Suchergebnisse

"Bibliographical note": p. xi-xii; bibliographical footnotes. ; Mode of access: Internet.

Regional organization in Oceania has a history dating to the early post-war period while the rise of regional identities occurred somewhat later in the context of independence. This paper analyzes regionalization processes and accompanying discourses of regionalism relating to both pan-Pacific and more recent sub-regional developments. It pays particular attention to the dynamics of identity politics in the post-independence period and how these have played out in tensions within and between the varying exercises in regionalization. (Pac Rev/GIGA)

"Bibliographical note": p. xi-xii; bibliographical footnotes. ; Mode of access: Internet.

"Bibliographical note": p. xi-xii; bibliographical footnotes. ; Mode of access: Internet.

Gravity models have been extensively used to evaluate the trade effects of regional trading arrangements, (RTAs), especially over the last 10 years or so. Questions addressed by researchers include whether there is a regional bias to trade & identifiable trade affects attributable to RTAs. This paper reviews the evidence extant from this literature & evaluates the modeling & methodological issues confronted when applying gravity modeling to the analysis of regionalism. The paper argues that the approach has a distinctive role to play in evaluating trade effects & its application has been enhanced by both the refinement of theoretical underpinnings & development of econometric technique. 4 Tables, 34 References. Adapted from the source document.

Why have Asia's many projects in regionalism not been able to realize their stated goals, despite the fecundity of, and enthusiasm for, region-building initiatives over the last two decades? In an attempt to answer this question, this article identifies the pursuit of a holistic regionalism embodied in the desire for a regional community as a persistent goal in official discourse, and argues that an apparent state of frustration describes the difficulty of regional institutions and forums in bridging the growing gap between these articulated goals and actual outcomes. The empirical case for the argument here is provided by the founding of the East Asia Summit in 2005, which has disclosed the limits of both exclusive and inclusive models of regionalism in Asia. In exploring causation, the article argues that both structural and agential factors are at the heart of this problem. The tensions thrown up by the competing processes of realist and liberal-institutionalist order-building in Asia have imposed structural constraints on the ability of regional projects to realize their normative aspirations. Equally important in causing this state of frustration are the agents of regionalism - in particular, regional elites - who articulated the goal of a regional "Community" to propel regional projects, and have set the bar above the current capacities of regional institutions. (Contemp Southeast Asia/GIGA)

This volume offers refined theoretical models and approaches which are attuned to the new dynamics and contradictions of a wide range of regionalist projects in the contemporary Middle East. Case studies of the most important regional organizations in different policy fields offer comprehensive overviews of the main actors, institutions, historical development and current issues.

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.

"This edited volume transcends conventional state-centric and formalistic notions of regionalism and theorizes, conceptualizes and analyzes the complexities and contradictions of regionalization processes in contemporary Africa. The collection not only unpacks and theorizes the African state-society complex with regard to new regionalism, but also explicitly integrates the often neglected discourse of human security and human development. In so doing, the book moves the discussion of new regionalism forward at the same time adding important insights to security and development."--Jacket.

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.