حول هذه المادة التدريسية لكي نفسّر كيف أن العولمة تعيد بناء السياسات العامة والسلوكيات الاجتماعية، ندرس التبادلات والتفاعلات بين مختلف الجهات الفاعلة السياسية والاقتصادية، والاجتماعية - العامة أو الخاصة، الفردية أو الجماعية- والطريقة التي تعيد فيها صياغة العلاقات الدولية. هذه المادة التدريسية تعتمد على المقاربات السوسيولوجية والتاريخية الفرنسية العائدة للعلاقات الدولية. وهي متوفرة أيضاً في نسخة باللغة الإنجليزية (www.coursera.org/learn/global-studies)، وأخرى باللغة الفرنسية (www.coursera.org/learn/espace-mondial-fr)
الإقليمية الجديدة
Loading...
来自 Sciences Po 的课程
"Espace mondial" الرؤية الفرنسية للدراسات العالمية
19 个评分
从本节课中
الجهوية
أنواع جديدة من التكامل، وبعض البنى الإقليمية الهشّة على وجه الخصوص، تضع موضع التشكيك مسألة أراضي الدولة القومية.
与讲师见面
Bertrand BadieProfessor
Marie-Françoise DurandProfessor
Jana JabbourLecturer
[MUSIC]
With the 70s started probably a new step
in the regional history of the world.
Let's remember 70s.
It was the end of this famous 30
years of economic development and
economic progress in Europe.
73, it was the first oil crisis
which hit the Western economies.
But probably 70s were the decade of a growing,
increasing appearing globalization.
The world was moving to an interstate world, to a global world.
And at this time, during the 70s,
European integration was strongly challenged and
questioned, while the institutional arrangement didn't work anymore.
So, at this time was invented a new kind of regional
integration which we would call neoregionalism,
neoregional integration.
What does it mean, first?
It means a new context, as I mentioned,
a context of economy crisis, of a growing new global world,
and the increasing role of the transnational actors and
especially multinational corporations.
A world of communication, that's to say,
a world which is less and less territorial.
This new regionalism is, at this time, a global phenomenon,
that's to say not limited to Europe as it was with the traditional regionalism,
but which affected all the countries, all the parts of the world.
In fact, Europe was first affected by this transformation,
but Europe was not invented this new regionalism.
This new regionalism came from Asia,
came from this Far East which was strongly transformed.
It's the starting point of the transformation of China.
But it's also the moment when new economic actors
appeared in Korea, in Taiwan In Singapore,
in Philippines, in Thailand, and so on.
This new regionalism had clearly a target,
how to save the state in a turbulent global world.
How to save the state which was at this time
threatened by these new transnational actors.
But we are facing another paradox.
You remember the paradox I mentioned about traditional regionalism.
This paradox is now reversed.
The new regionalism was not targeting the end of the state, but
saving the state which were strengthened by this new globalization.
But at this time states were weakened and
were not able to take in charge this new regionalism.
This new regionalism was then promoted by the new actors, by the economic actors,
social actors, transnational actors more than states,
which were more passive and even marginalized, and especially in Asia.
This is a new paradox.
As this regionalism was targeting,
saving the states was promoted by the non-state actors.
How can we characterize this new regionalism?
First of all, it has never been really theorized.
That's to say, we don't find about new regionalism, the equivalent
of David Metrany, for instance, that I quoted in my last lecture.
This new regionalism is merged more pragmatic,
has not been theorized and so
is more in the hands of the actors than in the mind of the thinkers.
The new actors are economic actors who are playing a very important role,
as I mentioned, but also some political actors.
Those in Asia we wanted to promote to a new Asian order.
I mentioned, for instance,
Mohammed Mohathir in Malaysia or Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore,
who were promoting a vision of an Asia which would be
integrated beyond the borderlines of the nation states.
Another characteristic, and in my mind, the main one,
is that this new regionalism was promoted by societies,
by economists, more than by politics.
And this is something very interesting,
to observe how economic actors in Asia from
the 70s promoted pragmatic integration,
in spite of the border lines,
in a part of the world which was, however,
very conflicting and very rich in political competition.
But what is interesting to note, to remark,
is that it's precisely in the part of the world,
the more politically competitive, that to place this new
integration which was based on economic actors.
And we find, for instance, the works of the Japanese actor, Kenichi Imai,
who was speaking of region state, that's to say, the economical and
social dynamics of region for overcoming the classical political order,
the traditional political order based on territory and borderlines.
But I would especially mention Robert Scalapino,
who was realizing the transformation of
the Asian geography by stressing on the role of
what he called natural economic territory,
NETS, natural economy territory.
And he explained that there is now a dynamic,
an economic dynamic, among the economies of the Eastern Asia
which is conducting this process of integration by ignoring
the political dynamics and the political conflict.
It's a time when were built in Asia the famous gross triangles,
and the time where investors coming from Taiwan were
conquering the Chinese mainland,
and settling and developing their activities on this part of China
without visa, without political control, without political containment.
It's a time when were developed this famous
economic special zone along the rim of China.
It's a time when even South Korea and
North Korea were cooperating for
building the famous Kaesong special zone in
which North Korean workers were working under
the supervision of South Korean corporations.
This new kind of integration is then undertaken from below, from the society.
Politics was, at this time, limited to its own straight concerns,
that's to say political competition.
What is probably fascinating is that this conception of
regional integration coming from below was extended to all the world.
We found it in Latin America, we found it even
in North America through the Naftalina,
but we found it even in Europe.
At this time Europe was facing a very strong institutional crisis,
an inability to progress in its institutional infrastructures.
And at this time, non-political actors,
non-state actors, play a very important role for
giving the new dynamic of the European integration
through regional cooperation, economic cooperation,
social cooperation, exchange of students and so on.
We are now in this new world,
that's to say this world where
institutions cannot really be adapted,
are resilient and when progress
is coming from social dynamics.
If Europe has not totally collapsed, I think it's time to the social actors,
not- state actors, Erasmus students,
cooperation among the European firms and so on.
This new regionalism is probably
jeopardizing our vision of politics and
probably our vision of democracy
because it's no more controlled,
contained, by the political dynamics
coming from people's sovereignty.
That's why Europe, now, is probably
threatened of the new crisis even if it was
able to survive through these new dynamics.
[MUSIC]
