tackles all the above-mentioned regional moments and even includes Greenland as a bonus. It brings together seventeen prominent scholars from a wide range of European and North American academic institutions who compiled ten chapters to shed light on the revival of regionalism and separatism via a thorough evaluation and analysis of some of the most important current separatist and regionalist/autonomist movements across modern Europe.
Abstract This paper focuses on regional organisations, looking at how they are studied in international relations and especially in international political economy. Regions are considered to occupy a place midway between the state and the global order. This paper mainly assesses how regions are affected by systemic factors. One key issue is how global-level changes are shaping regional organisations. A second issue is the regions' capacity to meet the challenges and difficulties resulting from global events. In terms of regionalism, the two systemic factors studied here are globalisation and multipolarity.
