How to 'connect' micro-regions with macro-regions? A Note (9 pages)

E -

36

5. Conclusions

Micro-regions (i.e. sub-national regions) and macro-regions (i.e. supra-national

regions) are usually seen as very distinct phenomena that have only their etymological

origin in common. They are studied by-and-large by distinct and unconnected academic

communities. In this note I have suggested that there are at least three ways to ‘connect’

the two phenomena and that a dialogue between the two communities could open new

avenues for research and lead to a better understanding of inter-polity and inter-economy

relations, in a more general sense. The three ways that were suggested are: (i) their

conceptual connection, (ii) their similar roles as emerging international actors, and (iii)

(focusing on cross-border micro-regions) the objective connection between their respective

developments.

References

•

ADB (2008), Emerging Asian Regionalism. A Partnership for Shared Prosperity, Manila: Asian
Development Bank.

•

ADB (2010), Institutions for Asian Integration. Toward an Asian Economic Community, Manila:
Asian Development Bank.

•

Aldecoa, F. and M. Keating (eds) (1999), Paradiplomacy in Action. The Foreign Relations of Subnational
Governments

, London: Frank Cass.

•

Blatter, J. (2004), “From ‘Spaces to Place’ to ‘Spaces of Flows’? Territorial and Functional
Governance in Cross-Border Regions in Europe and North-America”, International Journal of Urban
and Regional Research

, 28(3): 530-548.

•

Breslin, S., C. Hughes, N. Phillips and B. Rosamond (eds) (2002), New Regionalisms in the Global
Political Economy

, New York: Routledge.

•

Criekemans, D. (ed.) (2010), Regional Sub-State Diplomacy Today, Leiden-Boston: Brill.

•

De Lombaerde, P., (2003) “Book Review of New Regionalism in the Global Political Economy”, Journal of
Common Market Studies

, 41(5): 968-969.

•

De Lombaerde, P., F. Söderbaum, L. Van Langenhove and F. Baert (2010), “The Problem of
Comparison in Comparative Regionalism”, Review of International Studies, 36(3):731-753.

•

Duchacek, I. (1990), “perforated Sovereignties: Towards a Typology of New Actors in International
Relations”, in: H. Michelmann and P. Soldatos (eds), Federalism and International Relations. The Role of
Subnational Units

, Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 1-34.

•

Durán, M., D. Criekemans and J. Melissen (2009), “Towards a ‘Third Wave’ in Sub-State
Diplomacy?”, Steunpunt Buitenlands Beleid Working Paper, (Dec.).

•

Genna, G.M. and P. De Lombaerde (2010), “The Small N Methodological Challenges of Analyzing
Regional Integration”, Journal of European Integration, 32(6):583-595.

•

Hettne, B., A. Inotai and O. Sunkel (eds) (2000), National Perspectives on the New Regionalism in the
North

, Basingstoke: Macmillan.

•

Hettne, B., A. Inotai and O. Sunkel (eds) (2001), Comparing Regionalisms: Implications for Global
Development

, Basingstoke: Palgrave.