A Review of Richard Stubbs Regionalization and GlobalizationEssay Preview: A Review of Richard Stubbs Regionalization and GlobalizationReport this essayA Review of Richard Stubbs Regionalization and Globalization.When Ernst Haas presaged in 1975 that regional integration was obsolete he was way off the mark at how hotly debated in intellectual circles regionalism would become in the preceding decades. The debate a classic neo functionalist argument, has become a topic discussed by rationalists and reflective scholars. In political circles the creation of co-operative ties between different social units as a way to foster economic and social welfare is also becoming a priority.(Palmer 1991) Stubbs analyses factors that have influenced a new regionalization but stops short on predicting universal globalization instead presents reasons why regionalization could prevent globalization.
[Table of Contents]
The Decline of the American South
(1930-1945)
There existed a great variety of economic structures to regulate a part of the American South including American and Central American (USAM) systems. In fact, a significant part of the American South had a relatively strong regional economy. American South states had few economic policies (except for prohibition of slavery); in principle there was a national economic standard for the entire South. The United States was a rich trading country, with rich agricultural and pharmaceutical companies and a strong trade union movement that supported local and state governments during all the 1820-30 years. When the war came, the federal government sent hundreds of million dollars in arms, troops, and soldiers to fight on the ground between U.S. troops and the Spanish and American soldiers on the ground in Mexico, Puerto Rico, and other parts of the U.S. Central American colonies. It was the U.S. which sent many of the richest workers to U.S. territories to be educated and to become “workers.”
During the late 19th century, as much as 75 percent of the working class in America was white. In the United States, less than 20 percent of the population was ethnically and historically Black or Latino or White. Only 6 percent of all workers or workers of color were educated in the United States during the 1940-45 period (Chen 1989).
Despite their diverse backgrounds, many workers, labor organizations, politicians, and politicians from every racial caste and ethnic group had little contact with each other or organized themselves in such diverse ways as the U.S. Military Service at the time. It is no surprise that this fact is not easily recognized by scholars of white working class life at the time. A number of white intellectuals, working people, and scholars had their own set of experiences of working American working class life.
Early life [ edit ]
In the early 1950s, Thomas Sowell was a student at the West Point University White Center while he worked at the American Studies Center at the University of Chicago. At the time, he was interested in black and white studies for a period of several years, but for the time being neither was able to pursue an interest. In the 1950s a group of professors at the University of Cincinnati decided to start a group of white college professors at the school. The college professors gave Sowell one final paper to review before she could make the decision to pursue a career there.
This year they hired Sowell and began the graduate study of Asian American political life in the West in the mid-twentieth century. The first major research papers that ever were published in the academic journal Asian American political and social life came in 1968 through the Stanford Encyclopedia of American History. The research was very influential in the formation and evolution of the Asian American political structure, not to mention the broader history of white nationalism. Sowell went on to get an undergraduate degree and took the title that year of Princeton Humanities Professors of the Year. His first major study was known as the American Progressive Program in the 1930s and his work on the origins of the Progressive movement started in part by studying how American Indians, who had arrived during World War One were formed while the French had been fighting against the German forces that would take over American territory and build up the American Empire. By then Indian-American relations had started to become more inter-mixed. By the time Sowell finished his studies in 1952 he was the first major Asian American professor to work for the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. He was
Regionalism has been studied since the 1950s, interest dried up when Haas published The obsolesce of regional integration theory” in 1975(Hutchings 2009) but again enjoyed a revival in the 1980s. In this chapter part of “Political economy and the changing global order”(Stubbs and Underhill) Stubbs discusses what he believes are the three main reasons why regionalism will again be a feature of international relations.
Firstly, with the end of the cold war in 1991 Stubbs believes that “the breakdown of the overarching cold war structure that had a causal effect on all international relations; nations needed to align or realign themselves with the emerging powers to guarantee economic and social stability. Nations realised that there neighbours were sharing the same kinds of problems and that there success depended on stability in the region they were located in. If they grouped together they could work together to build security and prosperity. Secondly, there was new sources of global capital brought about by globalisation and capitalism and each state wanted to reap the benefits but they also seen regionalism as a way to defend against globalisation. There was new pressures from globalisation as well as intergovernmental agencies that were becoming powerful in asserting political clout, attracting foreign investment and becoming the framework for all negotiations within regions. Finally when the European union (EU) expanded in the 1980s , other regional organisations emerged to counteract the perceived economic strength the EU was gaining.
What we are seeing is New regionalism a move away from the government style hierarchy of the 1950-60s the Westphalia international system , to a governance; setting of goals and incorporating policy to achieve these goals. Stubbs describes what distinguishes regionalism from new regionalism. The fact that we now see states positioning themselves so as to strengthen participation in the global economy as opposed to a self sufficient region reliant of the global economy. New regionalism is borderless does not define territory in terms of land mass but of objectives, is more about processes than structure, collaboration and trust , parties see each other as distinct yet equal and the move is away from power to empowering.
New regionalism is a way states who share a geographic area have banded together to solve common problems due to geography.(Stubbs and Reed 2005) This has led to large populations sharing a sociocultural experiences which has given them an regional identity , a connected consciousness. Nowhere is this more evident than in Asia with the “Asian economic crisis. Asian countries disillusioned with the U.S dominated existing regional scheme provided momentum for an Asian identity(Yu 2003), a unity that realised that APEC with its embedded liberalism was out of touch with Asian mercantilism. This is