Conflict Between Regionalisation and Globalisation

The argument between regionalisation and globalisation is very vocal and considerably long-standing. Evidence in support of each is plentiful; however, it is the opinion of this author that evidence in support of regionalisation has greater merit, at least at the present time. This work will seek to critically analyse the article written by Richard Stubbs entitled Regionalization and Globalization where the author makes compelling arguments for the case of regionalisation. There are several points on which this work is to focus – the source of regionalism and globalisation following the Cold War, how regionalisation is seen in respect of globalisation and the effect both have on national culture and economic policy, and whether regionalisation can be perceived as a step towards globalisation.
Following the end of the Cold War period, international relations became more complicated once the predictability of the period was removed. This coincided with the rapid expansion of telecommunication technology that led to the effect of a much more open and social world. The new methods of communication and social interaction overcame the constraints of space and time and thus creating new opportunities in the marketplace; for example, in cases of global production networks.
However, it is yet to be seen which method of a ‘wider world' is preferable – globalists suggest that globalisation is to be favoured due to the benefits generated for the economy; the sceptics to globalisation however, favour regionalisation stating that globalisation erodes national identity and culture, and that it is possible to preserve the benefits without having to globalise .
Richard Stubbs comments that regionalisation is regarded by some governments as a defence to globalisation; a way to take advantage of some of the benefits of globalisation while retaining a semblance of control. Regions can gather collective bargaining power through organisations such as the EU, NAFTA, AFTA,