Questions sur un bilan mitigé

Loading...

En provenance du cours de Sciences Po

Espace mondial, une vision française des global studies

notes

Sciences Po

Espace mondial, une vision française des global studies

notes

Afin d’expliquer comment la mondialisation reconstruit les politiques publiques et les comportements sociaux nous étudions les échanges et interactions entre les acteurs politiques, économiques et sociaux -publics et privés, individuels et collectifs- et la façon dont ils redessinent les relations internationales. Ce cours prend sa source dans les approches sociologique et historique françaises des relations internationales. This course is also available in english version: www.coursera.org/learn/global-studies

À partir de la leçon

Le régionalisme

De nouveaux types d’intégration, et particulièrement des constructions régionales fragiles, remettent en question le territoire de l’État-nation.

Le régionalisme classique13:23

Le neorégionalisme12:32

Questions sur un bilan mitigé15:00

Regards croisés : mondialisation et régionalisme24:17

Rencontrer les enseignants

Bertrand Badie
Professor
Marie-Françoise Durand
Professor

We are now in a very strange moment.

Are we blocked in the third step

of regional integration,

of post-war regional integration?

After traditional regionalism, neoregionalism

we are now blocked

when neoregionalism doesn’t work

as it was expected

and traditional regionalism

is more and more faddy.

We can say that

we meet a real crisis of regional integration

and this crisis is not only affected Europe.

Of course Europe is more affected

than all the other parts of the world

because Europe was really bearing

this new regional project

and was in the first time the motor

of this regional integration,

an example for all the world.

But all the regional items

are now questioned.

In one hand it’s questioned

through main kind of crises

that we will take into account together;

on the other hand,

regionalism is now overcome by transregionalism

and by this new vision by which

is much more important to cooperate

when countries share the same visions,

even if they are not neighbors

than among neighboring countries

which are not sharing the same values

and the same targets.

This crisis of the regional order

and regional integration

is first of all a conceptual crisis.

Now there is a kind of anarchy about regionalism

as we are observing in the world

different kinds of regional integration

which are not similar

but which are oriented

toward different perspectives.

For instance by now in the present world

we can observe traditional interstate cooperation

through for instance continental integration.

This integration is not very deep,

is not very important,

it’s much more an intergovernmental cooperation.

It’s the case for instance

with the organization of American states

or with the African Union, or the Arab League,

it’s only a political cooperation

and a limited cooperation

which is not really threatening

the national sovereignties.

The second one is a little bit different.

That’s to say interstate cooperation

with precise economic target.

That’s to say no political integration

but the willing to promote

an economic integration

which is mainly based on trade

and intra-zone trade.

It’s the case for instance of SADC,

which is growing among the Southern countries of Africa.

It’s also the case of NAFTA in Northern America.

It’s the case of the SAARC in South Asia.

All these organizations are promoting

this economic cooperation

without really being concerned

by political cooperation

and specially political integration.

The third one is an inter-state cooperation

which is based on economy

but which is targeting the spillover

of economy to politics.

This is the case of European Union,

which started with economic cooperation

and which is promoting more and more

a political cooperation,

with the idea that this economic cooperation

as it is more and more intensified

will spillover economics to politics.

And it’s also the case of many regional cooperation

in Latin and in South America.

And we have also a fourth category,

which is quite different from all the others,

which is called openregionalism,

which is not organized through institutions,

which does not target overcoming national sovereignty,

but which is protecting national sovereignty,

but which is promoting an active but a free cooperation,

bilateral cooperation inside the arena.

It’s for instance the case for APEC.

It’s very difficult now to define

how these four models are able to coexist

when they are competing,

but it’s also very difficult to say

which one is the winner.

The first one is an old-fashion one

and probably not able to develop

now in the global world,

but it’s not quite clear

that the three others are really efficient.

And this is my second point:

beyond the conceptual crisis,

a real political and social crisis,

which is dramatically affecting

the regional integration process.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I think that regional integration is now in crisis

everywhere around the world,

and I will discriminate between

three dimensions of this crisis.

The first one is an institutional crisis.

Regional institutions don’t work anymore,

everywhere around the world.

The second crisis is an economic crisis,

that’s to say all these regional organizations

are no more able to deal with

the present economic crisis.

And the third one

is a kind of rebirth of nationalism,

what I would call a neo-nationalism,

which is probably collapsing,

which is attacking the heart of the process

of regional integration.

First one, we observe everywhere

around the world a kind of failure

of the regional institutions,

this is particularly important in Europe.

You remember that Europe invested

on its institutions rather than Asian countries

which were much more promoting

their own integration

through economic and social dynamic.

But Europe is probably trapped

by its institutional culture.

European Union tries to promote new institutions,

new treaties are succeeding

but are not successful.

Many of these new institutions

were even rejected by the people sovereignty

when they voted through referendum,

like it was the case in France.

And this is triggering in Europe

a lack of confidence among people,

that’s to say a gap,

bigger and bigger gap between societies,

European societies and institutions.

Now European institutions are

more and more working for themselves,

for their own agents,

for their own actors.

And so this gap is dangerously blocking

the process of regional integration.

This gap between social and politics

is probably the worst pathology

in political development.

The second crisis now is affecting economies.

You remember that European Union

was created for reaching economic targets

and for reconstructing the old continent.

Now, as Europe is meeting this very strong crisis,

which started around 2007-2008,

we observe that Europe is no more able

to face this crisis,

for a very simple reason

which is very important in my mind

is that European integration

was considered as a kind of stake holding,

that’s to say addition of interests.

When the context is good,

when the situation is positive,

this stake holding is working

and is working positively,

but when the crisis is strong,

stake holding is not working

and must be replaced by a real sharing.

But sharing implies to question national sovereignty,

and now Europe is confronted to this opposition

between stake holding and sharing.

A stake holding, which is promoted by

national sovereignties,

competing national sovereignties

and sharing which implies a kind of solidarity,

which would overcome national sovereignties.

And the third level of this crisis

must be found in this new nationalism

which is now growing in all the European countries.

In a recent poll made by

Eurobarometer in May 2014,

59% of European people don’t trust in Europe.

And they are 81% in Greece precisely

where the economic crisis is severe,

and they are 67% in Spain

and even in Germany 59%.

And that’s why

this gap between public opinion

and European institutions

creates a kind of new coming back to nations

and which is fueling this free riding strategy

among the European governments

which are playing their own cards, more and more.

And this is also resulting in a new sovereignism

in which regional integration

is no more conceived as a solution,

but is more and more built up

as a kind of scape-goat for taking

into account all the failures

and difficulties met by people and public opinion.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

we don’t know how the future is made,

but we are now in a crucial moment:

either people in the world

are able to invent a new kind

of regional integration

and they will overcome this crisis,

or they are not able to do that,

and people will escape

either to this trans regionalism

that I mentioned

or to a new nationalism,

which is probably the main threat of the world,

because there is no compatibility between

national sovereignty and a global order.

It’s exactly what we will

take into account in the next lecture.

Explorer notre catalogue

Rejoignez-nous gratuitement et obtenez des recommendations, des mises à jour et des offres personnalisées.

Coursera propose un accès universel à la meilleure formation au monde, en partenariat avec des universités et des organisations du plus haut niveau, pour proposer des cours en ligne.

© 2018 Coursera Inc. Tous droits réservés.

Télécharger dans l'App Store

Disponible sur Google Play