Talk:Regionalism (international relations)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bad title

The topic of this article is basically continentalism. The content should be moved there. Regionalism, as I understand it more often refers to arguing for decentralization within countries. (i.e. regionalism in Spain, state's rights in the US, separatism in Canada, etc.) Kevlar67 18:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmmm ... Not exactly, it is an established term in international politics and international economics.--Yannismarou 18:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can't speak to academic usage, in but in general Canadian English, this is certainly true. In any case the article on continentalism pretty much describes the Canadian view poin on what on this page is called "regionalism". That begs the question of whether they should be merged or just linked to. Kevlar67 00:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have about ten books on the shelf behind me that make many uses of the term 'regionalism' more or less as defined here including 'Regionalism: A Caribbean Prospective' which includes it in the title. I don't recall much use of the term 'continentalism'. But I definitely think 'regionalism' is much more common.92.9.248.174 (talk) 09:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That said, the term 'regionalism' is also used in a completely different way when talking about sub-national regions too. A quick Amazon book search, for example, clearly throws up examples of both usages. It's certainly prone to confusion and WP should disambiguate in each article, but not attempt to promote a new term for one of the two (IMHO).92.9.248.174 (talk) 09:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Continentalism' also has issues as a term. First, not all regionalisms are continential (e.g. the AU is but, for example, ECOWAS is subcontinental). Likewise the Caribbean Community. Second, there are refining and discriminating terms in use based on 'regionalism'. 'Region Building in Africa: Political and Economic Challenges' for example refers to 'new regionalism', 'first-' and 'second-wave regionalism', 'functional regionalism'. That same book, interestingly, makes one mention of 'continentialism' when comparing Nkrumah's top-down, continent-first approach vs Nyerere's incremental bottom-up approach.92.9.248.174 (talk) 09:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Usage on WP

So I did a quick survey of pages that link to regionalism (the disambig page). The following pages use it in my context. Ecuador, New Deal, Political spectrum, Upper Peninsula of Michigan, Xiongnu, Hindutva, Skåneland, Revolutions of 1848 in the German states, Falange, Spirit (Belgium), Carlism, Northern League (Italy), Ticino League.

The only page I found that used it in the other context was "Foreign relations of Australia". This is obviously not all the links that exist, but I decided to stop when the results seemed so lopsided. I'd say the evidence is overwhealming that this article is missnamed. Kevlar67 01:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you say may be true! I just say another thing: "Regionalism" as a term is one of the most "trendy" terms in international economics and international relations. I can cite a whole series of books and articles. Just read the recent article on "The Economist", such as its survey "In the Twilight of Doha", or Wilfred Ethier's "The International Commercial System".

"Continentalism" may be a term also used, but it is definitely not the correct term for international economics and international trade. "Regionalism" in world trade is one of the main three poles of a system: unilateralism, multilateralism and regionalism. There is also a long bibliography about "regionalism" and "new regionalism". And in Google Book I had also found a series of books about international politics treating regionalism. EU, for instance, is presented as a characteristic example of regionalism (and in this case I did not met the term "continentalism").--Yannismarou 19:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, I have about ten books about 'regionalism' (that is, subcontinental, or similar, integration of nation states, both economically and politically). The term used pretty-much ubiquitiously is 'regionalism' (including more specific terms, like 'new regionalism', etc). Only one, as far as I can tell from the indexes, mentions 'continentalism' - and only in one specific context relating to Africa. More generally most of the books (I just checked four) have a number of index entries relating to 'regional <something>'. There is a selection of books on the topic here http://www.brexology.uk/books-regionalism.html. Of the 12, 4 mentional 'regionalism' or 'region' in their titles/subtitles. None include 'continental(ism)'. There are a lot more links on 'regionalism' here: http://brexitdb.com/db?tag=661. Admittedly, because of the tag used, the list is self-selecting. But if you actually sample 20 or 30 of the pages linked they nearly universally used the terms 'region', 'regional' or 'regionalism' when indicating the referent of this WP article. Some of these pages are those of organizations and governments involved in this process, or of academics or expert commentators who follow it. 80.41.79.96 (talk) 16:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of which is to say you are wrong, BTW. There are definitely two distinct meanings of 'regionalism' even in the political, and possibly economic, fields. One is as noted above. The other is about regionalism *within* nation states and seems to be what your listed WP articles are referring to. WP should address the ambiguity and disambigutate, not attempt to wish it away with a separate term. (As noted elsewhere, it might help if this page included examples other than the EU, to show by example what regionalist projects look like in concrete terms.)80.41.79.96 (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting definitions of 'regionalization'

There's a section on 'Regionalization' followed by one on 'National Politics'; they both give definitions of 'regionalization' but highly distinct ones. The first one is in accordance to the New Regionalisms Approach; the second one refers to another process, within states. Should be clarified (since I'm not a specialist on the second definition, perhaps someone else could). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.33.8.212 (talk) 13:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of Examples

Why is this article completely devoid of any reference to any of the world's regionalist projects other than the European Union? At my last (rough) count over 80% of nations were members of at least one such project. For example: CARICOM and Mercosur (Latin America); ECOWAS, SADC, ECCAS, EAC/F, COMESA all under the larger umbrella of the African Union; ASEAN and SAARC in Asia; CIS involving a number of ex-Soviet bloc states. Those are some of the main ones, there are others.

Admittedly there's a grey appear between a regional trade agreement and when that integration become deep enough to be a regional bloc or regionalism. NAFTA clearly falls in the former. But it is probably fair to say that all of the above are more than merely a regional trade agreement.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move.--Hús ö nd 04:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regionalism (politics) → Regionalism (international) — This article uses the word only in context of international relations. Another page can then be created for regionalism within states. Kevlar67 02:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Add # '''Support''' or # '''Oppose''' on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

Support move so that we can disambiguate between regionalism between states and regionalism within states. Kevlar67 02:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Regionalism (politics)" is too generic, "Regionalism (international relations)" would be much more precise and would allow a different page for intra-state regionalism. SFinamore 18:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Yannismarou 18:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey - in opposition to the move

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.