Rethinking Hegemonic Stability Theory: Some Reflections from the Regional Integration Experience in the Developing World
RETHINKING HEGEMONIC STABILITY THEORY: SOME REFLECTIONS FROM THE REGIONAL INTEGRATION EXPERIENCE IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD
Petropoulos Sotirios1 First Draft
1
Phd Candidate at Harokopion University, department of Geography, Researcher at
the Institute of International Economic Relations
The paper examines the ability of the hegemonic stability theory to interpret the creation and development of regional integration schemes in the developing world. More specifically, this paper aims at testing the theory through a comparative analysis of three important and long-lasting regional integration schemes in the developing world: the Southern Africa Development Community in Sub-Saharan Africa, the ASEAN in South-eastern Asia and the Mercosur in South America. The analysis shows that the hegemonic stability theory can offer useful interpretations for specific decisions and developments, but it also presents some weaknesses in forming a complete and systematic explanation – or even a forecast - for the course and the development of the above regional organizations. Consequently, the structure and the content of regional organizations and their impact in shaping the local, regional and global environment remains to a large extent dependent from other variables that prevent - if they do not exclude - a common interpretation.
This paper is based on research which is partially founded by the State Scholarships Foundation in Greece.
1
Introduction In this paper it is going to be tested whether the theoretical framework of the Hegemonic Stability Theory can provide useful interpretations of regional cooperation schemes that take place in the developing world. In the first section of this paper the importance of regionalism in today’s world politics is assessed, then the theoretical framework to be used is analyzed while some theoretical conditions to be met by the selected empirical cases are being set. Going further the selected representatives of
Petropoulos Sotirios1 First Draft
1
Phd Candidate at Harokopion University, department of Geography, Researcher at
the Institute of International Economic Relations
The paper examines the ability of the hegemonic stability theory to interpret the creation and development of regional integration schemes in the developing world. More specifically, this paper aims at testing the theory through a comparative analysis of three important and long-lasting regional integration schemes in the developing world: the Southern Africa Development Community in Sub-Saharan Africa, the ASEAN in South-eastern Asia and the Mercosur in South America. The analysis shows that the hegemonic stability theory can offer useful interpretations for specific decisions and developments, but it also presents some weaknesses in forming a complete and systematic explanation – or even a forecast - for the course and the development of the above regional organizations. Consequently, the structure and the content of regional organizations and their impact in shaping the local, regional and global environment remains to a large extent dependent from other variables that prevent - if they do not exclude - a common interpretation.
This paper is based on research which is partially founded by the State Scholarships Foundation in Greece.
1
Introduction In this paper it is going to be tested whether the theoretical framework of the Hegemonic Stability Theory can provide useful interpretations of regional cooperation schemes that take place in the developing world. In the first section of this paper the importance of regionalism in today’s world politics is assessed, then the theoretical framework to be used is analyzed while some theoretical conditions to be met by the selected empirical cases are being set. Going further the selected representatives of
Bibliography: Internet sites 1. 2. 3. 4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemonic_stability_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASEAN http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MERCOSUR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_African_Development _Community Books and Articles 5. R. Amer, “Conflict management and constructive engagement in ASEAN’s expansion”, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 20, No. 5, 1999, pp. 1031 – 1048. 6. K. Booth – P. Vale, “Security in Southern Africa: After Apartheid, beyond Realism”, International Affairs, Vol. 71, No. 2, April 1995, pp. 285 – 304. 7. S. Breslin – R. Higgott, “Studying Regionalism: Learning from the old, Constructing the new”, New Political Economy, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 333 – 352. 8. M. E. Carranza, “Mercosur and the end game of the FTAA negotiations: challenges and prospects after the Argentine crisis”, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 2, 2004, pp. 319 – 337. 9. L. Fawcett, “Regionalism in Historical Perspective” in Fawcett, L. and Hurell, A. (eds) Regionalism in World Politics, Oxford University Press, 1995, pp. 9 – 36. 10. J. Grugel and M. Medeiros, “Brazil and Mercosur” in J. Grugel and W. Hout (eds) The New Regionalism and the developing world, London: Routledge, 1999, pp. 46 – 61. 11. J. Henderson, ASEAN, Oxford: Oxford University Press Inc, 1999. 12. M. Holland, “South Africa, SADC, and the European Union: Matching Bilateral with Regional Policies”, The Journal of Modern African Studies, Vol. 33, No. 2, June 1995, pp. 263 – 283. 13. E. Mansfield – H. Milner, “The new wave of regionalism”, International Organization, Vol. 53, No. 3, pp. 589 – 627. 14. J. Mittelman – R. Falk, “Global Hegemony and Regionalism” in J. Mittelman (ed) The Globalization Syndrome: Transformation and Resistance, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000, pp. 131 – 147. 15. E. Pournarakis, “International Economics – An introductory approach” (in Greek), Athens, 2000. 16. B. Tsie, “States and Markets in the Southern African Development Community (SADC): Beyond the Neo-Liberal Paradigm”, Journal of Southern African Studies, Vol. 22, No. 1, Special Issue: State and Development, March 1996, pp. 75 – 98. 17. J. Wanandi, “Towards an Asian security-community”, Asia – Europe Journal, No. 3, 2005, pp. 323 – 332. 23