This article was downloaded by: [University of Saskatchewan Library]On: 27 May 2014, At: 21:30Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Contemporary PoliticsPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ccpo20

What is a region? Towards a statehoodtheory of regionsLuk Van Langenhovea

a United Nations University Institute on Comparative RegionalIntegration Studies (UNU-CRIS), Brugge, BelgiumPublished online: 07 Nov 2013.

To cite this article: Luk Van Langenhove (2013) What is a region? Towards a statehood theory ofregions, Contemporary Politics, 19:4, 474-490, DOI: 10.1080/13569775.2013.853392

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13569775.2013.853392

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

What is a region? Towards a statehood theory of regions

Luk Van Langenhove∗

United Nations University Institute on Comparative Regional Integration Studies (UNU-CRIS),Brugge, Belgium

This article presents the outline of a statehood theory of regions with the aim of contributing toa better understanding of what regions are, how they function and how they emerge. First, adefinition of region is introduced that starts from the use of the concept of region in everydaylanguage. It is argued that ‘region’ is a discursive tool used to refer to governance units thatare not states but have some statehood properties. Second, a comparative framework isdeveloped that allows to present theories of regions in a systematic way. Third, thisframework is used to outline a general theory of regions at the supra-national, sub-nationalor cross-border level. This theory can be labelled as a ‘statehood theory of regions’ as itunderlines the statehood properties of regions as well as the complex relationships betweenstates and regions. According to this theory, regions are in a double relation to states: theyare to some extent supportive to the state(s) that created them, and they have a tendency togain autonomy from their creators. The whole paper can also be regarded as an exercise ininterdisciplinarity as it brings in perspectives from psychology and personality theory inorder to transpose the Hobbesian metaphor of states acting as persons to the understandingof regions.

Keywords: regionalism; statehood

Introduction

Scholarly attention to regions is divided over different academic disciplines and sub-disciplines.

First, there are the geographers who have been studying different forms of regions for many

years. James (1852) is a good example of an early attempt to theorise regions from such a geo-

graphical perspective. But, as noted by Paasi (2011, p. 11) in his review of the field, that flour-

ishing literature has not much contributed to the conceptual development of geographical

research. There seems to be a consensus that regions are more than just territorial spaces, but

it remains difficult for geographers to grasp that extra-geographical element. Next to geogra-

phers, political scientists are also studying regions. Here the focus is mostly upon regions as enti-

ties of governance within states (see, for instance, Keating 1998, Hooghe et al. 2010).

Furthermore, in International Relations Studies, attention goes to supra-national regions and pro-

cesses of regional integration (see, for instance, Farrell et al. 2005). Other scholars focus on

cross-border regions or upon interactions between different kinds of regions. For a recent over-

view of these different perspectives, see Shaw et al. (2012). Then come the economists, where

the same divides can be found: some study (supra-national) regional trade arrangements (see, for

# 2013 Taylor & Francis

∗Luk Van Langenhove is Director of the United Nations University Institute on Comparative Regional Inte-gration Studies (UNU-CRIS), Belgium and Adjunct Professor at Murdoch University, Australia. He is theauthor of Building regions (Asghate, 2001), co-editor of several books, including The EU and multilateralsecurity-governance (Routledge, 2012). He published several sole or jointly authored articles on regionalintegration in journals, such as Review of International Studies, The International Spectator and EuropeanIntegration. Email: lvanlangenhove@cris.unu.edu

Contemporary Politics, 2013

Vol. 19, No. 4, 474–490, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13569775.2013.853392

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 2

1:30

27

May

201

4

instance, Mattli 1999), while others focus on (sub-national) regional policies (for example, Fitjar

2010). Sociologists have also looked at regions (Bourdieu 1980). Finally, there is a literature that

focuses upon comparing regionalisms (cf. De Lombaerde et al. 2010). Throughout these diverse

literatures emerged the insight that ‘regions are central to our understanding of world politics’

(Acharya and Johnston 2007, p. 629). But it is striking to see that the concept of region itself

is hardly problematised. Neither is there much attention paid to the development of a compre-

hensive theoretical framework for the study of regions. This paper aims to fill that gap and con-

tribute to a better understanding of what regions are by presenting a general theory of regions

that is applicable to the diversity of regions studied by different communities of scholars. The

first step in this endeavour is the development of an adequate definition of region rooted in

how the concept is used in everyday language. It will be argued that ‘region’ is a conceptual

tool used by people (including scholars) to refer to units of governance that are not states but

have statehood properties. The second step is the construction of a conceptual framework that

allows to present theories about regions in a systematic way. The final step is applying this fra-

mework to present a general theory of regions that aims to understand why regions exist and how

they develop in a world of states. This theory will make use of a set of metaphors that allows to

think about regions as actors that can be compared to states. The main upshot of the theory is that

understanding regions cannot be done without looking at their statehood properties as well as at

their relationships with states.

The problem with the concept of a region

The word ‘region’ derives from the Latin verb rego, which means ‘to steer’. So the original

meaning of regio was linked to governance and not to delimiting space by border. Later, it

became associated with regere, meaning ‘to direct’ or ‘rule’. Today, the concept is polysemous

and the term ‘region’ can refer for instance to geographical space, economic interaction, insti-

tutional or governmental jurisdiction, or social or cultural characteristics. Consequently, the

number of definitions of regions is considerable and according to the field of research, definitions

differ and even contradict each other. There is for instance Nye’s (1971, p. vii) classical defi-

nition that defines an international region as ‘a limited number of states linked together by a geo-

graphical relationship and by a degree of mutual interdependence’. Obviously, this definition

excludes many areas that are also considered as regions, as it focuses on states as the building

blocks of regions. Another definition is the one presented by Hartshorne (1959, p. 130): ‘ . . .

a “region” is an area of specific location which is in some way distinctive from other areas

and which extends as far as that distinction extends’.

This definition refers to areas within states or across state borders. A somewhat similar defi-

nition is offered by Paasi (1986, pp. 105–146): ‘A region is commonly regarded as a part of the

earth’s surface which possesses a quality of cohesion derived from a consistent relationship

between associated features.’

One can wonder to what extent such general definitions are of any help in understanding

what a region is. And besides, most scholars seem to consider the concept of region as taken

for granted. This made Paasi (2011, pp. 9–16) recently state that ‘relatively little attention

has been paid to such major questions as what is a region, how it “becomes”, how diverging

regions exist and how social power is involved in region-building processes’.

Ten years earlier, Schultz et al. (2001, p. 252) already noted ‘the problem of defining regions

attracted a significant deal of attention during the first wave of regionalism, but the results

yielded few clear conclusions’.

Most scholars seem indeed to have given up looking for answers to that straight forward

question ‘what is a region?’. The result is a conceptual vagueness that not only has consequences

Contemporary Politics 475

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 2

1:30

27

May

201

4

for the theoretical and empirical quality of the research, but also hinders policy-making. As

Deutsch (1969, p. 93) once said: ‘For the political scientist the definition of a region is consider-

ably more difficult than the definition of a rose was for Gertrude Stein. We cannot simply say: a

region is a region is a region.’

And, without a clear view of what constitutes a region, it becomes difficult to analyse what

regional integration is and how that is realised. It also becomes difficult to understand what is the

relation between, for instance, the development of Europe as a region and the development of the

Europe of the regions. In sum, the region is a ‘rubbery concept’ stretching above and below the

national state (Hooghe et al. 2010, p. 4). There is thus a clear need for some conceptual clarifica-

tion as regions and ‘regionalism’ have become not only topics of concern for policy-makers but

also hot academic topics studied by scholars from many social sciences disciplines. As Fawn

(2009, pp. 5–34) said: ‘Regions, regionalism and regionalisation matter.’ For many years

now, the mantra has been that a more rigorous theorising of regions is needed, as for instance

Agnew (1999), Sagan (2004), Schmitt-Egner (2002) or Neumann (2010) each claimed. Still,

there is not yet a unified academic perspective on regions and therefore comparative studies

of regions remain a problematic enterprise (De Lombaerde et al. 2010). In sum, regions are ‘dif-

ficult to theorize, while making that also a necessity’ (Fawn 2009, p. 33).

A new definition of regions

Schuetz (1953) once introduced the still valid distinction between first- and second-order con-

cepts and theories: while the former are constructed by people’s commonsense thinking in

their daily lives, the latter are the social scientists’ insights. But social scientists (Embree

1999) should not ignore the ‘first-degree’ theorising, as this is part of the reality that one

intends to study. This implies that it is necessary to pay attention to the concepts and grammars

used in everyday life discourses. Providing a definition of a region should therefore start from the

observation that the concept of region is not only used by social scientists, but also by people in

everyday life situations. Following Schuetz (1953), this paper will provide an analysis of the

‘first-order’ usage of the concept of region and then build upon that analysis a ‘second order’

of scientific meanings.

When people speak about regions, they always refer to a territorial space or to a certain

characteristic of that territory. These regions can be small or huge. They can be part of a

single state or be composed out of different states. They can be well defined with sharp bound-

aries or be fuzzy. Actually, it looks like virtually every part of the geographical reality can be

called a region, even areas around a sea (e.g. the Mediterranean region). But, there is one

type of geographical space that is difficult to label as a region: a state. While speaking of ‘the

region of Flanders’ implies a reference to a clearly defined geographical area, speaking of

‘the region of Belgium’ does not refer to the territory inside the Belgian borders. It could

only mean that one refers to Belgium and its surroundings. Otherwise stated, nobody refers to

Belgium as a region because it is a state (e.g. a Kingdom). One can also observe that people

have no difficulties in seeing the same geographical spot as being part of the different regions

at the same time. From these examples of first-order uses of the concept of region follows

that regions are so much more than just geographic realities. Regions should therefore not

only be defined by their surface or boundaries. They are a clear illustration of what Searle

(1995) has called ‘institutional facts’: those portions of the world that are only ‘facts’ by

human agreement. For instance, for a piece of paper to count as a five euro bill one needs the

existence of ‘money’ and a set of conventions about the value of that bill as well as a

‘market’ to trade it. Searle has labelled these facts ‘institutional’ because they require people

and human institutions for their existence. This holds for regions too: although being a

476 Luk Van Langenhove

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 2

1:30

27

May

201

4

geographical area, a region does not exist without people. A region is thus always an institutional

fact and therefore also an idea. And because regions are ideas (be it with a geographical com-

ponent), they are being talked about. Actually, in line with a social constructionist point of

view, one can even say that it is not because regions exist that they can be talked about. It is

because they are being talked about that they start existing! In other words, a region is

always constructed through discourse. In such a view, the concept of ‘region’ can be regarded

as a linguistic tool used by actors to talk about a geographical area that is not a state. Accord-

ingly, one may say that in principle every geographical area in the world that is not a state

has the potential to be considered as a region. So, regions may be defined as what they are

not: they are not sovereign states (De Lombaerde et al. 2010, p. 23). But regions, whilst not

being a state, can, to some extent, be attributed statehood properties. For instance, a region

can have its own regional innovation policy (just as there exist national innovation policies).

Or it can raise taxes and have its own budget for the provision of certain public goods.

Regions can also possess symbols or institutions (such as a flag or a parliament) that one nor-

mally associates with states. The concept of region seems therefore to be used in everyday

language by people in order to refer to geographical spaces that whilst not being a state do

look to some extent as if they are a state. Talking of regions can thus be regarded as a linguistic

tool used to refer to something that is not a state but has some resemblances to a state. Such lin-

guistic devices can deal with areas inside, above and across states. Indeed, one can distinguish

between regions at a sub-national, supra-national and cross-border level, and hence one can

speak about regions at these three levels. First, there is talk about regions when referring to

sub-national entities within existing states. The German Lander are a classical example but in

many countries governance units such as Departements or Provinces are also often referred

to as regions. The latter is for instance the case for Quebec, a ‘provincial region’ of Canada.

But Quebec itself contains 17 administrative regions. Secondly, there are some cross-border

regions that reach across national boundaries of two or more states which involve governance

units below the national level of governance. The ‘Euregions’ are a good example thereof.

Another example is the Georgia-Puget Sound, a cross-border region between Canada and the

USA. Thirdly, one can speak of regions when referring to two or more neighbouring states

that have achieved a certain degree of ‘integration’. Regional trade agreements fall under this

category or regions with some form of institutional structure (the EU, the Benelux, etc.). But

at the end of the day, even a continent can be referred to as a region. As is the case in the

‘African Union’, a continent-wide regional organisation.

The concept of region thus allows people to speak about all kinds of geographical spaces that

are not a state but can be experienced as resembling a state. In that sense, talking about regions

helps people organise places, spaces and institutions. This is illustrated by many references to

‘regions’ in everyday talk. Take for instance parliaments: for many years, this institution was

associated with the democratic functioning of states. But today there exist parliaments that

are not directly linked to a single state or to a state in its totality. Examples include the ‘European

Parliament’ or the ‘Flemish Parliament’. In both cases, these institutions are referred to as a

regional parliament. Or take the issue of free trade. In principle, there are no quotas or tariffs

to hinder trade within a single state. Therefore, a state can be considered as a single economic

space or market. In contrast, trade between states is hindered by borders and the import and

export rules that exist. Free Trade Agreements therefore try to reproduce the ‘single market’

at a level above single states by creating custom unions, etc. These agreements including two

or more states are often labelled ‘regional trade agreements’.

With the above-presented ‘first-order’ definition of a region, one can thus understand why

the concept has polysemous meanings and why it is used to refer to very different geographical

realities. But this definition does not explain why in a world of states there exist spaces of

Contemporary Politics 477

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 2

1:30

27

May

201

4

regional governance. To this end, a theory about the emergence and development of regions is

needed. And this is where the Shutzian ‘second order’ comes in. Given the academic divides in

studying different types of regions, there exist many different theoretical perspectives on why

certain types of regions exist and on how they function (Loughlin 2012). But what seems to

be lacking is a general theoretical perspective on regions regardless of their existence below,

above or across the state level.

Towards a general theory of regions

Before presenting the outline of such a general theory of regions that aims to explain how regions

emerge, two preliminary issues need to be dealt with. First, there is the issue of what perspective

the theory will take. A lot of thinking about regions is framed in classical theoretical perspectives

such as functionalism, federalism, realism or social constructionism. Here the perspective taken

is to transcend these classical perspectives and to look at regions in terms of metaphors that

emphasise the actorness and statehood properties of regions. The theory is therefore labelled

‘statehood theory of regions’. The ambition of this statehood theory of regions is to introduce

a Hobbesian-inspired approach to thinking about regions. Secondly, there is the issue of how

to present such a theory. Most theories do not follow a strict logical outline, which hinders com-

paring insights from one theory with another. This paper will in contrast present a general frame-

work for presenting theories about regions and then apply it to the statehood theory of regions.

Statehood, regionhood and personhood

The statehood theory of regions builds upon the ‘first-order’ concept of a region that clearly links

statehood to regions. It therefore takes as a point of departure the statehood properties of regions

and the complex relations between states and regions. But using the concept of state in thinking

about regions opens a kind of Pandora box. There are many ways to conceptualise and theorise

states. Here, the choice is made to look at states as if they were persons. There is a long tradition

of thinking about the state as a person that started with Hobbes. In the Leviathan, he advanced

the metaphor that actors in world politics can best be compared to persons as both persons and

states can act autonomously and be regarded accountable for their deeds (Pettit 2008). Hobbes

considered states as entities that can ‘talk’ on behalf of others. This idea was based upon his defi-

nition of actors as persons of whom the words can be considered as their own or as representing

the words of someone else. For Hobbes, the notion of ‘personality’ fuses elements of authority,

representation and the capacity to behave as one politically constructed actor. In that sense, per-

sonality according to Hobbes plays a crucial role in the establishment of the state as the sover-

eign power is seen as an artificial person (Pettit 2008, Ip 2010). Recent discussions of this

metaphor can be found in Wendt (2004), Franke and Roos (2010) and Luoma-Aho (2009). If

one accepts the earlier introduced idea that regions can be compared to states and combine

this with Hobbes’ idea to assimilate states to persons, then it follows that one can metaphorically

also compare regions to persons. Just as Alexander Wendt spoke about ‘the state as a person’,

one can also speak about the region as a person. Indeed, both states and regions can be attributed

‘actorness’ in much the same way as to persons. This is reflected in ‘first-order’ utterances such

as ‘the EU has reacted angrily to . . . ’, ‘Europe is behaving . . . ’, ‘ASEAN warned . . . ’ or ‘Flan-

ders aims to . . . ’. But of course, state and regions are only concepts and cannot actually say or do

anything. Only persons can speak and act, and certain persons can act on behalf of a state or a

region. To the extent that persons, states and regions can all be regarded as actors with a power to

act, such a metaphor should not be too surprising. After all, corporations for instance are in legal

478 Luk Van Langenhove

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 2

1:30

27

May

201

4

theory also metaphorically compared with persons. A so-called legal personality is said to be

able to govern property, go broke or even be criminally indicted.

Looking at regions as if they are persons allows bringing in a specific conceptual apparatus to

refine thinking about regions. When people talk about persons, there are a number of concepts

that are used. First there is personhood. In the English language the suffix-‘hood’ refers to what

distinguishes something from something else. Personhood, thus, refers to the general character-

istics that distinguish all persons from non-persons. Such characteristics are common to all

people. Although much conceptual confusion exists about individuality and personality (and

related ones such as individual, self, persona, etc.), there seems to be a consensus that a

person is what each human being, given suitable biological and social conditions, is generally

supposed to be. Secondly, personality is the term that should be used to designate individual

persons (De Waele and Harre 1976). All persons can be said to have their own unique person-

ality. Thirdly, there is personification. This concept is used to refer to the processes of attributing

personhood. People tend to treat other people as persons. But one can also attribute personhood

to non-persons. Together these three psychological concepts can be treated as metaphors to talk

about regions. This can be done by introducing three neologisms: regionhood, regionality and

regionification (Table 1).

First, regionhood is what distinguishes regions from non-regions. It points to what is

common to all regions. Secondly, in analogy with the concept of personality, one can also

speak of regionality. Just as personality refers to how an individual demonstrates his/her person-

hood by being unique, regionality can be regarded as referring to how regionhood occurs across

different individual regions. The metaphor goes as follows: although all persons have person-

hood, no two persons are alike. Still, one can classify persons in categories (for instance, extro-

verts versus introverts). Mutatis mutandis: all regions have regionhood, but there exists many

types of regions (such as sub-national, supra-national or cross-border regions) and regions

within the same category can still be very different. Finally, there is the neologism of regioni-

fication, in analogy to personification, which is the process of ascribing personality to an actor.

Regionification can be thought of as the discursive processes by which certain geographical enti-

ties are referred to as a region. Together, the concepts of regionhood, regionality and regionifi-

cation allow to talk about regions in a much more precise way. Armed with this conceptual

toolbox, the following sections will now explore how regions can be theorised.

A comparative framework for theories about regions

As mentioned before, theorising regions has its (limited) place in different academic fields.

Perhaps the most advanced area of theorisation relates to the formation of supra-national

regions of integration. Haas (1979) was one of the first to develop a theory of regional inte-

gration. Today much effort goes into understanding the processes of European integration.

Within the field of comparative regional integration studies, De Lombaerde et al. (2010) have

pointed to the problem of how to compare regionalisms. Among the problems mentioned are

conceptual, theoretical and methodological issues. De Lombaerde et al. see the dominant role

Table 1. The person–region metaphor.

Persons Regions

Personhood RegionhoodPersonality RegionalityPersonification Regionification

Contemporary Politics 479

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 2

1:30

27

May

201

4

of European integration theory as the main theoretical problem (Warleigh-Lack and Van Lan-

genhove 2010). The alternative proposed is to pay more attention to theories that have

emerged outside Europe, for instance the flying goose patterns in the Asian context (De Lom-

baerde et al. 2010, p. 744). But this then poses the question of how to compare such different

theoretical perspectives. Surprisingly, hardly any attention is ever given to the issue of how to

compare theories of regional integration, let alone to compare theories about regions. At best,

an overview of different theoretical approaches is given, as for instance in Mattli (1999) for

what concerns theories of regional integration. In light of the above-introduced metaphorical tri-

angle of states–persons–regions, it is enlightening to have a look at how theories about persons

are compared in psychology. As it happens, psychologists do have developed a framework for

comparing their theories about persons. And in line with the metaphorical triangle of regions,

states and persons, this framework should be transposable to the exercise of comparing theories

about regions, etc. Psychologists have designed many different theories of personhood and per-

sonality. But despite the many differences between personality theories, there seems to be a

common underlying scheme in thinking about persons. It is the merit of Maddi (1968) to

have unfolded that scheme in such a way that it allows both to represent the structure of most

personality theories as well as the specific viewpoints of each particular theory. In his discussion

and analysis of classic and modern personality theories, Maddi (1968) has compared and con-

trasted them in order to illuminate the overall model of human behaviour that they express.

Maddi’s comparative framework is thus a kind of meta-theory: a theory about personality the-

ories. The structure of his explanatory scheme actually draws upon the logic of biological devel-

opment: a genotype is actualised as a phenotype during phylogenesis. A genotype is an

organism’s full hereditary information, even if not expressed. A phenotype refers to an organ-

ism’s actual observed properties. Maddi used this genotype–phenotype distinction as a meta-

phor to distinguish between the core and periphery of personality. It allowed him to

characterise the basic model of a personality theory and differentiate it from statements about

concrete behavioural characterisation, which it is able to generate. His meta-theory states that

all personality theories address two areas of personality: the ‘core’ and the ‘periphery’ of per-

sonality. He defined the former as those things that are common to all people. They are the

general aspects of personhood. The latter is in the observable realm where the differences

between people occur. It is in the core theorising that psychologists make statements about

the nature of persons. Such core statements, according to Maddi, concern the biological, fixed

bases of personality. This can take the form of postulating core tendencies and core character-

istics. In Freudian personality theory for instance, the core characteristics are the id, ego and

superego. It is in the interplay between these three characteristics that the Freudian core ten-

dencies (eros and thanatos) operate.1 It is at the peripheral level that psychologists can make

statements about the concrete behaviour or lifestyles and classify people according to their per-

sonality types. An example of such a peripheral characteristic in the Freudian concept is ‘oral

personality type’. Finally, the link between core and periphery of personality is the biographical

development of a person. It is in growing up that the core tendencies, proper to all people, mani-

fest themselves in a periphery, peculiar to a single person.

In the context of the above-introduced Hobbesian notion of looking at regions as if they are

persons, it is a worthwhile exercise to examine if it is possible to develop a Maddi-inspired com-

parative framework that serves as a meta-theory about regions. But this is not an exercise in pol-

itical psychology. Rather it is an attempt to work with metaphors as a tool to model reality

(Rothbart 2004). When looking at regions and how to theorise them, one can echo Maddi’s gen-

otype–phenotype distinction by making a similar distinction between, on the one hand, state-

ments that delineate the things that are common to all regions and disclose the inherent

attributes of a region, and on the other hand, statements about different types of regions. The

480 Luk Van Langenhove

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 2

1:30

27

May

201

4

former could be called statements about the ‘core’ of a region. The latter can be seen as state-

ments about the observable ‘periphery’: how regions exist in different forms. One can picture the

core as consisting out of one or more ‘core tendencies’, that is to say statements about the

purpose and function of regions, and a number of ‘core characteristics’, which are structural enti-

ties implied in the core tendency. Furthermore, one can try to relate the observable realm to a

historical process characterised by evolution and the interplay of the core tendencies. In that

way, one can thus push the person–region metaphor and present different theories about

regions using Maddi (1968) as a conceptual framework (Table 2).

Take for instance the economic regional integration theory. In its classical form, it dis-

tinguishes between five types of regions: free trade areas, custom unions, common markets,

economic unions and monetary unions (Balassa 1961). This can be seen as the observable per-

iphery and according to integration theory it is the result of a core tendency: the drive of markets

to expand and not to be hindered by state borders. As for the core characteristics, one can refer to

demand and supply conditions as for instance defined by Mattli (1999). The demands are the

beliefs and evidence about the economic gains from market exchange within a region (Mattli

1999, p. 42), while the supply is the condition under which political leaders are willing to

accept and implement deeper integration (Mattli 1999, p. 13). The development of any given

economic regional integration process can then be understood as a function of the interplay

between demand and supply conditions. Obviously, economic integration theory is more

complex, but the above only aimed to illustrate that it is possible to ‘re-write’ the Balassi–

Mattli theory of economic integration and present it in terms of a framework that would

allow a systematic comparison with other theories about the emergence of a region. But such

a research programme falls outside the scope of this paper. Rather, the rest of this paper will

be devoted to outlining a general theory of regions following the Maddi scheme and using

the person–region metaphor. This theory builds upon Van Langenhove (2011, 2012) and

Hameiri (2012) and can be labelled the ‘statehood theory of regions’ because it emphasises

how regions act as if they are states.

Elements of a statehood theory of regions

Hameiri (2012) has recently stated that regionalism should not be studied separately from the

state as they are interrelated phenomena. Equally, Van Langenhove (2011) explored how state-

hood and regionhood relate to each other and how states act as major region builders. In Van

Langenhove (2012), the concept of region is further ‘un-packed’ along three dimensions of sta-

tehood. Based upon these insights, the statehood theory of regions can be formulated in terms of

Maddi’s conceptual framework as follows (Table 3). The very essence of the statehood theory of

regions is the claim that all regions find themselves in an ambiguous relation to states. What

Table 2. Comparing theories.

Source model of biologicalevolution Genotype Phylogenesis Phenotype

Maddi application to personalitytheories

Personality core Biography Personalityperiphery† Core characteristics

† Core tendenciesApplication to regions Regional core Historical

developmentRegional periphery

† Core characteristics† Core tendencies

Contemporary Politics 481

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 2

1:30

27

May

201

4

happens with regions is the outcome of two core tendencies: the tendency of a region to support

the state(s) that created it versus the tendency of a region to gain autonomy from their creators.

The interplay of those tendencies results in regions having – in a more or less salient way –

some core characteristics of actorness, statehood and identity.

These tendencies and characteristics are common to all regions and therefore constitute

regionhood. But regions also differ from each other. Not only can they been located above,

below or across state level. They can exist as an economic space, a public good space or a

space of sovereignty, or any combination of those dimensions. Together, the localisation and

dimensions constitute the observable periphery or regionality of regions.

In line with Maddi’s metaphor, one can link the core and the periphery of regions through the

process of historical development. In the statehood theory of regions, attention focuses on the

formal moments of region-building and on the regionification by other actors, including the

region-building state.

Below, this theoretical framework about the nature and development of regions will be pre-

sented in more detail together with some evidence that supports its basic claims.

Core tendencies and characteristics of regions

The point of departure is the above-introduced definition of a region as a geographical area that

is not a state but has some statehood properties and can therefore act as if it is a state. In such a

statehood approach to regions, one can postulate as the two core tendencies of a region: on the

one hand, it aims at supporting states in coping with the forces of globalisation and localisation

and on the other hand, it also aims at acquiring autonomy from the states involved in its creation.

These core tendencies are related to the complex and dynamic relations between states and the

regions they built (Van Langenhove 2011). On the one hand, all sub-national and supra-national

regions have at their origin state actions. In the former case, the state has accepted some kind of

devolution and adopted laws of state reform. In the latter case, a group of states has agreed upon

some kind of integration scheme and signed and implemented international treaties. To the

extent that states are at the origin of the creation of regions, it is normal to assume some kind

of functionality: regions are created to serve the state. There are different ways in which

regions can support states, but as explained by Van Langenhove (2011), this can be related to

either the size or heterogeneity of states: small states can have the benefit of joining forces

and create supra-national governance spaces, while big or heterogeneous states can have a

benefit in the devolution of some of their competences. So, it is about management of internal

Table 3. The statehood theory of regions summarised in the Maddi framework.

† The core tendencies of a region arei. To support statesii. To acquire autonomy from states

† The core characteristics of a region arei. actornessii. statehoodiii. identity

† The periphery of regions are its manifestation asi. a single economic spaceii. a single public good spaceiii. a single sovereignty

† The emergence and development of regions is function ofi. region buildersii. regionification processes

482 Luk Van Langenhove

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 2

1:30

27

May

201

4

diversity as well as external impact. Regions can be therefore considered as governance tools of

states.2 As pointed out by Beeson (2005), Paasi (2009) and many others, this means that regions

are used by states to re-scale their governance up and down. Paasi (2009, p. 125) rightly notes

that in many cases, states have been establishing regional alliances while simultaneously decen-

tralising or devolving some of their power. According to Paasi, states do that in an attempt to

keep their governance influence. A similar claim is made by Hooghe and Marks (2009) who

state that multi-level governance can be explained by three logics: efficiency, distribution and

identity.

Supporting the functioning of states is, however, not the only core tendency of regions. Fol-

lowing Roeder (2007), one can also put forward the ambition of regions to acquire autonomy

from the states that created them. In his worldwide survey of state-building Roeder (2007) con-

cluded that a vast majority of newly created states were once a region with some previous auton-

omy. So, regions want to do more than serve their masters, they also want to be their own boss.

Interestingly, part of that will towards autonomy results in a region competing with the state(s)

that created it. Van Langenhove (2011) has labelled this the Frankenstein perspective: the ten-

dency of regions to turn against the states that built them.

The complex interplay between the supportive and autonomy core tendencies of regions is

manifested in three core characteristics of regions: actorness, statehood and identity.3 All regions

can be said to have more or less of each of these characteristics. Together, actorness, statehood

and identity can be identified as necessary conditions for regionhood to occur. Below, each of the

other three core characteristics will be explained and discussed in some detail. It may sound

strange not to include in the above list a geographical reference and indicate that these

regions need to be a geographical area. Obviously, there is always a geographical correlate to

regions, but – however necessary that geographical basis is – it is not constituent of regionhood.

In terms of the metaphor of personhood used, one can compare this with the human body:

without such a body there is no personhood and personality possible, and the body will certainly

influence one’s personality. But the human body is not a sufficient condition for personhood, etc.

In other words, being a geographical area is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for region-

hood. What matters is to identify the other conditions that are necessary for regionhood to occur.

Actorness

As a first core characteristic of regionhood, the notion of regions as being actors can be

advanced. Hindess (1986, p. 115) has defined an actor as ‘a locus of decision and action

where the action is in some sense a consequence of the actor’s decisions’. In that view, for an

entity to be an actor, that entity must have means of formulating and acting upon decisions.

Who then can be an actor? Individuals for sure, but also organisations, such as governments,

trade unions and so on. Following Sibeon (1977), one can call these organisations social

actors as opposed to persons who are individual actors. Both individual and social actors have

in common that they have the power to make decisions and to act upon them. States can thus

be regarded as actors. Even more, some scholars will claim that in the realm of international

relations and world politics, only states qualify as actors. Such a ‘realist’ position is,

however, challenged by other schools of thought that regard as actors in world politics any

organisation that is ‘not wholly subordinate to any other actor in the world system in effective

terms, and participates in power relationships with other actors’ (cf. Young 1972, p. 140).

In such a conception of actors, regions too can be regarded as social ‘actors’ in the inter-

national system. For this, regions need to have actorness properties. They exist as entities in

the system of international relations and/or in a national governance context when and if they

(i) have a certain degree of autonomy (intentional acts) and (ii) have the power to engage in

Contemporary Politics 483

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 2

1:30

27

May

201

4

some sort of purposive action. States are obviously in such a position, and the concept of sover-

eignty stresses their autonomy and intentionality. States are performing a wide range of inten-

tional acts such as passing legislation, granting citizenship or declaring war. Some regions

have very limited possibilities to act as such, others do have a lot of actorness power.

Considering a region as an actor implies that there are acts performed. One can picture the

totality of acts related to a region as a complex and hierarchically organised system of intentional

acts. This means that for instance the region of the EU is characterised by a set of institutions and

rules such as the European Commission and the Lisbon Treaty that have implications for a

diverse set of policy sectors such as monetary integration, financial services, electricity, air trans-

port and so on. For each of these policy sectors, the actorness of the EU as a region, however,

differs. In some cases, such as the monetary union, the decision rules are highly specified result-

ing in coercion at a high level. In other cases decision rules are less specified (telecom for

instance) or only suggested (rail transport for instance) and this results in less powerful adjust-

ment systems. It is important to stress the intentionality in all this, as it points to the ability of

regions to act autonomously and spontaneously without being (causally) pushed to action by

other actors.

Statehood

A second characteristic of regionhood that one can advance is that it emulates statehood. This

refers to the possibility of regions to act as if they are states. Such similarity between regions

and states can be captured by the claim that regions can exhibit the same structure than

states. A state, made up of a set of social actors, can indeed be regarded as a rational system

aimed at organising society on different dimensions such as the political, the economic and

the social. Such organisation is in line with value systems and beliefs regarding rule of law,

democracy, free markets, welfare state and so on. In other words, every state is driven by a

project and the project is operationalised in different sectors such as its economic policy

fabric, an institutional framework that regulates the organisation of executive, legislative and

judicial powers and the distribution of public goods and a system of external representation.

To the extent that regions can be considered to have some degree of statehood properties as

well, this means that regions can also have economic policies, deliver public goods and even

claim sovereignty. It is obvious that regions can have in various degrees some of the above-men-

tioned statehood properties. But the important thing is that in acting ‘as if’ they were states,

regions are reifying themselves in a way. So, the more a region is positioned as an actor with

statehood properties, the more a region will continue to further present itself as if it was a state.

Identity

The third characteristic of regionhood is that the region operates as a generator and communi-

cator of identity. Since the establishment of the Westphalian world order, which parcelled the

world into discrete territories that are ‘sovereign’ states, people have commonly referred to

themselves and others in terms of to which of these parcels they were citizens of. With the emer-

gence of sovereign states also emerged the ideological belief that people born and living within

the boundaries of a sovereign state have a shared identity that is the basis for a collective interest

and that transcends the differences that there might be within that country (i.e. differences in

class or differences between regions within the country). It is the ‘nation-building’ exercises

of the twentieth century that have pushed most states into promoting a sense of homogeneity

and a feeling of a singular identity. This shared identity is the basis for nationalism and national

identity. Ethic, national or religious identities are based upon myths and worldviews that define

484 Luk Van Langenhove

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 2

1:30

27

May

201

4

who is a group member (often including also those who are the group’s enemies) and that are

based upon a certain interpretation of history (cf. Smith 1986). Such mythological represen-

tations can be used by political leaders to gain support for a certain ‘cause’ (cf. Sen 2006).

Billig (1995) has argued that in today’s established states, a whole set of habits in everyday

life constantly ‘flag’ the state in the lives of people. This appears in political discourses, but also

in cultural products even in banal things such as the structuring of newspapers. Consequently, a

national identity is to be found in the embodied habits in social life. What then about ‘regional

identity’? The same as with national identity: it is not something that people ‘possess’, it is a

conceptual tool used in certain discourses. Take for instance the European integration

process. As it increasingly affects national governments and thus also the life of European citi-

zens, there is talk about ‘European identity’. Often this concept is advanced in the context of the

so-called democratic deficit that refers to a gap between Europe and its citizens. In this type of

discourse, the remedy to bridge the gap is more involvement of the citizens in the Europeanisa-

tion processes. And in order to have more involvement, people need to identify themselves with

Europe. The next step therefore seems to be a promotion of a sense of European identity. Today,

the development of a sense of European identity is widely seen as an important prerequisite for

the success of the European project.

To the extent that a region delivers intentional acts (through personal and social actors) and is

engaged in processes of regionification, it produces as a social actor meaningful texts (i.e. the

Maastricht Treaty), symbols (i.e. the European flag), institutions (i.e. the European Parliament)

and so on. All these things are perceived by and have effects on a multitude of other personal and

social actors. This is especially true for all the citizens in a region who can or cannot use the

regional actor to build a sense of identity.

While states have been accepted under the Westphalian paradigm as the ‘owners’ of their

citizens, and as having the exclusive right to represent their interests to the international com-

munity, processes of globalisation and regional integration have introduced new actors and

systems of governance. Urvy (2000, p. 163) has, however, argued that citizenship can no

longer be exclusively attributed to nation-states. Other actors such as sub-national entities or

supra-national regimes also deliver different kinds of rights and duties to people. As a result,

the state’s monopoly on people’s citizenship (and identification) is beginning to be eroded.

In other words, there seems to be a self-reinforcing aspect of the development of regionhood

whereby the ultimate telos – or at least the ‘model’ – is the old sovereign state. A nice illus-

tration of the above is the use of ‘national’ flags and hymns. It was long considered that only

states should have such symbols. Today many sub-national regions have, however, similar

‘national’ symbols. And at supra-national level the now rejected constitutional Treaty of the

EU also foresaw such symbols. Interestingly these references to a European flag and hymn dis-

appeared in the Lisbon Treaty, but in practice they continue to be used.

The periphery of regions

The above-described core tendencies and core characteristics of a region are of a general nature

and common to all types of regions. But notwithstanding these nomothetic aspects of region-

hood, regions exist in many different and individualised idiographic forms as well. This region-

ality manifests itself in an observable ‘periphery’ of varieties of regions. First of all, regions exist

at different levels vis-a-vis states. One can observe regions above, below and across states. Fur-

thermore, there are many differences between regions in terms of their forms and functions. One

way to picture that variety of regions is to distinguish between different state functions per-

formed by regions. In principle every state functions as a single economic space, single provider

of public goods and bearer of sovereignty in its entire jurisdiction. But as noted by Agnew (1994,

Contemporary Politics 485

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 2

1:30

27

May

201

4

pp. 53–80), there is a ‘territorial trap’ in this that needs to be transcended. This is exactly what is

being done while taking the regions into account. This has led Van Langenhove (2012) to ident-

ify three types of regions, regardless of their occurrence above, below or across the state level: (i)

the region as a single economic space; (ii) the region as a single public good space and (iii) the

region as a sovereign actor. Some regions will be nothing more than a limited version of one of

these three spaces. A regional trade arrangement for instance is an attempt by a number of states

to create together a single space for trade at a supra-national level. Other regions will combine

elements of the three spaces. Catalonia for instance can be regarded as a region that scores rela-

tively high on the dimensions of being a single economic and public good space while only

having limited sovereign power.

There are several ways to map the ‘regionality’ of regions and to compare them. One

example for what concerns sub-national regions is the study by Hooghe et al. (2010). These

authors have mapped the power or authority of regions in 42 states according to dimensions

such as fiscal autonomy, representational power or executive control.

The evolution of regions

The final part of the statehood theory of regions is the explanation of how the core of a region is

linked to its periphery. Or in other words, how regionhood becomes regionality. The statehood

theory of regions claims that the historical process of relations between states and regions shapes

the regionality of any given region. Two issues are crucial in this process. First, there are the

formal moments of region-building by states. This might be the case when a state reforms

itself and becomes a federal state thereby creating sub-national regions. Or when a number of

neighbouring states sign a treaty to form a regional trade area, which forms a supra-national

region. Secondly, there are the processes of regionification. This process involves actors that

name a geographical entity as a region, ascribe regionhood to it and refer to it all kinds of dis-

courses. Looking at the diversity of regions that exist, one can easily say that regions can be built

everywhere and anytime. And although there is always a geographical correlate of a region, it is

by and large the idea of a region that is of most importance. Ideas belong to the social realm, only

people can have ideas and talk about them. ‘Being a region’ can be an aspiration or a dream of all

kinds of actors. And whether such dreams or goals materialise is a complex matter that involves

not only the power to achieve things but also, as seen before, the existence of other actors that are

willing to recognise a region as a region. Both the initiators of a region-dream as those who

acknowledge the region as such can be considered to be region builders. They are actors that

use many different tools to achieve their goals. Some of those tools can be quite similar to

the ones used by the old state builders. They involve myths, history, statues and so on.

Other tools are more specific and can be directed ‘against’ an existing state in the sense that

the region is being defined as part of an existing state or even part of several states simul-

taneously. In the cases of supra-national regions, the region is consisting out of different

states. In all these cases, the region accepts to a certain extent the existence of the states and

thus of the Westphalian world order. It only brings an extra dimension to the world of states.

If that would not be the case, the process of region-building might become the precursor of a

state-building exercise. This happens when the region-building is also seen as nation-building.

While in theory every area on Earth can be regarded as or can become a region, given suit-

able historical, geographical, economic, cultural and social conditions, regions will only exist as

the result of certain acts performed by certain social actors. But such acts only make sense in a

dialogical social context, which means that there need to be other relevant social or individual

actors who re-act to a region’s acting. Hence the third constituent characteristic of regionhood:

regions emerge and sustain through processes of reciprocal achievements.

486 Luk Van Langenhove

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 2

1:30

27

May

201

4

Consider the following analogy: human beings do not become persons because they have a

birth certificate and a given name, but because other persons (their parents for a start) treat them

as if they were persons. In much the same way, a region can be regarded to be the result of a

process of reciprocal achievements that can be labelled regionification. So, for an entity to be

considered as a region, treating it in a certain way is constitutive of its being ascribed that

status. Only if a well-defined stance is taken towards an entity, will it count as a region. Or in

other words, regions are the products of processes of regionification. Such regionification is

achieved when the capacity for intentional acts is attributed to some entity. But this requires

that the ascriptor should be a social or individual actor himself (but not necessarily another

region). Thus, regions are recognised by other actors such as national states, international organ-

isations, regions and persons. Or as Neumann (2010, p. 115) has put it: ‘the existence of regions

is preceded by the existence of region-builders’. So the self-reinforcing and unilateral process of

acting ‘as if’ a region is a state is itself not enough. This process needs to be complemented by a

broader process that involves other actors. It should also be noted that, since regions are socially

constructed through regionification processes, the act of studying regions (for example publish-

ing papers and books about regions) can also be part of the regionification process! As quite

rightly noted by Hettne and Soderbaum: ‘( . . . ) to observe and describe regionalisation is also

to participate in the constructions of regions’ (cf. Hettne and Soderbaum, 2000, p. 460).

This means that to treat a certain geographic area as a region implies actors that concomi-

tantly ascribe that status to the region. In other words, regions are the products of processes

of ‘regionification’. Regions exist only if they are recognised as such by persons, organisations,

states or other regions. A crucial element in all this is thus that the regionification processes are

truly social: regionification will only be constitutive of regions if it is, or leads to reciprocity. A

and B encounter each other as regions to the extent that A’s regionification of B is reciprocated

by B’s regionification of A. This does not necessarily imply a positive attitude between A and

B. Regionification can also be based upon feelings of negative identification. Neither does this

presuppose a consciousness or intentional act. Regionification can occur unintentionally. This

implies that regions of a certain type need other similar regions in order to define themselves.

One of the biggest issues in the European regional integration process is that the EU has so

far no real counterparts. It remains in many aspects a sui generis case and this might actually

hinder the development of a European identity.

Conclusion

This article aspires to contribute to the theorising of regions in three ways: first by providing a

definition of regions based upon the everyday usage of the concept; second by presenting a meta-

theoretical framework that can be used to compare different theories about the emergence and

functioning of regions and third by outlining the basic elements of the statehood theory of

regions. Together these theoretical excursions have been making use of several metaphors by

going back to Hobbes and by bringing in insights from personality theory. Two warnings are

at their place. Thinking about regions as actors that can be compared with persons does not

imply a methodological individualism point of view. The issue is not to reduce social phenom-

ena to individual behaviour. The point is only to provide conceptual tools that can sharpen our

understanding of regions. Also, presenting a statehood theory of regions does not imply a state-

centric approach. It only emphasises the special relation between states and regions. It has been

said that there is nothing as practical as a good theory, etc. What then could be the practical

upshot of this theoretical Spielerei? The answer is that it provides a general framework that

aims to allow a better understanding and comparison of different ongoing developments

related to governance. We seem to be currently witnessing the transition from a state-dominated

Contemporary Politics 487

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 2

1:30

27

May

201

4

world order to a world system, in which not only states, but also regions at different geographical

scales as well as networks of actors are major players. In such a neo-Westphalian world order,

regions play, next to states (not instead of states!), an important role in international relations as

well as in sub-national governance. This transition gives rise to complex geopolitical realities

with, on the one hand, overlapping macro-regions in which states can be members of different

regional integration schemes, and on the other hand, micro-regions that can be cross-border.

Also, regional integration is clearly multidimensional as it implies cooperation along a

number of different dimensions such as culture, politics, security, economics and diplomacy.

As a consequence, regions are becoming increasingly important in understanding the present-

day world. But studying regions has been characterised by a number of deficiencies related to

(i) the fragmentation of the research over different (social sciences) disciplines and (ii) the

absence of unifying theoretical frameworks.

As a result, many questions remain and there is a need to deepen our understanding of the

processes that lead to the emergence of regional entities and the role that drivers towards inte-

gration and disintegration play in those processes. The basic questions are where, why and how

do regions emerge? How do they function? What makes them sustainable and what drives

regions or states into integration or devolution processes? Also more knowledge is needed on

the role that regions play in identity formation and how civil society can manifest itself in a

more regionalised world. The statehood theory of regions aims to contribute to answering

such questions. It is a theory that allows to think about regions at different geographical

scales and of different natures from a single perspective. By focusing on the formal aspects

of regionhood and using personhood as a source of inspiration, this theory allows thinking

about different types of regions within one single theoretical framework. The theory also

allows to underline the central role of discourse in the building of regions and can therefore

be considered as a way to deepen the social constructionist approach in the study of regions.

The next step will be to refine or refute the theory through empirical research.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Francis Baert, Leonie Maes and Tiziana Scaramagli for com-

ments on earlier drafts.

Notes

1. Maddi undertook similar exercises for many other personality theories. In doing so, he did not make anyclaims about the scientific value of those theories. His only concern was to facilitate the comparison ofthe different theories by providing a framework of analysis.

2. The idea of the region as a tool has been first advanced by Dziewonski (1967), but as noted by Sagan(2004), this notion was not taken up by other scholars.

3. This is in line with the basic characteristics of regionhood as postulated in Van Langenhove (2003) andfurther developed in Van Langenhove (2011): the region as a system of intentional acts, the region as a‘rational’ system with statehood properties an the region as a generator and communicator of meaningand identity. But Van Langenhove (2003, 2011) also mentions a fourth characteristic of regionhood: theregion as a reciprocal achievement. However, in following the Maddi scheme, this issue is here dealtwith in the section on regionification.

References

Acharya, A. and Johnston, A., 2007. Crafting cooperation: regional international institutions in compara-tive perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Agnew, J., 1994. The territorial trap. The geographical assumptions of international relations theory.Review of International Political Economy, 1 (1), 53–80.

488 Luk Van Langenhove

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 2

1:30

27

May

201

4

Agnew, J., 1999. Regions on the mind does not equal regions of the mind. Progress in Human Geography,23 (1), 91–96.

Balassa, B., 1961. The theory of economic integration. Homewood, IL: Richard Irwin.Beeson, M., 2005. Rethinking regionalism: Europe and East Asia in a comparative historical perspective.

Journal of European public policy, 12 (6), 969–985.Billig, M., 1995. Banal nationalism. Oxford: Blackwell.Bourdieu, P., 1980. L’identite et la representation. Elements pour une reflexion critique sur l’idee de region.

Actes de la recherche et sciences sociales, 35, 63–72.De Lombaerde, P., et al., 2010. The problem of comparison in comparative regionalism. Review of

International Studies, 36 (3), 731–753.De Waele, J.P. and Harre, R., 1976. The personality of individuals. In: R. Harre, ed. Personality. Oxford:

Basil Blackwell, 189–246.Deutsch, K., 1969. Nationalism and its alternatives. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Dziewonski, K., 1967. Teoria regionu ekonomicznego [Theory of the economic region]. Przeglad

Geograficzny, 39 (1), 33–50.Embree, L., 1999. Schutzian social science. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Farrell, M., Hettne, B. and Van Langenhove, L., 2005. Global politics of regionalism: theory and practice.

London: Pluto Press.Fawn, R., 2009. Regions and their study: wherefrom, what for and whereto? Review of International

Studies, 35 (S1), 5–34.Fitjar, R.D., 2010. The rise of regionalism. Causes of regional mobilisation in Western Europe. London:

Routledge.Franke, U. and Roos, U., 2010. Actor, structure, process transcending the state personhood debate by means

of pragmatist ontological model for international relations theory. Review of International Studies,36 (3), 1057–1077.

Haas, E., 1979. The study of regional integration: reflections on the joy and anguish of pretheorising.International Organisations, 24 (4), 607–646.

Hameiri, S., 2012. Theorising regions through changes in statehood: rethinking the theory and method ofcomparative regionalism. Review of International Studies, 39 (2), 313–356.

Hartshorne, R., 1959. Perspective on the nature of geography. Chicago: Rand McNally.Hettne, B. and Soderbaum, F., 2000. Theorising the rise of regionness. New Political Economy, 5 (3),

457–472.Hindess, B., 1986. Actors and social relations. In: M. Wardell and S. Turner, eds. Sociological theory in

transition. London: Allen Unwin, 113–126.Hooghe, L. and Marks, G., 2009. A postfunctionalist theory of European integration. British Journal of

Political Science, 39 (1), 1–23.Hooghe, L., Marks, G. and Schakel, A., 2010. The rise of regional authority. London: Routledge.Ip, E., 2010. The power of international legal personality, CRIS Working Paper 2010/4. Available from:

http://www.cris.unu.edu/fileadmin/workingpapers/W-2010-4.pdf [accessed 1 November 2012].James, P., 1852. Towards a further understanding of the regional concept. Annals of the Association of the

American Geographers, 42 (3), 195–223.Keating, M., 1998. The new regionalism in Western Europe: territorial restructuring and political change.

Aldershot: Edward Elgar.Loughlin, J., 2012. The Routledge handbook of regionalism and federalism. London: Routledge.Luoma-Aho, M., 2009. Political theology, anthropomorphism and personhood of the state: the religion of

international relations. International Political Sociology, 3 (3), 293–309.Maddi, S., 1968. Personal theories: a comparative analysis. Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press.Mattli, W., 1999. The logic of regional integration: Europe and beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.Neumann, R., 2010. Political ecology II: theorising regions. Progress in Human Geography, 34 (3), 368–

374.Nye, J., 1971. Peace in parts: integration and conflicts in regional integration. Boston: Little, Brown and

Company.Paasi, A., 1986. The institutionalisation of regions: a theoretical framework for understanding the emer-

gence of regions and the constitution of regional identity. Fennia, 164 (1), 105–146.Paasi, A., 2009. The resurgence of the ‘region’ and ‘regional identity’: theoretical perspectives and empiri-

cal observations on regional dynamics in Europe. Review of International Studies, 35 (S1), 121–146.Paasi, A., 2011. The region, identity, and power. Procedia Social and Behaviourial Sciences, (14), 9–16.

Contemporary Politics 489

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 2

1:30

27

May

201

4

Pettit, P., 2008. Made with words. Hobbes on language, minds and politics. Princeton: Princeton UniversityPress.

Roeder, Ph., 2007. Where nation-states come from. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Rothbart, D., 2004. Modelling: gateway to the unknown. A work by Rom Harre. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Sagan, I., 2004. Looking for the nature of the contemporary region. Progress in Human Geography, 28 (2),

141–144.Schmitt-Egner, P., 2002. The concept of region: theoretical and methodological notes on its reconstruction.

European Integration, 24 (3), 179–200.Schuetz, A., 1953. Common-sense and scientific interpretation of human action. Philosophy and

Phenomenological Research, 14 (1), 1–38.Schultz, M., Soderbaum, F. and Ojendal, J., eds., 2001. Regionalisation in a globalising world. London:

Zed Books.Searle, J., 1995. The construction of social reality. New York: The Free Press.Sen, A., 2006. Identity and violence. The illusion of destiny. New York: WW Norton and Co.Shaw, T., Grant, A. and Cornelissen, S., 2012. The Ashgate research companion to regionalisms. London:

Ashgate.Sibeon, R., 1977. Contemporary sociology and policy analysis. The new sociology of public policy.

London: Tutor.Smith, A., 1986. The ethnic origins of nations. Oxford: Blackwell.Urvy, J., 2000. Sociology beyond societies: mobilities for the twenty-first century. London: Routledge.Van Langenhove, L. (2003). Theorising regionhood. CRIS Working Paper 2003/1. Available from: http://

www.cris.unu.edu/fileadmin/workingpapers/paper%20regionhood.pdf [accessed 1 November 2012].Van Langenhove, L., 2011. Building regions: the regionalisation of the world order. London: Ashgate.Van Langenhove, L., 2012. Why we need to ‘unpack’ regions to compare them more effectively. The

International Spectator, 47 (1), 16–29.Warleigh-Lack, A. and Van Langenhove, L., 2010. Rethinking EU studies: the contribution of comparative

regionalism. European Integration, 32 (6), 541–562.Wendt, A., 2004. The state as a person in international theory. Review of International Studies, 30,

289–316.Young, O., 1972. The actors in world politics. In: J.N. Rosenberg, J. Davies and M.A. East, eds. The analy-

sis of world politics. New York: Free Press, 125–144.

490 Luk Van Langenhove

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 2

1:30

27

May

201

4