Comparing Regional Integration Schemes: International Regimes or Would-be Polities?, Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series, Vol. 3 No. 8, September 2003

Laursen, Finn. (2003) Comparing Regional Integration Schemes: International Regimes or Would-be Polities?, Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series, Vol. 3 No. 8, September 2003. [Working Paper]

Preview

PDF Download (291Kb) | Preview

Abstract

(From the introduction). The different integration schemes in the world vary in various ways. They vary in functional scope, institutional set-up, size of membership and impact. The different factors used to explain this variance also vary, from economic gains over geopolitics to learning processes and creation of new collective identities. If the integration schemes in different parts of the world are so different, are they all sui generis? Does it make sense to compare them? Some scholars have argued that they have enough common traits to be comparable. Most often at least integration schemes try to create freer trade, if not free trade, between the participating states. Many also try to create freer movement for services and capital. One possible way to look at this is to say that they constitute international regimes, i.e. establish principles, norms, rules and decision-making procedures around which actors’ expectations converge. (2) A good example of an international regime would be the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), now part of the World Trade Organization (WTO). But, as we shall see, one can argue that at least the European Union (EU) has gone beyond being an international regime, instead becoming a multi-level political system or polity. Although much integration theory has been developed to explain the European case, integration theory has also been used to study integration in other parts of the world, including the Americas. In this paper we shall discuss some theories that may be useful in comparing the EU, NAFTA and Mercosur as well as other integration schemes.

Actions (login required)