188
This technical approach seeks to reflect the analytical weaknesses of constructivist
explanation as laid out in this chapter. While the descriptive output of constructivist
applications is rather dense, there is a clear lack in explanatory power. Constructivist
perspectives often refrain from a systematic interpretation of the social interactions
observed. Even though the main constructivist working method, content analysis, offers
a good instrument for the identification of strategic motives and interests underlying
social and political action, the explanatory output of most empirical studies stemming
from the constructivist camp largely remains low.
Moreover, despite their focus on the political process (most importantly, the discursive
process preparing and framing political decision-making and acting) social
constructivists are often reluctant to refer to the issue of finality. The potential outcome
of a sequence of discursive action gets less analytical attention than the process itself.
The rigid concentration of analysis on various aspects of discursive exchanges often
appears to distort the ratio between the political arena where actions are being promoted
and “constructed discursively” and the acts of factual cooperation, the establishment of
material structures that transcend the realm of affirmative declarations and political
arguing. What appears to be one of the most persistent misbelieves of Social
Constructivism is that elitist discourse is expected to have – at least – a long-term
impact on the broader political public and thus, an unconditional bearing on the
formation of ideology and identity. This perspective does not only neglect the formative
effect of individual perceptions about (material) political developments, it also denies
(or at least underestimates) the direct impact of political decisions and policies on norms
and beliefs.
II. Intermediate Synthesis: Crosslinking Typologies and Theories
This chapter seeks to draw reference lines from the constructivist Region-Building
Approach (RBA) by Neumann over the typologies developed by e.g. Hettne (the
Old/New dichotomy) to the array of theories of European integration discussed in the
first part of this section by depicting the linkages (or “crosslinks”) between them in
form of a synoptical overview. It is arranged according to the guiding principles that
appear to be underlying each counterpart within a certain dichotomy. Equally, various
specific characteristics of a type (e.g. Hard Regionalism) are seen to be reflected within
a certain theoretical strain in EIT (e.g. Liberal Intergovernmentalism). The scheme starts
out from the Old/New pair, since its conceptual implications are perceived to be most
significant for this kind of synopsis, classifying them as follows:
– “old” in terms of tendencially narrow or “special with regard to objectives” and
– “new” in the sense of a “more comprehensive multidimensional process”670
670 HETTNE Björn: The New Regionalism: Implications for Development and Peace. In: HETTNE
Björn/INOTAI András: The New Regionalism. Implications for Global Development and
International Security. Helsinki 1994, pp. 1-49, here p. 1-2.
189
REGIONALISM
OLD NEW
top down
hard
bottom up
soft
theoretical approaches
outside in
these approaches study the region from
the outside perspective, suggesting a
systemic view dominated by the
international/global context or more
generally, by factors coming from
outside
inside out
the formation of regions is thought to be
effected from within, assuming a kind of
core or centre within each region that
builds the source out of which this
regionness emerges
geopolitical/material definition
regionness as a fact,
involving rigid bordering
cultural/normative definition
constructed or grown
regionness, implying fuzziness
of borders
systemic approaches
with an inherent globalism
neorealist/intergovernmentalist strain
critical approaches
with a distinct focus on
“domestic”/internal affairs
functionalist & “sociological” strain
Table 22: Explaining Regionalism: Crosslinking Typologies and Theories
Since the mere identification of dichotomies as well as the respective characterisation of
typologies (Old/New and Hard/Soft Regionalism) offers little substance from a more
abstract and theoretical perspective, such an overview might help to couple these largely
descriptive categories with the bulk of theoretical approaches. Additionally, it also
allows the reader to place the general discussion about theories in the wider context of
regionalism studies as introduced in the first section of this study.671 Tassinari suggests
a “continuum” for this kind of structuring overview in order to allow for the analytical
consideration of positions ‘in between’.672 Accordingly, this scheme should not be
perceived to be generally applicable or to comply with any sort of question linked to the
positioning of a certain theory alongside the established categories. Following a rigid
interpretation, the two “crosslinking columns” could be seen as either end of a spectrum
of approaches.
671 See in particular chapter “Regionalism – Definitions, Delimitations and Typologies”, p. 34-.
672 See TASSINARI Fabrizio: Mare Europaeum. Baltic Sea Region Security and Cooperation from
post-Wall to post-Enlargement Europe. Copenhagen 2004, p. 16.
"region"
approaches
assigned
190
III. Application Pattern II: The Correlation Between Meso and Macro-Level
The question of applicability of EIT can also be posed in another context. Are the
European Integration Theories at hand suitable to explain the correlation between
macro-level integration and the integrative dynamics at the meso-level (i.e. in the BSR)?
It appears obvious that the analysis aiming to answer this question has to focus on the
potential “regional dimension” featured by various theoretical models. Hence, virtually
“applicable” approaches should (at least) provide an understanding of
– how the EU relates to its own (territorial) parts,
– and vice versa, how these “parts” relate to the overall EU framework.
Trying to remain within the practical scope of this study, I am neither willing nor able to
detect these aspects in every single approach to integration that the last decades of
European studies have put forth. Hence, I would like to approach this analytical
complex by applying a (negative) logic of exclusion, by asking: What limits are set to
the applicability of European Integration Theory when it comes to the explanation of
complex political processes between the EU and a European regional entity such as the
BSR? The search for the answer to this question should first lead us to the consideration
of the following tendencies in (European) Integration Theory:
– Given the fact that most European Integration Theories are designed to explain EU
internal processes, there is a clear lack in emphasis on the specific circumstances of
foreign policy.673 Since the complex interrelation between the EU and the BSR as a
European meso-region can be regarded as part of a “grey zone” between the EU’s
internal and external policy dimension, it is likely to constitute a marginal or
borderline case for most theoretical models available in the field.
– The traditional (and many of the current) approaches to European integration have
been (explicitly or inexplicitly) designed for the European macro-level, i.e. the
European integration process. These models largely tend to be either state-oriented
or empirically focussed on the structural process of institutionalisation and the
build-up of a (potentially) supranational polity sui generis.
– The major strands in EIT seem to base on a “unitarist thesis”, following a certain
“drive for centrality” which implies that their analytical sharpness is low by nature
when it comes to the explanation of “peripheral” or decentralising phenomena.674
– Most theoretical approaches to European integration draw a sharp line between
macro-level and sub-level action. Instead of identifying and analysing the linkages
between the two (or more) levels, the respective political processes are largely
treated as two different and distinct political phenomena.
When it comes to the discussion of approaches that consider the complex correlation
between different levels of political action, one specific connotation may certainly crop
up: the one of multi-level governance models in EIT. In fact, as laid out in the context
of the first application pattern, governance models do not only describe the dispersion of
competence across territorial levels but they also focus on the interconnection of
673 See CHRISTIANSEN Thomas/TONRA Ben: The Study of EU Foreign Policy. Between international relations and European studies. In: Idd. (eds): Rethinking European Union Foreign Policy.
Manchester/New York 2004, pp. 1-9, here p. 4.
674 See PARKER Noel: Integrated Europe and its ‘Margins’. Action and Reaction. In: Id./
ARMSTRONG Bill (eds): Margins in European Integration. Houndmills 2000, pp. 3-27, here p. 18.
Chapter Preview
References
Zusammenfassung
Seit 1989 ist es im Ostseeraum zu einer explosionsartigen Entstehung einer Vielzahl von regionalen Initiativen und Zusammenschlüssen gekommen. Der Ostseeraum weist bis heute eine europaweit einzigartig hohe Konzentration an kooperativen regionalen Strukturen auf. Diese bilden gemeinsam ein enges Netzwerk von Vereinigungen, die unter dem Überbegriff der "Ostseezusammenarbeit’ interagieren.
Diese Studie analysiert die Hintergründe dieses regionalen Phänomens oder so genannten „Ostsee-Rätsels“ auf Basis eines Vergleichs zwischen den Regionalpolitiken zweier staatlicher Schlüsselakteure, Schweden und Finnland, wobei der europäische Integrationsprozess als übergeordneter Bezugsrahmen für die Untersuchung dient.