New Regionalism’ in Political Geography as the Focus of the Debate on whether it is a Spatial Catalyst for or a Territorial Alternative to Global Relations

Öz

While the 'old regionalism', as a trend of the Cold War period, is represented by the monotonous, introverted political-military bloc, the multipolarity of today's global order is represented by the 'new' regionalism by extroversion and flexibility. This is reflected in the renewal of 'old' regionalism' examples such as ASEAN and ECOWAS. The aim of this study is to raise awareness about 'New Regionalism' as a spatial extension or spatial alternative of global currents, on the basis of the contextuality between 'New Regionalism' and 'Old Regionalism'. The literature processed with the historical analysis method is supported by current examples. The article is important because it analyzes the current complex structure of regionalism along with its change and brings this to the political geography literature in Turkey. Today, these two political phenomena are represented by practices so intertwined that it is not possible to define them with sharp lines. Although 'new regionalism' is known by the definition of 'regional trade blocs' accepted by the neo-functionalist model, it is a political organization that includes economy, security, environment and other issues such as NAFTA, MERCOSUR, ECOWAS and especially BRICS and is inter-disciplinary. Boundaries, identity etc. The political and ideological dynamics of each place can create its own regionalism practices. Regional enterprises will create flexible structures with global competitive tendencies as an existence strategy.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Globalization
• Regionalism- New regionalism
• Political geography
• Global political relation

Siyasi Coğrafyada, Küresel İlişkilerin Mekânsal Katalizörü mü Yoksa Teritoryal Alternatifi mi Tartışmasının Odağı Olarak ‘Yeni Bölgecilik’

Öz

‘Eski Bölgecilik’ Soğuk Savaş döneminin bir akımı olarak tek tonlu, siyasi-askeri bloklaşmanın getirdiği, içe dönüklükle temsil edilirken, günümüzün küresel düzenine ilişkin çok kutupluluk hâli ‘Yeni Bölgecilik’ ise dışa dönüklük ve esneklikle temsil edilir. Bu da ASEAN ve ECOWAS gibi ‘Eski Bölgecilik’ örneklerine yenilenme olarak yansımıştır. Bu çalışmanın amacı ‘Yeni Bölgecilik’ le ‘Eski Bölgecilik’ arasındaki bağlamsallık temelinde, küresel akıntıların mekânsal uzantısı ya da mekânsal alternatifi olarak ‘Yeni Bölgecilik’ hakkında farkındalık oluşturmaktır. Tarihsel analiz metoduyla işlenen literatür, güncel örneklerle desteklenmiştir. Makale, bölgeciliğin değişimiyle birlikte günümüzdeki kompleks yapısını analiz ettiği ve bunu Türkiye’deki siyasi coğrafya literatürüne taşıdığı için önem arz eder. ‘Yeni Bölgecilik’ neo-işlevselci modelin kabul ettiği bölgesel ticaret blokları tanımıyla bilinse de NAFTA, MERCOSUR, ECOWAS ve özellikle BRICS gibi ekonomi, güvenlik, çevre ve diğer konuları içeren siyasi örgüttür ve inter-disiplinerdir. Günümüzde bu iki siyasi fenomen o kadar iç içe geçmiş pratiklerle temsil edilmektedir ki, keskin hatlarla tanımlamak mümkün değildir. Sınırlar, kimlik vb. gibi her mekânın siyasi ve ideolojik dinamikleri kendisine has bölgecilik pratiklerini yaratabilir. Bölgesel teşebbüsler var olma stratejisi olarak küresel rekabetçi eğilimlerle esnek yapıları yaratacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Küreselleşme
• bölgecilik-yeni bölgecilik
• siyasi coğrafya
• küresel siyasi ilişkiler

Kaynakça

1. Agnew, J. (2009). Globalization and Sovereignty. United States of America: by Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
2. Agnew J. (2003). Geopolitics: Re-Visioning World Politics: Second Edition, London: Routledge.
3. Allen J., Massey D., Cochrane A. (1998). Rethinking the Region. London: Routledge.
4. Amin A. (1999). An institutionalist perspective on region- al economic development. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 23(2), 365–78.
5. Barbieri, G. (2019). Regionalism, globalism and complexity: a stimulus towards global IR?, Third World Thematics: A TWQ Journal, 4(6), 424-441. doi:10.1080/23802014.2019.1685406.
6. Beeson M. (2005). Rethinking regionalism: Europe and East Asia in comparative historical perspective, Journal of European Public Policy, 12(6), 969-985, doi: 10.1080/13501760500270620.
7. Bøås M., Marchand M. H., Shaw Timothy M. (2003). The Weave-World: The Regional Interweaving of Economies, Ideas and Identities, In Fredrik Söderbaum and Timothy M. Shaw (Eds.), Theories of New Regionalism, (pp.197-210). London: Palgrave, Macmillan.
8. Buzan B. (2003). Regional Security Complex Theory in the Post-Cold War World, In Fredrik Söderbaum and Timothy M. Shaw (Eds.), Theories of New Regionalism, (pp.140-160). London: Palgrave, Macmillan.

9. Buzan B., Waever O.(2003). Regions and Powers The Structure of International Security. Cambridge University Press.
10. Charron, A. Diener, A. C. (2015). Political Geography, New Regionalism, and Rescaling Identity. The SAIS Review of International Affairs, 35(2), 13-20. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/27000993.
11. Chuan K. G., and Cleary M. C. (1991). Geography in the ASEAN Region. The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers), 23(4), 318-322.
12. Cox, K. R.(2002). Political Geography: Territory, State and Society, Blackwell Publishers Ltd .108 Cowley Road Oxford.
13. Gupta K. (2016). Global Politics And Theories Of Regional Organisations. Kapur Surya Foundation. World Affairs: The Journal of International Issues, 20(3), 16-31.
14. Hameiri, S.(2013). Theorising regions through changes in statehood: rethinking the theory and method of comparative regionalism. Cambridge University Press. Review of International Studies, 39(2), 313-335.
15. Harrison, J. (2013). Configuring the New ‘Regional World’: On being Caught between Territory and Networks, Regional Studies, 47(1), 55-74, doi: 10.1080/00343404.2011.644239
16. Hettne, B. (1999). Globalization and the New Regionalism: The Second Great Transformation, In, Björn Hettne, András Inotai and Osvaldo Sunkel (Eds.), Globalism and the New Regionalism, (pp.1-24). London: Palgrave, Macmillan.
17. Hettne, B. (2003). The New Regionalism Revisited, In, Fredrik Söderbaum and Timothy M. Shaw (Eds.), Theories of New Regionalism, (pp.22-42). London: Palgrave, Macmillan.
18. Hettne, B. (2005). Beyond the ‘new’ regionalism, New Political Economy, 10(4), 543-571, doi: 10.1080/13563460500344484.
19. Hettne, B. (2008). Teori ve Pratikte Güvenliğin Bölgeselleşmesi, Uluslararası İlişkiler, 5(18), 87-106.
20. Hettne, B., Söderbaum, F. (2000). Theorising the Rise of Regionness, New Political Economy, 5(3), 457-472. doi: 10.1080/713687778.
21. Heywood A., (2016). Küresel Siyaset, Çev. Nasuh Uslu-Haluk Özdemir, (4. Baskı), Ankara: Adres Yayınları.
22. Hidle, K., Leknes, E. (2014). Policy Strategies for New Regionalism: Different Spatial Logics for Cultural and Business Policies in Norwegian City Regions, European Planning Studies, 22(1), 126-142.
23. Hoshiro, H. (2019). Does regionalization promote regionalism? Evidence from East Asia, Journal of Contemporary East Asia Studies, 8:2, 199-219, doi: 10.1080/24761028.2019.1693944
24. Jones, M. (2022). For a ‘new new regional geography’: plastic regions and more-than-relational regionality, Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 104(1), 43-58, doi: 10.1080/04353684.2022.2028575.
25. Jones, M., Paasi, A. (2015). Introduction, In, Jones Martin and Paasi, Anssi. (Eds.), Regional Worlds: Advancing the Geography of Regions, (pp.1-10). London: Routledge.
26. Katıtaş G. (2019). Asya’da Çin ve Rus Bölgeselciliği: Modern İpek Yolu Projesi ve Avrasya Ekonomik Birliği, Uluslararası Siyaset Bilimi ve Kentsel Araştırmalar Dergisi, 7, 119-141. doi: 10.14782/ipsus.594463.
27. Katzenstein, P. J. (1996). Regionalism in Comparative Perspective, Cooperation and Conflict, ARENA Work-ing Paper no, I, 31(2), 123-159.
28. Kaya, S. (2023). Bölgeselcilik Tartışmaları Işığında Merkezi Asya’nın Güvenlik Mimarisini Anlamak, Tesam Akademi Dergisi, 10(1), 187-224. http://dx.doi. org/10.30626/tesamakademi. 1245686.
29. Keating K. (1998). The New Regionalism in Western Europe: Territorial Restructuring and Political Change. Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. ix. 242.
30. Keohane O.R., Nye, Jr. J. (1987). Power and Interdependence Revisited, International Organization, 41(4), 725-753.
31. Mansfield D. E., Milner V. H. (1999). The New Wave of Regionalism, International Organization, 53(3), 589-627.
32. Mittelman, J.H. (1999). Rethinking the 'New Regionalism' in the Context of Globalization, In, Björn Hettne, András Inotai and Osvaldo Sunkel (Eds.), Globalism and the New Regionalism, (pp.25-53). London: Palgrave, Macmillan.
33. Mittelman, J.H. (2000). The Globalization Syndrome: Transformation and Resistance. Princeton University Press
34. Murdoch, J.( 2006). Post-Structuralist Geography: A Guide to Relational Space. e Publications.
35. Murphy, A. (1991). Regions as Social Constructs: the gap between theory and practice, Progress in Human Geography, 15 (1), 22–35. doi:10.1177/030913259101500102.
36. Mehmetçik, H. (2019). Bölgeselcilik Çalışmalarında Bölgeler Arası ve Bölgeler Ötesi İlişkiler: Avrupa Birliği ve Afrika Birliği İlişkileri Örneği, Uluslararası Siyaset Bilimi ve Kentsel Araştırmalar Dergisi, 7, 72-84. doi: 10.14782/ipsus.594454.
37. Nye, J. S.(1971). Peace in parts; integration and conflict in regional organization. Boston: Little, Brown, http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015012099134.
38. Paasi, A. (1986). The institutionalisation of regions: a theoretical framework for understanding the emergence of regions and the constitution of regional identity, Fennia, 16, 105–146.
39. Paasi, A. (1991). Deconstructing regions: notes on the scales of spatial life, Environment and Planning A, 23, 239–256.
40. Paasi, A. (1996). Territories, Boundaries and Consciousness. The Changing Geographies of the Finnish-Russian Border. Chichester: John Wiley.
41. Paasi, A. (2009). The Resurgence of the ‘Region’ and ‘Regional Identity’: Theoretical Perspectives and Empirical Observations on Regional Dynamics in Europe, Review of International Studies, 35(1), 121-146.
42. Paasi, A. (2010 a). Regions are social constructs, but who or what 'constructs' them? Agency in question. Environment and Planning A, 42, 2296 -2301. doi:10.1068/a42232.
43. Paasi, A. (2010 b). Re-visiting the region and regional identity: theoretical reflections with empirical illustrations, In, Barndon Randi, Oye Ingvild and Asbjorn Engevik, (Eds.), The Archaeology of Regional, (pp.15-33). London: The Edwin Mellen. Technologies.
44. Paasi, A. (2020). Regional Geography. In, Audrey Kobayashi, (Ed.) International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, (pp. 309–320). (2nd edition): Publisher: Elsevier. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102295-5.10694- 8.
45. Paasi, A. (2021). From bounded spaces to relational social constructs: conceptualization of the region in geography. In, Paul .J Kohlenberg and Nadine Godehardt (Eds.), The Multidimensionality of Regions in World Politics, (pp.7-35). London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429319853.
46. Paasi A. (2022). Examining the persistence of bounded spaces: remarks on regions, territories, and the practices of bordering, Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 104(1), 9-26. doi: 10.1080/04353684.2021.2023320
47. Paasi A., Harrison J., Jones M. (2018). New consolidated regional geographies, In Anssi Paasi, A, John Harrison and Martin Jones (Eds.), Handbook on the Geographies of Regions and Territories, (1-20). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
48. Paasi, A., Zimmerbauer K. (2016). Penumbral Borders and Planning Paradoxes: Relational Thinking and the Question of Borders in Spatial Planning. Environment and Planning A, 48 (1), 75–93.
49. Prytherch, D. L. (2009). New Euroregional territories, old Catalanist dreams? Articulating culture, economy and territory in the Mediterranean Arc.European. Urban and Regional Studies, 16(2), 131-145.
50. Perrin, T. (2012). New Regionalism and Cultural Policies: Distinctive and Distinguishing Strategies, from Local to Global, Journal of Contemporary European Studies, 20(4), 459-475. doi: 10.1080/14782804.2012.737663. Ritzer, G. (2011). Küresel Dünya. (1. Baskı).İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları.
51. Soja E. (1989). Postmodern Geographies: The Reassertion of Space in Critical Social Theory. New York: Verso. Söderbaum, F. (2003). Introduction: Theories of New Regionalism, In, Fredrik Söderbaum and Timothy M. Shaw. (Eds.), Theories of New Regionalism, (pp.1-21). London: Palgrave. Macmillan.
52. Söderbaum, F. (2004). The Political Economy of Regionalism The Case of Southern Africa, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
53. Söderbaum F, (2005). The International Political Economy of Regionalism, In, Nicola Phillips (ed.), Globalizing International Political Economy, (pp. 221-245). Basingstoke: Palgrave.
54. Söderbaum F., Shaw T. M.. (2003). Conclusion: What Futures for New Regionalism? In, Fredrik Söderbaum and Timothy M. Shaw. (Eds.) (2003) Theories of New Regionalism, (pp.211- 225). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
55. Telo M. (2007). Introduction: Globalization, New Regionalism and the Role of the European Union. In, Mario Telò.(Ed), This European Union and New Regionalism: Regional Actors and Global Governance in a Post-Hegemonic Era, (pp.1-18). Aldershot: Ashgate.
56. Tunon J. (2010). From regionalism to regionalization. Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Spain. Editorial Arrangement of sociopedia.isa.
57. Turnock, D. (1967). The Region in Modern Geography. Geographical Association, 52(4), 374-383.. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40566680.
58. Valerià P., McKenzie H. F. (2015). About Time the Regions Were Recognised: interpreting region-building in Western Australia, Australian Geographer, 46(3), 363-388, doi: 10.1080/00049182.2015.1049242.
59. Varró K., Lagendijk A. (2013). Conceptualizing the Region – In What Sense Relational?, Regional Studies, 47(1), 18-28, doi: 10.1080/00343404.2011.602334.
60. Yeo, L. H. (2010). Institutional regionalism versus networked regionalism: Europe and Asia compared, International Politics, 47(3/4), 324–337.
61. URL. https://infobrics.org/page/history-of-brics/ (Erişim: 30.10.2023).