Content uploaded by Luk Van Langenhove
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Luk Van Langenhove on Apr 14, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
UNU-CRIS Occasional Papers
0-2004/5
From Multilateralism to Multiregionalism.
What Role for Regional Integration in Global Governance ?
Luk Van Langenhove, Ana-Cristina Costea and Brigid Gavin*
* The authors are affiliated to United Nations University – Comparative
Regional Integration Studies (UNU-CRIS)
2
From Multilateralism to Multiregionalism.
What Role for Regional Integration in Global Governance?
By
Luk Van Langenhove, Ana-Cristina Costea and Brigid GavinÚ
Background paper to the round table on regional integration at
the European Parliament Global Progressive Forum
27-29 November 2003, Brussels
Introduction
Regional integration has acquired several meanings as successive waves of
regionalism occurred during the last half century. After the Second World War, a first
wave of regionalization focused on trade liberalization between neighboring countries
in order to spur inter-country transactions. The current wave of regionalism is
different, as it is increasingly no longer about trade only, but presents itself as a “
multidimensional form of integration which includes economic, political, social and
cultural aspects and thus goes far beyond the goal of creating region-based free trade
regimes or security alliances. Rather, the political ambition of establishing regional
coherence and identity seems to be of primary importance.” (Hettne, 1999a:xvi). This
New Regionalism aims to promote certain “world values” as security, development,
ecological sustainability, better than globalism. (Hettne, 1999)
Regional integration and globalization are the two phenomena challenging the
existing global order based upon sovereign states at the beginning of the XXIst
Ú The authors are affiliated to the ‘Comparative Regional Integration Studies’ programme
(UNU-CRIS) of the United Nations University.
See: www.cris.unu.edu
3
century. The two processes “deeply affect the stability of the Westphalian state
system, thus contributing to both disorder and (possibly) a new global order.” (Hettne,
1999b:1). Global governance has to evolve nowadays in an international context
deeply marked by the phenomenon of globalization framed in a world-wide process of
changing and evolving levels of governance between: city-regions, states, macro-
regions, global level.
The EU, is a good example of the new regionalism as it has managed to develop a
model of integration that incorporates political elements in deep economic
integration. We now have in Europe a complex multi-level governance system with a
deep co-operation between states, with firm devolution of power within states and a
strong international legal framework. This has created a political model, which
challenges assumptions about governance all over the world.
New regionalism is a multi-faceted phenomenon, which touches therefore a much
wider number of policies than the ‘old trade-based regionalism’ did. This brings us to
a legitimate question: what is the actual and potential role of regional integration in
global governance? In our opinion, regional integration initiatives should fulfill
nowadays at least eight important functions (Van Langenhove, 2003:4):
• the strengthening of trade integration in the region;
• the creation of an appropriate enabling environment for private sector
development;
• the development of infrastructure programmes in support of economic
growth and regional integration;
• the development of strong public sector institutions and good governance;
4
• the reduction of social exclusion and the development of an inclusive civil
society;
• contribution to peace and security in the region;
• the building of environment programmes at the regional level; and
• the strengthening of the region’s interaction with other regions of the
world.
The eight functions enumerated here can be grouped under three main headings:
trade, security and governance of global regimes. The following sections will focus
on each of these three main functions which highlight the importance of regional
integration for global governance: i) Regional Integration as an instrument for peace
and security; ii) Regional Integration as a tool for enabling free and fair trade; iii)
Regional Integration as a tool for better governance and implementing of global
regimes. Next, a series of policy recommendation towards Europe’s role in the new
emerging global order will be presented.
Regional Integration as a tool for enabling free and fair trade
Regional integration is, first of all, a tool for enabling free trade. This was the main
function of ‘old regionalism’, with the creation of Free Trade Areas inside which
members removed tariffs against each other and kept their own barriers against non-
members, and, and which could evolve further on into customs unions possessing a
common external tariff against non-member countries.
There has been a wide academic debate in the economic field aiming to measure the
extent to which regional integration can increase free trade. At the beginning of “old
5
regionalism”, the creation of a FTA and CU were justified, in economic terms, as long
as the trade creation induced by the tariff removal between member countries was
exceeding the trade diversion brought by the displacement of imports from low-cost
third countries producers to high-cost new FTA partners. (Viener)
The old regionalism theory was based on the concepts of trade creation and trade
diversion derived from a partial equilibrium analysis of the welfare effects of tariff
elimination.1 The theory can give no definitive answer as to which effect will
predominate. The customs union theory fails to take into account the dynamic effects
of RTAs – arguably the most important in the long run. A larger regional market
provides the opportunities for economies of scale, stimulated competition and
provides incentives for investment. Achieving economies of scale is very important
for firms in small countries and especially in developing countries. Economies of
scale may occur through product specialisation enabling firms in two countries to
specialise in particular product lines instead of producing the full product line (to
rationalise production and to internationalise production).
Perhaps the most important effect of an RTA is the stimulus to competition and
investment which it brings. Large firms in small countries protected by tariffs will
lose their monopolistic quiet life as border protection falls forcing them to compete in
the larger market. The investment stimulus will include foreign direct investment
(FDI), which brings added competition. Customs union theory ignores transport costs,
which can ultimately decide the fate of a RTA.
1 The old regionalism is built upon the seminal work of customs union theory by Jacob Viner
(1950).
6
New regionalism theory integrates the dynamic effects of economic integration, the
interaction between trade and investment, and the role of institutional arrangements as
incentives for regional integration.2
The new regionalism is determined by the structural changes in the global economy of
the 1990s brought about by globalisation. Following successive trade liberalisation in
the GATT/WTO, FDI has become much more important in the global economy as
investment flows are now growing faster than trade flows. Firms have an incentive to
switch from trade to FDI when trading costs (transport costs and government
regulatory barriers) are high and investment costs (including communications costs)
are rapidly declining. The size of the market is another factor, which encourages FDI.
Experience shows that as countries converge in their factor endowments, technical
efficiency and market size, there will be a move from intra-industry trade to intra-
industry investment, provided that transport costs remain significant. 3 The New
Regionalism differs from the old regionalism in a number of important ways.
• Typically, the new regionalism has a number of small countries, which are willing
to link up with a large neighbouring country, which plays the role of regional
hegemon.
• The small countries are involved in a process of unilateral liberalisation and they
want to consolidate it by linking up with a large anchor country.
2 For the essentials of new regionalism theory, see R. Lawrence (1996), Regionalism,
Multilateralism and Deep Integration, and W.J. Ethier (2001), ‘Regional Regionalism’, in S. Lahiri
(ed.), Regionalism and Globalization Theory and Practice.
3 For an analysis of the internation between trade and investment in the globalising economy,
see B. Gavin (2001), ‘Trade and Investment’, in The European Union and Globalisation Towards
Global Economic Governance.
7
• The new regionalism is about deep integration. It goes beyond liberalisation of
trade in goods and deals with services and investment issues.
• There is no big bang trade liberalisation but rather a slow gradualist approach.
• The new regionalism occurs between countries that are geographically close to
each other.
• Small countries consider RTAs as a means to strengthen their bargaining position
in international trade negotiations.
Two questions arise here: first, how far is this new economic regionalism compatible
with the economic multilateralism promoted through the WTO, and, second, is
regional economic integration also positive for developing countries (in other words,
is free trade also fair)?
The question whether regional trading arrangements hinder or contribute to the good
functioning of the multilateral trading system is a very interesting one. As underlined
by G. Sampson, it addresses two developments which appear to be paradoxical
(Sampson, 2003:3): “on the one hand, non-discrimination is the pillar of the
multilateral trading system, on the other, all but 2 of the 140-plus members of the
World Trade Organisation (WTO) are parties to al least one – and some as many as 26
– preferrential trading arrangements.”
A recent analysis on whether regional trade agreements are building blocks or
stumbling blocks in the way of multilateralism, concluded that “what characterizes
policy development in dealing with the regulatory issues in trade and investment
regimes is a multi-level process rather than a choice between regional and multilateral
8
approaches. Regional agreements represent one aspect of this multi-level process. The
question should therefore be about what role regional agreements play in this multi-
level process”. (Woolcock, 2003:315)
Multilateral trade liberalisation fosters global trade but it increases transport costs
relative to regional trade. At the same time the dramatic fall in communications costs
is driving the shift from exporting to FDI. So regional integration that fosters
‘investment creation’ is preferable to further multilateral trade liberalisation. Since the
size of the market is crucial in attracting FDI, small countries compete to attract
foreign investment by ‘regionalising ‘ their market. Small countries may be willing to
pay a premium for this by making considerable economic reforms. By linking up with
a large country small countries gain credibility in the eyes of foreign investors.
Regionalism seems to be compatible with multilateralism in EU’s vision also. In the
EU’s external trade policy vision, the widening and deepening of the European
regional integration is not at all incompatible with multilateralism. In P. Lamy’s
terms, the EU trade policy works on two complementary levels: the bilateral/regional
level and the multilateral level, through the WTO: ‘The basic assumption of our trade
policy is that: i) unilateralism is not an option for us, ii) we have two options in order
to integrate successfully into the world economy: multilateralism and regionalism.
[…] regionalism and multilateralism are not mutually exclusive but complementary:
regional arrangements are governed by the multilateral rules and disciplines of the
WTO. How do we strike a balance between the bilateral/regional level and the
multilateral level? The multilateral level, through the WTO, provides the set of rules
that international trade requires and a level playing field. More importantly, this is the
9
framework that gives the EU the best means to influence global governance and to
negotiate balanced arrangements. Achieving the objectives of the Doha conclusions
remains therefore our top priority for the next few years. Our bilateral or bi-regional
relations with third countries are a reflection of our priority to multilateralism and our
commitment to regional integration.’ (Lamy, 2002:1)
Regarding the question whether free trade is also fair trade, one can say that at least in
principle the New Regionalism has a lot of potential benefits for developing countries
(Van Langenhove, 2003:4):
• it can contribute to a smooth and gradual integration in the world
economy;
• it can create bigger local markets and more competition among peers;
• it can strengthen the bargaining power of developing countries in the
WTO;
• it provides a framework for public investments in infrastructure and public
goods;
• it allows to exploit complementarities where they exist;
• it provides a framework for promoting and sustaining stability and
security.
Achieving these benefits is only possible in the context of open national economies.
But, unilateral trade liberalization, as once recommended by the Breton Woods
institutions seems no longer to be a popular strategy, as unilateral strategies do not
automatically improve market access. North-South integration combined with South-
South integration seems to be a valuable alternative, but the question is: should this
10
also imply a North-South symmetry in market access? The ‘Special and Differential
Treatment’ (SDT) put into place by the WTO needs to be reformed to help the least
developed countries and to graduate the advanced emerging market economies like
Singapore. North-South regional trade agreements should be asymmetrical in terms
of market access for the least developed countres Also, North-South Regional Trade
Arrangements need to be backed by increased assistance for capacity building.
Therefore it is important that regional integration becomes an inclusive aspect of all
development policies of donors.
Regional integration has the potential to promote free and fair trade simultaneously.
But the wave of regionalisation of the 1990s implies more than trade integration, it
brings also an important function of security.
Regional Integration as an instrument for peace and security
The 1990s have witnessed an increasing role of regional integration organisations as
an instrument for peace and security. This is due to the change of the definition of
security. In the aftermath of the Cold War, the security agenda has shifted from a
bipolar confrontation to the spread of regional and local “low intensity conflicts”. At
the same time, the security threats are no longer linked only to the military conflicts
but also to political, economical, social and even environmental concerns, expressed
in the term of “societal security” coined by the Copenhagen School at the beginning
of the 1990s. (Weaver, 1993; Buzan, 1993; Wiberg, 1993)
11
This shift in the content of security has brought a change in the nature of international
action, mainly UN-led, from classical operations of peace keeping (mainly
interposition between parties in conflict) to second and even third generation
operations, focusing on peace building after the end of conflicts and peace
enforcement. The new security agenda became “considerably less monolithic and
global, and considerably more diverse, regional and local, in character than the old
one” (Buzan, 1999:12)
The post Cold War era security agenda can be analysed therefore according to Barry
Buzan using the security complex theory, which considers that all the states in the
system are “enmeshed in a global web of security interdependence. But because most
political and military threats travel more easily over short distances than over long
ones, insecurity is often associated to proximity. […] The normal pattern of security
interdependence in a geographical diverse anarchic international system is one of
regionally based clusters, which we label security complexes” (Buzan, 1999:2). The
security complex is defined as “ a set of stat es whose major security perceptions and
concerns are so interlinked that their national security problems cannot be
reasonably analysed or resolved apart from one another.” (Buzan, 1991)
Aware of this transformation of the security agenda, several regional initiatives have
extended their functions from economy to cooperation in security related problems.
The EU is a good example in this sense as it has developed it’s own Conflict
Prevention and Peace Building Capacity and in the same has widened the scope of
such actions extending crisis management beyond the military and police measures to
12
development co-cooperation and conditionality of aid (Laakso, 2002). According to
Lehtinen, through promoting regional integration processes in Africa, the European
Union aims to integrate the African countries in the world economy and to promote
regional security and stability. (Lehtinen, 2002) Europe to promote regional
integration in Wider Europe.
This evolution of regional initiatives to adding new security functions is visible not
only on the European continent. In Africa as well, some regional organisations have
gradually evolved from an economic role towards including security functions, with
more or less success, as highlighted by Francis (2003) who has recently explored the
nexus between economic and security regionalism in West Africa, through the prism
of ECOWAS regionalism and its expansion into the complex security frontier in the
form of the ECOWAS Cease-fire Monitoring Group (ECOMOG).
Which is the added value of having a regional rather than global security intervention?
According to Laakso, “Evidence from ending intra-state conflicts shows that regional
actors play a significant role. As “third parties” they can facilitate mediation between
the warring parties and their active involvement can reduce the risk of a breakdown of
the peace settlement. By sending troops to protect or separate the warring parties, or
promising to do so if necessary, and utilising effective crisis management capabilities
and economic pressure they can be pivotal for lasting peace. Regional actors can
provide guarantees, particularly to the weaker parties that the peace settlement will
hold.” (Laakso, 2003:5)
13
As highlighted by Kivimäki, there are several characteristics of regional integration
which can allow for a positive correlation between regional integration and the lack of
inter-state wars (Kivimäki, 2002:15-27):
• Trade-related, positive inter-dependence;
• Common identity;
• Common procedures of dispute-settlement inter-state;
• Prosperity and economic stability;
• Containment of violence by building up a structure of disincentives.
Of course, the existence of regional organizations in a certain area doesn’t necessarily
bring success in preventing conflicts. Africa is a good example in this regard; failures
have been often explained, like in the case of the SADC Organ on Politics, Defence
and Security, by the persistence of major political and strategic differences between
member states (or the absence of common values), and the lack of commitment to a
common security regime (Nathan, 2002). The analysis performed show that “The
efficiency of a regional actor seems to depend on it’s credibility, as well as it’s
political, military, and or economic power. This, however, is not always concomitant
with the consolidation of democracy and can involve attempts to promote the agenda
of the actor itself instead of those of the conflict parties.” (Laakso, 2003:5)
But the potential of regional initiatives to foster security is very evident, to the extent
that it has been gradually acknowledged by the United Nations, the principal provider
of security at global level. The cooperation between UN and regional organizations in
the security operations can be based on the UN Charter Chapter VIII, which mentions
the possibility to empower regional organisations and arrangements for action in
14
regional disputes, but always in support to the primary role exercised by the UN
Security Council. In the period 1993-2003, a formal cooperation between these
organizations and the UN seems to have started developing throughout 5 official
meetings between the UN Security Council and some Regional Organizations
(namely OAS, CARICOM, Arab League, AU, ECOWAS, EU, OSCE, CIS, NATO,
OIC), intended to develop this framework for joint action in the security domain.
The “Agenda for Peace” and the “Supplement to an Agenda for Peace” adopted in
1993 highlight the advantages and potential for the division of labor in using the
regional arrangements for the mechanisms of peace discussed (preventive diplomacy,
peacekeeping, peacemaking and post-conflict peace building). The Supplement
outlines even different forms of cooperation and the principles that should govern it:
the establishment of flexible mechanisms for consultation; respect for the primacy of
the UN in the maintenance of peace and Security; a clear definition of the division of
labor to avoid overlap and institutional rivalry; and coherence of member states of
both organisations in dealing with a common problem.
In 2001 was established a “Framework for cooperation in Peacebuilding”, applying to
the cooperation between the UN and the participating intergovernmental
organisations, with guiding principles for action in this field in 5 key areas and
activities. Overall, the emphasis is placed on the need for flexible cooperation and
case-by-case approach. for peacebuilding, and no clear definitions established in the
division of labor. Nevertheless, the dialogue between the UN and regional
organizations is still on-going and needs still to settle down some important aspects
15
regarding the division of labor. For the moment, the only agreement existent is the
one on peacebuilding.
In some regions the UN does not yet have viable interlocutors in the security field, as
the regional organizations are still focusing on their economical functions. But even
trade can fulfill a security function in the end, through it’s development dimension.
Also, regional organizations, which may not yet tackle security matters as such, can
play an important role in implementing global regimes (like Climate Change, which
represents one of the new security dimensions mentioned earlier). This brings us to
the third function of regional initiatives: the implementing of global regimes.
Regional Integration as a tool for implementing global regimes
Regional integration initiatives are becoming increasingly important elements for
constructing global governance. Their situation as an intermediary level between the
national and the global has brought macro-regions, together with local, microregional
and national levels together as necessary for the efficient implementation of global
regimes. On the one hand, globalization brought transnational flows and a number of
challenges, which overpass the traditional functions of the states. On the other hand,
although there is a need of finding global solutions to global problems, there is not
sufficient global support for global institutions and regimes dealing with such
problems, and regional initiatives could lead the way in the implementation of policies
until such consensus is reached. Additionally, the most evolved forms of regional
integration as the EU allow for the creation of systems of multi-level governance,
with a new role for local and micro-regional levels which bypass the traditional
16
centralized state control and aspire to have their share in the macro-regional decision-
making.
The Climate Change regime is a good example in this regard. Since the first
conference on the Environment in Stockholm in 1970, the United Nations (UN) have
played a leading role in developing a global approach to environmental problems and
in creating common platforms of action on environmental issues. The UN pioneered
the creation of a global climate change regime in 1992, with the Rio Earth Summit,
which was a catalyst for public recognition of the planetary nature of environmental
problems. The Rio Summit gave birth to the Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC), which aimed to stabilise CO2 emissions in industrialised
countries at 1990 levels by the year 2000, to set up global monitoring and reporting
mechanisms for keeping track of greenhouse gas emissions, and establish national
programmes for reducing emissions.
The UNFCCC entered into force in 1994 and under its framework the Kyoto Protocol
(KP) was developed at COP-3 in December 1997, setting the target for the developed
world to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 5 % below 1990 levels between 2008
and 2012. Four other Conferences of the Parties to the UNFCCC have followed until
nowadays. However, the Kyoto Protocol has not yet become a global regime: it is not
yet ratified globally and the rules of the game for reduction of greenhouse gases are
still unclear.
The collapse of the COP-6 I negotiations in The Hague in November 2000 and the
repudiation of the Protocol by the US administration in March 2001 could have
17
entirely compromised the move towards a global regime tackling global warming.
Nevertheless, after the US withdrawal from the negotiations the EU has been
catapulted in to the role of global leadership. The EU has managed to maintain the
determination of the UNFCCC participants to work towards the implementation of the
Kyoto Protocol. It has successfully pushed for the political commitment enshrined in
the "Bonn Agreements" adopted in July 2001, and for concrete results in the
following technical negotiations in Marrakesch COP-7 (November 2001) and New
Delhi COP-8 (October 2002). The EU is currently pressuring Russia to ratify the
Kyoto Protocol as this would lead to its entry into force.
Regional and Global approaches to Climate Change are not mutually exclusive but
interdependent, and there is a need of having at the same time a system of Climate
Change multi-level governance inside every macro-regional grouping. Climate
Change is a global problem which affects simultaneously the local, municipal,
regional, national, trans-national and global levels of government and only through
effective co-ordination among those levels we can hope to achieve the ideal of having
an “unified global approach”. The EU’s efforts show nevertheless that regional
initiatives can represent the cornerstone for creating an integrated global governance
system tackling Climate Change which would encompass global, macro-regional,
national and micro-regional approaches to climate change.
In 2002, the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD)
confirmed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change as “the key
instrument for addressing climate change, a global concern”, (Report of the WSSD,
2002:29) and reaffirmed the commitment to achieving its objective of reducing
18
greenhouse gases. One important outcome of the WSSD was the emphasis on
regional initiatives and partnerships as stated in the Plan of Implementation of the
World Summit on Sustainable Development,4 Regional Commissions, in co-operation
with other regional and sub-regional organisations will be invited to undertake
amendments and analytical work, based upon national reporting for CSD, for
cooperation within the region. The Regional Commissions could also promote and
assess partnerships in their regions. Also the UN Regional Commissions need more
interaction with other relevant regional institutions such as the development banks. It
is now proposed to reform the work of the CSD (two-year cycle) and part of this
reform foresees organising regional implementation forums, to be organised in
conjunction with UN Regional Commission.
The EU’s leadership offers a strong incentive for building a multi-level Climate
Change governance system in the future. A single regional grouping cannot prevent
the planet from being damaged by harmful emissions but it can offer an example of
action for other macro-regions and a useful support as a building block for the global
regime.
Conclusions
The above analysis shows that regional integration can indeed play a role in
advancing global governance. There are worldwide examples of cases where the so-
called new regionalism has proved to be a powerful tool in building peace and
security; in creating free and fair trade conditions and in governing global problems.
4 United Nations Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development ‘Annex Plan of
Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development’, Johannesburg, South Africa, 26
August-4 September 2002, p. 71-72.
19
Of course, regional integration is not a panacea that will solve all global problems, but
we believe that it can contribute significantly to bridging the global divides, especially
if the alternative is the American unilateralism. The question now is what Europe
should do ?
In our view, the historical role for Europe in contributing to a multilateral world order
adapted to the XXI century, can be summarized as follows : Europe has to promote
and develop multi-regionalism as the legitimate and legal operationalisation of
multilateralism. This implies at least four issues :
o Europe needs to further develop its own model of new regionalism;
o Europe needs to help LDC around the world to create their own forms
of new regionalism
o Europe needs built its external relation primarily upon inter-
regionalism rather than upon bilateralism;
o Europe needs to act as a change-agent within the UN.
Multiregionalism (or multilateral regionalism) is a concept coined by Hettne (2003)
that refers to a world order based upon a global regionalisation, implying systematic
relations between all regional organizations, ultimately making up a form of global
governance that makes multilateralism more effective and efficient than it currently is.
Multi-regionalism could play a major role in providing the necessary legitimacy for
multilateralism, as it is a mechanism that (i) allows small countries to have a voice
next to large countries and (ii) allows poor countries to integrate more easily in the
world economy. Also, regional integration can be a way of harnessing the larger
20
countries (superpowers) to recognize their responsibility in playing a constructive role
in their region. This does not necessarily contradict the universalistic position of the
United Nations. It may be considered, rather, as an attempt to “channel” globalization
at an optimal policy level. Global governance structures need to foster more
participation of developing countries in decision-making.
Also, there needs to be a global forum based upon international law that allows
regions to interact with each other and settle their disputes. Here a new role for the
UN might be envisaged. Indeed, we believe that the United Nations should become
the forum in which the world regions can enter into dialogue with one another. As a
matter of fact, this is already foreseen in chapter VIII of the United Nations Charter,
wherein it is mentioned that there is a possibility to work with regional arrangements
or agencies within the United Nations.
Today, regions do play a role within the UN system at different levels. First, there are
the regional groupings and caucuses that function within the UN (as institutionalized
by the Charter). Secondly, there are economic regional substructures set up by the
UN. Thirdly, there are non-UN regional organizations that have obtained observer
status within the UN. And, finally, there is the regional dimension of the composition
of the Security Council. Thus, it should be possible to create, within the United
Nations, a forum in which world regions engage in inter-regional dialogue and where
responses to globalization can be agreed upon on a collective basis, and hence can be
executed at the level of each of the regions separately. This, however, is not possible
without a profound rearrangement of the present existing blocs within the United
Nations. One should thus think about a system in which the existing regional actors,
such as the European Union, become the building stones of a United Nations forum.
21
This corresponds to some extent with what has been said in the still very worthwhile
report “Our Global Neighbourhood” of the United Nations Commission on Global
Governance – namely, that the challenge for the development of a good working
system of “global governance” consists in enforcing each other’s global and
macroregional regulations: “Decentralization, delegation and cooperation with
regional organs can lighten the burden of global organizations, while generating a
deeper sense of participation in a common effort.” However, the Global Governance
Commission thought of regional cooperation as kind of decentralisation of the
exisiting model of multilateralism. We believe that there is more to it than
decentralisation within multilateralism. In the long run, multiregionalism is about
autonomous regions that meet in the framework of a global forum such as the UN.
In order to reach an efficient forum where responses to globalization can be
formulated within the context of a strategic pursuit of the UN millennium goals, a
“global governance” system needs to coexist with a mechanism of financial and
economic support to develop a global public goods policy. Hence the necessity is to
create regional integration funds at the level of the United Nations. Such integration
funds can be conceived as instruments to facilitate the integration of small and poorly
developed economies in an economic space at a regional level. This is not a new idea;
it is similar to the so-called structural funds already used to guide European
integration (cfr. the Structural and Cohesion Funds). Such regional integration funds
could act as instruments of solidarity, facilitating the emergence of a more stable
regional organization of the world economy.
22
Finally, it should be noted that the worldwide movement towards more regional
cooperation and integration may not be restricted to merely economic integration but
needs to contain political integration. As recently argued by Professor D. Rodrik
(Harvard University), economic growth is in the first instance dependent on
wellfunctioning institutions that accompany free trade and secure an efficient
functioning of society as a whole. New Regionalism is about such institution-building
at the level of regions, and it is our belief that such regional integration can be
simultaneously a “building block” towards a worldwide-globalized open economy as
well as a “dike” that protects countries from the negative aspects of globalization.
23
References
Buzan, B., ‘The Logic of Regional Security in the Post-Cold War World’, in: B.
Hettne, A. Inotai and O. Sunkel, ed. by, The New Regionalism and the Future of
Security and Development, Macmillan, London, 2000, pp. 1-25.
European Commission Press Release,Trade preferences: Commission proposes to roll
over current EU regime for developing countries, DN: IP/03/1478, 29/10/2003.
Falk, R. ‘Regionalism and World Order After the Cold War’, in: in: B. Hettne, A.
Inotai and O. Sunkel, ed. by, Globalism and the New Regionalism, Macmillan,
London, 1999, pp. 228-250.
Francis, D., “Expanding the Frontiers of West African Integration: The Nexus
Between Economic and Security Regionalism”, in: H. van Ginkel, J. Court and L.
Van Langenhove (Eds.). Integrating Africa : Perspectives on Regional Integration
and Development, Tokyo, United Nations University Press, pp. 122-145.
Gavin, B., and Van Langenhove, L., “Trade in a World of Regions”, in: G. P.
Sampson and S. Woolcock, ed. By, Regionalism, Multilateralism and Economic
Integration. The Recent Experience, UNU Press, Tokyo, 2003, pp. 277-312.
Hettne, B., ‘Europe in a World of Regions’, in: R. Falk and T. Szentes, ed. by, A New
Europe in the Changing Global System, United Nations University Press, Tokyo,
1997, pp. 16-40.
Hettne, B., ‘The New Regionalism: A Prologue’, in: B. Hettne, A. Inotai and O.
Sunkel, ed. by, Globalism and the New Regionalism, Macmillan, London, 1999, pp.
xv-xxxi. a)
Hettne, B., ‘Globalization and the New Regionalism: The Second Great
Transformation’, in: B. Hettne, A. Inotai and O. Sunkel, ed. by, Globalism and the
New Regionalism, Macmillan, London, 1999, pp. 1-24. b)
Lamy, P., Fifth EC/Candidate Countries Ministerial Conference on Trade - Opening
speech, Malta, 31 May-1 June 2002.
Mistry, S. P., ‘The New Regionalism: Impediment or Spur to Future
Multilateralism?’, in: B. Hettne, A. Inotai and O. Sunkel, ed. by, Globalism and the
New Regionalism, Macmillan, London, 1999, pp. 116-154.
Mistry, S. P., ‘Regional Integration and Economic Development’, in: B. Hettne, A.
Inotai and O. Sunkel, ed. by, The New Regionalism and the Future of Security and
Development, Macmillan, London, 2000, pp. 26-50.
Laakso, L., ed. by, Regional Integration for Conflict Prevention and Peace Building
in Africa. Europe, SADC, and ECOWAS, University of Helsinki, Department of
Political Science, 2002.
24
Kivimäki, T., “Regional Instituion Building as a Tool in Conflict Prevention: An
Overview of Empirical Generalisations”, in: L. Laakso, Edited by, Regional
Integration for Conflict Prevention and Peace Building in Africa. Europe, SADC, and
ECOWAS, University of Helsinki, Department of Political Science, 2002, pp. 14-34.
Laakso, L. “European Integration for Conflict Prevention and Peace-Building”, in: L.
Laakso, Edited by, Regional Integration for Conflict Prevention and Peace Building
in Africa. Europe, SADC, and ECOWAS, University of Helsinki, Department of
Political Science, 2002, pp. 34-45.
Lehtinen, T., “Regional Security Dimension of the European Union’s Development
Cooperation in Africa”, in: L. Laakso, Edited by, Regional Integration for Conflict
Prevention and Peace Building in Africa. Europe, SADC, and ECOWAS, University
of Helsinki, Department of Political Science, 2002, pp. 45-62.
Mittelman, J. A., ‘Rethinking the’New Regionalism’ in the Context of
Globalization’, in: B. Hettne, A. Inotai and O. Sunkel, ed. by, Globalism and the New
Regionalism, Macmillan, London, 1999, pp. 25-54.
Odén, B., ‘New Regionalism in Southern Africa: Part or Alternative to the
Globalization of the World Economy ? ‘,in: B. Hettne, A. Inotai and O. Sunkel, ed.
by, Globalism and the New Regionalism, Macmillan, London, 1999, pp. 155-180.
Padoan, P. C., “Political Economy of New Regionalism and World Governance”, in:
M. Telò, ed. by, European Union and New Regionalism, Ashgate, Aldershot, 2001,
pp. 39-59.
Pettman, R., ‘Globalism and Regionalism: The Costs of Dichotomy’, in: in: B. Hettne,
A. Inotai and O. Sunkel, ed. by, Globalism and the New Regionalism, Macmillan,
London, 1999, pp. 181-202.
Shaw, T. M., ‘Africa in the Global Political Economy: Globalization, Regionalization
or Marginalization?’, in: B. Hettne, A. Inotai and O. Sunkel, ed. by, The New
Regionalism and the Future of Security and Development, Macmillan, London, 2000,
pp. 93-121.
Shaw, T. M., “New Regionalisms in Africa in the new millennium: comparative
perspectives on renaissance, realisms and/or regressions”, in: S. Breslin, C. W.
Hughes, N. Philips and B. Rosamond, ed. by, New Regionalism in the Global
Political Economy. Theories and Cases, Routledge, London, 2002, pp. 177-189.
Söderbaum, F., ‘The Role of the Regional Factor in West Africa’, in: B. Hettne, A.
Inotai and O. Sunkel, ed. by, The New Regionalism and the Future of Security and
Development, Macmillan, London, 2000, pp. 121-143.
Telò, M., “Introduction: Globalization, New Regionalism and the Role of the
European Union”, in: M. Telò, ed. by, European Union and New Regionalism,
Ashgate, Aldershot, 2001, pp. 1-20.
25
Telò, M., “Between Trade Regionalization and Deep Integration”, in: M. Telò, ed. by,
European Union and New Regionalism, Ashgate, Aldershot, 2001, pp. 71-96.
Van Langenhove, L., and Costea, A. C., “The Relevance of Regional Integration for
Africa”, Paper presented at the REGGEN 2003 Seminar “Hegemonia e Contra-
Hegemonia: Os Impasses da Globalização e os Processos de Regionalização”, 18th
August 2003, Rio de Janeiro.
Van Langenhove, L., “Regional Integration and Global Governance”, UNUnexions,
August 2003, pp. 1-4.
Van Langenhove, L., and Costea, A. C., “Integrating Global and Regional
Approaches to Climate Change”, Paper presented at the one-day conference on
“Globalism and Regionalism in Climate Policy, 25 September 2003, Montecatini.
