Borders and Margins. Группа авторов

      [11] Preface

      Wyn Grant, University of Warwick

      The theme of the 2012 International Political Science Congress in Madrid was “Reordering Power, Shifting Boundaries.” Fast forward to Poznan, Poland, in 2014, where our theme was “Politics in a World of Inequalities.” The theme of the 2018 World Congress in Brisbane, Australia – “Borders and Margins” – is meant to reflect the important changes taking place in the world. Borders in the traditional sense of secure, maintained boundaries are still needed at a time when governments are hard-pressed to control the flow of migrants; 9/11, in particular, sparked renewed calls for stricter border controls.

      Nevertheless, we live in a world of greater fluidity, where old territorial formations coexist alongside new territorial spaces that are conceptualized differently. Territory and power no longer align, boundaries and borders are shifting, and governance is exercised at the local or municipal level, the subnational (nation-state) level, the regional level (especially in Europe), and the global level through a range of international organizations. These include the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization, bargaining forums such as G-7 and G-20, and new arrangements designed to improve international financial regulation, among them the Financial Stability Board. It is little wonder that there is growing uncertainty, among citizens, as to who is responsible for the decisions affecting them, fuelling a sense of disempowerment.

      One must be careful, of course, not to write off the nation-state as outmoded – a temptation too strong to resist for some earlier writers on globalization – through there is a greater consensus, nowadays, that globalization has altered its role, with the emergence of influential subnational entities, not necessarily under traditional federal arrangements, for example in Spain and the United Kingdom. The development of power relationships between these regional entities and their nation-states is ongoing and deserves further study.

      The actual process cannot be said to be uniform from one country to the next. In Spain, for example, specific regional identities re-emerged only when the authoritarian regime was displaced. The process by which French Canadians re-identified themselves as Quebecers was a long and complex, one that spawned alternative and even contradictory narratives. The process, in essence, saw a once suppressed and even subjugated linguistic minority in Canada rediscover and reconceptualize their identity. The revival of Scottish nationalism came at a time when the UK seemed to be mired in a period of irreversible economic decline, and it also coincided with the discovery of oil in the North Sea, which further spurred Scottish confidence. In Belgium, the creation of ever-stronger regional entities was the mechanism through which the country’s continued existence as a nation-state could be ensured. At one time, Catalonia [12] was viewed as an inspirational model for new regional formations. However, much of the recent emphasis has been on Scotland, in spite of its relatively new regional government. The Scottish Government is generally acknowledged to have been both strategically visionary and tactically effective in expanding and consolidating its political space. The replacement of the term “Scottish Executive” by “Scottish Government” is one such example. The Scottish Government It has also been effective at breaking down departmental silos in decisionmaking processes. Like many regional political processes, however, the final destination remains uncertain, with “devolution plus’” a more likely scenario than outright independence.

      The advent of the single market and other changes in Europe resulted in a transfer of powers to Brussels, which to many Europeans seemed remote, unresponsive and technocratic, in spite of efforts to strengthen the democratic component of EU decision-making through the European Parliament. A “Europe of the Regions” provided an opportunity to bring the European Union closer to its citizens and offered a promising mechanism for civic empowerment. In part, this entailed the recognition that as globalization progressed and new cosmopolitan identities emerged, there was a corresponding move to harken back to or reinvent older or more specific identities that ascribed meaning to the political space, one the average citizen could easily understand.

      For cities and regional entities, there was a more pragmatic incentive. The provision of additional European regional development funds, and the willingness of the European institutions to engage directly with cities and regions, created a welcome funding opportunity as well as a new route of political influence, with cities and regions now able to engage directly with the EU. In the UK, this was referred to as the “Westminster bypass.” This enhanced the status of cities and regions, which hastened to establish offices in Brussels.

      The high-water mark in the “Europe of the Regions” debate has long since passed. Some areas of the EU are no longer eligible for regional development funds and have scaled back their presence in Brussels. The Committee of the Regions – the institution that came out of the debate – has proved to be something of a disappointment; tainted by an expense scandal and seemingly ineffective, quite often, it was only given consultative status. In intellectual terms, one lasting consequence is the literature on multilevel governance (MLG).

      This literature represents an important attempt to assess the changes raised by the theme of the World Congress. The theme resonated to a greater extent in Europe than in North America, where it encountered resistance, particularly in the U.S. Moreover, it may not be readily applicable in Asia and Latin America, partly due to above-mentioned efforts to return to or reinvent older or more specific identities that lent meaning to the political space.

      MLG is not without its critics. Among them are those who believe that more traditional formulations of federalism have continued utility and greater specificity. It would be unfortunate, in many ways, if a polarity were to develop [13] between defenders of federalism and intellectual advocates of MLG. There are some significant new regional arrangements that are not federal in character, but may be captured by MLG; “the new regionalism” meanwhile, represents another way to view them. More generally, the debate on MLG offers a means of renewing and enriching the debate on federalism. Federalist accounts, understandably, have focused on multilevel government and the variety of relationships between federal tiers in different settings. Some federal systems are more uniform, while others are characterized by greater diversity. Looking at the 50 states in the U.S. and how their legislatures operate, variety is consistent feature. With the exception of Nebraska, all have two chambers. But they vary considerably in size and the frequency with which they meet, the number of elected members in the legislature (contrast New Hampshire and California), and the manner in which they are paid for their services, to mention just a few dimensions.

      MLG is about governance. It is less state-oriented than federalism, with sharper focus on actors. MLG, moreover, is concerned with the various ways in which modern government may operate, often involving public-private partnerships and a wide range of actors, including

Скачать книгу