Michael Niemann

Globalisation and regionalisation from a spatial perspective

Abstract Much of the debate on globalisation has been framed in dichotomous terms which juxtaposes the national state, a fixed territorial unit, to a world increasingly characterised by global flows which disregard boundaries. I suggest an alternative approach which goes beyond ‘common sense’ notions of space and views it as a social construct consisting of multiple, temporally coexistent layers connected by zones of ambiguous permeability. Using this perspective, the interplay of regionalisation and globalisation is viewed as the often contradictory efforts of specific social forces to formulate new spatial arrangements which seek to ameliorate the spatial limitations of the national state while maintaining some of the advantages offered by limited permeability between regions.

Southern Africa as Social Space

The previous chapter introduced a spatial approach to the emergence of the modern state which views this process as the spatial manifestation of specific social practices since the transition from the Middle Ages to modernity. This analysis has, so far, been grounded in the European experience. This focus is not an example of an unwitting Eurocentrism but to some extent a necessity since the modern form of the state was indeed pioneered in Europe. However, and the previous chapter has demonstrated this clearly, the process of spatial production which resulted in the creation of the state layer was not an exclusively European process. The very process of state creation went hand in hand with the production of other spaces in the rest of the world. The emergence of a ‘population’ as an object of state rule, for example, was also based on the conceptualization of ‘Europeanness’ in juxtaposition to colonized subjects.1 The purpose of this chapter is therefore to shed light on the manner in which this process of spatial production manifested itself in the periphery.

The Global System as Mille-Feuille

The preceding review of the literature on IR theory both at the grand scale and specific scale of regionalization has revealed an spatial image of the state as a clearly delimited territorial space. States in turn interact with each other on the basis of what is considered to be their national interest. The relative importance allotted to other factors, be they internal interest groups or global economic dynamics, varies and the resulting analyses produce accordingly varying outcomes. Investigations of regionalization display corresponding variations depending on the emphasis of state interest versus the interest of other actors. Despite these different emphases, the basic spatial image of the states in question and the supposed outcome of integration are rarely questioned. The only difference is the size of the ultimate container. Neo-Functionalists in their various guises predict the eventual creation of a larger container with, of course, a larger content (multiple societies) while Neo-Realists, appearing in the guise of either regime theorists or intergovernmentalists, emphasize the persistence of the smaller containers which manage their interaction with global dynamics in a somewhat cooperative fashion.

Globalization or Regionalization

During the television broadcast of the 1994 Olympic Winter Games on CBS, this advertisement, sponsored by Sara Lee Corporation for its Hanes garment division, appeared against a backdrop of colorful images of people from the various ethnic backgrounds and an upbeat rhythm of an undefined world music. It ended with Hanes’ signature chorus ‘Just wait ’til we get our Hanes on you!’ In its own way, this message epitomized Marx’s prediction 150 years ago that the bourgeoisie, in its relentless search for markets, would destroy all vestiges of nationalism and parochialism in the world. Never mind that the inhabitants of an entire continent are lumped together into one nationality (‘African’) while the rest of the world appears rather more differentiated. Maybe it reflects the (un)conscious admission of Sara Lee Corporation that the African continent is not yet a promising enough market to warrant differentiation.1

Regionalization: The Search for a Spatial Fix

As I pointed out in Chapter 1 public and academic discourse has for the past decade or so centered on the question of globalization. Initially an academic concept, the term globalization has penetrated public debate and is ever present in the media coverage of global affairs without necessarily having been clearly defined and with its meaning often taken for granted. This uncritical stance notwithstanding, there seems to be a general agreement that globalization is here to stay and that the world has irrevocably changed over the past two decades. Opinions as to the nature of this change vary. On the one hand commentators such as Ohmae (1990, 1995), Guehenno (1995) and Reich (1992) claim to varying degrees that the state has lost its capacity to control significant aspects of policy which in the past fell into the domestic realm. On the other hand, there are those who counterpose that such predictions fail to recognize the continued ability of states to affect global politics (see Wade, 1996 and Carnoy, 1993).

Regional Practices and Counterpractices

Are regions a possible spatial fix for the problems caused by the contradictions inherent in the state/global dichotomy? What possibilities does this strategy offer for the social forces that are actively engaged in this spatial practice? The answer to these questions lies in an investigation of the manner in which regional ventures are implemented in the context of globalization. The current context is clearly different from that of the post-Second World War era in which a ‘defensive regionalism’ informed regional efforts in Europe and other parts of the world. Today, the very notion of defensive regionalism runs counter to the established orthodoxy of neo-liberal economics and, more importantly, it is severely regulated in the treaty establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Missing Spaces: IR Theory and Cooperation

A cursory perusal of popular textbooks on International Relations (IR) at the end of the century reveals a clear persistence of terminology and theory which belie the claim, advanced by these very books, that the end of the Cold War has ushered in a new era in global politics. Rourke and Boyer (1998), for example, employ the tripartite level of analysis scheme used initially by Waltz (1959) which maintains that global politics can best be studied from one of three perspectives, the systemic, the state level and the individual. Dougherty and Pfaltzgraph (1997, p. 6) while recognizing what they call a paradigm shift, admonish the reader to resist the adoption of new untested paradigms. ‘In all scientific fields, new theory builds on old. A certain degree of conceptual continuity is essential for rational discourse.’ Finally, the fact that the post-Cold War world is already proving to be no less complex that that of the Cold War is being cited as a reason to continue along the same scientific ways. The change in circumstances notwithstanding, theoretical and conceptual continuity appears to be the order of the day.