Content uploaded by Jorge Tuñón Navarro
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jorge Tuñón Navarro on Dec 10, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Sociopedia.isa
© 2013 The Author(s)
© 2013 ISA (Editorial Arrangement of sociopedia.isa)
1
Overview of theoretical approaches
This article examines an elusive concept with a multi-
plicity of meanings; one that has been thoroughly
analysed within different contexts and a range of
social science disciplines (Beaufays, 1985;
Domínguez, 2005; Keating, 1998a).
The etymological origin of ‘region’ stems from the
Latin term regio, which in turn comes from the term
rex and the verb regere, which originally meant ‘line, a
direction in a straight line’ (Domínguez, 2005: 25).
The term evolved to mean territorial space associated
with some kind of power, or larger entity (Bolgherini,
2003: 25). However, it soon came to be influenced by
different factors: ethnicity, linguistics, history, culture,
economy and politics (Castro Ruano, 1994; Petschen,
2003), to name but a few. Indeed, the concept of
region is semantically polysemous and has multiple
significations, from the anatomical to the geographi-
cal (Tuñón, 2009: 4).
Although a multiplicity of meanings has been
attached to the concept, it denotes a spatial dimen-
sion, which might also be territorial, political, of social
interaction, economic, or even functional. As Keating
(1998b: 11) states, ‘a region is the result of the meet-
ing of various concepts of space. It is also an institu-
tional system, either in the form of a regional
government or as a group of institutions operating on
a territory.’ Indeed, while undoubtedly a territorial
demarcation, ‘within, there is scope for a variety of
functional processes’ (Keating, 1997: 383).
As already stated, ‘region’ can take on different
meanings, but can also be approached from many dif-
ferent perspectives. Indeed, it is (currently) a well-
known and documented phenomenon within a wide
variety of dimensions. Sociopolitically, region is
understood as an administrative unit within a nation-
state,1or even as an area composed of several nation-
states which share common characteristics. According
to the economic dimension, region is demarcated by
common characteristics and development possibilities
(Tuñón, 2009: 4). The cultural dimension refers to a
community that shares uses and traditions, but also
enjoys its own language and literature (Bolgherini,
2003: 24–5). While region from a geographic per-
spective would refer to a demarcation limited by nat-
ural, climatic or ecological borders (Anderson, 1994).
Caciagli (2006: 17–18) avoids categories, dimen-
sions or disciplines, but deals instead with denota-
tions. On the one hand, there is the institutional,
which attaches the term to the major political-admin-
istrative units within a state. On the other hand, there
is the historical-cultural for those regions not recog-
nized within the current political-administrative
delimitations (referring to those territories that con-
tain communities with their own distinctive identities
Regions
From regionalism to regionalization
Jorge Tuñón Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Spain
abstract Region is a polysemous concept, partially defined by several disciplines: sociology, interna-
tional relations, geography, economy, law or politics. Even within the realm of an own discipline, the con-
cept can be analysed in different ways: at supra- or sub-state level, but also from bottom-up (regionalism)
or top-down (regionalization) perspectives.
keywords European integration ◆new regionalism ◆regionalization ◆regions ◆sub-state level
2
Tuñón Regi on s
– vis-a-vis the state – for cultural, ethnic, linguistic,
religious or political reasons).
It has been shown above that the regional phe-
nomenon can be defined according to many differ-
ent criteria. Moreover, within these different
benchmarks, several different approaches can also be
distinguished. For example, geographic criteria could
be defined as physical space, but also according to
climatic, topographic, ecological or other fixed char-
acteristics. Moreover, an economic definition of a
region might focus on the labour market differences,
but also on common production patterns, interde-
pendencies and market linkages, for instance.
Furthermore, regions can be also defined by cultural
criteria: according to language, traditions or even the
sense of identification exhibited by citizens and
political actors, to name but a few. But, regions can
be also defined as institutional divisions, historically
constituted or recently created for the convenience of
state administrators or even built by political action
on the ground (Keating, 1998a: 9–10).
The problem arises that all these varying cate-
gories, denotations, approaches and/or definitions of
the concept of region do not always coincide; they
may, in fact, also conflict with one another.
Moreover, they do not evoke completely different
meanings or significations, but they, continuously
and in different ways, overlap with one another.
Taking into account that each and every perspective
(from the urban landscape, to the style of cuisine)
could establish its own specific categories or classifi-
cations, in this article I methodologically bring
together the main social scientific contributions (to
date) from four different but obviously overlapping
social disciplines (approaches, dimensions or per-
spectives). Thus, I distinguish the main theoretical
research on the regional phenomenon according to:
(1) international relations theories; (2) geography
and urban sociology studies; (3) the fields of eco-
nomics and economic sociology; and (4) the disci-
plines of politics and political sociology. Only by
appreciating the conjunction of these different logics
within a selected territory, will it be possible to
understand the regional phenomenon, and indeed its
importance.2
Inter national r elatio ns theories
Although this discipline also deals with regions, it is
further extended by the term ‘regionalism’, which is
one of the main dimensions of the concept of region.
Within international relations theory, the latter part
of the last century saw a resurgence of regional
dynamics. The end of the Cold War created an envi-
ronment conducive to an increase in regional pat-
terns of interaction. Thus, regionalism, currently
revisited as ‘New Regionalism’, has again become a
major characteristic of the international system
(Calleya, 2000). Within the current (scientific) con-
text, although globalization has been highlighted as
an obvious alternative, the reality of the contempo-
rary world seems to be better expressed in terms of
regionalism. Since the end of the Second World War,
there has been a proliferation of supra-state organiza-
tions entrusted with normative roles. Thus, during
the last four decades, new paradigms have emerged
to account for the increasing restraints on the free-
dom of action of states (Joffé, 2007).
From an integrative and cooperative perspective,
the regional ‘alternative model of development
implies regional restructuring based in symmetrical
and solidarity-oriented patterns of development
which could consist of both intergovernmental and
transnational patterns of relations’ (Calleya, 2000:
234). Currently, the major and most developed
example of this model would be the European Union
model. However, this integrative experience has also
been, at least partially, reproduced all over the world:
Mercosul-Mercosur, the North America Free Trade
Area (NAFTA), the Association of South East Asian
Nations (ASEAN), for example; even in Africa there
has been some sort of experience of regionalism
(Eliassen and Arnessen, 2007; Farah et al., 2010;
Sbragia, 2007; Söderbaum, 2007; Vasconcelos,
2007).
The regional issue involves explaining the flour-
ishing of regional organizations through endogenous
and exogenous factors, and studying their current
and potential impact upon global governance (Telo,
2007: 1). Thus, its novelty resides in its potential to
act as an alternative to hegemonic stability, within a
globalized context, in which the region becomes the
nexus of activity, both at state and supra-state level.
Therefore, providing a degree of theoretical order to
the current international society, regionalism ‘may
become the preferred response in a post-modern
world through which the threats and benefits of
globalization are mediated’ (Joffé, 2007: xiv).
Moreover, other approaches deal with regional
macro-aggregates or regional integration in the glob-
alized world. Through the world-systems theory,
Wallerstein (1974, 2000) attempts to explain why
modernization had such wide-ranging and different
effects on the world. To do so, he divides the world
into different macro-regions: the core, the semi-
periphery, the periphery and the external areas.
Linking international relations and global economy,
Ohmae (1995, 2005) points out that the ongoing
integration of the global economy will lead to an
inevitable undermining of the nation-state in favour
of the region. He argues that regions are more in line
with today’s transnational world because they are
already economically sizeable players, but also
3
Tuñón Regi on s
because they are less fixated than nation-states on
borders and population. Within the so-called global
neoliberal amphitheatre, Dicken (1994) also states
that cities and regions are increasingly becoming part
of the manoeuvres of the globally mobile transna-
tional corporation.
Indeed, according to Paasi (2009), a number of
scholars argue today that a rescaling of the spatialities
of state is taking place; these include both interna-
tional markets and regional political responses to
global capitalism which generate regionalism and
accentuate the significance of regions, even if their
institutional arrangements (EU, NAFTA or APEC,
among others) vary. Therefore, regions constitute the
political results of globalizing economic competi-
tion, while regionalism, might be (in this context) a
mirror image of globalization.
Geog raphy an d urban so ciol ogy studies
Urban sociologists and geographers have also taken a
new interest in regions. ‘Whereas in the past, these
[regions] tended to be seen as given or stable entities,
bounded by natural features, conditioned by pat-
terns of economic production, or home to perennial
cultural or identity groups, nowadays they are seen as
essentially constructed and open to challenge’
(Keating, 2004a: xii). Although many geographers
have been tempted by overlapping economic
approaches, Paasi (1996, 2002) analyses the main
typologies of the regional concept from a genuinely
geographic perspective. He argues that regions are
open spaces, linked to other social systems and con-
stantly subject to change and adaptation (Paasi,
2002). Furthermore, Paasi (1996) points to those
critical approaches where the region is variously
understood as: (1) an integral feature of capital accu-
mulation; (2) collective interpretations in identity
formation; or (3) a setting for social interaction and
practice. Therefore, Paasi (1991, 2009, 2013) argues
that regions are social processes whose inherent
motives and power relations might be based on econ-
omy, politics, culture or administration.
At a general level, regional geographers’ work
(see, inter alia, Allen et al., 1998; Paasi, 1996, 2002)
also highlights the political and cultural construction
of region-specific interdependencies, the spatializa-
tion of justice or even institutional thicknesses
(MacLeod and Jones, 2001). As MacLeod (2001)
states, most of the New Regionalists ‘offer little sense
of the interpretative structures of feeling and envi-
sioning practices that endow particular industrial
spaces or learning regional economies with a geo-
graphical imaginary or a community of political-cul-
tural interests’. Therefore, the constructivist
geographical perspective might highlight a wider
framework of cultural, economic and political
processes out of which local and regional entities are
constituted and governed (Brenner, 2001). As point-
ed out above, geographers’ temptation to pursue
overlapping (with other disciplines) approaches has
been very important.
With regard to urban sociology (which neverthe-
less cannot be treated in isolation from the econom-
ic approach), we can bring two different groups of
scholars into the discussion: first, those pointing to
the productive models in specific areas or regions;
and second, those highlighting the development of
postmodern, postindustrial global cities or metropol-
itan regions and macro-urban agglomeration in the
globalization era. Among the first group should be
mentioned those contributions (Bagnasco and
Triglia, 1993; Crouch et al., 2001; Storper, 1997;
Triglia, 1991) which show how local societies pro-
vide the conditions for successful development.
Focusing on the local layer, Le Galès (2002) also
argues that cities in Europe notably dominate the
small and medium urban settlements, often with
deep historical roots, in contrast to their inevitable
rise and fall in America. Among the second group,
Castells (1989, 1996) argues that regional economies
and urban metropoles have surged forward to lead in
the wealth creation; Harvey (1989) mentions an
entrepreneurial mode of governance whose interven-
tions are largely at the expense of local collective con-
sumption; while Sassen (2000a, 2000b, 2001)
analyses the impact of globalization and European
integration in the concept of the global city.
Economics and economic s ociology
As Keating (maybe the most prolific author on the
regional issue) stated in 2004, some of the most chal-
lenging work on regionalism comes from the disci-
pline of economics, at times overlapping with the
urban sociology and geographic approaches
(Keating, 2004a). Although inspired by economic
sociology, the latest contributions to the field place
more emphasis on the social conditions which enable
regions to provide collective public goods, allowing
small firms to gain the economies of scale tradition-
ally only associated with large companies. Thus, ‘this
is a strong challenge to the modernist notion that
territory will give way to function, since it portrays
functional systems as territorially embedded and
inseparable from their context’ (Keating, 2004a:
xiii). Some examples of this kind of economic
approach are in order: Ohmae (1993), from a
neoliberal but also regional mercantilism analytical
stance, shows regions in competition to gain
advantages within a declining nation-states
world; Scott (1996) points out the links between
globalization and the emergence of regional
economies; while Storper (1995, 1997) focuses upon
4
Tuñón Regi on s
the rise of regional production systems, without get-
ting rid of the state altogether.
However, other economic approaches to regions
in general and the regionalism issue in particular are
not that enthralled by the aforementioned neoliber-
alist approaches. Hudson (1999) or Gertler (1997)
noted the limitations of regionalism, while Amin
(1999) further develops the argument about how the
neoliberalist approaches left no room for social and
welfare issues at the regional level, and also focuses
on the importance of national states as a framework
for the New Regionalism. However, it was Lovering
(1999) who gave the ‘deepest’ (MacLeod, 2001: 813)
critique, or ‘blistering attack’ (Keating, 2004a: xiii),
of those neoliberal economic approaches to the
regional issue. He argues that they offer a lack of any
real analysis, are mere propaganda, but also an excuse
for governments to renege on their responsibilities.
Indeed, he accuses the New Regionalism of being ‘a
poor framework through which to grasp the real
connections between the regionalisation of business
and governance and the changing role of the state’
(Lovering, 1999: 391).
Polit ics and po liti cal sociolog y
The disciplines of politics and political sociology
have contributed the greatest breadth of research so
far to the regional issue, approaching it from an
inclusive perspective. Thus, they have, at some point
or other, overlapped with some of the other disci-
plines’ attempts to analyse the regional issue. These
perspectives have been widespread in Europe among
the theorists of the rise of the nation-state, the so-
called diffusionists, but also in the early accounts of
European integration researchers, during the last
decades of the 20th century. In this context, refer-
ence should be made to Stein Rokkan (1980), who
(since the 1960s, and among others) has explored the
way in which European states were built and the per-
sistence of earlier, territorial cleavages into modern
times (Keating, 2004a: xii). The Rokkanian school
made a huge advance in plotting territorial lines in
European states to generate a conceptual map of the
continent as a whole. Moreover, Rokkan and Urwin
(1983) also produced a typology of territorial state
forms to replace the conventional unitary-federal
dichotomy (Keating, 2008: 65).
In the 1990s the revival of regional studies was
seen among a wide range of disciplines promoting
the New Regionalism (Keating, 1998a; see also, inter
alia, Caciagli, 2006). As Keating (2008: 69) states,
the broad context of New Regionalism was ‘the
transformation of the state and government, the loss
of some capacities and the search for others, and the
demystification of the state with the end of the Cold
War and the more sophisticated understanding of its
historical contingency’. A large literature grew up
around New Regionalism: on the end of the territo-
ry (Badie, 1995); the borderless world and the net-
work society (Castells, 1997); stateless nations and
national minorities using the New Regionalism
themes to claim functional autonomy without neces-
sarily demanding independence (Keating, 2004b); or
comparative works about regionalism and political
parties emphasizing territorial representation, decen-
tralization and party competition (inter alia, De
Winter, 1994; De Winter and Tursan, 1998; De
Winter et al., 2006; Hough and Jeffery, 2006).
However, the most prolific research on New
Regionalism deals with the external context, both
globalization and European integration. Most of the
studies go in depth into the paradigm of the compet-
itive region, an idea which risks reifying the territory
unless a systematic analysis of its social and political
composition can be engaged. As in the context of
international relations, several studies (inter alia,
Keating, 1998a; Keating and Jones, 1985; Petschen,
1993, 2003) argue ‘whether European integration
represents an accentuation of globalisation; whether
it serves to modify its impact; or indeed whether it is
a bit of both’ (Keating, 2008: 71). Indeed, European
integration has brought about profound changes to
the regional issue, because it so often questions the
monopoly of the nation-state as the main actor with-
in economic, political and social processes, but also
offers new forms of autonomy. Particularly, one
might highlight those studies on national devolution
processes and the disparities and consequences due
to their interaction with European regional policies
(Hooghe, 1996); or those on regional mobilization
vis-a-vis the EU institutions to become part of the
European decision-making process, and the relative
success of some of them in doing so (inter alia,
Bolgherini, 2003; Börzel, 2002; Dandoy and
Massart-Piérard, 2005; Hooghe, 1995; Hooghe and
Marks, 1996; Jeffery, 2000; Swenden, 2006; Scully
and Wyn Jones, 2010; Tuñón, 2008, 2009, 2010,
2011b).
In spite of the many other commendable studies
on the regional issue that have been conducted (deal-
ing with the structural funds and regional issue inter-
action; cross-border cooperation [Rhi Sausi and
Conato, 2008; Rhi Sausi and Oddone, 2010; Tuñón
2011a]; and even on the regionalist–nationalist link-
ages), we might finally highlight those that have
stressed the importance of the regional government
level, the meso-level or meso-government (inter alia,
Keating, 1998b; Le Galès, 1998a, 1998b; Le Galès
and Lequesne, 1998; Moreno, 1997, 2001, 2002,
2003; Sharpe, 1993). They explain the reasons
for the emergence of this new level in its various
forms, but also the specific and internal factors that
5
Tuñón Regi on s
characterize it within the different nation-states.
Review of the empirical evidence
As stated earlier, the different approaches to the
regional issue are merely different interpretations/
perspectives about an empirical phenomenon. Even
Paasi (2009) argues that regions on any scale, from
local to continental, are today understood as social
constructs that constitute simultaneously both prod-
ucts and constituents of social action and always
reflect asymmetrical power relations. Indeed, the
regional issue historically constitutes evidence of a
decline, to an extent, in the influence of the
Westphalian nation-state theories. However, it can
also be pointed out that the roots of the regional
issue are mainly European.3Indeed, they take us
back to the end of the 18th century. In fact, ‘the his-
tory of regionalism in Europe begins with the French
revolution’ (Hueglin, 1986). Since then, the old
ideas (that acknowledged the state as sole bearer of
national interests and the distributor of public
goods, whereas regions, with their specific interests,
identities and needs, were disregarded as actors),
have no longer been entirely appropriate.
Without delving into the different, multilayered
approaches, more than two centuries of empirical
evidence have enabled us to distinguish the two
main, different sides of the regional issue. Indeed, it
is through the combination of these two different,
but complementary logics that the regional issue can
be understood. In order to deal with the problem, we
need to recall the historical development of the
regional issue ideas, linked to the process of nation-
state. Thus, we may distinguish the bottom-up logic,
on the one hand, and the top-down logic, on the
other hand. The first logic goes in the direction of
the regional or sub-state level towards the state; while
the second logic goes, on the contrary, from the state
towards the regional level. While the regionalization
or top-down logic has frequently been the subject of
scholarly analysis since the 1970s; the other, that of
regionalism, has only been studied in any depth
since the advent of its recent revival in the form of
New Regionalism.
Indeed, just like the primary concept (region),
regionalism implies a complex variety of phenomena
(Keating, 1998a). As Caciagli (2006: 12) broadly
defines it: ‘regionalism is the process, first cultural
and after, but not always, political, produced by a
community endowed with a strong feeling of territo-
rial membership’. This definition highlights too
some of the dimensions of the primary concept, such
as common territory, language, ethnic group, history
or ideology, which also build a common identity.
As Keating (1998b: 573) states, New
Regionalism is a reconstructed phenomenon born
during the late 1960s and the early 1970s. However,
this ‘new’ term implies a revival of old and known
phenomena. Indeed, it is common for the contem-
porary European regionalisms to defend, with or
without historical justification, the ancient roots
(Tuñón, 2009: 8–9). However, some forms of
regionalism truly bring us back to the Ancien
Régime, when the defence of language and minority
ethnic groups was even understood as a sign of weak-
ness. More recently (after the First World War, but
before fascism’s arrival in Europe), many regional
demands emerged, in Ireland, Wales, Scotland,
Brittany, Corsica, Roussillon, Flanders, Catalonia
and the Basque Country, among others (Caciagli,
2006: 159–62 Scully and Wyn Jones, 2010).
However, regionalism was thrown into crisis after
the Second World War, and the aforementioned
New Regionalism revival has only emerged since the
1960s/1970s. Although, this new phase was vigor-
ously political (even to the point of violence in some
cases, such as in the South Tyrol, Corsica or the
Basque Country), its main motivating factor was
economic. Indeed, at the very beginning, the New
Regionalism claims came from the peripheral
regions, which felt marginalized and exploited by
their political centres. In spite of the large number of
different regional demands since New Regionalism’s
revival (mainly in Central and Western Europe), the
methodological typologies are not very precise.
Without taking into account those general classifica-
tions that distinguish economic, ethno-linguistic or
just linguistic based regionalisms, the most in-depth
classification has been presented by Keating (1998b),
who distinguishes up to six different regionalisms.4
Following the work of Charles Ricq (1986: 41),
the region’s key elements are the territorial space and
the inhabitant group. Thus, while regionalism refers
to the community organization, regionalization
focuses on the spatial organization. Indeed, both of
them constitute the two sides of the root or original
concept: the region. Thus, while regionalism is
ascending (bottom-up), regionalization is descend-
ing (top-down). Regionalism implies a mobilization
from the region and towards the state, whereas, with-
in regionalization, the state initiates a devolution
process mobilizing the region to bring government
closer to the citizenship. Therefore, I also follow here
the distinction made by Petschen (1993). On the
one hand, he states that regionalism refers to the
group dynamics of the citizens within a territory, to
gain greater competencies because of anthropologi-
cal, historical, cultural or social factors. Thus, region-
alism demands the political decision-making power
to satisfy the territories’ management of home
6
Tuñón Regi on s
affairs, and their desires in terms of their identity
also. On the other hand, he also points out that
regionalization implies a territorial planning based
on already existing state powers. Thus, its main char-
acteristics are economic and administrative, and it
comes from the central power base that devolves
power quotas for a more efficient and re-distributive
management.
Although both regionalism and regionalization
have been complementary, within the European
framework the driving force has been regionalism
(Scully and Wyn Jones, 2010: 5–6). In fact, region-
alism has promoted a progressive regionalization,
settling territorial divisions with the regional politi-
cal institutions and competencies according to the
will of the citizenship. However, the regionalization
side of the coin is no less important. Indeed, within
the regionalization context, many factors have made
the regional level more suitable than the state or the
supra-national organizational level, due to its prox-
imity to the citizenship.5The advantages at the
regional level include factors
such as size, the kind of services offered and
representation of the population. Moreover, there is
a wide range of specific advantages that favour
regionalization processes: the accessibility of the
regional and local governments to the citizenship
and its needs; a more efficient use of public
resources; and a greater respect for and identification
with groups and cultures (Farah et al., 2010;
Moreno, 2012; Petschen and Tuñón, 2009; Tuñón,
2009: 10).
In fact, even confining ourselves exclusively to
the sub-state level, there are (at least) three different
levels of ‘regions’ identifiable at European level: sta-
tistical, administrative and affective (Scully and Wyn
Jones, 2010: 6–7). Indeed, there are three different
layers of regions (NUTS) as the basis for the presen-
tation of the European statistical data and decisive
(NUTS 2) in the framework of the Cohesion Policy.
However, there are many cases (mainly within larger
states) in which the boundaries of NUTS regions do
not match with the boundaries of any existing unit
of administrative authority. Moreover, the relation-
ship between statistical regions and administrative
regions is therefore a weak one. Neither is there any
simple or straightforward relationship between the
borders of statistical and administrative regions, on
the one hand, and ‘regional consciousness and iden-
tity on the other’ (Scully and Wyn Jones, 2010: 7).
Assessment of research to date
To date, the research on the regional issue has often
doubted the necessity or even the possibility of deter-
mining with any precision a single, universal concept
of region – whether ‘region’ might constitute a gen-
eral concept valid for every situation and approach,
or whether it is only a specific concept, useful only
according to the defining parameters. To date, the
majority of approaches, within the different social
disciplines, have formulated casuistic and partial def-
initions.6As soon as it was verified that a universal
(region) concept was no longer possible, the different
social disciplines began to theorize on the academic
utility of different specific and partial concept defi-
nitions. Indeed, the concept has been categorized
but not generalized.
There are four main challenges to the formula-
tion of a universal concept: (1) the existence of other
terms in different social disciplines and in different
languages to define a similar idea; (2) the plurality of
criteria to delimit the content of the concept even
within the same social discipline, due to the different
sub-disciplinary definitions; (3) the analysis of the
term at different levels, sub-state (the approaches of
urban studies and politics, among others) but also
supra-state (as in international relations or econom-
ic approaches); (4) the multiplicity of sub-levels even
within the one given concept level (even at sub-state
level there are many different categories of regions)
(Domínguez, 2005).
This plurality of hypothetical criteria and
approaches to defining it has made the term region
ambiguous, and difficult to pin down. Thus, we
might certainly criticize those (many) studies lacking
an explicit and logical regional theoretical framework
(even those that pretend to consider restrictively just
their own approach), or that are constructed from an
undefined concept. It is also possible to find analysis
that has avoided the concept of region altogether,
substituting it for a new term, but without clarifying
that new term either. There have also been some
interdisciplinary studies that have analysed the
regional issue from different disciplines. However, it
has not been possible to build a concept of region
that is valid for all social disciplines. Thus, it being
impossible to delineate a universal approach, and it
being the case that many of the different disciplines
overlap, we might ask for clearly defined, but partial-
ly built approaches. So, it might be possible to con-
struct homogeneous models and research, based on
partial, yet common and clearly defined conceptual
approaches.
Moreover, it should be reiterated that Europe has
been at the core of the research on regions. First of
all, it has been the main arena for studies on the
regional issue. Europeanization, EU policies, but
also the centuries-old political-administrative
predominance of its small territories, have promoted
the emphasis on the European context. Second, a
7
Tuñón Regi on s
majority of the academics and researchers interested
in the topic are themselves of European origin.
Although there has been an increase in the study of
the regional issue in recent years, this analytical
framework remains underdeveloped in the discipline
of international relations (Calleya, 2000), and it is
not the main topic within economic studies either.
Both disciplines have powerful traditions in North
America, and its only partial interest (currently) in
the issue, constitutes an important lack.
Discussion of future directions
Since the 1970s, academics have distinguished
between the ‘Old Regionalism’, characterized by
conservativism, resistance to change and dominated
by politics of identity but also by separatist senti-
ments, and the ‘New Regionalism’, considered mod-
ern and pursuing the autonomy of the region
through federalization, decentralization or regional-
ization, but without destabilizing the state (Albina
and Khasson, 2008). However, recently, the New
Regionalism approach has been revisited and many
authors have theorized that it is no longer useful to
debate on the old and new regionalism issue. On the
contrary, future theorizing and research might take
into account the diverse forms of regions and region-
alism, existing not only in Europe but on a global
scale, where, inter alia, sociological, political, eco-
nomic, geographic, historical or juridical logics
would be rationally and conceptually intertwined.
As highlighted earlier, future theorizing and
research on the regional issue might be proportional-
ly and democratically expanded on a world scale. An
equilibrium might be looked for at the level of both
actors (researchers) and arenas (research topics).
Thus, we will gain a balanced research field with dif-
ferent origins and new approaches, but also with less
of an emphasis on Europe as the main object of
study.
Moreover, at the European level the so-called
‘other Europe’ (Keating, 2008: 74) might also be
further analysed. Indeed, studies on the regional
issue have been traditionally dominated by the
Western Europe example. Although, since the fall of
Communism, regionalism and regionalization in
Eastern Europe have attracted some attention.
Within the European integration context, some sort
of regionalization has been developed in some
Eastern European countries. However, it might be
further analysed and theorized to what extent those
processes have been merely administrative to fall in
line with European regional policies, or whether they
have also been promoted by social, political, cultural
or historical common regional factors. Indeed, the
structures of regional government across Europe
differ along several dimensions, among the most
remarkable ones are: their constitutions’ status; their
powers, autonomy and governing/administrative
capability; or to what extent their structures attract
the diffuse institutional support of their citizenries
(Scully and Wyn Jones, 2010: 243). Moreover, deal-
ing with the regionalizing dynamics, there might
also be distinguished three different processes: (a)
Euro-regionalism, which refers to the perceived pres-
sure on member states to regionalize their govern-
mental structures as part of a broader integration
process; (b) state-regionalism, which deals with the
regionalizing pressures emanating from the state
level itself; and (c) regional-regionalism, which refers
(by contrast) to the bottom-up regionalizing pressure
from the region itself, very often as a manifestation
of its regional ‘identity’ (Paasi, 1991, 2009, 2013).7
As Scully and Wyn Jones (2010: 8) point out, while
these three dynamics are distinct, it might be
remembered that all three can and do interact with
each other in practice.
To sum up, ‘regions’, ‘regionalism’ and ‘regional-
ization’ on whatever spatial scale are not the result of
straightforward processes. Regions, their boundaries
and their attached meanings are social constructs.
Indeed, they are ‘expressions of perpetual struggle
over the meaning associated with space, democracy,
representation and welfare’ (Paasi, 2009: 478).
The disciplines of sociology, politics, economics,
geography, international relations mainly, but also
history and law, among others, have developed con-
cepts that travel across time and space, enabling us to
grasp the elusive notion of territory and its changing
manifestations. As Keating (2008: 76) states, a lot of
progress has been made, but ‘we are not there yet’.
This attempt to provide a ‘state of art’ on the region-
al issue at the beginning of the 21st century goes, to
some extent, towards raising the profile of regional
theories and their empirical analysis. It is modestly
hoped that the framework introduced here, but also
the criticism and assessment provided, might
encourage regionalist researchers (from many differ-
ent disciplines, coming from different ‘regional’
areas) to focus more comprehensively on the concep-
tualization of ‘region’ within their analyses.
Further research and theorizing, at both sub- and
supra-state levels, are necessary for a better under-
standing of the relation between regions at different
levels (sub-state, state or macro-continental, among
others) and the world order, but also between the
whole range of regional mechanisms and layers. It is
also hoped that the further reading section below
will attract a wider and greater amount of reflection
on the theoretical and operative frameworks for
analysing the regional concept.
8
Tuñón Regi on s
Acknowledgements
The author is extremely grateful to the anonymous refer-
ees of Sociopedia for some highly instructive commentaries
on earlier drafts of this article.
Notes
1. Keating (1998a: 9) argues that this is a minimal defi-
nition, that places the region between the state and the
locality. However, it is broad enough and gives little idea
of its territorial scope since some regions are larger than
some states.
2. This grouping together of the main disciplines does
not imply an absence of occasional contributions from
other (traditionally less interested in the regional issue)
theoretical fields. Indeed, the value of contributions tak-
ing a juridical (Domínguez, 2005) or historical
(Applegate, 1999) approach, for instance, should also be
pointed out.
3. These ancient European origins explain why the
largest proportion of contributions to the regional issue
has emanated from Europe and has mainly focused on the
European scale. This is not only because of the dominant
position all over the world that Europe enjoyed until the
last century, but also because small territories were the
dominant political-administrative units on the continent
for centuries.
4. (1) The conservative regionalism rooted in the idea of
affective community which resists the modernization
embodied in the homogenizing and secular state –19th-
century France or 20th-century Italy. (2) The bourgeois
regionalism attached to the industrial and economically
advanced regions – currently represented by some Länder
in Germany, the Lega Nord in Italy or Catalonia in Spain.
(3) The modernizing regionalism, which is technocratic
and depoliticized but also less linked to class interests. (4)
The progressive regionalism, which supports democracy,
reforms of the state, equality or even ecology, among oth-
ers. (5) The populist and right-wing regionalism, con-
fronting a centralizing state, fiscal redistribution or
immigrants, to name a few – currently, politically repre-
sented by the Lega Nord in Italy or the Vlaams Blok in
Belgium. (6) The separatist regionalism, currently exem-
plified within the nation-conscious Western European
regions such as Northern Ireland, Scotland or the Basque
Country (Keating, 1998b: 570–3).
5. Although sometimes the local or municipal level could
be even closer to the citizenship.
6. However, in the very beginning disciplines like eco-
nomics or geography made some efforts to articulate a
general term or definition of the issue. Nowadays, those
efforts constitute only a small minority.
7. At present, this is happening in the cases of Scotland
and Catalonia, where two different processes to gain the
rights to auto-determination or even their independence
have been launched during 2013. See Keating, 2009,
2013; Scully and Wyn Jones, 2010.
Annotated further reading
Caciagli M (2006) Regioni d’Europa: Devoluzione, region-
alismi, integrazione europea, 2nd edn. Bolonia: Il
Mulino.
During the last decades, many European states’ insti-
tutional architecture has changed. This evolution has
been because of the different processes of power
devolution, from the political centres towards the
peripheries. Indeed, regions became relevant actors
within the European arena, where they vindicate an
increasingly important role. Therefore, Italian politi-
cal analyst Mario Caciagli points out the complex
relationship between devolution, regionalism and
European integration.
Domínguez García F (2005) Las regiones con competencias
legislativas. Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch, Colección
Estudios Autonómicos y Federales.
This book analyses (from a political and constitu-
tional law angle) the presence of sub-state entities
within many of the current members of the EU.
Fernando Domínguez categorizes the territorial enti-
ties with political autonomy and legislative powers as
‘legislative capacities regions’ (also well known as
partner-regions or legislative regions). The author com-
pares their internal constitutional position, but also
their participation channels in European affairs, as
agreed by their states.
Keating M (ed.) (2004) Regions and Regionalism in
Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
The last half century has seen the rise across Europe
of a new intermediate (regional) level of government.
However the term ‘region’ means many different
things and can be approached from many different
angles – geographical, historical, cultural, social, eco-
nomic and political. Although it is in Europe that
regionalism as a multiform phenomenon has devel-
oped the furthest, the European experience resonates
in other parts of the world, where some of these ele-
ments also exist. Michael Keating selects some of the
most significant previously published articles.
Therefore, this compendium provides a comprehen-
sive overview of past and current thinking on this
topic.
Macleod G (2001) New Regionalism reconsidered:
Globalization and the remaking of political economic
space. International Journal of Urban and Regional
Research 35(4).
Amid economic globalization and the decline of the
nation-state, a range of subnational regional
economies and urban metropoles are increasingly
being canonized as the paradigmatic exemplars of
wealth. Gordon Macleod offers a rejoinder on what
might be recovered from the range of New
Regionalist perspectives currently vying for attention
within critical studies of regional development.
However, he also highlights a series of future theoret-
ical directions for a geopolitically sensitive regional
research agenda, drawing on recent thinking from
the new regional geography, globalization and the
politics of scale, institutional-relational state theory
and the regulation approach.
9
Tuñón Regi on s
Scully R, Wyn Jones R (eds) (2010) Europe, Regions and
European Regionalism. Palgrave Studies in European
Union Politics. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
This book addresses the paradox of whether Europe’s
regions and European regionalism are of little but
also diminishing consequence. Therefore, it examines
the experiences of regions and regionalism across
Western, Central and Eastern Europe. A group of
country experts introduce analyses of both the larger
states of Europe and their smaller counterparts
(Germany, France, Italy, Spain and Poland, but also
Ireland, Sweden, Hungary, Estonia, Bulgaria or even
Scotland within the United Kingdom). The volume
concludes that ‘there is a growing diversity of
European Regions, and a wide variety of regionaliz-
ing imperatives. Regionalism may not have over-
thrown the nation state, but Europe’s regions and
European regionalism, have a persisting importance
to the politics of the continent.’
Telo M (ed.) (2007) European Union and New
Regionalism: Regional Actors and Global Governance in
a Post-Hegemonic Era. Aldershot: Ashgate.
This volume highlights external relations within the
framework of the development of different forms of
regional arrangements, within the globalized world of
the 21st century. The book, edited by Mario Telo,
offers: (1) a response to conventional wisdom on EU
international identity; (2) an exploration of key issues
of regionalism vs globalization and the potential for
world economic and political governance through
regionalism; and (3) a key resource for study and
research of international relations, European studies,
comparative politics and international political econ-
omy.
References
Albina E, Khasson V (2008) New regionalism in Russia:
Is the Western European experience applicable?
Féderalisme-Régionalisme 8(2; Special issue: Ètudes
régionales et fédérales: nouvelles perspectives).
Available at: popups.ulg.ac.be/federalisme/docu-
ment.php?id=752.
Allen J, Massey D, and Cochrane A (1998) Rethinking
the Region. London: Routledge.
Amin A (1999) An institutionalist perspective on region-
al economic development. International Journal of
Urban and Regional Research 23(2): 365–78.
Anderson P (1994) The invention of the region.
European University Institute Working Paper,
Florence.
Applegate C (1999) A Europe of regions: Reflections on
the historiography of sub-national places in modern
times. American Historical Review 104(4).
Badie B (1995) Le Fin des territoires. Essai sur le désordre
international et sur lutilité sociale du respect. Paris:
Fayard.
Bagnasco A, Trigilia C (1993) La Construction sociale du
marché. La Défi de la troisième Italie. Cachan:
Editions de lEcole Normale Supérieur de Cachan.
Beaufays J (1985) Théorie du régionalisme. Brussels: S
Story-Scientia.
Bolgherini S (2003) L’attivazione delle Regioni in
Europa. Un’analisi comparata di otto casi mediter-
ranei. Doctoral dissertation, Università degli Studi di
Firenze.
Börzel T (2002) The State and the Regions. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Brenner N (2001) Urban governance and the production
of new state spaces: reflections on state restructuring
in Western Europe. Mimeograph.
Caciagli M (2006) Regioni d’Europa: Devoluzione, region-
alismi, integrazione europea, 2nd edn. Bolonia: Il
Mulino.
Calleya S (ed.) (2000) Regionalism in the Post-Cold War
World. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Castells M (1989) The Network Society. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Castells M (1996) The Rise of the Network Society.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Castells M (1997) The Power of Identity. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Castro Ruano J (1994) La emergente participación
política de las regiones en el proceso de construcción
europea. Instituto Vasco de Administración Pública,
Bilbao.
Crouch C, Le Galès P, Trigilia C, and Voelzkow H
(2001) Local Production Systems in Europe: Rise or
Demise? Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dandoy R, Massart-Piérard F (2005) The external action
of autonomous regions in Europe. Paper presented at
the ECPR Joint Sessions, Working Group No. 30
Patterns of regional democracy, Granada, 14–19
April.
De Winter L (ed.) (1994) Non-State Wide Parties in
Europe. Barcelona: Institut de Ciències Polítiques i
Socials, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.
De Winter L, Türsan H (eds) (1998) Regionalist Parties
in Western Europe. London: Routledge.
De Winter L, Gómez Reino M, and Lynch P (eds)
(2006) Autonomist Parties in Europe: Identity Politics
and the Revival of the Territorial Cleavage, Vols 1 and
2. Barcelona: Institut de Ciències Polítiques i Socials,
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.
Dicken P (1994) The Roepke Lecture in economic geog-
raphy. Global–local tensions: Firms and states in the
global space economy. Economy Geography No. 70.
Domínguez García F (2005) Las regiones con competencias
legislativas. Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch, Colección
Estudios Autonómicos y Federales.
Eliassen K, Arnesen C (2007) Comparison of European
and Southeast Asian integration. In: Telo M (ed.)
European Union and New Regionalism: Regional Actors
and Global Governance in a Post-Hegemonic Era.
Aldershot: Ashgate.
Farah P, Granato L, and Oddone N (2010) El desafío de
la regionalización. Colección Claves Para Todos.
Buenos Aires: Capital Intelectual.
Gertler M (1997) The invention of regional culture. In:
10
Tuñón Regi on s
Lee R, Willis J (eds) Geographies of Economies.
London: Arnold.
Harvey D (1989) From managerialism to entrepreneuri-
alism: The transformation of urban governance in
late capitalism. Geografiska Annaler No. 71B: 3–17.
Hooghe L (1995) Subnational mobilisation in the
European Union. European University Institute
Working Paper No. 95/6, Florence.
Hooghe L (ed.) (1996) Cohesion Policy and European
Integration: Building Multi-Level Governance. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Hooghe L, Marks G (1996) Europe with the regions:
Channels of regional representation in the European
Union. Publius 26(1): 73–91.
Hough D, Jeffery C (eds) (2006) Devolution and
Electoral Politics. Manchester: Manchester University
Press.
Hudson R (1999) The learning economy, the learning
firm and the learning region: A sympathetic critique
of the limits to learning. European Urban and
Regional Studies 6(1): 59–72.
Hueglin T (1986) Regionalism in Western Europe:
Conceptual problems of a new political perspective.
Comparative Politics 18(4): 439–58.
Jeffery C (2000) Sub-national mobilization and
European integration: Does it make any difference?
Journal of Common Market Studies 38: 1–23.
Joffé G (2007) Regionalism: A new paradigm? In: Telo
M (ed.) European Union and New Regionalism:
Regional Actors and Global Governance in a Post-
Hegemonic Era. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Keating M (1997) The invention of regions: Political
restructuring and territorial government in Western
Europe. Environment and Planning 15: 383–98.
Keating M (1998a) The New Regionalism in Western
Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Keating M (1998b) Is there a regional level of govern-
ment in Europe. In: Le Galès P, Lequesne C (eds)
Regions in Europe. London and New York: Routledge.
Keating M (ed.) (2004a) Regions and Regionalism in
Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Keating M (2004b) European integration and the
nationalities question. Politics and Society 3(1):
367–88.
Keating M (2008) Thirty years of territorial politics.
West European Politics 31(1–2): 60–81.
Keating M (2009) The Independence of Scotland: Self
Government and Shifting Politics of Union. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Keating M (2013) La cuestión de las nacionalidades In:
Qué sera de Europa. Vanguardia Dossier, 46,
January–March, Barcelona.
Keating M, Jones B (eds) (1985) Regions in the European
Community. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Le Galès P (1998a) Government and governance of
regions: Structural weaknesses and new mobilisa-
tions. In: Le Galès P, Lequesne C (eds) Regions in
Europe. London and New York: Routledge.
Le Galès P (1998b) Regulations and governance in
European cities. International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research 22: 482–506.
Le Galès P (2002) European Cities: Social Conflicts and
Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Le Galès P, Lequesne C (eds) (1998) Regions in Europe.
London and New York: Routledge.
Lovering J (1999) Theory led by policy: The inadequa-
cies of the ‘New Regionalism’ (illustrated from the
case of Wales). International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research 23(2): 379–95.
Macleod G (2001) New Regionalism reconsidered:
Globalization and the remaking of political economic
space. International Journal of Urban and Regional
Research 35(4).
MacLeod G, Jones M (2001) Renewing the geography of
regions. Environment and Planning D: Society and
Space 19(6).
Moreno L (1997) La federalización de España. Poder
político y territorio. Madrid: Siglo XXI.
Moreno, L (2001) The Federalization of Spain. London
and Portland, OR: Routledge/Frank Cass.
Moreno L (2002) Global y local: identidades territoriales
y mesogobiernos. In: Safran W, Máiz R (eds)
Identidad y autogobierno en sociedades multiculturales.
Barcelona: Ariel.
Moreno L (2003) Europeanization, mesogovernments
and safety nets. European Journal of Political Research
42: 274–85.
Moreno L (2012) La Europa asocial. Madrid: Península.
Ohmae K (1993) The rise of the region state. Foreign
Affairs 72(2): 78–87.
Ohmae K (1995) The End of the Nation State. London:
Harper Collins.
Ohmae K (2005) The Next Global Stage: The Challenges
and Opportunities in our Borderless World. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Wharton School Publishing.
Paasi A (1991) Deconstructing regions: Notes on the
scale of spatial life. Environment and Planning A
23(2): 239–54.
Paasi A (1996) Regions as social and cultural constructs:
Reflections on recent geographical debates. In: Idvall
M, Salomonsson A (eds) Att Skapa en Region om
identitet och territorium. Copenhagen: NordREFO.
Paasi A (2002) Place and region: Regional worlds and
words. Progress in Human Geography 26(6): 802–11.
Paasi A (2009) Regions and regional dynamics. In:
Rumford C (ed.) The Sage Handbook of European
Studies. London: Sage.
Paasi A (2013) Regional planning and the mobilization
of ‘regional Identity’: From bounded spaces to rela-
tional complexity. Working Paper, University of Oulu
(Finland).
Petschen S (1993) La Europa de las regiones. Barcelona:
Generalitat de Catalunya, Institut d’estudis
Autonomics.
Petschen S (ed.) (2003) El papel de las regiones en
Europa. Madrid: Editorial Biblioteca Nueva.
Petschen S, Tuñón J (2009) Un marco jurídico político
para la cuestión regional. Working Paper (P2009/01),
November, Fundación del Centro de Estudios
Andaluces, Seville. Available at: www.centrodeestu-
diosandaluces.es/index.php?mod=publicaciones&cat=
26&id=2435&ida=0&idm=.
11
Tuñón Regi on s
Rhi Sausi J, Conato, D (2008) Cooperación descentralizada
Unión Europea-América Latina y desarrollo económico
local. Barcelona: Colección de Estudios de
Investigación n. 6. Observatorio de Cooperación
Descentalizada Unión Europea – América Latina.
Rhi Sausi J, Oddone, N (2010) La cooperación transfron-
teriza entre las unidades subnacionales del MERCO-
SUR. Tendencias 11(2): 131–59.
Ricq C (1986) Les régions d’Europe et la construction
européenne. Cadmos 36 (Winter).
Rokkan S (1980) Territories, centres, and peripheries:
Toward a geoethnic-geoeconomic-geopolitical model
of differentiation within western Europe. In:
Gottoman J (ed.) Centre and Periphery: Spatial
Variation in Politics. Beverly Hills, CA and London:
Sage, 163–204.
Rokkan S, Urwin D (1983) Economy, Territory, Identity:
Politics of West European Peripheries. London: Sage.
Rumford C (ed.) (2009) The Sage Handbook of European
Studies. London: Sage.
Sassen S (2000a) Digital networks and the state. Theory,
Culture and Society 17(1): 19–33.
Sassen S (2000b) The Global City. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Sassen S (2001) Global cities and global city-regions: A
comparison. In: Scott AJ (ed.) Global City-Regions:
Trends, Theory, Policy. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 78–95.
Sbragia A (2007) European Union and NAFTA. In: Telo
M (ed.) European Union and New Regionalism:
Regional Actors and Global Governance in a Post-
Hegemonic Era. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Scott AJ (1996) Regional motors of the future economy.
Futures 28: 391–411.
Scully R, Wyn Jones R (eds) (2010) Europe, Regions and
European Regionalism. Palgrave Studies in European
Union Politics. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Sharpe J (1993) The European meso: An appraisal. In:
Sharpe J (ed.) The Rise of the Meso-Government in
Europe. London: Sage, 1–36.
Söderbaum F (2007) African regionalism and EU–African
interregionalism. In: Telo M (ed.) European Union and
New Regionalism: Regional Actors and Global
Governance in a Post-Hegemonic Era. Aldershot:
Ashgate.
Storper M (1995) The resurgence of regional economies,
ten years later: The region as a nexus of untraded
interdependencies. European Urban and Regional
Studies 2(3): 191–221.
Storper M (1997) The Regional World: Territorial
Development in a Global Economy. New York: Guilford
Press.
Swenden W (2006) Federalism and Regionalism in Western
Europe: A Comparative and Thematic Analysis. New
York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Telo M (ed.) (2007) European Union and New
Regionalism: Regional Actors and Global Governance in
a Post-Hegemonic Era. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Trigilia C (1991) The paradox of the region: Economic
regulation and the representation of the interests.
Economy and Society 20(3): 306–27.
Tuñón J (2008) European regional activation towards
Brussels: From the heart to the ultra-periphery of
Europe. Walloon and Canary strategies. Féderalisme-
Régionalisme 8(2; Special issue: Ètudes régionales et
fédérales: nouvelles perspectivas). Available at: pop-
ups.ulg.ac.be/federalisme/document.php?id=773.
Tuñón J (2009) La activación europea de las regiones leg-
islativas. Análisis comparado de las estrategias de
Canarias, Escocia, Toscana y Valonia. Doctoral disser-
tation, Universidad Complutense, Madrid.
Tuñón J (2010) Andalucía y la Unión Europea. Actor per-
iférico y escenario privilegiado de la política europea.
Colección Política y Derecho, Andalusia Studies
Centre, Seville.
Tuñón J (ed.) (2011a) Multilevel governance: The chal-
lenge for the Mediterranean regions. Andalusia Studies
Centre, Seville. Available at: www.medgov.net/sites/
default/files/Medgovernance_ingles_0.pdf.
Tuñón J (ed.) (2011b) Escenarios presentes y futuros de
las Regiones en la Unión Europea [Current and future
developments of the regions within the European
Union]. Andalusia Studies Centre, Seville. Available
at: www.centrodeestudiosandaluces.es/index.php?
mod=factoriaideas&cat=2&id=143&ida=0&idm=.
Vasconcelos A (2007) European Union and MERCO-
SUR. In: Telo M (ed.) European Union and New
Regionalism: Regional Actors and Global Governance in
a Post-Hegemonic Era. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Wallerstein I (1974) The Modern World System: Capitalist
Agriculture and the Origins of the European World
Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York: Academic
Press.
Wallerstein I (2000) The Essential Wallerstein. New York:
The New Press.
12
Tuñón Regi on s
Jorge Tuñón is currently lecturer at the University Carlos III of Madrid. He received his
‘Doctor Europeus’ (PhD) from the University Complutense of Madrid (Extraordinary Prize),
having previously received three diplomas in Law, Communication, and Politics. He has been
a visiting researcher in various American and European universities. He has also been involved
in several research projects at the national and international levels, and has already achieved a
notable track record of publications in different languages (English, French, Italian and
Spanish). His main current research fields are Europeanization, communication,
regionalism/federalism, and sports sociology. He has also worked for the European Commission
in Brussels. [email: jtunon@hum.uc3m.es / http://uc3m.academia.edu/JorgeTu%C3%B1%
C3%B3n]
résumé Le concept de région est un terme polysémique partiellement défini par plusieurs disciplines:
la sociologie, les relations internationales, la géographie, l’économie, le droit ou les sciences politiques. Au
sein d’une même discipline, le concept peut être analysé de plusieurs points de vue au niveau supra ou
sous-étatique, mais également en fonction des perspectives ascendante ‘bottom-up’ (régionalisme) ou
descendant ‘top-down’ (régionalisation).
mots-clés intégration européenne ◆niveau sous-état ◆régionalisation ◆régionalisme nouveau ◆
régions
resumen El concepto de región es un término polisémico parcialmente definido por diferentes
disciplinas: la sociología, las relaciones internacionales, la geografía, la economía, el derecho o la ciencia
política. Incluso en el marco de una misma disciplina, el concepto puede ser analizado desde diversas
perspectivas: a nivel supra o sub-estatal, pero también en función de las dimensiones ascendente ‘bottom-
up’ (regionalismo) o descendente ‘top-down’ (regionalización).
palabras clave integración europea ◆nivel sub-estatal ◆nuevo regionalismo ◆regionalización ◆
regiones
