Advertisement

Conclusion

  • Johannes MuntschickEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter offers a profound synthesis of the main theoretical and empirical findings of the analysis and summarises its contribution to the scientific debate on regionalism in general and on the SADC in particular. Referring to the research questions, this chapter concludes that both the internal and the external line of the theoretical argument have strong explanatory power with regard to the emergence, institutional design and effectiveness of regionalism in the SADC. This is, firstly, because South Africa is the regional hegemon and driving force on a regional level and, secondly, because the EU, as the most relevant extra-regional actor, is often involved and has an ambivalent impact on the regional integration process. In sum, regionalism in the SADC performs quite well, but there is room for improvement in several policy areas.

References

  1. Baldwin, R.E. 2006. Multilateralising Regionalism: Spaghetti Bowls as Building Blocs on the Path to Global Free Trade. The World Economy 29 (11): 1451–1518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Börzel, T.A., and T. Risse. 2015. Zwischen Regionalstudien und Internationalen Beziehungen: Die vergleichende Regionalismusforschung als transdiszipilnäres Forschungsfeld. Politische Vierteljahresschrift 56 (2): 334–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Börzel, T.A., and T. Risse (eds.). 2016a. The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Regionalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Börzel, T.A., and T. Risse. 2016b. Three Cheers for Comparative Regionalism. In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Regionalism, ed. T.A. Börzel and T. Risse, 621–647. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. George, A.L., and A. Bennett. 2005. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Jakobeit, C., T. Hartzenberg., and N. Charalambides. 2005. Overlapping Membership in COMESA, EAC, SACU and SADC. Trade Policy Options for the Region and for EPA Negotiations. Eschborn: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit.Google Scholar
  7. Jetschke, A., and T. Lenz. 2011. Vergleichende Regionalismusforschung und Diffusion: Eine neue Forschungsagenda. Politische Vierteljahresschrift 52 (3): 448–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Krapohl, S. (ed.). 2016. Regional Integration in the Global South. External Influence on Economic Cooperation in ASEAN, MERCOSUR and SADC. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  9. Panke, D., and S. Stapel. 2016. Exploring overlapping Regionalism. Journal of International Relations and Development. Published online on 2 November 2016.Google Scholar
  10. Rosamond, B., and A. Warleigh-Lack. 2011. Studying Regions Comparatively. In New Regionalism and the European Union. Dialogues, Comparisons and New Research Agenda, ed. A. Warleigh-Lack, N. Robinson, and B. Rosamond, 18–35. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Sidaway, J.D., and R. Gibb. 1998. SADC, COMESA, SACU: Contradictory Formats for Regional ‘Integration’ in Southern Africa? In South Africa in Southern Africa, ed. D. Simon, 164–184. Oxford: James Currey.Google Scholar
  12. Yeo, A. 2016. Overlapping Regionalism in East Asia: Determinants and Potential Effects. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 0: 1–31.Google Scholar

Primary Sources

  1. European Council. 2014. 26/27 June 2014 Conclusions. EUCO 79/14. http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/143478.pdf. Accessed 12 November 2016.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political SciencesJohannes Gutenberg University of MainzMainzGermany

Personalised recommendations