Rethinking EU Studies: The Contribution of Comparative Regionalism

This article was downloaded by: [Fordham University]On: 29 September 2013, At: 16:06Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of European IntegrationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/geui20

Rethinking EU Studies: TheContribution of ComparativeRegionalismAlex Warleigh‐Lack a & Luk Van Langenhove b

a Politics and International Relations, Brunel University andUNU‐CRIS, Brugesb Comparative Regional Integration Studies Institute, UnitedNations University (UNU‐CRIS), Bruges, BelgiumPublished online: 09 Nov 2010.

To cite this article: Alex Warleigh‐Lack & Luk Van Langenhove (2010) Rethinking EU Studies: TheContribution of Comparative Regionalism, Journal of European Integration, 32:6, 541-562, DOI:10.1080/07036337.2010.518715

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2010.518715

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/geui20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/07036337.2010.518715

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2010.518715

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

European IntegrationVol. 32, No. 6, 541–562, November 2010

ISSN 0703–6337 Print/ISSN 1477–2280 Online/10/060541-22 © 2010 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/07036337.2010.518715

ARTICLE

Introduction. Rethinking EU Studies: The Contribution of Comparative

Regionalism

ALEX WARLEIGH-LACK* & LUK VAN LANGENHOVE**

*Politics and International Relations, Brunel University and UNU-CRIS, Bruges**Comparative Regional Integration Studies Institute, United Nations University (UNU-

CRIS), Bruges, BelgiumTaylor and FrancisGEUI_A_518715.sgm10.1080/07036337.2010.518715Journal of European Integration0703-6337 (print)/1477-2280 (online)Original Article2010Taylor & Francis326000000December [email protected]

ABSTRACT This article introduces the special issue on the contribution of comparativeregionalism/regional integration studies to the rethinking of EU studies. It sets out whatwe consider to be a danger for EU studies, namely its tendency towards introversion,and argue for a sustained engagement with the studies of other global regions as a meansto avoid this. We draw on political science and psychology to set out a suitable frame-work for comparing global regions such as the EU, and show how the various contri-butions to the special issue demonstrate the utility for EU studies scholars of a moresustained, and more routinised, engagement with the work on ‘new regionalism’.

KEY WORDS: Comparative regional integration, EU studies, new regionalism

Introduction — EU Studies between Achievement and Introversion

The purpose of this special issue is to make a contribution to the debateabout the future direction of EU studies by asking what EU scholars mightgain from a hitherto under-explored form of comparative work, that ofcomparison between the EU and other regional organisations and processes.We do not deny that there can be benefits in such work for new regionalismscholars; our focus here, however, is on what we consider to be an importantpart of the debate on EU studies’ future because it goes to the heart of anunderstanding of what EU studies is and should be: is it the study of just one,

Correspondence Address: Alex Warleigh-Lack, Politics and International Relations, BrunelUniversity Kingston Lane, Uxbridge, Middlesex, UB8 3PH. Email: [email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ford

ham

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:06

29

Sept

embe

r 20

13

542 Alex Warleigh-Lack & Luk Van Langenhove

albeit fascinating, set of institutions and processes? Or is it capable ofinforming, and learning from, a wider set of debates? In particular, how canand should EU studies respond to the growth of regional organisations else-where across the globe since the mid-1980s: how watertight is the sui generisclaim made by many EU scholars today? Have scholars of regions outside theEU developed approaches or understandings different from those in EUstudies which nonetheless have purchase in that field? And can their insightseven help retrieve that goal of early EU studies scholars, a generalisabletheory of regional integration?

In this introductory article we set out some of the benefits for EU studiesscholars of a better dialogue ‘across the EU studies–new regionalism frontier’(Warleigh-Lack and Rosamond 2010). We then discuss issues of how tocompare different global regions. We close by introducing the contributionsto the rest of this special issue and focusing on what they imply that the studyof comparative regionalism, or regions outside Europe — and even withinthat continent, of organisations other than the EU — might add to EU studies.

Why is this necessary? After all, European Union studies has emerged as asignificant area of enquiry. Scholarly and practitioner interest in the EU isapparent on every inhabited continent of the globe. Contributions to thefield have been made from a range of disciplines, and indeed EU studies itselfmust be considered a multi- or interdisciplinary enterprise rich in theory andalso in empirical work. Recent overviews of the field, elaborated on bothsides of the Atlantic, have charted its development from a sideshow in ratio-nalist International Relations scholarship to a thriving form of area studies,with contributions from, in the English language literature at least, politics,law, economics, history, sociology and anthropology (Cini and Bourne2006; Jørgensen et al. 2007). Although such authors often see themselves indisciplinary terms rather than as Europeanists, there is also an extensiveliterature on the EU in geography. Consequently, there is much to be proudof in EU studies and, as one of us has argued elsewhere, the way in which theEU has been studied sets a benchmark for scholars of many disciplines asthey try to wrestle with the epistemological consequences of globalisation(Schmitter 2009; Scholte 2008): having long wrestled with an ambiguousdependent variable which traduces orthodox understandings of the ‘domes-tic’ and the ‘international’, EU studies scholars have much to teach those towhom such enquiries are relatively novel (Warleigh 2006; Warleigh-Lackand Phinnemore 2009).

However, EU studies cannot afford to rest on its laurels. Much recentwork in the field has been somewhat introverted, with theory confined tomiddle range enquiries and increasing über-specialisation of research inter-ests coming increasingly to the fore.1 Except for those who study the EU’sexternal policy, it is common for EU studies scholars to ignore the advent ofglobal governance or to integrate globalisation fully into their own studies(Rumford and Murray 2003) — an ironic mirroring of the failure of manycomparative politics specialists with interests in European countries to seethe EU as anything but an add-on. And EU studies’ very strengths may reifythe sense among its scholars that their dependent variable is unique, closing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ford

ham

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:06

29

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Rethinking EU Studies 543

off the very avenues of enquiry and exchange that we need to develop ourfield more fruitfully (Warleigh-Lack and Phinnemore 2009).

As with all forms of scholarly enquiry, EU studies has its own tropes andsociology of knowledge, and one consequence of EU studies’ particular intel-lectual history has been its over-emphasis on the idea of the EU as a suigeneris entity. This notion is, to some extent, true; few if any internationalorganisations can match the EU for breadth and depth of influence. Theparticular historical context and institutional configuration of the EU areunique; other regional organisations have set up certain bodies which havebeen expressly modelled on those of the EU, but none has made them workso effectively.

Nonetheless, parallels with the EU have always existed; historically, forinstance, the confederal tradition in Europe suggests interesting comparisonsand understandings (Forsyth 1981). Since the Maastricht Treaty, it has beenconsidered legitimate not only to borrow and adapt tools of comparative poli-tics to investigate the EU political system, but to make comparisons with(national) polities elsewhere (Sbragia 1992; Hix 2005). And, as implied above,as global governance becomes more evident, other international organisa-tions, including those at global level, are taking on characteristics and influ-ence that EU studies scholars may have considered unique to their own subjectof study. Moreover, these dynamics are not merely political or economic; theyalso involve legal innovation, and traverse the public/private international lawboundary (Slaughter 2004; Duina 2006). A danger here for EU studies is thatwithout an active engagement with other scholarly communities, insights wehave developed will either go unremarked or will be reinvented, perhaps withless perspicacity, by scholars in other fields. A further concern is that withoutsuch engagement, EU studies itself may coagulate, driven purely by internaldynamics and failing to notice what is going on elsewhere.

One response has been to emphasise tracks of research in which the domi-nant approach to the discipline — ‘normal science’ — is invoked as a meansof dialogue. Thus, political science scholars who espouse quantitativelydriven, fairly positivist approaches to the EU have sought to engage withscholars whose specialism is different — typically US politics — but whoseepistemological preferences are the same (for an interesting discussion, seeRosamond 2007). There are clearly merits to such work, and scholars suchas Simon Hix have generated much useful material, e.g. the burgeoning workon electoral politics in the EU. However, and by definition, such work is notparticularly interested in, and may even denounce, work from otherdisciplines or even those using different methodologies from within its owndiscipline of politics. Other scholars, seeking a different engagement acrossscholarly divides, have championed both non-mainstream perspectiveswithin political studies of the EU such as feminist or critical approaches(Manners 2007), and even different disciplines altogether, as part of arenewed approach to EU studies (Cini and Bourne 2006).

In this article, we follow the latter approach, drawing on our own disci-plinary backgrounds (respectively in politics and psychology) and our sharedinterest in comparative regionalism. In so doing we hope to make two points

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ford

ham

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:06

29

Sept

embe

r 20

13


clear. First, that a fresh debate about what and how to compare in the politicalscience section of the EU studies community — still the dominant disciplinein EU studies in terms of the self-definition of those who join learned societiessuch as UACES (University Association for Contemporary European Studies)or EUSA (European Union Studies Association) — can usefully be informedby research on the new regionalism. Second — and perhaps more obliquely,since we do this as part of our argument on how comparison between the EUand other regions might be done, rather than as an explicitly inter-disciplinaryframework which we seek to impose — we seek to show how the literaturein psychology can provide one way of responding to the old problem ofcomparison in political science, i.e. the risk of comparing metaphorical applesand oranges. In the next section, we address the first of these issues.

The New Regionalism — What’s in it for EU Studies?

When regionalism returned as a key feature of international and even globalorganisation in the 1980s, sparked inter alia by the EU’s Single European Act,it did not lead to a sustained dialogue between EU studies scholars andspecialists in these emerging or reinvigorated regions. Instead, ‘new regional-ism’ scholars have tended to reject EU studies, considering their respectivedependent variables to be of a different nature to the EU, and EU studiesscholars have largely been happy to concur, wrapped in the comforting suigeneris myth which offered support during the period after the collapse offirst generation neofunctionalism when IR scholars considered EU studies anuninteresting backwater.2 From the perspective of new regionalist scholars,EU studies, and neofunctionalism in particular, was of limited value. Forthese scholars, whose approach is summarised by Hettne (2005), their subjectof study was of durably global proportions rather than ultimately reducibleto one continent, and economically open (dedicated to free trade, ultimatelyacross the globe) rather than protectionist (seeking to create a regional marketwith common, high external tariffs). New regions were also clearly related toglobal as well as endogenous causal variables, and pluralist in terms of therange of important actors who played significant roles in their functioning.3

Space does not here permit a full account of the origins and impact of thisscholarly divide (see Warleigh-Lack and Rosamond 2010). For presentpurposes, it suffices to say that on both sides of this fence, a shift in favourof genuine comparative work between different global regions has beenevident in order to deepen understanding of both individual regions andregionalism in general (Laursen 2003; Söderbaum 2009). However, for EUstudies to avail of this opportunity, the benefits of such an enterprise needto be spelled out. It is also necessary for EU studies scholars to adopt aposture of openness; the EU is by no means always a model for otherregions to emulate, and, both conceptually and empirically, EU studies hasmuch to learn from the work on new regionalism (see the essays inWarleigh-Lack et al. 2011).

A first, methodological, advantage of engaging with new regionalism workfor EU scholars is that they would avoid being parochially European in their

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ford

ham

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:06

29

Sept

embe

r 20

13


focus. Although much empirical attention has been paid to how the EU impactsupon its member states — ‘Europeanisation’ — the attendant focus on middlerange theory has tended to obscure the links between the EU’s creation, essen-tial nature and policy agenda on the one hand, and global or internationalpolitics on the other. In particular, this can lead EU scholars to considerphenomena which are actually more widespread, such as the links betweensubnational mobilisation and macro-region-building, as unique to the EU/European context. And yet it is not only Europe which is ‘of the regions’, asscholars of African, Asian or North American regionalism would attest!

A second such benefit is to allow EU scholars to deploy some of theiremerging concepts more successfully. For example, it has often been claimedthat the EU is a ‘normative power’ (Manners 2002), and is unusual if notunique in this regard. This claim should be investigated not only with regardto EU foreign policy or its role as a ‘civilian power’ but also with regard toother regionalisation projects in the globe and the external policies of suchregions. It may be that internal norms reflect international identity for otherregions too; it may also be that there is something inherent in the externalpolicy of a regional organisation as such, rather than the EU itself, whichlends itself to the use or projection of normative power. Perhaps the externalrelations of ASEAN, particularly with regard to its more powerful regionalneighbours (China, Japan and India) would be a suitable case in point.

A third methodological benefit is to enable EU scholars to explore emergingpolicy issues more fully. As the EU expands and includes more post-commu-nist states, or those with different cultural and religious societal underpinningsfrom the initial ‘Six’, could lessons, both positive and otherwise, not be learnedfrom studying APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) or ASEAN’s ownenlargement processes and ways of dealing with cultural difference? Issuessuch as flexibility (multi-speed integration), the use of informal politics andpower, and the continuing widening-versus-deepening debate may not be the

Table 1. Benefits of engagement with new regionalism studies for EU studies scholars

Benefit Example

Generation of more rounded empirical understanding

Comparison with macro-micro regional links in other regions

Operationalise key concepts effectively

Investigate ‘normative power Europe’ through inter-regionalism and/or external relations of other regions

Understand impact of transition from autocracy/communism

Comparison of EU and ASEAN (Association of South East Asian Nations) enlargements and their consequences

Liberation from ‘N = 1’ fallacy Better theory regarding differentiated integration or the failure to conclude the widening-versus-deepening debate

Theoretical pluralism (Re-)discovery of approaches from IPE or cultural studiesDebunking shibboleths, e.g. the ostensibly unchangeableCommunity Method

Providing over-arching context to understand shift to more informal governance in EU

Source: adapted from Warleigh 2004.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ford

ham

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:06

29

Sept

embe

r 20

13


result of insufficient spillovers at all, but rather intrinsic features of regional-isation processes; such is suggested, for instance, by work on the SouthernAfrican Development Community (Söderbaum and Shaw 2003), or Asia(Acharya and Johnston 2008a).

In terms of theory and meta-theory, engaging with new regionalism studieshas further benefits for EU scholars. First, because this strand of thinking ismore evident in new regionalism studies than in the mainstream in EU stud-ies, such an engagement would be likely to increase the attention paid to IPE(international political economy) approaches in EU studies. This would helppolitical science work on the EU increase commensurability with that inother areas of the discipline, replicating the tactic of the ‘normal science’scholars discussed above. By extension, EU scholars would deepen their abil-ity to speak to the revision of IR (Warleigh 2006).

Meta-theoretically speaking, working with scholars of, or at leastacademic work on, other regions will liberate EU scholars from the infamous‘n = 1’ problem. This is partly for reasons of clarity: regionalism/isation inglobal or international politics, economics or law and the EU can no longerbe considered to mean the same thing. It is also for reasons of theoreticaladvancement, since an understanding of how other parts of the globe areaddressing regionalisation is likely to yield useful understandings of how theEU itself is now different from its incarnation(s) in the 1950s–early 1980s,especially with regard to the often unacknowledged but significant reformsmade to the ‘Community Method’ of regionalisation in recent years.4

These benefits are considerable, and worth pursuing. However, how to goabout such engagement requires further thought. Comparative work requiresclarity about what is being compared — the dependent variable. At present,no single definition of ‘region’ is accepted as definitive, and persistent differ-ences between regions both ‘old’ and ‘new’ make it difficult to envisagecoalescence around a single model. The processes by which regions arecreated are characterised in different ways in different literatures, and theextent to which ‘regional integration’ can be used as a catch-all term is hotlydisputed — both by new regionalists, who understand the phenomenon thatthey study as being rather different from the one investigated by the earlyneofunctionalists, and those who claim intellectual descent from the latterscholars, who see the general application of the term ‘regional integration’ asa means, perhaps inadvertently, to denude it of its specificity and power (seeMalamud, this volume).

In their article for the special issue, Louise Fawcett and Hélène Gandoispresent a helpful distinction between regionalism (a political project ofregion-creation), regionalisation (a process of region-formation which maybe bottom-up), and regional integration (which they consider a broader andmore complex process of economic and social transformation). This taxon-omy is useful in helping observers understand what is at stake in a givenprocess of region-building and why it is happening. However, to understandthe product of such processes, a typology of regions is necessary. In whatfollows, we put forward Björn Hettne’s typology of ‘regionness’ as a substi-tute for a universally applicable single definition of the dependent variable,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ford

ham

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:06

29

Sept

embe

r 20

13


which is not (yet) possible given the diversity of regional forms in the currentglobal political economy, and then proceed to discuss various strategies forcomparison of global regions.

Comparing Regions — What and How?

For Björn Hettne, and his frequent collaborator Fredrik Söderbaum, ‘region-ness’ is a fluid concept. It is a spectrum or process which contains severalpossibilities, within which any given region may journey, potentially in morethan one direction over time. It can be understood as ‘the process whereby ageographical area is transformed from a passive object to an active subjectcapable of articulating the transnational interests of the emerging region’(Hettne and Söderbaum 2000: 461). Table 2 sets out the ‘regionness’ scale.

These various categories of regionness are not intended to be hierarchical— none is seen as normatively preferable to others, and any region is consid-ered to be capable of movement along the scale in both directions; forinstance, a regional state could become a regional community, and a regionalcomplex could become a regional society — or indeed remain a complex, ortransform into a regional space. The helpfulness of this typology is signifi-cant: although it cannot give us a single understanding of the dependent vari-able it does provide an operationalisable understanding of the variouspossibilities of regions in the current world political economy, and placesenough conceptual order onto an inherently contested phenomenon formeaningful analysis and comparison of the various regions in the world tobe undertaken.

Table 2. The ‘regionness’ scale

Type of region Description

Regional space A geographically contiguous area, but one capable of transcending national borders.

Regional complex A regional space in which human contacts and trade patterns have begun to be shaped on a cross-regional basis.

Regional society A regional complex in which cross-border regional transactions have intensified, become multi dimensional and made subject to new regional rules; non-state actors gain meaningful roles in regional governance, and regional institutions may be established.

Regional community A regional society in which the region itself has become an actor, with its own collective identity underpinned by civil society mobilisation at regional level, with national identities becoming less important and a sense of shared culture and/or polity deepening.

Region-state* A new, heterogeneous state forms from the regional community, characterised by internal diversity, pluralism, and a multi-level distribution of power.

Note: *Hettne and Söderbaum (2000: 467) consider this form of region to be ‘still rather hypotheticaland perhaps unlikely’, with only the EU in the post-Maastricht era offering a resemblance to it.Source: Adapted from Hettne 1993, Hettne and Söderbaum 2000.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ford

ham

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:06

29

Sept

embe

r 20

13


However, before we can proceed to comparative work, we need to addressexactly how we propose to undertake the necessary comparisons. Studyingregions and regional integration from a comparative perspective can beregarded as an academic activity that is part of a broader field of comparativesocial science research. It refers to a research methodology that aims to makecomparisons across different countries or cultures. In that sense comparativeresearch can be contrasted with the bulk of social sciences research where theobject of study and the data-gathering are confined to one single country.

Our approach here is to follow scholars such as Ragin (1987, 1994), whohave argued that comparative research should make use of a limited numberof cases and focus upon qualitative research methods. Other approaches,such as those addressed by Gaspare Genna and Philippe de Lombaerde intheir contribution to this special issue, are also useful. We make this argu-ment by drawing on traditions in both political science and psychology. Thisposition goes back to the work of John Stuart Mill, who distinguishedbetween two types of comparative research: the method of agreement and themethod of difference. The former is the study of similarities across cases, thelatter the study of differences between cases. Mill’s approach has becomeidentified with the ‘single case’ approach in social sciences. While originally‘single cases’ were studied at the level of individuals or organisations, coun-tries and ‘areas’ also came to be considered as potential objects for single casestudies. Area studies, for instance, focus upon understanding some particulargeographical area (such as Asia or Latin America). Not surprisingly, regionsbecame regarded as single cases as well. It is, however, worthwhile to look atthis problématique from a broader perspective: that of the distinctionbetween nomothetic and idiographic methods in social sciences (for adetailed overview of this debate see Van Langenhove, 2011).

However, by 1953 Murray had settled this debate in the discipline ofpsychology by claiming that the study of a single person can be done in bothnomothetic and idiographic ways. His famous line on this goes as follows:every person is in certain aspects (i) like all other persons, (ii) like some otherpersons and (iii) like no other person (Murray and Kluckhohn 1953). In thatsense there should not be a contradiction between idiographic and nomoth-etic research. It is a matter of whether one is seeking singularities or general-ities. And, moreover, one can combine both approaches: scientificknowledge gathered at the level of a single case can be compared with othersingle cases. Once one has a large enough collection of such single cases,cross-case comparisons can lead to general theories.

The above implies that there can exist two approaches to doing compara-tive research in other social sciences: one that stresses the cross-nationalelement (here you start with collecting information across a sufficiently largenumber of cases but without the ambition to fully understand each of thesingle cases), and another which stresses the idiographic element (here onestarts with detailed single cases that lead to knowledge about the case withthe possibility to cross-refer that knowledge with other cases at a later time).In debates about the sui generis element of the EU, these two approaches areoften confused. This is an important issue as most of the comparative

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ford

ham

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:06

29

Sept

embe

r 20

13


regionalism studies focus on comparing the EU with other forms of region-alism. Indeed, one of the key issues in debates about what comparativeregional integration studies should encompass is the position of the EU (seeSöderbaum and Sbragia, this volume). Breslin and Higgott (2000) andHurrell (2007) have persuasively argued that the EU must not be consideredas a model simply to be emulated by other regions, or as a source of evidenceand concepts which can be applied to other regions without adaptation. Weaccept this position. In what follows, four strategies which we believe cancontribute to a broader and deeper engagement between EU studies and newregionalism scholars are presented. The point of departure is a socialconstructivist approach.

Four Strategies to Advance Comparative Regional Studies

Following Morgan (2005), we argue that a distinction between the projects,the processes and the products of regions/regionalism can be drawn. Thispermits scholars to see three distinct areas of comparison:

• Comparing processes of region-building: the histories of the actual step-by-step transformations;

• Comparing projects of region-building: the visions of intellectuals, politi-cal elites and popular movements;

• Comparing outputs of regions such as treaties, institutions, policies andpractices.

But in order fully to exploit the possibilities of setting up comparativeresearch projects, it is necessary to deepen and broaden the research agenda.Below, four strategies are presented that should lead to advancing the fieldof comparative regional integration studies.

I. Unpacking ‘Regions’ According to their Statehood Dimension

One can speak about regions at three levels. First there is talk about regionswhen referring to sub-state entities within existing states. The GermanLänder are a classical example, but in many countries governance units suchas Départements or Provinces are often referred to as regions.5 This can alsobe the case for geographical areas that cut across such subnational entities(cf. ‘La Provence’). Secondly, there are cross-border regions that reach acrossthe national boundaries of two or more states that involve governance unitsbelow the national level of governance. The ‘Euroregions’ are a good exam-ple. Thirdly, one can speak of regions when referring to two or more neigh-bouring states that have a degree of ‘integration’. Regional trade agreements(RTAs) fall under this category, as do regions with some form of institutionalstructure (the Nordic Council, the Benelux). But at the end of the day, evena continent can be called a region.

Looked at from this perspective one immediately sees that regardless of thetype of region talked about, states are always a reference point. Hence ourclaim that regions are (discursively) defined against states. But furthermore,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ford

ham

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:06

29

Sept

embe

r 20

13


all regions — however weakly institutionalised — will have some statehoodproperties. In some cases, they even look very much like a full-fledged state.For instance, both the Catalan region and the EU have a parliament, a gover-nance structure that resembles that of a state, and a foreign policy with aproper diplomatic structure. All of these are conventionally attributed tostates, and only to states.

From this perspective it makes sense to compare regions with states.Schmitter (2009, 51) has proposed an innovation in research design that isin line with the above thinking: ‘compare units at different levels of spatialor legal aggregation, provided they had similar properties and capacitieswith regard to the problem studied’. Equally, such a move allows scholars tounpack the region for analytical purposes. Since a region can be defined as ageographical area with certain statehood properties, this implies thatregional integration will always be linked to certain policy domains of statesbecause it is there that the statehood properties are acquired. According tothe nature of the policy domain involved, different varieties of integrationare thus possible. Consider the following three broad policy domains thattogether define a state’s actorness:

1. the economic policy fabric (every state operates an internal market withits own economic policy);

2. the institutional framework with regard to the delivery of public goods(the distribution of executive, legislative and judicial power); and

3. the sovereignty that allows the state to have authority over its citizens aswell as to become an actor in international regimes; sovereignty is thusalso a generator and an expression of identity.

In principle all states regardless of their history and their differences in sizelook alike on these three dimensions: they are coherent economic spaces, theyhave an organisation for internal governance and the distribution of publicgoods that spans the whole state territory, and they are the sole bearers ofsovereignty.

It may therefore be that it makes sense to unpack the concept of regionsaccording to three dimensions:

• The economic single space dimension;• The provision of public goods dimension;• The actorness and sovereignty dimension.6

For each of the above dimensions of state-functioning, regions can takeover or complement the state’s actorness. For instance, a region can act asa non-state single market. This is the ambition of the EU that wants to be acontinental single market and has moved pretty far in that direction. It alsomeans that a region can act as a provider of public goods. This is happen-ing at the level of many subnational or cross-border regions. And finally italso means that some regions can have their own sovereignty and actornesspotential. Flanders — a region within Belgium — has for instance the rightto sign institutional treaties with other states. Flanders is also but one of anumber of sub- and supranational organisations such as the EU which

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ford

ham

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:06

29

Sept

embe

r 20

13


have their own diplomatic missions to third countries and multilateralorganisations.

Processes of regional integration or region-building ‘above’ the nationstate can also be related to these three dimensions. And each time the possibleend-result could be total integration, whereby what once functioned at thelevel of an individual state now operates at the supranational regional level.But the envisaged end result can also be a form of division of labour betweenstates and regions. In other words, there exists a different télos for the inte-gration of each policy dimension. Suppose that a total integration occurredsimultaneously at all three levels, then a new state would have been created.But such total integration seems not to exist. What does exist is partial inte-gration in each of the three domains or close to complete integration in oneof the domains. Accordingly, one can identify three major types of actionsthat lead to regional integration and which are related to the above-mentioned dimensions of statehood: (i) the act of removing economicobstacles towards integration; (ii) the act of building adequate institutions orregulations that favour the delivery of regional public goods; and (iii) the actof presenting the integrated region as a unity with some levels of sovereignty.

It can be argued that these various actions have led to three specific typesof regional integration, each variant corresponding to a specific ideal-typegeneration of regional integration (cf. Costea and Van Langenhove 2007;Van Langenhove and Marchesi 2008). Speaking of ‘generations’ does notnecessarily imply a purely chronological dimension. It is used here to under-line the coexistence of several kinds of regional arrangements that differ incharacter and context, while also acknowledging that some forms of region-alism build upon previously existing modes. Each regional constructionprocess follows its own trajectory and can remain insulated within onedimension of governance or, alternatively, spill over, and cumulate the char-acteristics from the other generations. The result is that today regions comein many forms and varieties. The implications for comparative regionalismare that one should not focus on comparing, for instance, ‘Europe’ withanother region, nor on comparing regional organisations as a whole, butrather on comparing specific dimensions of regionalisation and bringing inall the relevant units of governance (states and regions) that exist in a givengeographical area. This opens, for instance, the way for comparative studieson a topic such as social policy that compare what is being done at the levelof states, supranational regions and subnational regions (Deacon et al. 2010).

II. Relating ‘Integration’ to Geographical and Historical Issues

Labelling a process as regional integration rather than as cooperation is alwaysdone in a specific discursive context, as shown by, for example, the applicationof positioning theory to regional integration (Slocum and Van Langenhove2004).7 But adhering to such a social constructivist approach does not meanthat one should neglect factual elements. The elements of region-building ina given geographical area, that is, the individual states, must be taken intoaccount. This may in time lead us to new understandings of what ‘regional

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ford

ham

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:06

29

Sept

embe

r 20

13


integration’ might be, and thus help generalise the term as an acceptable onefor both EU studies and new regionalism scholars. Be that as it may, it doesnot make sense to claim a priori that regional integration is a process that canor will occur in the same way for any given set of neighbouring countries.

In other words, geography matters! Not only are there potential geograph-ical markers and geographical limits, there is also the particularity of thegeographical area and the states operating in that area. States differ fromeach other in many ways. First there are differences between small and bigstates. The EU for instance is an integrated area of 27 states that is smaller inarea than a number of single states, such as Russia. And Iceland, itself a state,is smaller than many subnational regions in Europe. Secondly, states havevery different regimes, including various modes of liberal democracy, totali-tarianism and others. These regimes obviously influence the functioning of astate. States also differ in economic and political power, from landlocked,poor or even failed states on the one hand to superpowers with a rich colo-nial past on the other. And thirdly, some states are largely decentralised withfederal structures, while others have a very centralised form of governance.

All these variables will affect processes of region-building or even integra-tion, and studying these processes hence needs to take into account thegeographical, political and economic reality of the entities that make up amore or less integrated region.

Perhaps the most important geographical characteristic to take intoaccount is size. Integration processes in a small area such as for instance inthe BENELUX represent a rather different issue from integration processesin a huge geographical space made up by the ASEAN + 3 countries (Japan,China and South Korea). Not taking this into account leads to distortedcomparisons, as demonstrated by De Lombaerde et al. (2010). Theseauthors have shown that a classical indicator of economic integration suchas intra-regional trade density is influenced by the size of the region: thesmaller the integrated area, the larger the ‘rest of the world’ and hence thelarger the potential for trade outside the region. Using intra-regional trade asan indicator for the success of a regional trade agreement puts the EU-27first as one of the most integrated areas of the world. Correcting the indica-tors for size gives, however, a totally different picture and puts other RTAsbefore the EU-27!

III. Combining the Search for a General Logic with Understanding the Differences

As mentioned above, the debate about comparing regions has been blurredby two issues: the confusion about the status of ‘comparative method’ andthe confusion about the role of the EU. The result is a false debate about thesui generis character of the EU. In our view the solution is to look at the EUthrough different, multiple lenses. If one applies the ‘unpacking’ strategyproposed above, then one can study the EU — and for that matter any otherform of regional integration/regionness — from both a nomothetic and anidiographic perspective.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ford

ham

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:06

29

Sept

embe

r 20

13


Applying the Murray approach introduced above to the EU allows one toclaim that the EU is at once a regional integration scheme that in someaspects is like all others, in some, like several others, and in others has no realhomologue. Combining this with the unpacking of regional integrationprocesses allows scholars to situate the EU vis-à-vis other integrationschemes in the world as follows. As an exponent of integration by removingeconomic barriers between states, the EU can be studied as one of manyhundreds of regional schemes and nomothetic generalisations at the level ofregional trade arrangements can be made. As a form of integration aimed atbuilding up a supranational infrastructure, the EU can be compared with alimited number of cases, and not always with regions — as Söderbaum andSbragia make clear in their contribution to this special issue. And with regardto the variety of regions that seek to build up a geopolitical actorship andidentity, the EU may be considered part of a ‘small N’ sample, with compar-ators perhaps limited to ASEAN and its various ‘plus’ initiatives.

So, on the one hand, there is room for continuing the work of Mattli(1999), who believes that there is a general logic to regional integration.Nomothetic knowledge about regional integration is possible, but only if onelimits it to certain aspects of the integration process. On the other hand, onecan also continue the line of, for instance Katzenstein (2005), Warleigh-Lack(2006) or Duina (2006), and look for differences and similarities betweenregional integration processes. And on top of this it makes sense to study theidiographic aspects of each of those processes, including the geographicalparticularities of the regional area under study.

IV. Bringing in the Intra-regional and Interregional Processes

The above-mentioned three strategies for advancing comparative regionalstudies have in common that they deepen the research agenda by bringing inconceptual refinements to the concepts of ‘region’ and ‘comparison’. Butgiven the specific nature of regions, the research agenda may not only bedeepened, but also broadened.

First it should be noted that unlike states, regions and regional arrange-ments can overlap. This has consequences for regional construction asseveral such processes may occur simultaneously in a given geographicalarea. Many scholars dealing with European integration focus solely on theEU, but the regional integration complex in Europe is so much more diverse:think of the Council of Europe, the OSCE (Organisation for Security andCooperation in Europe), the WEU (Western European Union), theBENELUX and so on. The same holds for many other parts of the world suchas Africa, Asia or Latin America. Each time there is a real web of regionalintegration schemes that partly overlap in membership and/or mandate. Assuch it is not only possible to study the intra-regional integration dimensionsfor each region, but also to compare different intra-regional integrations inEurope, Africa, Asia or Latin-America. This is an under-studied field.

Secondly, to the extent that regional integration schemes have a globalactor télos, they can engage in relations with other actors, states or regional

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ford

ham

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:06

29

Sept

embe

r 20

13


organisations. In the latter case one can speak of interregional relations andeven integrations (see Söderbaum and Van Langenhove 2006). Again, it ispossible to set up comparative studies aimed at comparing interregional rela-tions, such as those between the EU and MERCOSUR (Common Market ofthe Southern Cone) or the EU and ASEAN.

Region-building, together with devolution of federal power, can be seen asa response of states to the processes of globalisation. Here, as noted above,and also by Johansson and Vifell (2006), political science is rather too state-oriented. It is here that comparative regional studies can play a crucial role ifit is conceived as a programme to compare how, in different parts of theworld, states operate in a multilevel governance environment that they havecreated. And meanwhile there are signs that the world is also movingtowards multipolarity. The question here is will the poles only be states, orin some cases regions? Having set out what we consider a useful way ofengaging in comparative regionalism studies, we now return in our conclud-ing section to the question of the role of this special issue in shaping a debateregarding the future development of EU studies.

EU Studies and New Regionalism — The Scope and Implications of this Special Issue

The remaining articles in this special issue address the questions of what andhow to compare in regional integration studies, and how the study of otherregions may yield interesting results for those working in EU studies, from arange of different perspectives. This is still an emerging field, and there is nosingle methodological approach or theoretical framework to apply; lookingat the work on other regions and comparative regionalism cannot provide an‘off the peg’ set of concepts and tools that EU scholars can use without reflec-tion. The same is also true in reverse. However, such an engagement doesyield useful insights for EU studies scholars, whether comparative regional-ism studies is a primary interest for them or not. In this final section of ourintroductory article we first give a brief guide to the rest of the contributionsbefore proceeding to — and closing with — a discussion of the areas theycollectively signal as useful for EU studies scholars seeking more convincingunderstandings of their subject. We do so in full consciousness that ourcontributors do not represent the full field of new regionalism studies —there are a plethora of ‘new’ regions to investigate — and thus that thecontribution of our special issue could well be complemented by subsequentresearch on regions in different parts of the globe. Nonetheless, the papers inthis collection reflect upon the primary organisations and processes of thenew regionalism in a range of areas — Asia, Africa, Latin America and theMiddle East. As such, they generate a range of useful perspectives.

Guide to the Following Articles

The next article in this special issue, by Fredrik Söderbaum and AlbertaSbragia, addresses issues of theory and comparison in the context of regional

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ford

ham

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:06

29

Sept

embe

r 20

13


integration/regionalism. It results from a meeting of minds across twoacademic barriers: the former’s background is in fairly liberal US politicalscience and comparative politics, and the latter’s is in development studies,with a meta-theoretical allegiance to a critical form of constructivism. Bothhave written on regionalism outside the EU — Sbragia particularly on NorthAmerica, and Söderbaum primarily on Africa. Their piece draws on both thecomparative politics strand in EU studies and new regionalism studies, withparticular reference to the New Regionalism Approach developed by Söder-baum and the ‘grandfather’ of new regionalism studies, Björn Hettne. Sbragiaand Söderbaum focus on two crucial factors in regionalism studies: the rela-tionship between regionalism and the state, and that between regionalism andglobalisation. Analyses of these variables shed useful light on the differentroles of the state in Europe (and the rest of the global ‘North’) from those itplays elsewhere, and on the Janus-faced role of the EU — which often displaysinternal norms (‘the European social model’) that are incongruent with itsrole as a bastion of neoliberal globalisation. These insights must be enteredinto theoretical models for comparative regional study if such are to be viable.

The third article in this special issue, by Gaspare Genna and Philippe deLombaerde, tackles issues of methodology. This is a necessary and usefulfocus, because it is one thing to call for greater comparison between differentforms of region and collaboration between EU studies and new regionalismstudies, and another to show how this may be done. Genna and deLombaerde complement our approach (see above) by adopting a more ortho-dox political science focus. They argue insightfully that comparative work onregionalism faces three specific problems: the fact that regions are ‘movingtargets’, they come in a range of types, and that they overlap with oneanother in a range of ways from the geographical to the economic. Thus, forcomparative work to be undertaken optimally, rigour must be used in caseselection, and a range of methods may usefully be employed regardless of thesize of a case population so long as they are grounded in explicit and validselection criteria. This means that the way for EU studies scholars and thoseof regions elsewhere to collaborate most effectively will be to use researchteams grounded in shared methodological preferences; as Söderbaum andSbragia show regarding the role of theory, it may not be possible to generatea synthesis shared by all scholars, and thus a range of scholarly teams eachworking according to their shared vision may be the most effective wayforward for comparative work.

The remaining three articles focus on regions in particular areas of the globeoutside Europe. These pieces seek to provide both a background for the non-specialist and a detailed examination of the regions in question. The first sucharticle, by Philomena Murray, addresses regionalism in Asia, particularly theSouth-Eastern and Eastern parts of that continent. Her article points out, interalia, that while the two dominant regional organisations in Europe and Asia— the EU and ASEAN respectively — have very different normative under-pinnings and working methods, dialogue between scholars of these regionsis creating the potential for a joint research programme focused on, for exam-ple, EU and ASEAN responses to shared challenges such as migration or

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ford

ham

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:06

29

Sept

embe

r 20

13


climate change. In the next article, Louise Fawcett and Hélène Gandois directour attention towards the experiences of regionalism in Africa and the MiddleEast. Their article charts the reasons for the success and failure of regionalismin these two parts of the globe, often characterised as part of the ‘ThirdWorld’, setting the two in comparative context. They use this comparison toinform a contrast with the European experience, and provide lessons for theEU, particularly in the context of its own interregional projects. They alsoexplore how, in opening up the box of Third World regionalisms, and inparticular examining the background conditions facilitating such regional-isms, existing theories such as neofunctionalism, intergovernmentalism oreven the New Regionalism Approach may need re-evaluation.

The closing article is by Andrés Malamud. His focus is on Latin Americanregionalism — an intriguing reminder of the neofunctionalist aim to draw onthe European experience in order to conduct comparative study, as he remindsus. Malamud provides by far the most robust defence of the term ‘regionalintegration’ as an understanding of the dependent variable to be found in thisspecial issue. He also signals the chasm between the declared intention — andeven in some cases the institutional structure — of Latin American regionalintegration projects and their ability to deliver concrete results to match thoseof the EU. Malamud argues that scholars must focus on the backgroundconditions of a region to understand the ways in which it works and its poten-tial for success, and points out saliently that politicisation of a region is likelyto breed significant problems if it is undertaken prematurely.

Contribution to the Re-thinking of EU Studies

What, then, does this special issue suggest as useful ways forward for thoseseeking to refine their understanding of the EU by drawing on scholarship ofboth comparative regionalism and specific regions outside Europe? Does itshed any light on the claims made earlier in this article about the benefits ofengagement across the EU studies/new regionalism frontier?

First, and broadly, the pieces included here indicate that such an engage-ment is productive. This replicates the finding of other sets of scholars andindicates that such a focus may shortly become more mainstream (see theessays in Acharya and Johnston 2008b, and Warleigh-Lack et al. 2011).Second, and more particularly, they indicate several potentially fruitful formsof enquiry from which EU scholars might develop more nuanced understand-ings of concepts they deploy by engaging with literature on non-EU regionsor even engage in collaborative research with scholars of other regions. Thesepotential benefits are indicated in Table 3.

Perhaps the most obvious benefit to be gained by EU studies scholars froman engagement with comparative regionalism is a wider range of compara-tors to use in their own work: (federal) nation states will no longer have amonopoly on this function, and transcending the N =1 dilemma can thus bedone in a (relatively) new range of ways. This in turn may lead to the use ofnew, or at least different, methodologies, and will certainly lead to the gener-ation of new insights. All the articles in this special issue help elucidate this

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ford

ham

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:06

29

Sept

embe

r 20

13


claim, but the first three give perhaps the most useful general insights here inboth conceptual and methodological terms.

Exploring the background conditions of regional organisations andprocesses, and a concomitant focus on the ‘big picture’, are singled out byMalamud, Fawcett and Gandois, and Murray as useful aspects of work ontheir particular regions that EU studies scholars would do well to recall. Iron-ically, this was a core concern of neofunctionalism; but whether or not onesupports that approach in its entirety, a return to its focus on keeping in theforefront of one’s mind the reasons for a region’s creation, as well as theinternal dynamics of member state polities, economies and societies, emergesas a reinforced aspect of EU studies from this brief comparative survey. Sucha focus may also help scholars focus on or uncover specificities of the EUwhich result from the characteristics of its Member States, such as their statetradition or political culture, as Söderbaum and Sbragia maintain. Such a

Table 3. How comparative regionalism can help re-think EU studies: some suggestions

IssueRelevant article authors (by initials) Potential usefulness for EU studies

Case study selection and comparative study

AWL and LVL; AS and SS; GG and PDL

Broaden the range of comparative approaches and methods in EU studies

Exploring background conditions for integration/regionalism

AM; LF and HG; PM Explaining the trajectory of the EU; understanding cultural and social specificities of the EU; understanding why neither institutions nor geography dictate outcomes

Exploring the national–regional–global nexus

AS and SS; AWL and LVL; LF and HG; PM

Exploring the role of superpowers in determining EU context; bringing globalisation in

Understanding the role of IR in EU studies

AS and SS; PM; LF and HG

Exploring the potential of both ‘normative power’ and (neo-)realism

Understanding policy success or failure in other regions

PM; AS and SS Discovering how the Monnet Method may not be necessary for policy success; generating more nuanced understandings of what ‘success’ may mean

Theory development AS and SS; LF and GG; AM; PM

Reinforce both rationalist and constructivist programmes by cooperation between scholars with shared perspectives

Understanding the impact of, and resistance to, regionalism

AS and SS; LF and GG; AM

Fine-tuning studies of Europeanisation and the democratic deficit

Role of leadership in regional organisations/processes

AM; LF and GG; PM Understanding the potential of informal politics and the role of summits/European Council

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ford

ham

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:06

29

Sept

embe

r 20

13


focus will also help explain why institutions or geography alone cannot guar-antee outcomes; similar structures to those of the EU have been created inLatin America and Africa, where member states may be geographically,linguistically and even culturally less diverse than those of the EU-27, yetneither have produced the same impact as those of the EU.

Investigating the nexus between national, regional and global issues andstructures emerges as a core attribute of regionalism studies beyond the EUwhich EU scholars could helpfully undertake on a more routine basis, aspointed out by Söderbaum and Sbragia, Fawcett and Gandois, and Murray— as well as by us above. Among other things, this will help scholars under-stand why the EU makes ‘internal’ policy decisions in the shadow of globalinstitutions and superpower interests, even if these factors are by no meansalways sufficient to determine outcomes. The role of the US, for example, infacilitating the creation of the EU and continuing to act as a ‘ghost at thefeast’, especially regarding defence and security policies, is important here.Similarly, the role of globalisation or even geopolitics in shaping whatmember states want from their membership of the EU is under-explored inEU studies, even though this can be a crucial factor — witness, for example,the changing calculations about the desirability of EU membership made inSweden in the 1990s and, perhaps, in Iceland today.

Conceptually, the role and continued utility of approaches derived from IRfor EU studies scholars may be reappraised in the light of comparativeregionalism studies. Some authors — for example Philomena Murray in hercontribution — suggest that neorealism may be a more useful approach thanis accepted by the mainstream in EU studies when the (often implicit) securitydimension of European integration — its existence as a kind of securitycommunity — is recalled. For her, the more overt security policy dimensionof ASEAN and its various ‘plus’ mechanisms demonstrates that this is apossibility. Fawcett and Gandois maintain that an understanding of region-alism in the Third World may help various theoretical debates move forward,including those on whether the EU is a normative power. Put provocatively,what may appear as ‘normative power’ in Brussels may look like neocolo-nialism or a bid for hegemony in Lagos. Söderbaum and Sbraiga argue thata focus on new regionalism studies could demonstrate the value of criticalapproaches and (IR) theories to EU scholars, whose dominant tradition is ofa more liberal heritage. As a related point, and supported methodologicallyby Genna and de Lombaerde, all of our contributors argue that by cooperat-ing with scholars of other regions/comparative regionalism, EU studiesscholars are likely to produce theory of a more generalisable application —perhaps by reconfiguring their sense of co-researchers away from an EUstudies versus new regionalism or IR mentality, and towards broadercomparative research programmes respectively shaped by rationalist andconstructivist perspectives.

By understanding what leads to success or failure of particular structures,processes and policies in other regions, EU studies scholars may gain insightsinto ways in which the Monnet Method may not be necessary for successfuloutcomes — as Murray’s comments regarding market access in ASEAN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ford

ham

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:06

29

Sept

embe

r 20

13


imply. Such work is likely to be useful given the increasing use made by theEU of tools such as the Open Method of Coordination to make policy; but itwould also have a broader benefit, namely helping scholars understand what‘success’ or ‘failure’ in regional organisations may mean. As Söderbaum andSbragia point out, deviation from the orthodox EU blueprint may not meanthe process or policy has ‘failed’ (as neofunctionalists often assumed in the1970s). Instead, it may denote unexpected outcomes or, to use a loaded termwhich they avoid, forms of spillover into informal politics and economics,which may extend the de facto footprint of regionalism well beyond its dejure status.

Scholars interested in both Europeanisation — or at least the domesticimpact of the EU — and the democratic deficit may well garner usefulinsights from comparison with other regions. Such work could help explainwhat is unique about the impact of the EU, and what is shared across a rangeof regional organisations. Andrés Malamud has, as already stated, shownhow institutions such as those of the EU do not always have any real influ-ence regardless of their quasi-constitutional status. Söderbaum and Sbragia,as well as Fawcett and Gandois, maintain that resistance to regional influ-ence can be a contributing factor in explaining the outcomes of a regionalproject or process, and that this resistance can be both elite-led and popular.Taken together with the point raised immediately above concerning theinformal impact of regions, this observation puts the EU’s democratic deficitin a new, or at least unusual, light: are struggles over legitimacy nothingunique to the EU, but rather conventional features of regionalism which,after all, always creates losers as well as winners? If so, how does this impactupon the normative debate about subsidiarity, institutional balance/powers,and the balance between economic and social integration?

Finally, the papers in this special issue suggest that a comparative focus onthe role of leadership, and in particular on the role of heads of state andgovernment, is crucial in understanding the dynamics of regional processesand organisations. Informal politics at this level emerges as a key concern,highlighting the rather strange relative lack of focus in EU studies on theEuropean Council (in comparison with, for example, the large literature onthe European Parliament or Commission). A wide range of issues such as thediscursive/rhetorical uses made of EU summits to the importance of the cycleof summits are suggested as important by several contributors (Malamud,Fawcett and Gandois, Murray), based on their studies of regionalism in LatinAmerica, Africa, the Middle East and Asia — and of course on the salienceof the European Council itself.

Where does all this leave EU studies scholars seeking to maintain thesuccess of the field and avoiding its slip into a contented but unfortunateintroversion? Certainly, this special issue does not generate definitive proofthat a focus on comparative regionalism can provide answers to all the mostimportant problems in EU studies. Had space and time permitted, it wouldhave been interesting to include an article setting the EU in the context of theother regional organisations on its own continent — such work is rare, andprovides a useful reminder to EU scholars both that our subject of study is

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ford

ham

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:06

29

Sept

embe

r 20

13


not the ‘only show in town’ on a range of policy issues and that, just as inother parts of the globe, regional integration/regionalisation takes place in acomplicated web of institutions and processes (see Nedergaard and Duina2011). However, we submit that this special issue does indicate that scholarsof the EU may beneficially engage with those of other regions, and that, pacewhat was in danger of becoming a somewhat unreflexive general assump-tion, the benefits of such an engagement do not only flow one way (from EUstudies outwards). We hope that readers of this special issue of the Journalof European Integration will concur, and would like to offer our thanks tothe Editors for the opportunity to produce it.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the two anonymous referees for their comments onour article as well as on the special issue as a whole. The authors are gratefulto the European Commission for its financial support of the research used forthis article under Jean Monnet project 153918-LLP-1-2009-BE-AJM-IC,comparing the European Union with other regional organisations.

Notes1. One of the present authors has heard academics describe themselves as, for instance, specialist schol-

ars of the European Parliament, admitting they are unversed in literature on even other EU institu-tions beyond a basic level. As with scholars of national politics, it is entirely reasonable to haveparticular expertise in a given EU policy area or institution, but there are signs that the younger EUstudies cohort may be being pushed into over-specialisation, as can be witnessed at job interviewsand in the early years of their teaching careers.

2. For exceptions see Mattli (1999); Telò (2001).3. In fact, ‘old regionalist’ scholarship — especially neofunctionalism — was far less state-centric than

any of its contemporary IR theories. It emphasised the importance of a supranational institution —the High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community, and its successor the EuropeanCommission — as well as interest groups in driving the process of integration forward. It may be amore telling critique of neofunctionalism that it was overly rationalist in its approach to theorising,stressed the EU as a ‘model’ too much, and that it had an overly formal view of what constitutes aregion.

4. These changes are both institutional (for example the rise to power of the European Parliament) andprocedural (for example the rise of soft policy and comitology as means of and approaches to deci-sion-making).

5. In states such as the UK, the context is even more complicated: Scotland, for example, can be treatedas a country in its own right, with its own legal system and distinctive culture, but politically andadministratively it functions as a region of a ‘Union State’, the United Kingdom.

6. This could be a challenge to Hettne’s regionness scale, but we share his emphasis on non-hierarchical,dynamic understandings of regions and their outputs.

7. Indeed it is very controversial within new regionalist studies, which often consider ‘integration’ to bea specifically EU studies phenomenon associated with neofunctionalism, and thus part of whatdistinguishes their field of enquiry from those of their EU studies colleagues.

ReferencesAcharya, A., and A. Johnston, 2008a. Comparing regional institutions: an introduction. In Crafting

regional cooperation: regional international institutions in comparative perspective, eds. A.Acharya and A. Johnston, 1–31. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ford

ham

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:06

29

Sept

embe

r 20

13


Acharya, A., and A. Johnston, eds. 2008b. Crafting regional cooperation: regional international institu-tions in comparative perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Breslin, S., and R. Higgot. 2000. Studying regions: learning from the old, constructing the new. NewPolitical Economy 5, no. 3: 333–52.

Cini, M., and A. Bourne, eds. 2006. Advances in European Union studies. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Costea, A.-C., and L. Van Langenhove. 2007. EU’s foreign policy identity: from ‘new regionalism’ to

third generation regionalism? In European Union identity, eds. J. Bain and M. Holland, 86–104.Baden-Baden: Nomos.

De Lombaerde, P., F. Söderbaum, L. Van Langenhove, and F. Baert. 2010. Problems and divides incomparative regionalism. In Comparative regional integration: Europe and beyond, ed. F. Laursen,21–39. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Deacon, B., M.-C. Macovei, L. Van Langenhove, and N. Yeates, eds. 2010. World–regional social policyand global governance. London: Routledge.

Duina, F., 2006. The social construction of free trade: the European Union, NAFTA and MERCOSUR.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Forsyth, M. 1981. Unions of states: the theory and practice of confederation. Leicester: LeicesterUniversity Press.

Hettne, B. 1993. Neo-mercantilism: the pursuit of regionness. Cooperation and Conflict 28, no. 3:211–32.

Hettne, B. 2005. ‘Regionalism in the world order’ in M. Farrell, B. Hettne and L. van Langenhove(eds) Global Politics of Regionalism: Theory and Practice, London: Pluto Press, pp. 269–86.

Hettne, B., and F. Söderbaum. 2000. Theorising the rise of region-ness. New Political Economy 5, no. 3:457–73.

Hix, S. 2005. The political system of the European Union. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Hurrell, A. 2007. One world? Many worlds? The place of regions in the study of international society.

International Affairs 83, no. 1: 127–46.Johansson, K.M., and A. Vifell. 2006. Transcending the boundaries of political science. European

Political Science 5: 183–92.Jørgensen, K.-E., M. Pollack, and B. Rosamond, eds. 2007. Handbook of European Union politics.

London: Sage.Katzenstein, P. 2005. A world of regions: Asia and Europe in the American imperium. Ithaca, NY:

Cornell University Press.Laursen, F., ed. 2003. Comparative regional integration: theoretical perspectives. Aldershot: Ashgate.Manners, I. 2002. Normative power Europe: a contradiction in terms? Journal of Common Market

Studies 40, no. 2: 235–58.Manners, I. 2007. Another Europe is possible: critical perspectives on European Union politics. In Hand-

book of European Union politics, eds. K.-E. Jørgensen, M. Pollack and B. Rosamond, 77–95.London: Sage.

Mattli, W. 1999. The logic of regional integration: Europe and beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.

Morgan, G. 2005. The idea of a European superstate. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Murray, H.A., and C. Kluckhohn. 1953. Personality in nature, society and culture. New York:

Knopf.Nedergaard, P., and F. Duina. 2011. The OMC in comparative perspective: learning and community

building in the OECD and Nordic Council of Ministers. In New regionalism and the EuropeanUnion: dialogues, comparisons and new research directions, eds. A. Warleigh-Lack, N. Robinsonand B. Rosamond. London: Routledge, forthcoming.

Ragin, C. 1987. The comparative method. Berkeley: University of California Press.Ragin, C. 1994. Constructing social research: the unity and diversity of method. Thousand Oaks,CA:

Pine Forge Press.Rosamond, B. 2007. European integration and the social science of EU studies: the disciplinary politics

of a subfield. International Affairs 83, no. 1: 231–52.Rumford, C., and P. Murray. 2003. Globalization and the limits of European integration studies: inter-

disciplinary considerations. Journal of Contemporary European Studies 11, no. 1: 85–93.Sbragia, A., ed. 1992. Euro-politics: institutions and policy-making in the new European Community.

Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ford

ham

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:06

29

Sept

embe

r 20

13


Schmitter, P. 2009. The nature and future of comparative politics. European Political Science Review 1,no. 1: 33–61.

Scholte, J.-A. 2008. Defining globalisation. The World Economy 31, no. 11: 1471–502.Slaughter, A.-M. 2004. A new world order. Princeton,NJ: Princeton University Press.Slocum, N., and L. Van Langenhove. 2004. The meaning of regional integration: introducing position-

ing theory in regional integration studies. European Integration 25, no. 3: 227–52.Söderbaum, F. 2009. Comparative regional integration and regionalism. In The Sage Handbook of

Comparative Politics, eds. T. Landman and N. Robinson, 477–96. London: Sage.Söderbaum, F., and T.M. Shaw. 2003. Conclusion: what futures for new regionalism? In Theories of

new regionalism: a Palgrave reader, eds. F. Söderbaum and T.M. Shaw. Basingstoke: Palgrave,211–25.

Söderbaum, F., and L. Van Langenhove, eds. 2006. EU as a global player: the politics of interregional-ism. London: Routledge.

Telò, M., ed. 2001. European Union and new regionalism: regional actors and global governance in apost-hegemonic era. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Van Langenhove, L. 2011. Building regions. The regionalisation of the world order. London: Ashgate,forthcoming.

Van Langenhove, L., and D. Marchesi. 2008. The Lisbon Treaty and the emergence of third generationregional integration. European Journal of Law Reform X, no. 4: 595–614.

Warleigh, A. 2004. In defence of intra-disciplinarity: ‘European studies’, the ‘new regionalism’ and theissue of democratisation. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 17, no. 2: 301–18.

Warleigh, A. 2006. Learning from Europe? EU studies and the re-thinking of ‘international relations’.European Journal of International Relations 12, no. 1: 31–51.

Warleigh-Lack, A. 2006. Towards a conceptual framework for regionalisation: bridging ‘new regional-ism’ and ‘integration theory’. Review of International Political Economy 13, no. 5: 750–71.

Warleigh-Lack, A., and D. Phinnemore. 2009. Conclusions: reflections on the past and future ofEuropean Union studies. In Reflections on European integration: fifty years of the Treaty of Rome,eds. D. Phinnemore and A. Warleigh-Lack, 212–23. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Warleigh-Lack, A., and B. Rosamond. 2010. Across the EU Studies–new regionalism frontier: invitationto a dialogue. Journal of Common Market Studies 38, no. 4, 993–1013.

Warleigh-Lack, A., N. Robinson, and B. Rosamond, eds. 2011. New regionalism and the EuropeanUnion: dialogues, comparisons and new research directions. London: Routledge, forthcoming.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ford

ham

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:06

29

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Documents

Rethinking EU Studies: The Contribution of Comparative Regionalism