After reading Haas' article, I am less convinced about the plausability of regional integration. Haas argues that, among other things, a common market is the strongest thing leading to regional integration. This arguement has far too many variables to taken as fact. It goes off of the basis of absolute advantage, rather than comparative. A common market assumes that each state is producing the product they have the best comparative advantage in. What if one state has a stronger comparative advantage than others? For instance, if France makes 10x their cost on wine, while Germany only makes 4x their cost on beer. If Germany is thinking of comparative advantage, they dont' want an integration with france, because France will benefit more.
The greatest problem with this theory is the lack of acknowledgement for cultural identity and nationalism. Nationalism is a much stronger force than just who a country identifies with. Nationalism causes not just wars, but genocides. Though Haas does say that Nationalism is an issue, he doesn't give it the credit it deserves. Nationalism is the issue that has stopped regional integration since the formation of states. There is no reason why it wouldn't be a crippling issue in the future. Sure, states are more dependent on their economics and have a more common basis of life due to Globalization, but that doens't mean citizens dont' feel a sense of supremacy or cultural pride that they would be willing to overthrow a government that agreed to regional integration. Though Regional Integration is an interesting theory to discuss, it in its entirety is not plausable.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment