Chapter Four: GLOBALIZATION AND

REGIONALISM
 Globalization and Regionalism are two major
phenomena influencing global trend.
 Both as a form of integration and differentiation
among states characterize a form of reorganization
of interstate relations: formal and informal.
 Globalization is often understood as a phenomena,
or a process characterized by increasing
interconnectedness or interdependence.
 In short, it is a supra regional process bringing the
world into one global village.
•Defining Globalization
• Globalization can be defined as a
multidimensional process characterized by:
• (1) the stretching of social and political
activities across state (political) frontiers so that
events, decisions, and activities in one part of the
world come to have significance for individuals
and communities in other parts of the world.
(2) the intensification or the growing magnitude of
interconnectedness in almost every aspect of social existence.
(3) the accelerating pace of global interactions and process as the
evolution of worldwide systems of transport and communication
increases the rapidity of or velocity with which ideas, news,
goods, information, capital and technology move around the
world;
(4) the growing extensity, intensity, and velocity of global
interaction is associated with a deepening enmeshment of the
local and global insofar as the local events may come to have
global consequences and global events may come to have serious
local consequences creating a growing collective awareness of
the world as shared social space, i.e. globalism.
•DEBATES ON GLOBALIZATION

•The role of the nation-state in the globalization process

has led to many questions

•Among the questions are:-

 Is the nation state being undermined?

 Has it retained its primacy?

 Is it becoming transformed in new ways?

 It is possible to understand the relationship between

globalization and the role of nation state by examining
three different well accepted theoretical perspectives
of globalization.
• These are hyper-globalism, skepticism and
transformationalism.
1. Hyper-globalism
The role of the nation-state is diminished by the
existence of international organizations such as the
United Nations and the International Monetary
Fund (IMF) or by social movements.
The world is on its way to a form of global
governance, rather than a system the governance
by powerful nation states.
Nation-States become obsolete to regulate their
economy and boundary.
• Economic globalization brought denationalization
and deterritorialization of economies and it brings
the decline of state.
• IMF, World Bank and General Agreement and
Tariff and Trade (GATT) Organizations, have
created a new economic order, which must be
obeyed by nation states.
• National governments unable to control trans-
boundary movements and flow of goods, sevices
and ideas.
• Transnational organizations diminish the role of
the nation-state, and global governance will
become the last frontier.
2. SKEPTICISM
 Nation-states are shaping the nature of world
politics.
 Globalization is not a new process, but an
ongoing form of internationalization.
 Nation-state is growing
 The role of the nation-state is still alive and its
borders are effective.
 The organs of the United Nations (UN) are
instruments of powerful nation-states and are
designed to achieve their political aims.
 The future of world politics will be related to
national states and their implementation.
 Anti-globalist movements-a large number people
in the world are not comfortable with the idea of
global governance.
 Reject the idea of global governance.
 Reject the view of hyper-globalist as flawed, myth
and politically naïve.
 States are central actors and agents of
globalization.
 States play central role in shaping and regulating
economic activities.
 What is happening in the name of globalization is
internationalism, regionalism, and neo-liberal
policies created by the capitalist order.
 Globalization brings nothing new.
3. TRANSFORMATIONALISM
 Present the middle ground between the hyper-
globalists and skeptics.
 While there are still nation states that exist in the
context of world politics, their structures are
different from what they were, and the effect of
globalization on nation states is irrefutable.
 Globalization is a real phenomenon and is affecting
nation-states
 The nation state still plays a role in world politics.
 External forces such as human rights, population
policy, and factors such as the environment,
education, labor, and immigration, all have an
enormous role to play in reshaping the structures of
nation states.
 Although international laws and the implementation
of international organizations press for national
sovereignty, national institutions are major players
who put these international laws and other
strategies into practice
 Globalization reconstitute/reengineer the power,
function and authority of the state.
 A new sovereign regime is displacing traditional
conception of state power as absolute, indivisible
and territorially exclusive power.

GLOBALIZATION AND ITS IMPACTS ON

AFRICA
 In its contemporary form, globalization is driven
by a variety of forces.
 These are financial or the flow of financial
resources, economic with particular reference to
the flow of goods and services and, to a very
limited extent, labor, technology, especially
transport, communications and information
technology, the spread of culture from one corner
of the world to the other, and the global diffusion
of religious ideas as well as ideologies.
 Other aspects that are unique to the present form
of globalization are the Americanization of the
world, the propagation of a universal paradigm for
economic and political development, and the
dominance of unilateralism as a way of
conducting international relations.
 American influence on international issues and
decision-making, including those within the
purview of major international institutions such as
the United Nations System, the Breton-Woods
institutions, and the World Trade Organization
(American hegemony)
 In sum, globalization seems to be leading inexorably to
the homogenization of the world, with the United States
as the model and the standard by which all other countries
are to be judged.
 However, asymmetry in the distribution of power results
in different perceptions and evaluation of the impact of
globalization, especially with respect to the distribution of
the benefits of globalization.
 In the case of Africa, its position in the international
system has been considerably weakened by the fact that it
has been losing the race for economic development in
general, and human development in particular, to other
regions.
 Specific impacts of globalization on Africa can be
identified. In the political sphere, the most
important consequence is the erosion of
sovereignty, especially on economic and financial
matters, as a result of the imposition of models,
strategies and policies of development on African
countries by the International Monetary Fund, the
World Bank and the World Trade Organization.
 On the other hand, globalization has promoted
greater respect for human rights and contributed to
the development of an African press.
 This has opened African countries to far greater
scrutiny than in the past, making it somewhat more
difficult for African governments to get away with
blatant and excessive abuses of democratic
governance and transparency.
 Globalization has negative impacts on the
development and effective governance of African
States. One form of this is the reduction of the
capacity of governments to determine and control
events in their countries, and thus their accountability
and responsiveness to their people, given the fact that
the context, institutions and processes by which these
decisions are taken are far from democratic.
 In addition, the fragmentation of national economies,
polities, societies and cultures that are triggered by
globalization weaken national consciousness and
cohesion, leading to social divisiveness and instability,
which in turn facilitate the emergence of authoritarian
rule.
 Strong countries are, however, in a better position to fend
off these negative consequences and may even see their
democracies strengthened.
 One major positive impact of globalization on Africa
is that it has made available information on how other
countries are governed and the freedoms and rights
their people enjoy.
 It has also opened African countries to intense
external scrutiny and exercised pressure for greater
transparency, openness and accountability in Africa.
•However, most of the forces unleashed by
globalization have had a negative impact on the growth
and consolidation of democratic governance in Africa.
Among these are the following:
 While calling for greater accountability and
responsiveness of leaders to their people,
globalization has often pressured African leaders
to adopt policies and measures that are
diametrically opposite to the feelings and
sentiments of the vast majority of their people.
This has led to the rise or reinforcement of
authoritarian regimes.
 By defining basic and generally accepted principles
of democratic governance, such as good governance,
transparency and accountability, in narrow terms,
conditioned by particular historical, political, social,
and cultural factors, while leaving little or no room
for adapting them to different societies and cultures,
democracy takes on the image of something alien and
imposed from the outside.
Support for the fundamental principles of democracy
is thus undermined, cynicism arises, and the effort
itself fails to develop roots in the countries to which
they are being artificially transplanted.
• Globalization leads to the development of anti-
developmentalism by declaring the state irrelevant or marginal
to the developmental effort.
 By imposing economic specialization based on the needs and
interests of external forces and transforming the economies of
African countries into a series of enclave economies linked to
the outside but with very little linkages among them, divisions
within African countries are accentuated and the emergence of
national consciousness and the sense of a common destiny is
frustrated. Democracy, with its emphasis on tolerance and
compromise, can hardly thrive in such an environment.
• Further, because the economic specialization
imposed on African countries makes rapid and
sustainable growth and development impossible,
conflicts over the distribution of the limited gains
realized from globalization become more acute
and politicized.
• Globalization, by insisting on African countries
opening their economies to foreign goods and
entrepreneurs, limits the ability of African
governments to take proactive and conscious
measures to facilitate the emergence of an
indigenous entrepreneurial class.
• Economically, globalization has, on the whole,
reinforced the economic marginalization of
African economies and their dependence on a
few primary goods for which demand and prices
are externally determined.
• Finally, while the scientific and technological
forces unleashed by globalization have facilitated
to some extent access by Africans to advanced
technology and information, this has been at the
expense of stultifying the indigenous
development of technology and distorting
patterns of production in Africa.
Defining Regionalism and Regional Integration
 Regionalization can be conceived as the growth
of societal integration within a given region,
including the undirected processes of social and
economic interaction among the units.
As a dynamic process, it can be best understood as
a continuing process of forming regions as
geopolitical units, as organized political
cooperation within a particular group of states,
and/or as regional communities such as pluralistic
security communities.
• Regionalism:- an ideology focusing on the
development of cooperation among states within
one or more regions.
• Depends on the ingredients of identifiable
geographical regions, geographical proximity and
an organization with a common sense of identity
and purpose.
• Dominant after WWII
• Emerged in Western Europe in the late 1940’s.
• The Old Regionalism
• For many scholars, regionalism, as a voluntary
and comprehensive process, is predominantly a
post-World War II phe­nomenon.
• It emerged in Western Europe in the late-1940s,
subsequently spreading to the developing world.
•Regional Integration in Europe and Beyond

• Old regionalism has its roots in the devastating

experience of inter-war nationalism and World
War II.
• It is therefore closely linked to the discussion about
‘regional integration’ in Europe, in particular to the
formation of the European Communities.
• The purpose of regional integration was to achieve
and consolidate peace and stability. Immediately
after the Second World War, there was a lot of
discussion about European regional­ism.
• Old regionalism: regional association and
protection from globalization and trade
liberalization.
• It advocates protectionist policy.
• Cooperation and integration is limited to member
states.
Regional Integration in Africa
 Regionalism in the developing world was closely
linked to colonialism/anti-colonialism and the
quest to facilitate economic development in the
newly independent nation-states.
 In sharp contrast to the European de­bate, which
focused heavily on regional integration, the
keywords here were development, state-promoted
industrialization and nation-building, first and
foremost through protectionism and import-
substitution.
• New Regionalism
• The new regionalism referred to a number of new
trends and developments, such as the spectacular
increase in the number of regional trade
agreements, an externally oriented and less
protectionist type of regionalism.
• An anti-hegemonic type of regionalism which
emerged from within the regions themselves
instead of being controlled by the superpowers
• The rise of a more multi-dimensional and
pluralistic type of regionalism,
• It is open and outward oriented regionalism.
• Driven by market and less by politics
• Globalization changes the balance from state
regulation to market competition.
• More diverse in geographical coverage.
 MAJOR THEORIES OF REGIONAL INTEGRATION
1. FUNCTIONALISM
 Functionalist viewed regionalism as a functional response
by states to the problems that derived from regional
interdependence.
 It was seen as the most effective means of solving
common problems.
• Regionalism has started from technical and non-
controversial issues and has spilled over into the
realm of high politics and redefinition of group
identity around the regional unit.
• According to functionalism, the task of policy
makers is to encourage the states to peacefully
work together.
• The like-minded states would spread the web of
international activities and agencies in which and
through which the interests and life of all states
would be gradually integrated from one activity to
others
• Regional organization was then built up to cope
with one common problem and spill over to other
problems and areas of cooperation, which will
deepen integration among member states.
• Therefore, 'spillover' is the key explanation of
functionalist regionalism.
• There were two sorts of spillover.
• First, functional spillover whereby cooperation in
one area would broaden and deepen further areas;
• Second, political spillover whereby the existence
of supranational institutions would set in motion a
self-reinforcing process of institution building.
• Therefore, functional spillover has to be in tandem
with political spillover in order to reinforce each
other.
• War as the result of social and economic
maladministration.
• The real task of the cooperation is the conquest of
poverty, ignorance, and disease.
• The existing system based on sovereignty is not
adequate but also an obstacle to finding solutions
to global problems.
• Integration is functional response by states to
regional problems arising from interdependence.
• Cooperation must start from low politics.
• Technocrats should rule.
2. NEOFUNCTIONALISM
 Neo-functionalism emerged in the 1960s based on
the key works of Ernst Haas and Leon Lindberg.
The model of integration is based on the following
basic principles.
 Neo-functionalism included clear departures from
transactionalism, federalism and functionalism,
which made it clearly a distinct and independent
theoretical entity.
•Transnationalism had defined integration as a
condition, and the attainment of integration was
measured by the existence of a 'security-community'.
Neo-functionalists, on the contrary, defined
integration as a process.
•'Political integration is the process whereby political
actors in several distinct national settings are
persuaded to shift their loyalties, expectations and
political activities towards a new centre, whose
institutions possess or demand jurisdiction over the
pre-existing national states.
•The end result of the process of political integration
is a new political community, superimposed over the
pre-existing ones.
• Another distinguishing principle of neo-functionalism, It
considers integration as a process with special focus on
political integration.
• According to Lindenberg, the following preconditions for the
success of an integration process. These conditions included
according to him:
1) Central institutions and central policies should be
established and developed, because only they can assure
that someone represents and promotes the 'regional view' as
well as solves disputes between member states;
2) Their tasks and capacity to implement those tasks should go
well beyond the mandate of normal international institutions;
3) Their tasks should be inherently expansive;
4) There should be some link between the interests of member
states and the process of integration.
3. INTER-GOVERNMENTALISM
 Inter-govemenmetalism or liberal inter-governmentalism
is a theory and approach that focus on the state for
integration to succeed.
 It looks the state in an integration process from the
perspective of traditional international relations.
 It thus considers the state mainly as an actor in the
international system and the integration process to be a
process in that system.
 According to Moravcsik, integration can be considered as
part of the rational choice of state actors.
 This rationalist framework disaggregates the process of
integration into three stages: national preference
formation, interstate bargaining and institutional choice.
• The degree of integration depends on the interests
of influential domestic constituents exercising
pressure over their governments.
• Moravcsik (1993) explains that “the foreign policy
goals of national governments vary in response to
shifting pressure from domestic social groups,
whose preferences are aggregated through
political institutions”.
• He argues that national preference formation
regarding cooperation in the field of foreign and
defence policy is subject to geopolitical interests,
revolving around a state’s ideological
commitment.
•The problem with this approach is that international
relations have not given much weight to the
domestic level or the society in the state’s foreign
policy decisions.
4. SUPRA-NATIONALISM
 Three mechanisms through which European
integration progresses: First, positive spillover
effects; Second, a transfer of allegiances from the
national to the supranational political arena; and
Third, a ‘technocratic automaticity,’ referring to an
increasingly autonomous role of supranational
institutions in promoting further integration.
Positive spillover effects:-The spillover effect occurs
when integration between states in a particular sector
incentivizes integration in other sectors too. One
incentive is, for example, that the optimization of
common benefits of integration in the original sector
requires integration in other sectors.
A transfer of allegiances from the national to the
supranational political arena:-The second mechanism
refers to a process by which domestic interest groups
shift their activities from the domestic to the
international realm. Oftentimes national institutions
provide less effective ways for interest groups to
pursue their end goals than international institutions
do.
A Technocratic automaticity:- a process in which
established supranational institutions develop an
interest of their own: encouraging deeper and
broader integration. In the European case, the
European Commission, established to coordinate
and implement integration strategies, has an
intrinsic interest to expand its competencies.
GENERALLY, they see integration as a process led
by elitist groups, like leaders of industry
associations or political parties, who recognize a
lack of opportunities in pursuing a shared interest at
the domestic level and then push national
governments to transfer policy competence to a
supranational body.
• Then, once supranational institutions are created,
international interdependence grows, and interest
groups or political party leaders can shift their
loyalties away from national institutions by
choosing to pursue their interests through newly
established international institutions.