A South American Research Perspective on South-North Dialogue on Globalization
Rita Giacalone, Grupo de Integración Regional (GRUDIR) and Universidad de Los Andes (ULA), Mérida, Venezuela
My Own Research
In September 1996, a group of professors and graduate students of the University of the Andes (at Mérida, Venezuela) formed the Interdisciplinary Group of Regional Integration (GRUDIR) and obtained official recognition from the Scientific and Humanistic Research Development Council (CDCH) of the same university. This group of professors and graduate students, belonging mainly to the economics and political science departments, had been studying the process of Latin American and Caribbean regional integration for some time. Since I became the coordinator of GRUDIR, the main collective objective has been to undertake multidisciplinary research and offer graduate level seminars, both on the field of regional integration. The Group has finished the following research projects:
Table 1: GRUDIR Research Projects
| Title | Funded by | Objectives | Products |
| Political, economic and social analysis of the Group of Three (G-3, Colombia, Mexico, and Venezuela) | CDCH-University of the Andes | 1. to study the process of negotiation of the G-3, governments' interests in its establishment, organization, and economic, political, and social consequences.
2. to emphasize the role of actors in regional integration, especially of business, and the interaction of interests and ideas on their positions. | Giacalone (1999a) and Giacalone (1999b)
|
| CAN-Mercosur under the shadow of the FTAA | CDCH-University of the Andes | 1. to study the negotiation process of a free trade treaty between the Andean Community (CAN) and the Southern Cone Market (Mercosur).
2. to analyze the impact of the parallel negotiation of the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA) upon South America, and especially upon Venezuela. | Giacalone (2003) and Giacalone (2005a)
|
| Globalization and inter-regionalism. The case of South American integration | CDCH-University of the Andes | 1. to identify the main characteristics of the South American Community of Nations.
2. to analyze its economic possibilities and limitations, mainly in the case of Venezuela.
3. to contribute to the theoretical discussion about inter-regionalism vis-à-vis globalization. | Giacalone (forthcominga)
|
Of the three multidisciplinary research projects undertaken by GRUDIR, the last is the one most directly linked to globalization. The main questions posed by the project were: What was the position of the Venezuelan government in the establishment of the South American Community of Nations, as well as the reasons behind this position? What would be the consequences of South American integration for specific sectors of the Venezuelan economy? What are the most important motivations of South American governments for supporting a South American, instead of a Latin American, regional scheme? What would South American integration mean for regional security, currency, and energy questions? What would South American integration mean within globalization and inter-regionalism?
Obviously, research questions were limited by the available pool of researchers associated with the project (six professors from the economics department, among them four economists, one historian, and one lawyer, plus a visiting professor from political science)1 and by their specific research interests. A product of this collaboration is an edited manuscript, with the title "South American Integration: A Complex and Unfinished Process" (Giacalone forthcominga).
Though the book attempts to answer most of the original research questions, and by doing so succeeds in raising new ones, the biggest limitation is that overall it has only touched upon globalization from the perspective of inter-regionalism (seen as a European attempt to create the basis for a new global order). Our approach has limited itself to emphasizing the links between South American integration and inter-regionalism while examining the latter mainly as an instrument of European foreign policy, and to discussing the relevance of new concepts about regions, regionalization, and regionalism for the study of South American integration. This limitation may be seen both as the consequence of our own research weaknesses and obstacles faced by globalization studies in Venezuela.
Globalization studies in Venezuela are few and they usually fall in two categories: those that focus on rather obscure theoretical questions, and those that consider that globalization is an evil force coming from the North, and accordingly has to be opposed and destroyed. The first category of studies utilize lines of analysis which have little relevance for understanding day-to-day manifestations of changes that may be associated with globalization, so they are practically meaningless. Regarding the second category of studies, these authors see globalization as an inevitable "race to the bottom," and tend to disregard anything that does not fit into this more ideological than academic perspective.
Unfortunately, both categories of studies about globalization lack any possibility of being confronted with case studies. In the case of the former, this is because of difficulties in applying theoretical constructs developed from the experience of developed nations to the experience of developing nations and groups of nations, and also the difficulty of establishing middle-level working hypothesis around such abstract and elusive concepts. Regarding the latter, most authors are not interested in confronting their position with any open discussion based on empirical data, especially if it goes hand in hand with a serious conceptual reflection about globalization that may end up weakening the "race to the bottom" approach.
The fact that the present Venezuelan government subscribes to "the globalization as evil force position" and that most research funding comes from public money, means that there is no support for research that may attempt to provide a wider and more nuanced view of globalization. If, at the same time, government political speech, information agencies, and other means of communication spread the same notion of globalization, researchers feel disinclined to enter the field of globalization studies unless they share the government position, and expect to contribute to this.
In spite of these difficulties, we think that globalization has to be worked into the study of South American integration, because this cannot be understood without understanding the global dimensions of the regional economy, culture, and politics, as well as its inherent possibilities and limitations within global forces. Cross-national research collaboration may help overcome this deficiency both by helping enlarge our understanding of globalization through wider access to ideas, networks, and products of research in other developing regions, and by helping us to discuss our own findings and positions in a more positive academic and political environment.
In the case of South American integration, most of the government's rhetoric and academic analysis hails the process as a reaction against globalization and ignores the fact that globalization continues uninterrupted and unabated within the region, and that voluntarism has little long term consequences as a political force, unless accompanied by a realistic appraisal of concrete regional globalization effects and of specific strategies to counteract or accommodate them. We think that this justifies the development by GRUDIR of a new line of research with the following broad objectives:
- to assess the extent and impact of ongoing globalization on South American governance and how this reality will influence the workings of South American integration in the future
- to analyze different scenarios (short- and medium-term) of the prospects for, and limits of, South American integration vis-à-vis global trends in general
- to contribute to the evaluation of the role of regionalism/regionalization within globalization.
Given the make up of GRUDIR, we will concentrate on the economic and political aspects of governance, assuming that the latter may incorporate things such as lack of transparency in business-government relations, while the former may concentrate on regional economic resources and orientation of the national political economy or the presence or absence of technologies and educated human resources.
Comments on Appadurai's Article
In this section, I want to summarize some aspects of Appadurai's article (2000) that we find relevant for our own research. Appadurai stresses the so called "double apartheid" about globalization issues between academic and local, national or regional public practitioners, on one hand, and between the population at large and both public practitioners and academics, on the other. He calls for an effort to grant priority to the study of globalization from below, as a means to improve the understanding of globalization among the general population and also their advocates, mainly in developing nations. According to him, this development may help democratize not only the results of research, by making them available to broader audiences, but also research itself by helping others to produce and discuss their own reflections about globalization.
From our own research perspective, an important point is that Appadurai links globalization to the workings of capital on a global basis, but he is more concerned about seeing it as a crisis for the sovereignty of nation-states (2000, 4). Additionally, he sees today's world as composed by "objects in motion" (people, ideas, images, messages, and technologies) coexisting with a world of structures, organizations, and other stable social forms. But these structures increasingly seem to be "devices for handling objects characterized by motion" (2000, 5). According to Appadurai, however, today the greatest stable structure still is the nation-state, though each time more affected by phenomena like floating populations, transnational politics, and so on.
Another important point from Appadurai is that the flows of objects in motion are not convergent, isomorphic, or spatially consistent. Flows have different speeds, points of departure and arrival, and varied relationships with institutional structures. In consequence, this "disjuncture" produces problems of governance, among other problems. For this reason, he calls for turning imagination into the central tool for redressing those problems, and he suggests that one way of doing this is by rethinking what "regions" are. While traditional area studies have usually viewed regions as the results of geography and culture — a relative immobile aggregate of traits (with national or regional identities), he considers that area studies should be constructed based on process geography — that is, the result of action, interaction, and motion.
Regions are not permanent associations between space, territory, and cultural organization. The capability to imagine regions (and, obviously, the world) is a globalized phenomenon; so, the main question for Appadurai is: how does the world look from other locations? Is critical dialogue possible between world pictures built on the notion that regions are not facts but artifacts of our interests (2000, 8)? He assumes so and that different regions have elaborated their own interests and capabilities into world pictures whose very interaction affects global processes. Also scholars from other societies and traditions can bring to academic debate their own ideas about regions and, also, the knowledge they have constructed about them.
Thus, the objective of his paper is to democratize research about globalization, which is now negatively affected by factors such as the temporal lag between the processes of globalization and efforts to conceptualize it, and the fragmented distribution of resources for learning, research, and criticism created by the fact that globalization is an uneven economic process.
In my presentation, I have chosen to emphasize these points of Appadurai's article because, if we apply Appadurai's perspective of the region as a process and not as an end result, regions and their transformations can be seen and assessed differently. The same happens with their contributions to globalization itself — which may span a whole spectrum with adaptation, at one end, and outright rejection, at the other. Also Appadurai's perspective helps recognize the interaction of both domestic and external forces upon regional/global developments within a region.
At least two observations should be made, however, about Appadurai's paper. The first is that his notions derive from and are influenced by his immersion in US academic life. The very expression "area studies" instead of the study of regions or regional studies is a product of the academic environment in which he is rooted. Thus, he is so concerned with chastising his US colleagues that, sometimes, he loses sight of the overall picture. He presents the notion of the region as a permanent association with geography and culture as a US Cold War product, obviating two facts: first, that regions were seen in that way before the Cold War, and, secondly, that in the post-Cold War era the European Union, for example, has developed its own view of regions, establishing a different world picture deeply rooted in European interests, which is also strengthening the concept of the region as a permanent association (more end result that process).
The second observation is that, although my colleagues and I accept Appadurai's recommendation that academics should engage more in the study of globalization from below (institutions, horizons, vocabulary) in order to facilitate "grassroots globalization," the question remains whether we already know enough about globalization from above and its contribution, especially to governance at the regional and global levels, in order to forfeit its study at present. In this sense, we want to add that the fact that scholarly work on globalization is spread across multiple disciplines, has hindered accumulating knowledge of the different arguments developed by them, and "in the long run, the lack of accumulation is dangerous; without rigorous reviews of such arguments, policymakers are prone to accept misperceptions of globalization that are politically expedient" (Drezner 2001, 54). If to disciplines we add the difficulty of sharing research results among scholars from the North and the South, the problem is obviously compounded.
Thus, in conclusion, I think that greater cross-national and cross-cultural research collaboration, by means of the proposed South-North dialogue on globalization research, is necessary and even urgent, but should not be limited to further globalization from below. It could be an important instrument to enhance our understanding of globalization from above and especially of its regional manifestations. In this sense, Appadurai's emphasis on regions and regional views of the world and, at the same time, on flows of objects in motion grants support to the notion that the impact of globalization is not similar in all regions, and that regions may be differently equipped to deal with the problems of governance that appear. A collaborative effort to assess these differences at regional levels may very well be part of the South-North dialogue, and eventually end up contributing to the field of regionalization/globalization studies.
Globalization from the Perspective of Our Research on South American Regional Integration
In this section, I present our research perspective about South American regional integration and link it with Appadurai's notions regarding regions. While some of the studies undertaken by GRUDIR have focused upon South America in general, others have been approached by looking at individual countries, such as Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Venezuela, and by comparing their experiences. Still others have attempted to reflect upon concepts and relate them to developments in South America and to relations with international actors.
In an effort to more precisely define the framework for our lines of research, I summarize now some methodological and conceptual elements that in our past research we have found useful, indicating in each case the article or paper in which they appear. For example, the coalition approach devised by Solingen (2001) with its three categories (internationalization coalitions, backlash coalitions, and hybrid coalitions) has been instrumental in typifying the positions of the most important governments promoting regional integration in South America, and in identifying their political reasons.2 This has also permitted us to explore the degree of convergence3/divergence among them, something that also helped us identify problems the regional scheme may face in the future (Giacalone 2007a, forthcomingb).
Together with this, we have applied in our research the concept of the region as an "imagined community" (Neumann 1994), which is being constantly defined and redefined mainly by its political actors. With this concept, Neumann (1994, 61) has successfully challenged the view of the region "as a given" — something that exists on its own merits — "an empirical phenomenon with historical and geopolitical roots." He has developed instead a region-building approach in which regions are seen as political projects, where governmental actors, sometimes in cooperation with non-governmental ones, draw lines of "inside" and "outside" and define who is "us" and who is "the other." This approach, based on discourse analysis to identify the narrative purposefully constructed by the actors, has certainly proved the cornerstone of much of our effort to develop a conceptualization of regionalization and regionalism that could be applied to the South American case (Giacalone 2006, 2007b, forthcomingb). It is also closely associated with Appadurai's idea regarding the need to focus on regions as results of actions, interactions, and motion rather than of geography and culture.
At the same time, we have analyzed governmental discourse to determine if the regional integration process has created an improved view of "the other" among South American nations, or if it has only built on the stock of existing myths about South American (as opposed to Latin American) common historical roots, heroes, and brotherhood. In this line of research, the link with globalization comes from accepting as our starting point García Canclini's (1999, 64-65) claim that today the option is not between identity (collective social self-identification) and globalization, but that globalization imposes the necessity to assume, in a more realistic way, what we are, what we can do, and how to face our own heterogeneity in order to do the same with global heterogeneity. One of the underlying presumptions of our research is then that if governments insist in propagating an artificial view of South American identity, in order to promote their regional project, they are not contributing to the process, but weakening it (Giacalone 2007c).
Yet another line of research has concentrated in inter-regional relations and inter-regionalism. First, we have tried to define the concept and apply it to the process of negotiation between the South American Market (Mercosur) and the Andean Community (CAN), which culminated in the creation of the South American Community of Nations (SACN) in December 2004. Secondly, we have discussed it, from different perspectives, with respect to relations between the European Union and the Andean Community. In this line, the definition of globalization as a phenomenon (characterized by the increment of interdependence in trade, finance, and communications) has predominated over that of globalization as a theory of development, and it has been used to explain why processes of functional integration may reach a global scale even in less developed nations and/or regions. Functional integration at the global level is what determines the need for more powerful international actors, such as the European Union, to develop a whole set of policies and mechanisms (inter-regionalism being one of them) in order to protect their interests worldwide. The development of more proactive European cooperation programs in the field of environment, sanitary and phyto-sanitary controls, food security and the like, may be considered part of those interests (Giacalone 2005c, 2007d, forthcomingc).
Regarding the relationship between inter-regionalism and globalization, we do not agree with Hettne's (1999, 2002) concept that new regionalism has advanced from the dynamics of the process of economic "spill over" to incorporate security, cultural, and social concerns, and it is now a process from the "bottom-up." In fact, in the case of schemes established by developing nations, those non-economic concerns are more declarative than effective compromises, and participation from below is mostly sponsored by the influence of external actors (United Nations, European Union, transnational NGOs), who sometimes make them prerequisites for signing agreements or for granting development funds and sponsoring cooperation projects. Also Hettne claims that inter-regionalism appears when regions turn into acting subjects with distinct identities, actor capability, legitimacy, and decision-making structures, when, in fact, most regions made up by developing nations lack these characteristics. But we accept that regionalism is a political project in the making, that may move towards outlining an "imaginary community" (Hettne 2002).
Moreover, we see regionalism as a multi-level phenomenon originating from the impact of globalization upon important domestic actors; the magnitude and character of this impact is what determines the preferences of actors for augmenting (or deepening) a process of regional integration, if it is perceived as successful, or for changing it or evading it, if it is seen as negative to their interests. At the same time, the process will have an impact in nearby nations belonging to the same geographic region, creating demands from the other nations either to enter into or negotiate special deals to widen the scheme perceived as successful, or to circumvent and abolish it, if it is considered detrimental. In this way, regions are the result of coalitions of interests from above (both domestic and transnational) that may, or may not, accommodate and include forces from below. Accordingly, it is necessary to evaluate the nature of the impact of globalization upon specific regions and to analyze the nature of their coalitions, in order to be able to further specific ways of globalization from below.
For this reason, we see globalization not as a monolithic, "undifferentiated phenomenon, but [as] a complex array of phenomena due to the effects that strategic, political, cultural, and social influences have upon it." And we accept that "the challenge of regionalism is not to promote or stop globalization, but to ensure that its terms serve specific local, national, and regional interests" (Tonelson 1997). Thus, the achievements, and also the possibilities and limitations, of specific regionalisms should be counted, or discounted, towards this goal.
Other more powerful external actors from the developed world, also affected by globalization, may react to its impact upon them by devising diverse foreign policy instruments (in the way the European Union has done with inter-regionalism), whose aim is to protect their interests in relations with developing nations. In this sense, we do not see inter-regionalism as a deterministic step in the evolution of new regionalism, which will presumably end in a regionalized form of multilateralism (for Hettne, this means a world governed by a reconstituted United Nations system in which regions will play a major role), but as a European strategy to counteract the negative effects of globalization upon Europe, and to provide an alternative model to the present world order.
This line of research is linked with that of globalization because it adds to the traditional endogenous reasons for regional integration — creation of scale economies, better use of production complementarities, widening of market demands, and strengthening external negotiating capacity — at least one exogenous reason, clearly related to globalizing forces: the active policies of global international actors, who aim to protect their own interests by means of encouraging certain types of regionalism.
Moreover, in general terms, our research builds upon approaches to regionalism/globalization after the Cold War such as those of Fawcett (2003), who has emphasized within regionalism the issues of primacy, sovereignty, hegemony, and capacity. But we feel that all of them need to be defined and conceptualized further, not only in South America but in other developing regions as well, as their basis may not be exactly the same as in developed nations. Fawcett aptly summarizes her argument, when she claims that if global governance remains an illusion, there is no option but to seek to regionalize it (2003, 27).
However, we should also mention that regional governance is not seen as a substitute for global governance, which still remains the elusive objective. Regionalism, thus, can not be understood as the final stage, otherwise the particular visions of world order of each region may end up "ghettoizing undisciplined parts of the world" (Pugh 2003, 33), and leaving them at the hands of the interests of regional hegemons (Pugh 2003, 38). As Foqué and Steenbergen (2005, 59) have stated, "Some issues are regional and require a regional approach; some issues are global, but can, for the time being, only be addressed at a regional level." Which ones are regional and which ones are global is not quite clear yet, and a task of the South-North Dialogue may be to help define this difference.
Proposed Research Questions
As a starting point for further discussion, my colleagues and I offer some research questions congruent with our previous lines of research, and that may fit the interests of the South-North Dialogue on Globalization Research:
- What changes in governance (or with the potential to affect it) are taking place at the regional level due to globalization?
- Which ones can regionalism promote or help solve?
- How can regionalism contribute to global governance?
- What does globalization mean for governance at the regional level?
- How can linkages between regional and global governance be conceptualized?
We suggest that these five questions, ordered from the most specific to the most general, should be answered, first, for our case study (South American integration) in order to build from a research position of relative strength, and, secondly, we expect to provide more general answers applying to developing regions. Thus, our research proposal can be seen as a three-tiered device for providing answers at three levels: 1) that of the specific region of researchers; 2) that of regions made up by developing nations; and 3) that of conceptual/methodological reflection.
The overall objective of our proposal is to build middle-level working hypothesis, that could serve multiple objectives: 1) to be tested by other studies; 2) to be used as guidelines for expanding our research from regional governance from above to regional governance from below; and 3) to provide a methodology to facilitate the study of the interaction between regionalism and globalization. However, these questions should be seen as the starting point for discussion with other research groups, in the hope that the final outcome can be the development of a collaborative project.
Together with the methodological aspects sketched above, we think it is necessary to outline as well some more substantive observations about these questions. First, globalization approaches usually tend to leave aside domestic determinants of regionalism, such as domestic actors' preferences in terms of policy options. The contribution of a research project about the issue of regional governance vis-à-vis global governance could entail the revaluation of political economy approaches that focus on the domestic-external interaction (Solingen, Milner, Moravcisk) and their application to regional case studies. In this way, for example, our answers to each of the previous questions would be less influenced by what are usually assumed to be the consequences of globalization, in general, providing a more nuanced view of how regional domestic actors perceive the effects of globalization in their own environment.
Second, among domestic actors, special attention should be paid to economic actors (businesses of every type as well as workers of every type), because there is a certain tendency to assume their policy preferences based on their position as a class and to forget that their own visions and positions in life are affected by the society to which they belong, and that they are not a homogeneous group.
Third, decisions vis-à-vis regionalism and globalization are still made by governments, and regionalism may be seen by them as an additional political option in which they can exercise a certain degree of power. This means that governments, as representatives of nation-states, are far from being simple recipients of negative globalization forces. In fact, globalization may be providing some of them (Brazil, India) with the possibility of enhancing their presence in the international landscape by means of regionalism, and thus offering the chance to develop into "global players." (The present and former Brazilian administrations have used this concept more than once in order to refer to their goals in the international scene).
Fourth, another general presumption is that regionalism is only a step within a more general movement toward global forms of society, economy, and governance, but is it so? Can we discard outright the possibility that some regionalisms may be more permanent forms of organizing governance than others? And, if so, what are the issues, aspects, and weaknesses of regionalism that turn it into just a transient passage to global forms of organization or that, conversely, can turn it into a more permanent form of governance?
Fifth, based on the answers to some of the previous questions — from the perspective of a number of case studies — we have to think about the possibility that some regionalisms may coexist with globalization not only during a transitional phase but also on a more permanent basis. In such a case, it is necessary to start thinking about what positive linkages can be made between the two phenomena, in order to better achieve the goals of globalization from below.
In conclusion, we welcome the proposal to establish a collaborative interdisciplinary North-South Dialogue about globalization with scholars from Canada and the Global South, and to engage in research that can be meaningful for academics, political practitioners, and the people in general. We think that our previous research will be instrumental in assisting us to contribute to the proposal, and within it we would like to put forward as a research area that of regional/global governance, not starting however from the perspective of globalization (i.e., from the top down) but from the perspective of the domestic determinants of regionalisms (in a way, from the bottom up). Our suggestion is also to start from political economy approaches that privilege actors and their preferences, and to build on them, ending with an overall assessment of the possibility of constructing a positive interaction between regional and global governance.
Works Cited
Appadurai, Arjun. 2006. The right to research. Globalisation, Societies and Education 4
(2):
167-77.
Drezner, D.W. 2001. Globalization and policy convergence. International Studies Review 3
(1):
53-78.
Fawcett, L. 2003. The evolving architecture of regionalization. In The United Nations and regional security. Europe and beyond,
ed. M. Pugh and W.P. Singh Sidhu,
11-30. Boulder, CO:
Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Foqué, R. and Steenbergen, J. 2005. Regionalism: A constitutional framework for global challenges? In Global politics of regionalism. Theory and practice,
ed. M. Farrell, B. Hettne, and L. Van Langenhove,
54-68. London:
Pluto Press.
García Canclini, N. 1999. Globalizarnos o defender la identidad. ¿Cómo salir de esta opción? Nueva Sociedad 163
(56-70):
Giacalone, R. 1999a.
Los empresarios frente al Grupo de Los Tres: Integración, intereses e ideas. Caracas:
Editorial Neuva Sociedad.
Giacalone, R. 1999b.
El Grupo de Los Tres. Aspectos económicos, políticos y sociales. Caracas:
Editorial Panapo.
Giacalone, R., ed. 2003. CAN-Mercosur a la sombra del ALCA. Mérida:
Editorial Venezuela.
Giacalone, R., ed. 2005a.
Venezuela en el ALCA. Entre realidades y fantasías. Mérida:
Vicerrectorado Académico, Universidad de Los Andes.
Giacalone, R. 2005b.
The impact of neo-populist civilian-military coalitions on regional integration and democracy. Journal of Political and Military Sociology
(Summer):
Available:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3719/is_200507/ai_n14904129/pg_1.
Giacalone, R. 2005c.
Inter-regionalism. Some theoretical remarks from a case study of the South American Community of Nations. Second Meeting of the Globalization Studies Network (GSN), University of Warwick, November 2005.
Giacalone, R. 2006. Región y regionalismo en los acuerdos de integración económica — de Latinoamérica a Sudamérica. Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series, Vol. 6, No. 19, Miami European Union Center, University of Miami.
Giacalone, R. 2007a.
Posibilidades y limitaciones de la Comunidad Sudamericana de Naciones. Agenda Internacional 13
(24):
Giacalone, R. 2007b.
Aproximación conceptual a la Comunidad Sudamericana de Naciones. In El ALCA vs el regionalismo sudamericano,
ed. J. Briceño Ruiz and H. Gorodeckas,
San Cristóbal:
CEFI-ULA and CELAC-UC.
Giacalone, R. 2007c.
Identidad e integración regional. El caso de la Comunidad Sudamericana de Naciones. Paper presented at the 2007 Congress of the Latin American Studies Association, Montreal, Canada, 5-8 September.
Giacalone, R. 2007d.
Is European inter-regionalism a relevant approach for the world or just for Europe? European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR), 35th Joint Sessions of Workshops, Helsinki, Finland, 7-12 May.
Giacalone, R. forthcominga.
La integración sudamericana. Un complejo proceso inconcluso. Mérida:
Vicerrectorado Académico, Universidad de Los Andes.
Giacalone, R. forthcomingb.
Motivaciones políticas para la constitución de la CSN. Análisis de convergencia/divergencia en el discurso de Brasil, Venezuela y Argentina. In La integración sudamericana. Un complejo proceso inconcluso,
ed. R. Giacalone,
Mérida:
Vicerrectorado Académico, Universidad de Los Andes.
Giacalone, R. forthcomingc.
Negociaciones entre la Comunidad Andina y la Unión Europea en el marco del interregionalismo. In La integración sudamericana. Un complejo proceso inconcluso,
ed. R. Giacalone,
Mérida:
Vicerrectorado Académico, Universidad de Los Andes.
Hettne, B. 1999. Globalization and the new regionalism: The second Great Transformation. In Globalism and the New Regionalism. vol. 1, New Regionalism,
ed. B. Hettne, Andras Inotai, Osvaldo Sunkel,
London:
Macmillan.
Hettne, B. 2002. El nuevo regionalismo y el retorno a lo político. Comercio Exterior 52
(11):
954-65.
Neumann, I. 1994. A region-building approach to Northern Europe. Review of International Studies 20:
53-74.
Pugh, M. 2003. The world order politics of regionalization. In The United Nations and regional security. Europe and beyond,
ed. M. Pugh and W.P. Singh Sidhu,
31-46. Boulder, CO:
Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Solingen, E. 2001. Mapping internationalization: Domestic and regional impacts. International Studies Quarterly 45
(4):
517-55.
Tonelson, A. 1997. Globalization: The great American non-debate. Current History 399:
353-59.
Notes
1.
Members of GRUDIR include: Alicia Chueco (Associate Professor, Institute of Economic Research, Universidad de Los Andes), Rita Giacalone (Professor of Economic History, Economics Department, Universidad de Los Andes), Alejandro Gutiéxrrez (Professor, Economics Department, Universidad de Los Andes), Jesús Mora Contreras (Professor, Economics Department, Universidad de Los Andes), José U. Mora Mora (Associate Professor, Economics Department, Universidad de Los Andes), and Luis A. Toro Guerrero (Professor, Economics Department, Universidad de Los Andes). Also associated with GRUDIR is María Eugenia Vega (Visiting Professor and Researcher in the Latin American Political and Social Studies Research Center (CEPSAL), Universidad de Los Andes. Professor, Graduate School of the Universidad Nacional Experimental de la Fuerza Armada (UNEFA), Mérida, Venezuela).
2.
This approach can also be found in Giacalone (2005b)
3.
Convergence is defined as "the tendency of policies to grow more alike, in the form of increasing similarity in structures, processes, and performances" (Drezner 2001, 53).