CHA PTER FOUR: GLOBA LIZA TION AND REGIONA LISM

Introduction

Globalization and Regionalism are two major phenomena influencing global trend. Both as a form of
integration and differentiation among states characterize a form of reorganization of interstate relations: formal
and informal. Globalization is often understood as a phenomena, or a process characterized by increasing
interconnectedness or interdependence. In short, it is a supra regional process bringing the world into one
global village. The economy, politics, and technology have been the driving forces of globalization. Regionalism,
on the other hand, is conceived as a way of dealing with politico-economic, social, military and security
issues affecting states in common.

Both developments have continued to significantly shape the nature of global politics, peace and security. The
mutual causation between regionalism and globalization is an area of unsettling debate involving convergence,
divergence and overlap. This chapter, therefore, brings the whole theoretical and practical debates around
regionalism, regional integration, globalization and the interplay among them in influencing global trends.

4.1. Defining Glob aliz ation

Globalization can be defined as a multidimensional process characterized by:

1) the stretching of social and political activities across state (political) frontiers so that events, decisions, and
activities in one part of the world come to have significance for individuals and communities in other parts of
the world. For instance wars and conflicts in developing countries would increase the flow of asylum seekers
and illegal migrants in to the developed countries;
2) the intensification or the growing magnitude of interconnectedness in almost every aspect of social existence
from the economic to the ecological, the spread of HIV-AIDS, from the intensification of world trade to the
spread of different weapons;
3) the accelerating pace of global interactions and process as the evolution of worldwide systems of transport
and communication increases the rapidity of or velocity with which ideas, news, goods, information, capital
and technology move around the world;
4) the growing extensity, intensity, and velocity of global interaction is associated with a deepening enmeshment
of the local and global insofar as the local events may come to have global consequences and global events
may come to have serious local consequences creating a growing collective awareness of the world as shared
social space, i.e. globality or globalism.

Although geography and distance still matters it is nevertheless the case that globalization is synonymous with a
process of time-space compression-literally meant that in the shrinking world events or actions no longer

1
coincides with the place in which it takes place. In this respect globalization embodies a process of
deterritorialization, viz., as social, political, and economic activities are increasingly stretched across the globe
they become in a significant sense no longer organized solely according to territorial logic. For example
terrorist and criminals operate both locally and globally.

Another example is that under the condition of globalization, national economic space is no longer
coterminous with national territorial space since, as in the case of many U.S companies based their
headquarters in Europe. This indicates that, in the globalized world, territorial borders no longer demarcate the
boundaries of national economic or political space. This is not to argue that territory and borders are now
irrelevant but rather to acknowledge that under condition of globalization this relative significance, as constrains
of social action and exercise of power, is declining. Note only that the distinction between the domestic
and international, inside and outside the state breaks down.

4.2. The Glob aliz a tion Deb a tes

Globalization is a contentious issue in international relations. There has been intense debate as to the direction,
nature and effect of globalization on states. In this regard, there are three perspectives:

 the hyper-globalists,
 the skeptics, and
 transformationalists.

Each perspective delivers a distinct response to the questions of: what is new about globalization; and what are
its political consequences for sovereign statehood?

a) The Hy per- glob alists

For the hyper-globalists, globalization today defines a new epoch in human history in which nation states
become obsolete to regulate their economy and boundary.

 This view of globalization privileges the economic over the political, the market over the state, and
prefigures the decline of states.
 Advocates of this view argue that economic globalization is bringing about a de-nationalization/ de-
territorialization of economies through the establishment of transitional networks of production, trade and
finance.
 In this borderless economy national governments are relegated to little more than transmission belts for
global capital or ultimately powerless institutions marginalized by the growing significance of local, regional
and global mechanisms of governance.
 In this respect the hyper-globalists share a conviction that economic globalization is bringing about the
decline of states. Under the condition of globalization, states becoming the site of global and transnational
flows and as opposed to the primary container of socio-economic activity.

2
 Thus for the hyper globalists, the authority and legitimacy of states thereby is undermined as the national
governments become increasingly unable to control the Tran boundary movements and flows of goods,
services, ideas and different socio-economic activities inside their borders. The cumulative effects of these
forces would make the state in effective to full fill the demands of its citizens.

Furthermore; the hyper globalists claim that economic globalization is generating a new pattern of losers as
well as winners in the international economy. The already existing South-North gap has been considered as
acronyms as a new international division of labor emerges with more complex economic configuration of
economic power. The competitive nature of the market would bring new economic class as winners and
losers, hence this put a challenge for the state, especially welfare states, to helping those losers under the
constraint of liberal market economy.

Hyper-globalist further argue that globalization is imparting new liberal ideas and implant culture of
modernization replacing the traditional culture having an impetus towards creating a new global order marked
by uniform cultural values or way of life.

b ) 4.2.2. The Sk eptics

The skeptics rejected the view of super- globalist as a myth, flawed and politically naïve since it fundamentally
underestimate the enormous power of national governments to regulate international economic activities. For
them, rather than being out of control, the force of globalization, which is synonymous to internationalization,
very much dependent on the regulatory power of the state to ensure the continuation of economic liberalism.

 States are central actors and agents of globalization playing central role in shaping and regulating the
economic activities including the Trans-boundary flows of ideas, goods and peoples.

Skeptics also undermine the view that the world is interconnected and moving into a village where by
there exists a free flow of goods and services, investment and circulation of money from one corner of the
world in to another.
 For them, the so called globalization is not more than regionalization that is being manifested in the
emergence of financial and trading blocs in Western countries, North America, in Asia and to some
extent in Africa. For instance in Europe, there exists EU as site and expression of globalization; in North
America, there exist a trading bloc, NAFTA, ASEAN in Asia. And we have seen more interconnectedness
at regional level lesser than at the global level.
 For that matter, Skeptics argues that there is no free flow of goods, resources, technology and finance at the
global level; instead we have regional based globalization.

In this regard, it has become evident that the Western region is more intergraded and globalized than the other

3
part of the world such as Africa and Asia. In fact these countries are in one way or another interconnected in
terms of trade; yet we have seen less instantaneous flow of technology financial capital from the west to Africa
and other developing countries. Yet in terms of trade the developing countries are integrated to the western
market whereby the developing countries supply their primary agricultural commodities to earn foreign
currencies. However such trade connection is not benefiting the developing nations.
 The Sceptics thus do not believe that globalization would help to narrow the economic and technological
gap that is still prevailing between the Global North (developed Countries) and The Global
South(Developing countries).
 So, for the Skeptics, globalization brings nothing new, rather it is just the crystallization the already existing
realities of the world which has been marked by the North-South gap reflected in terms of the deeply
rooted patterns of in equality and hierarchy.

c) The Transform ationalist

Central to the transformationalist perspective is the conviction that globalization is a critical driving force
behind the rapid social, political and economic changes which are reshaping societies and international politics.
According to the proponents of this view, the contemporary process of globalization are historically
unprecedented such that governments and societies across the globe are having to adapt to a world in
which there is no longer a clear distinction between the international and domestic affairs.

 At the core of the transformationist view is the belief that globalization is reconstituting or reengineering the
power, function and the authority of the state, Even though the state has ultimate legal power to control
events inside its boundary, it can‖t command sole control over trans-boundary issues, actors, resource
movements. Under globalization, national economic space no more coincides with state boundary.

In arguing that globalization is transforming or reconstituting the power and authority of national governments,
they however reject both the hyper globalist view of the end of the sovereign state as well as the Sceptics claim
that nothing much has changed.
 Instead they assert that a new sovereignty regime is displacing traditional conception of state power as an
absolute, indivisible, territorially exclusive power. Accordingly, sovereignty today is the best understood as
―….less a territorially defined barrier than a bargaining resource for a politics characterized by complex
transnational network. Under globalization, there are non-state actors as Multinational Corporation,
transnational social movements, international regulatory agencies.

In this sense world order can no longer be conceived as purely State-Centric or even primarily state managed
as authority has become increasingly diffused amongst public and private a agencies at the local, national,
regional and at global levels i.e. down ward, up rewards and sideways. This does not mean that the power of

4
national government is necessarily diminished but on the contrary it is being redefined, reconstituted and
restructured in response to the

growing complexity of process of governance in a more interconnected world.

4.3. Glob aliz a tion a nd Its Im pacts on A frica

Despite the ambiguities of the concept, the essential nature of globalization is the compression of space and
time, so that people from distant areas are able and in fact obliged to interact with one another intensively and
in a wide range of areas. As a result, the world becomes one, and interactions among diverse people begin to
look like those within a village. Thus terms such as ―One World and ―Villagization are sometimes used as
synonyms for globalization.

In its contemporary form, globalization is driven by a variety of forces. These are financial or the flow of
financial resources, economic with particular reference to the flow of goods and services and, to a very limited
extent, labor, technology, especially transport, communications and information technology, the spread of
culture from one corner of the world to the other, and the global diffusion of religious ideas as well as
ideologies. Other aspects that are unique to the present form of globalization are the Americanization of
the world, the propagation of a universal paradigm for economic and political development, and the
dominance of unilateralism as a way of conducting international relations.

 The Americanization of the World is the result of the huge and unprecedented gap between the United
States and its nearest rival in each and every sphere, military, economic, technological and cultural, which
is in turn transformed into the unequaled American influence on international issues and decision-making,
including those within the purview of major international institutions such as the United Nations
System, the Breton-Woods institutions, and the World Trade Organization.

Globalization has therefore increasingly taken the appearance of the transformation of the international system
from a multi-polar or bipolar system to an imperial system under American hegemony. Within this system,
decisions and outcomes are largely the result of American unilateralism. A major consequence of this is the
propagation of a universal paradigm for both economic and political development, in the form of the so-called
Washington Consensus, whose main features are market forces and liberal democracy, without regard to the
historical and cultural specificities of individual countries.

 In sum, globalization seems to be leading inexorably to the homogenization of the world, with the United
States as the model and the standard by which all other countries are to be judged. Participants were
unanimously of the view that globalization is inevitable and its consequences pervasive. However,

5
 asymmetry in the distribution of power results in different perceptions and evaluation of the impact of
globalization, especially with respect to the distribution of the benefits of globalization.
 In the case of Africa, its position in the international system has been considerably weakened by the fact that
it has been losing the race for economic development in general, and human development in particular, to
other regions. This poor performance by African countries accounts in part for the political and social
instability and the rise of authoritarian regimes that have characterized much of postcolonial Africa further
weakening the ability of African countries to deal effectively with globalization.

The cold war has had significant consequences for Africa. During its height in the 1960‖s and 1970‖s, the
cold war witnessed the emergence of authoritarian regimes in most African Countries in the form of one-party
or military regimes. This was largely a result of the support of the two blocks to keep African countries in
their respective camps. In any event, both one party and military regimes inhibited the emergence of
democratic governance and developmentally oriented regimes in Africa. With the end of the cold war,
support has been withdrawn by the major powers for many African countries considered no longer of strategic
importance. This has entailed an increase in the number of so called ―failed states‖ in Africa during the last
two decades. This development has also been inimical to the emergence and consolidation of effective
Democratic and developmentally oriented regimes in Africa.

 In addition, the end of the cold war has witnessed an over-all decline in the strategic importance of Africa.
This has, in turn, substantially reduced Africa‖s international negotiating power and its ability to maneuver in
the international system with a view to gaining a modicum of freedom of choice, autonomy and leverage in
its dealings with more powerful actors. In sum then, the cold war and its demise has worked against
democracy and economic development in Africa. The problem therefore lies in Africa‖s position in the global
system and not in the specific form taken by globalization.
 Specific impacts of globalization on Africa can be identified. In the political sphere, the most important
consequence is the erosion of sovereignty, especially on economic and financial matters, as a result
of the imposition of models, strategies and policies of development on African countries by the
International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the World Trade Organization. On the other hand,
globalization has promoted greater respect for human rights and contributed to the development of an
African press. This has opened African countries to far greater scrutiny than in the past, making it somewhat
more difficult for African governments to get away with blatant and excessive abuses of democratic
governance and transparency. However, this positive development is negated by the fact that these
principles of democratic governance and transparency tend to be applied selectively and subjectively. More
important is the fact that globalization for the most part does not facilitate the establishment of the
economic conditions necessary for genuine democracy and good governance to take solid roots and thrive.

6
In this regard globalization has negative impacts on the development and effective governance of African States.
One form of this is the reduction of the capacity of governments to determine and control events in their
countries, and thus their accountability and responsiveness to their people, given the fact that the context,
institutions and processes by which these decisions are taken are far from democratic. In addition, the
fragmentation of national economies, polities, societies and cultures that are triggered by globalization weaken
national consciousness and cohesion, leading to social divisiveness and instability, which in turn facilitate the
emergence of authoritarian rule. Strong countries are, however, in a better position to fend off these negative
consequences and may even see their democracies strengthened.

One major positive impact of globalization on Africa is that it has made available information on how other
countries are governed and the freedoms and rights their people enjoy. It has also opened African countries to
intense external scrutiny and exercised pressure for greater transparency, openness and accountability in
Africa. However, most of the forces unleashed by globalization have had a negative impact on the
growth and consolidation of democratic governance in Africa. Among these are the following:

 While calling for greater accountability and responsiveness of leaders to their people, globalization has
often pressured African leaders to adopt policies and measures that are diametrically opposite to the
feelings and sentiments of the vast majority of their people. This has led to the rise or
reinforcement of authoritarian regimes. A good recent example of this is the pressure on many
African governments to take certain measures in the fight against terrorism at the behest of external
powers;
 By defining basic and generally accepted principles of democratic governance, such as good governance,
transparency and accountability, in narrow terms, conditioned by particular historical, political, social,
and cultural factors, while leaving little or no room for adapting them to different societies and
cultures, democracy takes on the image of something alien and imposed from the outside. Support for
the fundamental principles of democracy is thus undermined, cynicism arises, and the effort itself fails
to develop roots in the countries to which they are being artificially transplanted.
 Globalization leads to the development of anti-developmentalism by declaring the state irrelevant or
marginal to the developmental effort. Development strategies and policies that focus on stabilization
and privatization, rather than growth, development and poverty eradication, are pushed by external
donors, leading to greater poverty and inequality and undermining the ability of the people to
participate effectively in the political and social processes in their countries. Welfare and other
programs intended to meet the basic needs of the majority of the population are transferred from
governments to non-governmental organizations that begin to replace governments in the eyes of the

7
 people. As a result, governments lose what little authority and legitimacy they have. The
consequent gap between government leaders and the public leads to alienation of the population from
the political process and creates a favorable environment for the emergence of non-representative
governments.

 By imposing economic specialization based on the needs and interests of external forces and
transforming the economies of African countries into a series of enclave economies linked to the
outside but with very little linkages among them, divisions within African countries are accentuated
and the emergence of national consciousness and the sense of a common destiny is frustrated.
Democracy, with its emphasis on tolerance and compromise, can hardly thrive in such an
environment.
 Further, because the economic specialization imposed on African countries makes rapid and
sustainable growth and development impossible, conflicts over the distribution of the limited gains
realized from globalization become more acute and politicized. Vulnerable groups, such as women, the
youth, and rural inhabitants, fare very badly in this contest and are discriminated against. This
further erodes the national ethos of solidarity and reciprocity that are essential to successful
democracies.

 Lastly, globalization, by insisting on African countries opening their economies to foreign goods and
entrepreneurs, limits the ability of African governments to take proactive and conscious measures to
facilitate the emergence of an indigenous entrepreneurial class. Consequently, due to their weakness
and incapacity to operate on a national basis, rather than being forces for national integration and
consolidation as was and is the case of European and American entrepreneurs, African entrepreneurs
reinforce social divisions based on ethnicity, religion, race, language, culture, and location.

Economically, globalization has, on the whole, reinforced the economic marginalization of African economies
and their dependence on a few primary goods for which demand and prices are externally determined. This
has, in turn, accentuated poverty and economic inequality as well as the ability of the vast number of Africans to
participate meaningfully in the social and political life of their countries. Economic and social stagnation has
also triggered a substantial brain- drain from Africa, further weakening the ability of African countries to
manage their economies efficiently and effectively. As a result of the cultural domination from outside that goes
with globalization, African countries are rapidly losing their cultural identity and therefore their ability to
interact with other cultures on an equal and autonomous basis, borrowing from other cultures only those
aspects that meet its requirements and needs.

8
Finally, while the scientific and technological forces unleashed by globalization have facilitated to some extent
access by Africans to advanced technology and information, this has been at the expense of stultifying the
indigenous development of technology and distorting patterns of production in Africa, notably by
utilizing capital as against labor intensive methods of production, which in turn increases unemployment
and poverty. Overall therefore, the negative consequences of globalization on Africa far out way their positive
impact.

4.4. Ethiopia in a Glob aliz ed World

Ethiopia is one of the countries marginally integrated to the capitalist system during the post- Cold War era.
Despite the 17 years interruption during the Derg period, Ethiopia continued to be marginally integrated to the
post-Cold War global capital. This has multiple implications to the way globalization influenced the country. In
the post-1991 period Ethiopia found itself facing the challenges of democratization and the reconstruction of
the post-conflict society. This was coincidentally interfaced with the advent of globalization. The course
Ethiopia took to federalize and democratize, for instance the FDRE constitution, bears the mark of
globalization. The marginal integration, according to the late Prime Minister of FDRE Meles Zenawi, have
saved the country from being adversely affected by the onslaught of global capital on the countries of the
south; and the global financial crisis that plagued the western market and those countries whose markets are
integrated to the Western market system. This owes to the cautious developmental state political economy
EPRDF pursued during the last decade.

 Yet, Ethiopia like any other country found itself facing a fast track of multidimensional changes that positively
and negatively affected its place in the globe. For instance, the triumph of western free market economy and
liberal democracy has put the country‖s defiant political economic policy in a head-on collision course with
the requirements of Briton woods institutions and western powers. This indeed has its mark on the
development aid and loan Ethiopia managed to secure to finance its national development projects and
design its own economic policy independently.
 Nevertheless, with meticulous planning and strategic thinking, Ethiopia achieved amazing economic
transformation and gained a lot from the positive opportunities of globalization. It has also benefited
from the technological and knowledge transfer, free movement of ideas, people and finance. The other
side of the globalization coin shows negative impacts on Ethiopia. Among others, the expansion of
information communication opened the historically closed doors of Ethiopia to new religious and secular
values that affected the religiosity and social solidarity of its people. This is reflected in the rise of religious
radicalism of every sort and posture. Socio-cultural impact of western values is amply observed in urban

9
 centres.
 Furthermore, the glocalization dynamics contributed to the rise radical nationalism and ethnicity. The
prevalence of human trafficking and migration is partly attributable to the onset of globalization. To sum
up, Ethiopia has benefited less from globalization than its negative influences.

4.5. Pros and Cons of Glob a liz ation

Globalization has its merits and demerits. Among the leading merits of globalization are:

 the expansion of democratic culture, human right and the protection of historically minority and
subaltern groups.
 Innovation in science, medicine, and technology and information communication has enabled the
improvement of quality of life.
 Agricultural technological expansion resulted in the lifting out of millions of people out of poverty.
 The technological and social revolution significantly contributed to advancement of human security and
safety.
 Moreover, the free movement of good, service, people, ideas, expertise, knowledge and technology
across national borders strengthened international interdependence.

This in turn contributed to the birth of a new sense of global society and the perspective of global citizenship
that contradicts the classical idea of citizenship limited national borders and defined by nationalism and
patriotism. The emergence of the idea of global civil society also pertains to this phenomenon. States ceased to
be the sole actors and referents of international relations and diplomacy, and conception of security as well.
Along with it emerged the responsibility of states to protect their citizens and the shared responsibility of the
global society for protecting vulnerable groups from human right violations and victimization. Furthermore,
economist characterize the rapid economic growth in some countries of the south to globalization.

However, globalization is not also without its demerits.

 Some commentators say that there is no serious problem against globalization but against a certain type of
globalization imposed by the global financial elite. They recognize the prevalence of a gnawing gap
between rich and poor became considerably.
 Yet, this is an understatement of the challenges imposed by globalization. It is an aspect of Western
imperialism of ideas and beliefs eroding and inroading the sovereignty of non-Western countries. For
example, while wealth and power of the multinationals seems to have increased significantly, neither they
nor national governments have so much control over macro-economic forces as they would like.
 Global capital and international financial institutions like WB and IMF made free inroads into countries of the

10
 south influencing the economic and political dynamics of negatively. With technological advancement,
climatic, environmental and technological risks have multiplied.
 Globalization, in the sense of connectivity to the global economic and cultural life, brings with it a different
order than what it was before threatening the continuity of non-Western age-old traditions, way of life and
cultural values.
 Besides, the globalization has made the globalization of risks, threats and vulnerabilities like global terrorism,
religious fundamentalism, proliferation of Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALWs), arms and human
trafficking.
 Moreover, globalization has stimulated the emergence a simultaneous but opposite process of Glocalization,
which involves a process of integration to the world and differentiation to the local. This process has
contributed to the rise of radical nationalism and ethnicity, which set the context for the emergence of the
era of identity and identity conflicts.
 In general, without denying the opportunities of globalization, countries of the global south have faced
multidimensional economic, political, socio-cultural, security and military challenges induced by

globalization.

4.6. Defin ing Regiona lism and Region al Integration

Region can be defined as a limited number of states linked together by a geographical relationship and by a
degree of mutual interdependence (Nye, 1968). Regionalism consequently refers to intensifying political and/or
economic processes of cooperation among states and other actors in particular geographic regions, which can
be developed either 'from below' i.e. from the decisions by companies to invest and by people to move within a
region or 'from above' i.e. from political, state-based efforts to create cohesive regional units and common
policies for them; or from both approaches. Regionalism normally presents the sustained cooperation (either
formal or informal) among governments, non-governmental organizations, or the private sectors in three or
more countries for mutual gains (Allagappa 1994; Palmujoki 2001; Griffiths and O'Callaghan 2004).

 Buzan et al (1998) categorized region into two types in accordance with its contexts. In the societal context,
unit means nation and region is the set of adjacent nations. Meanwhile, in the political context, unit is
identified with state and region means: a spatially coherent territory composed of two or more states. Sub-
region means part of such a region, whether it involves more than one state (but fewer than all of the
states in the region) or some transnational composition (some mix of states, parts of states, or both).
Micro-region refers to the subunit level within the boundaries of a state (Buzan et a 1998: 18-19). These
literatures led to a conclusion that a spatial concept is the essence of regionalism. In this regard, the states
that share geographical proximity and a degree of mutual interdependence will participate in their regional

11
 groupings (Karns and Mingst 2005). However, without regionness or regional awareness the proximity of
countries in the given regions cannot be referred to as a key driving force to regionalize with intimate
neighboring countries.

Regionalization can be conceived as the growth of societal integration within a given region, including the
undirected processes of social and economic interaction among the units (such as nation-states; see Hurrell
1995a). As a dynamic process, it can be best understood as a continuing process of forming regions as
geopolitical units, as organized political cooperation within a particular group of states, and/or as regional
communities such as pluralistic security communities (Whiting 1993).
 Similarly, the term regionalism refers to the proneness of the governments and peoples of two or more
states to establish voluntary associations and to pool together resources (material and nonmaterial) in order
to create common functional and institutional arrangements.
 Furthermore, regionalism can be best described as a process occurring in a given geographical region
by which different types of actors (states, regional institutions, societal organizations and other non-state
actors) come to share certain fundamental values and norms. These actors also participate in a growing
network of economic, cultural, scientific, diplomatic, political, and military interactions (Mace and Therien
1996).

The occurrences of regionalism have mushroomed across all parts of the world. In contrast, the theories to
explain these developments are limited (Soderbaum 2003). Most of the theories have been developed under
the dominant European contexts. This is due largely to the location of regionalism and its successful story
has been in the specific context of Europe. Later, we experienced the successful regional grouping
in North America. By and large, these developments are considered as Western approaches to
regionalism.

As a result, these theories are hardly relevant to the development of regionalism outside the West including
the region of Southeast Asia (Hurrell 1995). Therefore, this section is an attempt to demonstrate theories that
explain the possibilities of the formation of regional grouping as much as possible. While it does not avoid the
influence of the Eurocentric approaches, it seeks to book beyond the European success to include other
aspects as well.

4.6.1. The Old Regionalism

For many scholars, regionalism, as a voluntary and comprehensive process, is predominantly a post-World War
II phenomenon. It emerged in Western Europe in the late-1940s, subsequently spreading to the developing
world. Old regionalism lost much of its dynamism in Europe in the early 1970s and gradually, also in the
developing world. As will become evident below, it is relevant to try separating the European-centered debate

12
from the debate in the developing world.

Regional Integration in Europe and Bey ond

Old regionalism has its roots in the devastating experience of inter-war nationalism and World War II. It is
therefore closely linked to the discussion about ‗regional integration‖ in Europe, in particular to the formation
of the European Communities. In contrast to earlier discussions that centered on mercantilism and competing
alliances, post-War scholars usually viewed the (Westphalian) nation-state as the problem rather than the
solution, and the purpose of regional integration was to achieve and consolidate peace and stability.
Immediately after the Second World War, there was a lot of discussion about European regionalism, not least
about reconstruction and reconciliation between France and Germany. A series of initiatives were launched,
which resulted in the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) in 1951. The long- term goal was more
ambitious, and in 1958 the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy
Community (EAEC) were integrated into the EC through the Treaty of Rome. The influence of EU goes
beyond being successful experiment in regionalization and came to dominate the discourse on regionalization.

As Breslin et al. (2002: 2) point out, they ―used the European experience as a basis for the production of
generalizations about the prospects for regional integration elsewhere. This resulted in difficulties in identifying
comparable cases, or anything that corresponded to their definition of ‗regional integration‖. The treatment of
European integration as the primary case or‗model‖ of regional integration still dominates many of the more
recent studies of regionalism and regional integration,

Regional Integration in Africa

There was also an old (or classical) debate in the developing world, especially in Latin America and Africa, but
to some extent also in Asia and other developing regions. As previously indicated, the discussion about
regionalism in the developing world was closely linked to colonialism/anti-colonialism and the quest to
facilitate economic development in the newly independent nation-states. Many of the discussions about
regionalism in the developing world were heavily influenced by the structuralist tradition of economic
development, pioneered by Gunnar Myrdal, Arthur Lewis, and Raúl Prebisch. In sharp contrast to the
European debate, which focused heavily on regional integration, the keywords here were development, state-
promoted industrialization and nation-building, first and foremost through protectionism and import-
substitution.

 The Latin American structuralist discussion about underdevelopment reflected specific economic
experiences in various countries, particularly in terms of trade problems. The depression of the 1930s
also had severe impact on Latin American development, creating pressure for change. Encouraged by the

13
 United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA) and its dynamic Executive Secretary,
Raúl Prebisch, the vision was to create an enlarged economic space in Latin America in order to
enhance import substitution regionally when it became exhausted at the national level. Liberalized intra-
regional trade in combination with regional protectionism seemed to offer large economies of scale and
wider markets, which could serve as stimulus to industrialization, economic growth, and investment
(Prebisch 1959).

From this perspective, the rationale of regional cooperation and integration among less developed
countries was not to be found in functional cooperation or marginal economic change within the existing
structure, but rather, through the fostering of ‗structural transformation‖ and the stimulation of productive
capacities (industrialization), whereby investment and trading opportunities were being created. The
structuralist school thus shifted its focus away from economic integration as means for peace and political
unification, to one of regional economic cooperation/integration as means for economic development and state-
formation. The dependent variable, as well as the underlying conditions for regionalism, was so different that it
called for a different theory, according to which Europe and the developing world were not comparable cases
(Axline 1994: 180).

 This type of regionalism resulted in the creation of the Latin American Free Trade Association (LAFTA) in
Montevideo in 1960. LAFTA was a comprehensive and continental project and included all countries on the
South American continent plus Mexico. However, in spite of some early progress and lively theoretical
discussion, which has become internationally known as central to the history of economic thought the old
regionalism in Latin America made little economic impact and was never implemented on a larger scale.

Regionalization in Latin America during 1960s and 1970s did not materialized because of conflict and
military dictatorship. Yet, at discourse level it was robust that it had ample include on the dynamics of
regionalization in Africa. The debate between the Federalist Casablanca and Monrovia groups had also its own
influence. The major ideological influence on regional cooperation and integration, however, is embodied in the
founding principles of OAU and later AU such as Lagos Plan of Action (1980) and the Abuja treaty (1991). The
major purpose of regionalization was to resist colonial and post-colonial influence, protectionism and realizing
import substitution. Among the various state led regional organizations in Africa were the CFA (Community of
French Africa), East African Community (EAC) and SACU (Southern African Community Union). The SADCC
(The Southern Africa Development Coordination Conference, a predecessor of the SADC) was established to
against the influence of Apartheid and external dependency (Söderbaum, 2015).

4.6.2. New Regiona lism

14
The prospects of the fall of the Berlin Wall together with the 1985 White Paper on the internal market and the
Single European Act resulted in a new dynamic process of European integration. This was also the start of what
has often been referred to as ‗new regionalism‖ on a global scale. The new regionalism referred to a number of
new trends and developments, such as the spectacular increase in the number of regional trade agreements,
an externally oriented and less protectionist type of regionalism, an anti-hegemonic type of regionalism which
emerged from within the regions themselves instead of being controlled by the superpowers, the rise of a
more multi-dimensional and pluralistic type of regionalism, which was not primarily centered around trading
schemes or security cooperation and with a more varied institutional design, and the increasing

importance of a range of business and civil society actors in regionalization.

A ctiv ities:
 What do the terms ‗Regionalism‖ and ‗Regional integration mean?
 Discuss the difference between Old regionalism and New regionalism
 Compare the European and African experiences of regional integration

Many scholars emphasized the fact that the new wave of regionalism needed to be related to the multitude of
often inter-related structural changes of and in the global system in the post-Cold War era, such as the end
of bipolarity, the intensification of globalization, the recurrent fears over the stability of the multilateral
trading order, the restructuring of the nation-state, and the critique of neoliberal economic development and
political systems in developing as well as post- communist countries (cf. Gamble/Payne 1996; Hettne et al.
1999).

According to Söderbaum, the difference between old and new regionalism can be summarized as provided in
the table below:
Old Regionalism New Regionalism
World Order World order context Bipolar world Cold War
Context
Link s b etween Taming nationalism (in Resisting, taming or advancing
National, Regional, Europe) or Advancing economic globalization
and Glob al m odes nationalism (in South)
of gov ernance
Sectors, A ctors & Sector specific State-centric Multi-sectoral State vs. non-state actors
Form s of Formal regionalism Hard Regionalism vs. regionalization Formal vs.
Orga niz a tion regionalism informal Hard vs. soft
Ontology Regional integration Ontological pluralism, confusion and
Regional organizations (& disagreement Regionalism
subsystems) Clear regional Regionalization Regional organizations
boundary lines

15
 Epistem ology Dominance of positivism & Rationalism vs. constructivism vs.
rationalism & materialism critical theory Materialism vs.
(and some structuralism in ideas/identities Epistemological
the South) conflict
M ethodology Europe-focused Rigid Regional specialization (parochialism)
comparison vs. false universalism (Eurocentrism)
Comparison as parallel case studies or
quantitative studies Little dialogue between
EU studies and IR/IPE regionalism

Table 1: The Difference between Old and New Regionalism

Source: (Söderbaum, 2015)

The historical dynamics of the old and the new regionalism at global level can be summarized as follows:
Two Waves of Regionalism (Selected Organizations)
First W a ve: 1950s- 1970s
Europe a nd Soviet B loc La tin A m erica
-NATO (1949-) -OAS (1948-)
-WEU (1955-) -RIO Pact (1947-)
-Warsaw Treaty Organization (1955-1991) -Central American Common Market ( 1961-)
-Council of Europe ( 1948-) -Andean Community (1969-)
-ECSC (1952-) -CARICOM (1973-)
-EEC and -Euratom (1958-1992) -LAFTA (1969-1980)
-COMECON (1948-1991) Middle East
West and Ea st A sia -League of Arab States (1945-)
-CENTO (1950s) A frica
-SEATO (1954-1975) -OAU (1964-2002)
-ASEAN (1967-)

Second W ave: 1980s- 1990s

Europe La tin A m erica
-CSCE (1975-) -Mercosur (1991-)
-EU (1992) -FTAA (1994-)
-CIS (1991-) -NAFTA (1993-)
A sia a nd A sia - Pa cific A frica
-APEC (1989-) -ECOWAS (1975-)
-ARF (1994) -SADC (1992-)
Middle East -CoMESA (1994-) AU
Gulf Cooperation Council (1984) (2002-

Table 2: The Two Waves of Regionalism

Source: M argaret P . K ans and K aren A. M ingst (2005: 152)

4.7. M ajor Theories of Region al Integra tions

4.7.1. Functionalism

16
Functionalist viewed regionalism as a functional response by states to the problems that derived from regional
interdependence. It was seen as the most effective means of solving common problems. Regionalism has started
from technical and non-controversial issues and has spilled over into the realm of high politics and redefinition
of group identity around the regional unit (Hurrell 1995). According to functionalism, the task of policy
makers is to encourage the states to peacefully work together. The like-minded states would spread the
web of international activities and agencies in which and through which the interests and life of all states would
be gradually integrated from one activity to others (Mitrany 1946).

Regional organization was then built up to cope with one common problem and spill over to other
problems and areas of cooperation, which will deepen integration among member states. Therefore, 'spillover'
is the key explanation of _functionalist regionalism. According to fiurrell (1995), there were two sorts of
spillover. First, functional spillover whereby cooperation in one area would broaden and deepen further areas;
and second, political spillover whereby the existence of supranational institutions would set in motion a
self-reinforcing process of institution building. The end-result would be a shift in loyalties from nationalism
towards regionalism, a new center whose institutions possesses or demands jurisdiction over the pre- existing
national states (Ernst 1958; Hurrell 1995). Accordingly, the functionalist and neo- functionalist
approaches presume that cooperation across national borders particularly in the economic field spreads out to
other sectors. This spillover effect leads finally to the formation of supranational institutions and to the
diminishing role of the nation-state (Palmujoki 2001).

Karns and Mingst (2005) argue that functionalism is applicable at both regional and global levels; and later
mention that the overwhelming number of international governmental organizations (IGOs) could be classified
as functional. That is, they have specific mandates, link to economic issues, and limited memberships, often
related to geographic region. Notably, their statement could be deliberately illustrated by Thomas George's
(1997) position. George states that functionalism is a global approach rather than a regional approach and neo-
functionalism is derived from the functionalist doctrine and was applied in a regional context with some
modifications. In this regard, the process and dynamics of cooperation under neo-functionalist approaches
will work automatically to cope with the facing issues. As a result, political decisions are needed at any key
point and these may or may not be taken (Karns and Mingst 2005). Therefore, functional spillover has to be in
tandem with political spillover in order to reinforce each other.

4.7.2. Neo- functionalism

Neo-functionalism emerged in the 1960s based on the key works of Ernst Haas and Leon Lindberg.
The model of integration is based on the following basic principles. Neo-functionalism included clear departures
from transactionalism, federalism and functionalism, which made it clearly a distinct and independent theoretical

17
entity. First, the clearest difference existed between neo-functionalism and transactionalism. Transactionalism
had defined integration as a condition, and the attainment of integration was measured by the existence of a
'security-community'. Neo- functionalists, on the contrary, defined integration as a process:

'Political integration is the process whereby political actors in several distinct national settings are persuaded
to shift their loyalties, expectations and political activities towards a new centre, whose institutions possess or
demand jurisdiction over the pre-existing national states. The end result of the process of political integration is
a new political community, superimposed over the pre-existing ones.'(Haas 1968, 16).

Another distinguishing principle of neo-functionalism, as identified by Ben Rosamond is the emphasis on political
agency in integration process (Rosamond, 2002). It considers integration as a process with special focus on
political integration. According to Lindenberg, the following preconditions for the success of an integration
process. These conditions included according to him: 1) Central institutions and central policies should be
established and developed, because only they can assure that someone represents and promotes the 'regional
view' as well as solves disputes between member states; 2) Their tasks and capacity to implement those tasks
should go well beyond the mandate of normal international institutions; 3) Their tasks should be inherently
expansive; 4) There should be some link between the interests of member states and the process of
integration. (Lindberg 1963, 7-13).

An important concept is spill over, originally coined by Haas, refereeing to the process of integration from the
political sphere into other aspects of life. Lindberg considers integration as―inherently expansive task‖ that
has to begin from the political sphere. The spill over according to Lindberg is a condition that a given action
leads to a certain goal and that arranges a condition for the creation of a new action. Similarly, spill over in
regional integration follows the same logic of embarking a certain action that achieves a degree of integration
and creates a condition for integration at advanced and wider scale. In effect, it deepens the process of
integration.

Inter- governmentalism

Inter-govemenmetalism or liberal intergovernmentalism is a theory and approach that focus on the state for
integration to succeed. It approaches the question of the state in an integration process from the
perspective of traditional international relations. It thus considers the state mainly as an actor in the
international system and the integration process to be a process in that system. According to Moravcsik
integration can be considered as part of the rational choice of state actors. This rationalist framework
disaggregates the process of integration into three stages: national preference formation, interstate bargaining
and institutional choice. In the first stage, the degree of integration depends on the interests of influential

18
domestic constituents exercising pressure over their governments.

Moravcsik (1993) explains that ―the foreign policy goals of national governments vary in response to shifting
pressure from domestic social groups, whose preferences are aggregated through political institutions‖. For
example, national governments may pursue international agendas in the fields of trade and agriculture
to satisfy domestic producer groups. Nevertheless, he argues that national preference formation
regarding cooperation in the field of foreign and defence policy is subject to geopolitical interests,
revolving around a state‖s ideological commitment. The problem with this approach is that international
relations have not given much weight to the domestic level or the society in the state‖s foreign policy decisions.

Sup ra- nationalism

In order to understand the supranational perception of European integration, we must first study the original
theory from which this line of thought has been derived: Neo-functionalism. The roots of Neo-
functionalism lie most visibly in the works of Haas (1958) on European integration (Rosamund, 2000), who has
developed three mechanisms through which he thought European integration progresses: first, positive spillover
effects; second, a transfer of allegiances from the national to the supranational political arena; and third, a
‗technocratic automaticity,‖ referring to an increasingly autonomous role of supranational institutions in
promoting further integration.

The spillover effect occurs when integration between states in a particular sector incentivizes integration in
other sectors too. One incentive is, for example, that the optimization of common benefits of integration in
the original sector requires integration in other sectors (Lindberg,1963). The second mechanism refers to
a process by which domestic interest groups shift their activities from the domestic to the international realm.
Oftentimes national institutions provide less effective ways for interest groups to pursue their end goals than
international institutions do. Finally, the third mechanism is a process in which established supranational
institutions develop an interest of their own: encouraging deeper and broader integration. In the European case,
the European Commission, established to coordinate and implement integration strategies, has an intrinsic
interest to expand its competencies.

In sum, Haas first sees integration as a process led by elitist groups, like leaders of industry associations or
political parties, who recognize a lack of opportunities in pursuing a shared interest at the domestic level
and then push national governments to transfer policy competence to a supranational body. Then, once
supranational institutions are created, international interdependence grows, and interest groups or political
party leaders can shift their loyalties away from national institutions by choosing to pursue their interests
through newly established international institutions.

19
4.8. Selected Ca ses of Regional Integrat ion

Regional integration across the world followed divergent trajectories. Yet, it was mainly influenced by the
development in Europe. Owing to the ample influence of the European experience, one can reasonable
say that the idea of regional integration is Eurocentric. In this section are briefly discussed three cases of
regional integration namely the European Union, Association of South East Asian States (ASEAN) and African
Union.

The European Union began as European Economic Community underwent changes and transformation creating
common market, currency, institutional and policy harmonization that at last became the European Union as
one consolidated regional organization. It continued to influence the experiment of regionalism in the rest
of the world. AU evolved from the Organization of African Unity, which expired after realizing the objective of
ensuring the decolonization of all African countries. The AU imitating EU was established to realize the
unification of African markets towards eventual political unification. Since its establishment in
2002, the AU have achieved a lot in terms of opening African Free trade Areas, the issuance of visas on arrival
and the strengthening of regional organizations like SADC, ECOWAS, COMESA and the EAC. The
ASEAN was founded in 1967 and established a preference area in 1977, and the Asian Free Trade Area in 1992.

In the first two decades after the Second World War (1945-1965) the region was shaped by nationalism,
decolonization, great power intervention and failed attempts at regional cooperation. This resulted in the
attainment of independence of states in the region namely Vietnam in 1945, Indonesia in 1949, the Philippines
in 1946, Myanmar in 1948, Cambodia and Laos in 1953, Malaysia in 1957, Singapore in 1963, and Brunei in 1984
respectively. The main motive was not economic goal rather than political and security motives for regional
solidarity. The economic achievements in the region was not induced by the integration, though. After the
economic crisis of 1997, the region has advanced its economic goals and created APFTA in the region.

4.9. Regionaliz ation v ersus Glob a liz ation and Sta te

The way regionalization, globalization and the state interact have various forms based on the issues under
consideration. For instance, the nature of interaction among the three on issues of economics and security
greatly differ. Therefore, it is vital to differentiate the issues before addressing the nature of interaction. For
instance, when trying to assess the complex relationship between regionalization and globalization, one might
conclude that the trend toward economic regionalism is perhaps more mixed than the trend toward
security regionalism: In the international economy, globalization and regionalization appear to be pushing
states in different directions, but there is today no major impetus toward globalization in the security
arena, perhaps with the exception of nuclear issues such as nonproliferation (Lake 1997). Hence, the

20
regionalization of security is not a universal trend like the formation of economic regions.

4.10. The Relations b etween Regionaliz ation an d Glob aliz a tion

1) There are three possible options regarding the mutual relations between regionalization and
globalization, especially in the economic dimension: regionalization as a component of
globalization (convergent trends);
2) regionalization as a challenge or response to globalization (divergent trends);
3) regionalization and globalization as parallel processes (overlapping trends) (Mittelman 1996a).

Regionaliz ation as a Com ponent of Glob aliz ation: Conv ergence

Regionalism is emerging today as a potent force in the processes of globalization. If globalization is

regarded as the compression of the temporal and spatial aspects of social relations, then regionalism
may be understood as but one component, or ‗chapter‖ of globalization (Mittelman 1996a, 189).
According to this view, by helping national economies to become more competitive in the world market,
regional integration will lead to multilateral cooperation on a global scale, the adoption of liberal premises
about cooperation, and the opening of the local economies.

Thus, the process of regional integration can be interpreted as part of the international (or global) economic
order at the end of the twentieth century; if impelled by raw material forces (of the market), then it becomes a
result and a component of globalization (see Reynolds 1997, 1). Moreover, since globalization unfolds in uneven
rather than uniform dynamic patterns, it may reveal itself in processes that are less than geographically
global in scope. Therefore, globalization may be expressed through regionalization (Holm and Sorensen 1995,
6–7).

Regionaliz ation as a Challe nge or Resp onse to Glob aliz ation: Div ergence

Is regionalism a means toward something else other than globalization? Can regionalism lead to a more
pluralistic world order populated by diverse and distinct patterns of socioeconomic organizations that are
accountable to their populations? (See Mittelman 1996a, 189). Unlike the first trend, the impetus toward
regionalization might stem in this case from a reaction and challenge to the amorphous, undemocratic, and
inexorable economic rules of globalization.

This reaction can be motivated by either nationalistic/mercantilistic or pluralistic/humanistic concerns (in some
cases, even by both). In the first place, by creating trade blocs and integration frameworks based on
mercantilistic premises, regionalism opposes the neoliberal ‗harmony of interest‖ view of the world economy in
favor of national (and regional) loyalties and frameworks.Conversely, the drive toward the formation of
regions might be also motivated by the denial of a single universal culture (and ideology) and the

21
 promotion of alternative or pluralistic forms of social and political organizations other than the nation-states
at the regional level.

Regionaliz ation and Glob aliz ation as Pa rallel Processes: Ov erlap

When we refer to the world economy, it encompasses the trends of both regionalization—i.e., the division of
the international economy into the mega-regions of North America (or the Americas), Europe, and East Asia—
and globalization (see Wyatt-Walter 1995). Conversely, in the international (global) security arena, it is more
difficult to assess the (co)existence of security communities and security complexes without an overall
dimension of global security, which is less evident. Thus, rather than reacting to each other, a third possibility is
that regionalization and globalization might act as parallel or overlapping processes in the two issue-areas of
economics and security.

4.11. Regionaliz ation, Glob aliz ation and the State

Bringing the forces of nationalism and the possible role(s) of the nation-state into the equation creates the
following possible linkages:

1) nation-states oppose globalization (divergent trends);

2) nationalism and the formation of new states are encouraged by the forces of globalization (convergent
trends);
3) nation-states oppose the forces of regionalization (divergent trends);
4) nationalism and the nation-states can be strengthened through regionalism (convergent trends);
5) regionalization coexists with nationalism and with globalization (overlapping trends);
6) nation-states mediate between trends of regionalization and globalization (overlapping trends); and
7) nation-states oppose globalization through regionalization (divergent trends).

 Nation- States and Nationalism as Rival P rocesses of Globalization

Processes of disintegration, fragmentation, autarky, and localization diverge from the overall trend of
globalization. For instance, the blossoming of statehood may be a response to the homogenizing forces of
globalization (Holsti 1996a, 22). The persistence or resurgence of nationalism can be regarded as a response to
the alienating forces of the global market, by relocating or bolstering legitimacy and loyalties at the national or
even sub-national levels, in direct contradiction to the transnational or supranational logic of economic
globalization.

 Globalization as a Force of Nationalism and the Formation of New States

Through a process of technological dissemination, globalization might actually promote nationalism and the
formation of new states. Hence, globalization and nationalism might converge, through a new (global)
revolution of ‗rising expectations,‖ which encourages states to cope with and to manage the forces of
globalization. Here lies an interesting paradox: Although forces of globalization seem to undermine state

22
 sovereignty, technological changes might also improve the material conditions for the enhancement or
resurgence of nationalistic trends. Thus, globalization creates new strategies and roles for the nation-state
(Drezner 1998, 210 and 218).

 Nation- States as R ival Forces of Regionalization

Nation-states might oppose forces of regionalization that attempt to transcend the power (and authority) of
the state in a supranational direction by setting limits and constraints to the development of a regional identity
and supranational institutions. Thus, states will regard regionaland sub-regional integration frameworks through
the prism of international organizations with a limited mandate in terms of intervention, domestic
jurisdiction, and the exercise of sovereignty.

 Regionalism as a Force of Nationalism and the Nation- States

As mentioned above, regionalization in a given region might result from mercantilistic or nationalistic tendencies
of the member-states that see frameworks of regional integration as a means to pool and increase their national
power resources. In this sense, the logic of the ‗new regionalism‖ is not very different from that of the ‗old‖
security alliances. In both cases, the goal is to guarantee the bloc (region) members greater security in their
international relations in a context of increasing vulnerability of either the world economy or global security
(Axline 1996, 199).

 Coexistence betw een Regionalism, Nationalism and Globalization

In this case we have neither convergence nor divergence but rather coexistence—the three processes
are taking place simultaneously. Thus, there might be parallel processes of globalization and continuing
trends of fragmentation and disintegration. Historically, political fragmentation, often manifested by the quest
for national self-determination and the creation of new states, has been a trend with as much significance as the
(parallel) forces of economic globalization (Holsti 1996a, 21–22). In this perspective the effects of globalization
upon regionalization and especially on the nation-state are rather indeterminate: ―the structural logic of
globalization and the recent history of the global economy can be read as providing rationales for‗high
stateness‖ as well as ‗low stateness (Evans 1997, 64). Whether processes of globalization might undermine
the roleand actions of the nation-state remains to be seen and should be examined in particular regional
contexts.

 Nation- States as M ediators betw een Regionalism and Globalization

States are active players in the world arena, and their policies are probably the single most important
determinant of the scope and direction of both regionalization and globalization (see Holm and Sorensen 1995,
7). The stronger the states, the more capable they are in coping with theintricacies of the economic, political,

23
 social, technological, and cultural dimensions of globalization. Conversely, the weaker they are, the more
‗penetrated‖ or exposed to the vulnerabilities of the world economy and the temptations of a shallow
world culture and ideology (see Evans 1997, 69–70).

 Nation- States O p p osing Globalization through Regionalism

Nationalism and globalization are linked dialectically. Globalization does not imply necessarily the erosion of the
nation-state‖s authority but rather a needed change in state strategies and redirection of state energies.
Conversely, state strategies and state actions can determine the future directions of globalization. One
possible option open for states to cope with globalization is by enhancing processes of regionalization, such as
the creation of free trade areas that recreate a double (and contradictory) logic of economic relations: liberal
at the intraregional level but

protectionist/mercantilist toward other rival regions or ‗blocs.‖

Self- Check Exercise

1. What does regional integration mean?

2. What are the major differences between old regionalism and new regionalism?
3. Discuss the different theories of regional integration.
4. What major reasons could define the development of EU, AU and ASEAN?
5. What does Globalization mean?
6. What are the aspects and actors of globalization?
7. What does glocalization mean in relation to globalization?
8. What are the pros and cons of globalization in general and in Ethiopia in particular?
9. What are the nature of interaction between globalization and regionalization?
10. What are the influences of globalization and regionalization on the nation-state?
11. What are the influences of globalization and regionalization on state sovereignty?

24
25