Metamorphosis of Regionalization: from Regional Trade Agreements to Megaregional Projects

The article reviews history and contemporary state of such an economic and trade policy phenomenon as regionalism. Three consecutive stages of regionalization are identified. First stage – prehistory of regionalism – lasted from the middle of the XIX century till 1940-s and was characterized by the formation of bilateral customs unions in Europe with strong political motivation. Second stage – classic regionalism – covers the second part of the XX century and is mostly determined by integration processes in the European region, creation of the EEC and then the EU, organization of a big number of alliances among developing countries mainly in the form of customs union following the EU example and some trade blocs between developed economies beyond the EU (i.a. NAFTA). In this period special disciplines for RTA’s were elaborated under the framework of GATT/WTO. Third stage – globalizing networking regionalism – gained momentum at the start of 2000-s and continues, with certain reservations, till nowadays. Contemporary regionalism has qualitative distinctions from regionalism of the past century. Besides fast and universal, covering all regions and subregions of the world, growth of RTA’s number, their agenda is widening and deepening significantly going far beyond WTO. We could also witness increasing frequency of interregional and transcontinental RTA’s, as well as RTA’s with participation of trade blocks, including interbloc RTA’s. Peculiarity of the current decade is the appearance of a considerable number of RTA’s parties to which represent large and largest world economies, and that was not the case before. But the principal shift is related to the formation of megaregional trade agreements with ambitious, prointegration agenda. New generation RTA’s, containing wide regulatory garmonization agenda and suggesting increasing institutional homogenity of participating economies, de facto promote alternative vis-à-vis classic approach model for the creation of common economic space, though without supranational elements. Nowaday regionalism is definitely drifting towards megaregionalism – the higher stage of regionalization process. Politics of the new American administration and Brexit, which stimulated deglobalization and isolationist tendencies in part of Western world, in practice have only led to some regrouping and deceleration of certain megaregional projects followed by enhancing China’s position on the track of megaregionalism (RCEP, Belt and Road, megaproject with accompanying RTA’s, latest BRICS+ and BRICS++ initiative). Megaregionalism, under any scenario, will exert deep influence on the world trading system and the WTO. In certain conditions megaregional agreements could serve as the foundation for the emergence of new and by large universal system of global management in the sphere of international trade and economic cooperation either as a WTO plus arrangement or in some other form. But this needs long-lasting preparatory interaction for the convergence and finding common denominators between quite different megaprojects as regards their scope and depth.

regionalization, regionalism, integration, regional trade agreements (RTA’s), free trade area (FTA), megaregionalism, megaregional projects, world trading system

1. Выступление председателя КНР Си Цзиньпина на Форуме международного сотрудничества «Один пояс и один путь». Совместно продвигать строительство «Одного пояса и одного пути». (2017). Ежемесячный журнал «Китай», 06 (140). 18–23.

2. Долгов С.И., Спартак А.Н. (ред.). (2011). Интеграционные процессы в мире и на пространстве СНГ: накопленный опыт, современные тенденции и перспективы. Москва: ВАВТ. 191.

3. Дынкин А.А. (ред.). (2017). Мир 2035. Глобальный прогноз ИМЭМО им. Е.М. Примакова РАН. Москва: Магистр, 2017. 352.

4. Лисоволик Я.Д. (2017). БРИКС-плюс: альтернативная глобализация? Валдайские записки, (69). 12.

5. Лихачев А.Е., Спартак А.Н. (2013). Новые явления и процессы в сфере регионализации мирового хозяйства. Российский внешнеэкономический вестник, (5). 33–45.

6. Саламатов В.Ю., Спартак А.Н. (2016). Теоретические и практические аспекты формирования мегарегиональных торгово-экономических блоков в АТР. Международная экономика, (5). 50–60.

7. Спартак А.Н. (2016). Новый этап регионализации: основное содержание, вызовы для многосторонней торговой системы и постсоветской интеграции. Международная торговля и торговая политика, 2(6). 3–20.

8. Спартак А.Н. (2010). Развитие и международно-правовое регулирование процессов региональной экономической интеграции: новые тенденции и явления в начале XXI века. Окончание статьи. Российский внешнеэкономический вестник, (7). 28–37.

9. Balassa B. (1961). The Theory of Economic Integration. London: Allen & Unwin. 303.

10. Baldwin R E. (1997). The causes of regionalism. The World Economy, (20). 865–888. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9701.00107

11. Baldwin R. E. (2006). Multilateralizing Regionalism: Spaghetti Bowls as Building Blocs on the path to Global Free Trade. CEPR, Discussion paper, (5775). 1451–1518.

12. Baldwin R. E., Low P. (eds.). (2009). Multilateralizing Regionalism: Challenges for the Global Trading System. New York: Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, WTO. 744.

13. Chia Siow Yue. (2013). The Emerging Regional Economic Integration Architecture in East Asia. Asian Economic Papers, (12). 1–37. DOI: 10.1162/ASEP_a_00179

14. Grossman G.M., Helpman E. (1995). The politics of free trade agreements. The American Economic Review, (85). 667–690.

15. Hamanaka S. (2014). TPP vs. RCEP: Control of Membership and Agenda Setting. Journal of East Asian Economic Integration, (18). 163–186. DOI: 10.11644/KIEP

16. Katada S.N., Solis M., Stallings B. (2009). Competitive Regionalism: Explaining the Diffusion of FTAs in the Pacific Rim. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 289.

17. Mansfield E.D. (1998). The proliferation of preferential trading arrangements. Journal of Conflict Resolution, (42). 523–543. DOI: 10.1177/0022002798042005001

18. Mattli W. (1999). The logic of regional integration: Europe and beyond. New York: Cambridge University Press. 205.

19. Petri P.A., Plummer M.G. (2013). ASEAN Centrality, the RCEP, and the TPP. East-West Center Policy Studies, (69). 75.

20. Ravenhill J. (2010). The new East Asian regionalism: A political domino effect. Review of International Political Economy, (17). 178–208. DOI: 10.1080/09692290903070887

21. Yoshimatsy H. (2008). The Political Economy of Regionalism in East Asia: Integrative Explanation for Dynamics and Challenges. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 192.