With the seventies

started probably a new stage

in the regional history of the world.

Let’s remember seventies

it was the end of this famous

thirty years of economic development

and economic progress in Europe.

1973 it was the first oil crisis,

which hit the western economies.

But probably seventies were the decade

of a growing, increasing, appearing globalization,

the world was moving

to an interstate world to a global world.

And at this time, during the seventies,

European integration was

strongly challenged and questioned

while the institutional arrangement

didn’t work anymore.

So at this time was invented

a new kind of regional integration

which we would call neoregionalism,

neoregional integration.

What does it mean first?

It means a new context as I mentioned,

a context of economic crisis,

of a growing new global world,

an increasing role of the transnational actors,

and especially multinational corporations,

a world of communication,

that’s to say a world,

which is less and less territorial.

This new regionalism is

at this time a global phenomenon,

that’s to say not limited to Europe

as it was with the traditional regionalism,

but which affected all the countries

all the parts of the world.

In fact Europe was first affected

by this transformation, but Europe

was not invented this new regionalism.

This new regionalism came from Asia,

came from this Far East

which was strongly transformed.

It’s the starting point

of the transformation of China,

but it’s also the moment

when new economic actors appeared

in Korea, in Taiwan, in Singapore,

in Philippines, in Thailand and so on.

This new regionalism

had clearly a target:

how to save the state

in a turbulent global world?

How to save the state,

which was at this time threatened

by these new transnational actors?

But we are facing another paradox.

You remember the paradox I mentioned

about traditional regionalism.

This paradox is now reversed.

The new regionalism

was not targeting the end of state

but saving the state which was threatened

by this new globalization.

But at this time, states were weakened

and were not able to take in charge

this new regionalism.

This new regionalism was then promoted

by the new actors, by the economic actors,

social actors, transnational actors

more than states which were more passive

and even marginalized

and especially in Asia.

This is a new paradox as this regionalism

was targeting saving the states,

was promoted by the non state actors.

How can we characterize this new regionalism?

First of all, it has never been really theorized.

That’s to say we don’t find

about new regionalism the equivalent

of a David Mitrany for instance

that I quoted in my last lecture.

This new regionalism is much more pragmatic,

has not been theorized

and so is more in the hands of the actors

than in the mind of the thinkers.

The new actors are economic actors

who are playing a very important role as I mentioned

but also some political actors,

those in Asia who wanted to promote

a new Asian order,

I mentioned for instance

Mohamad ibn Mahathir in Malaysia

or Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore

who were promoting a vision of an Asia,

which would be integrating

beyond the borderlines of the nation-states.

Another characteristic,

and in my mind it’s the main one,

is that this new regionalism

was promoted by societies,

by economies more than by politics.

And this is something very interesting

to obverse how

economic actors in Asia from the seventies

promoted pragmatic integration

in spite of the borderlines

in a part of the world which was however

very conflicting and very rich

in political competition.

But what is interesting to note, to remark,

is that it’s precisely in the part of the world

the more politically competitive

that took place this new integration,

which was based on economic actors.

And we find for instance the works

of the Japanese scholar Kenichi Ohmae

who was speaking of region-states,

that’s to say the economic and social dynamics

of regions for overcoming

the classical political order,

the traditional political order based

on territory and borderline.

But I will specially mention Robert Scalapino

who was analyzing the transformation

of the Asian geography by stressing

on the role of what he called

natural economic territory (NETs).

And he explained that there is now a dynamic,

an economic dynamic

among the economies of the eastern Asia,

which is conducting this process of integration

by ignoring the political dynamics

and the political conflicts.

It’s the time when were built in Asia

the famous “growth triangles”,

and the time when investors coming from Taiwan

were conquering the Chinese main land

and settling and developing their activities

on this part of China without visa,

without political control,

without political containment.

It’s the time when were developed

these famous “Economic special zones”

along the rim of China.

It’s the time when even

South Korea and North Korea

were cooperating for building up

the famous Kaesong special zone

in which North Korean workers

were working under the supervision

of South Korean corporations.

This new kind of integration

is then undertaken from below, from the society.

Politics was at this time limited

to its own strict concerns

that’s to say political competition.

What is probably fascinating is that this conception

of a regional integration coming from below

was extending to all the world.

We found it in Latin America,

we found it even in North America

through the NAFTA/ALENA,

but we found it even in Europe

at this time Europe was facing

a very strong institutional crisis

inability to progress

in its institutional infrastructures.

And at this time non-political actors,

non-state actors played a very important role

for giving a new dynamic

of the European integration,

through regional cooperation,

economic cooperation, social cooperation,

exchanges of students and so on.

We are now in this new world,

that’s to say this world where institutions

cannot really be adapted,

are resistant, are resilient

and when progress is coming from social dynamics.

If Europe has not totally collapsed

it’s thanks to the social actors,

non-state actors, Erasmus students,

cooperation among the European firms and so on.

This new regionalism

is probably jeopardizing

our vision of politics

and probably our vision of democracy

because it’s no more controlled,

contained by the political dynamics

coming from people sovereignty,

That’s why Europe now is probably threatened

of a new crisis even if it was able to survive

through these new dynamics.

Le neorégionalisme

Espace mondial, une vision française des global studies

Meet the Instructors