Comparative Regionalism

The study of regionalism has experienced numerous transformations and focal points. Comparative regionalism has emerged as the next wave of scholarship on regional cooperation and integration in international relations. What differentiates comparative regionalism from this earlier scholarship? There are three research themes that characterize the field of comparative regionalism: (a) an empirical focus on regional identity formation as a way of distinguishing between autonomous regions, (b) decentering Europe as the main reference point of comparative regionalism, and (c) defining what is truly “comparative” about comparative regionalism. These research themes emerge in a global context, where regional cooperation and integration are being tested from all sides by events such as Brexit in Europe, elusive global cooperation in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and challenges to democratic stability across the globe. While the development of regionalism has primarily been concerned about the defining of regions and the world order context in which regional cooperation emerges and sustains itself, the interrelated themes of regional identity formation and the decentering of Europe in comparative regionalism drive the comparative regionalism agenda, giving substance to the identification and measurement of the “local” and other context-specific mechanisms of regionalism. While these three themes are helpful in discerning the state of the comparative regionalism research agenda, they also have some limitations. While comparative regionalism is progressive in its integration of constructivist ideas of identity formation, its project of withering Eurocentrism, and its methodological flexibility, comparative regionalism research would be well served to incorporate more reflexive and interpretivist research practices and methods, particularly to serve the goal of offering new knowledge and theories of regional cooperation in the Global South that are not tethered to Europe.

Varieties of citizenship in regional organisations: A cross-regional comparison of rights, access, and belonging

This paper explores the variation of citizenship in eight regional organisations (ROs). Since the 1980s, ROs have increasingly served as spaces for developing, regulating, and providing citizenship. However, current literature primarily takes a rights-based approach and focuses on a narrow set of cases without providing an account for the variation of citizenship in ROs. This paper offers a broad, conceptual approach to the study of regional citizenship and deploys a three-tiered conceptual framework consisting of rights, access, and belonging, to analyse how citizenship varies across different ROs. It challenges the current theorisation of regional citizenship, which is primarily rooted in the study of the EU’s rights-based approach. The analysis contributes to citizenship studies and comparative regionalism. It shows how citizenship varies across ROs, thus providing the first comprehensive cross-regional comparison. The empirical findings lead to the following insights. First, citizenship in regional organisations can be conceptualised as constitutional or practice-based. Second, there are different pathways to regional citizenship where practices might precede law or where citizenship in ROs remains a practice-based concept. Third, there is variation in the link between national and regional citizenship and how ROs provide access to regional citizenship.

Regional (dis)integration beyond governments: A comparison in social and civil society participation between Mercosur and SADC

The aim of this article is to analyse the involvement of civil society in regional integration organizations through a comparative analysis of social/civil society channels in the Southern Common Market (Mercosur) and the Southern African Development Community (SADC). We seek to analyse the level of openness and the trajectory of both blocs in relation to civil society participation. The instruments and strategies employed by civil society actors in both regions are contrasted, aiming to understand how prominent and successful they have been in terms of influencing the decision-making processes of Mercosur and the SADC, which have been traditionally marked by their intergovernmental and interpresidential characters. We argue that civil society involvement in regionalism is shaped by regional institutional design, member states’ support for societal participation and civil society resources. Thus, this article seeks to contribute to the comparative regionalism literature, setting out an analytical comparative framework for assessing the role of civil society in regional organizations from the Global South.

Comparative Regionalism

Comparative regionalism refers to the study of (“world”) regions and regionalism in comparative perspective. The field emerged in the 1960s and 1970s, and the keyword was “regional integration,” which reflected the dominance of European integration theory and practice. Although the early debate—later referred to as “old regionalism”—took comparison seriously, a general belief emerged that regionalism in the rest of the world deviated from the European integration experience. After a general decline of regionalism in the 1970s and 1980s, the phenomenon reemerged after the end of the Cold War. The explosion of literature on regionalism in the 1990s and early 2000s—often referred to as “new regionalism”—emphasized that regionalism was a global and multidimensional phenomenon, involving both state and nonstate actors across a growing number of policy fields and in a variety of forms and institutional designs. The research field remained fragmented in the 1990s and early 2000s, characterized by rivalries and a lack of dialogue between theoretical and methodological standpoints as well as regional and thematic specializations. Since the latter half of the 2000s, the intellectual landscape changed again and comparative regionalism has consolidated as a research field, with greater acceptance of contrasting theoretical and methodological perspectives and with more advanced comparisons across both regions and policy fields. The result has been that the research field is no longer structured in a hub-and-spoke fashion around Europe versus the rest. By implication, the concept of regional integration has been subsumed under a broader and more general conceptual umbrella, and it has become established to refer to the research field as comparative regionalism.

Energy Regionalism in ECOWAS and the EU

A proven framework is vital to governing energy at the regional level, so as to ensure abundant modern energy access while achieving a net-zero economy. This book explains the governance of regional energy systems from a unique and distinctive international political economy perspective. The book conducts a comparative institutional analysis of the ECOWAS and EU energy regions, and highlights shifts from monocentric to polycentric energy governance. It charts a way of developing a robust regional energy governance regime based on the ‘design principles’ of Nobel laureate Elinor Ostrom. Aimed at political scientists and political economists with an interest in energy studies and comparative regionalism with a focus on the Global South and North, this book will appeal to students, academics and policymakers. Michael Amoah Awuah is a research fellow at the Center for European Integration Studies at the University of Bonn, Germany.

Regional sanctions and the struggle for democracy: Introduction to the special issue

Regional organisations (ROs) around the world increasingly use sanctions against member states in situations of democratic crisis. This special issue unpacks the trend of RO sanctions in regions that are both democracy-dense (Europe and the Americas) and autocracy-dense (Africa, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East). We argue that regional sanctions cannot be taken at face value as instruments of democracy promotion. Instead, the politics of regional sanctions unveil controversies over the substance and limits of democracy, as well as over practical processes of regional interference in a sphere that is at the core of ‘domestic affairs’. In this introductory article, we situate the special issue at the crossroads of debates within comparative regionalism, sanctions, and democracy/autocracy promotion, and discuss how the membership premise crucially distinguishes RO measures from foreign policy and United Nations (UN) sanctions.

The Rise of International Parliaments

This chapter concludes the book and presents its key findings and takeaways. It reiterates the argument of strategic legitimation in international organizations: that governments establish international parliamentary institutions to pay tribute to global norms of democratic governance and legitimate international organizations that have become both more powerful and contested. It further summarizes the key empirical results of the book and highlights that the rise of international parliaments originates in the combination and interplay of two different constellations and processes: supranational regional integration (combining region-building purpose with high international authority) and international diffusion. The chapter goes on to assess the case study evidence on the legitimacy benefit of ‘recognition’ that international parliamentarization provides to states and their international organizations. Finally, it discusses the implications of the analysis for the study of institutional design, comparative regionalism, and global, cosmopolitan democracy.