Advertisement

Conclusion: Regional Governance in South America

  • Anne Marie Hoffmann
Chapter
Part of the Governance, Development, and Social Inclusion in Latin America book series (GDSILA)

Abstract

The conclusion summarizes the findings of the study. First, the findings are being contextualized in current debates on regionalism and regional integration. The underlying assumption that flexible intergovernmental structures support regional governance in policy fields has been proven key to the understanding of regional public policy-making. In a second step, findings on the internal processes, conceptualized as the collective action of regional policy-makers, are being related to the institutional conditions of regional organizations. In particular, the role and function of transgovernmental networks are stressed. Although UNASUR is to some extent an emblematic case when it comes to regional public policies, the conceptual considerations of this study can easily be transferred to other organizations. In essence, the case study revealed the multidimensionality of regional processes and drew attention to the relevant actor group of transgovernmental networks, which have rarely been studied before.

References

  1. Acharya, Amitav, and Alastair Iain Johnston. 2007. Comparing Regional Institutions: An Introduction. In Crafting Cooperation: Regional International Institutions in Comparative Perspective, ed. Amitav Acharya and Alastair Iain Johnston, 10–11. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Antunes, Andre, and Carina Vanca. 2018. Não fortalecer a integração regional implica retrocessos que têm impactos diretos sobre a vida e a saúde das pessoas. ISAGS (blog). Accessed May 7, 2018. http://isags-unasur.org/entrevista-carina-epsjv/.
  3. Comini, Nicolas, and José Antonio Sanahuja. 2018. The New Right Governments’ Empty Chair Strategy at UNASUR. OpenDemocracy. Accessed May 7, 2018. https://www.opendemocracy.net/democraciaabierta/jos-antonio-sanahuja-nicol-s-comini/new-right-governments-empty-chair-strategy-at-.
  4. Haas, Ernst B. 1964. Beyond the Nation-State—Functionalism and International Organization. Standford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Hoffmann, Anne Marie. 2015. Venezuela, the Crisis and South American Regionalism. In La Crisis in Venezuela, ed. CARI Consejo Argentino para las Relaciones Internacionales, Special ed., 26–33. Boletín Del ISIAE 60. Buenos Aires: Especial sobre Venzuela.Google Scholar
  6. Hveem, Helge. 2003. The Regional Project in Global Governance. In Theories of New Regionalism, ed. Fredrik Söderbaum and Timothy M. Shaw, 81–98. International Political Economy Series. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan UK.Google Scholar
  7. Keohane, Robert O., and Joseph S. Nye. 1974. Transgovernmental Relations and International Organizations. World Politics 27 (1): 39–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Malamud, Andrés. 2005. Presidential Diplomacy and the Institutional Underpinnings of Mercosur. An Empirical Examination. Latin American Research Review 40 (1): 138–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. ———. 2008. The Internal Agenda of Mercosur: Interdependence, Leadership and Institutionalization. In Los Nuevos Enfoques de La Integración: Más Allá Del Nuevo Regionalismo, ed. Grace Jaramillo, 115–135. Quito: FLACSO.Google Scholar
  10. Mayntz, Renate. 1993. Modernization and the Logic of Interorganizational Networks. Knowledge and Policy 6 (1): 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Messner, Dirk. 1995. Die Netzwerkgesellschaft: wirtschaftliche Entwicklung und internationale Wettbewerbsfähigkeit als Probleme gesellschaftlicher Steuerung. Weltforum-Verlag.Google Scholar
  12. Ministerio de Cultura y Patrimonio. 2017. Consejo Sudamericano de Cultura Aprueba ‘Comité de Lucha Contra Tráfico Ilícito de Bienes Culturales’—Ministerio de Cultura y Patrimonio. Accessed March 31, 2017. https://www.culturaypatrimonio.gob.ec/consejo-sudamericano-de-cultura-aprueba-comite-de-lucha-contra-trafico-ilicito-de-bienes-culturales/.
  13. Mitrany, David. 1975. The Functional Theory of Politics. London: Martin Robertson.Google Scholar
  14. Moravcsik, Andrew. 1998. The Choice for Europe—Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Nolte, Detlef. 2014. Latin America’s New Regional Architecture: A Cooperative or Segmented Regional Governance Complex? Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Research Paper No. RSCAS 89.Google Scholar
  16. Raustalia, Kal. 2002. The Architecture of International Cooperation: Transgovernmental Networks and the Future of International Law. Virginia Journal of International Law Association 43 (1): 1–92.Google Scholar
  17. Slaughter, Anne-Marie, and Thomas N. Hale. 2010a. Transgovernmental Networks and Emerging Powers. In Rising States, Rising Institutions: Challenges for Global Governance, ed. Alan S. Alexandroff and Andrew Fenton Cooper, 48–62. Waterloo, ON: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  18. ———. 2010b. Transgovernmental Networks. In The SAGE Handbook of Governance, 342–352. Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anne Marie Hoffmann
    • 1
  1. 1.Hamburg University of Applied SciencesHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations