Analysing Regional Governance as an Institutional Imperative

• Author: Terri-Ann Gilbert-Roberts
• Profession: Research Fellow of the Sir Arthur Lewis Institute of Social and Economic Studies (SALISES) University of the West Indies Mona
• Pages: 19-37

 2

Analysing Regional Governance

as an Institutional Imperative

Our introduction to the relationship between sovereignty and

regionalism concluded that the classical institutional debate per se

between neofunctional supranationalism and intergovernmentalism

does not provide a comprehensive overview of the internal dynamics

of regional institution-building. The dichotomy presented by those two



by which states can increase their sovereignty while simultaneously

ceding it. There is need, therefore, for greater clarity in the analysis of

sovereignty in regional governance. In that regard, this chapter outlines

an approach to analysing the institutionalisation of regional governance,

using a multi-tiered framework for ‘regional governance analysis’ which

facilitates the investigation of the emergence, evolution and functioning

of regional governance institutions. Firstly, the chapter demonstrates

the value of sovereignty bargains analysis to the advancement of an





and other factors of political context on the form and functions of regional

institutions. Finally, it concludes by consolidating the elements of an



review of the politics of integration in the Caribbean Community

(CARICOM).

Sovereignty Bargains



to promoting a deeper understanding of the paradox of sovereignty.

While the traditional debate between neofunctional supranationalists

and intergovernmentalists assumed that states either seek to retain

full sovereignty or else surrender or pool it, scholars have argued

more recently that, in effect, states undertake a range of ‘sovereignty

bargains’ which result in an array of potential institutional outcomes.1

The Politics of Integration



20

These bargaining arrangements do not involve the ceding of sovereignty





attributes of state autonomy, authority, legitimacy and control are traded



In forming such communities, states limit one or more attributes of



The concept of sovereignty bargains was introduced to International

Relations within the literature on the regulation of transnational ecological

problems. Scholars of ecological politics were engaged, during the 1980s



by international agreements so as to enable geographically-bound states

to manage transnational resources and resolve transnational problems.



Djuva Nincic’s work on sovereignty in the UN.2 Nincic had recognised in

1970 that membership in the UN implied state acceptance of what we

have termed the paradox of sovereignty. Nincic argued at that time that,

participation in an international organisation was likely to increase the

‘effectiveness’ of sovereignty despite the fact that membership would curtail

some aspects of sovereignty.3 The synergy between this idea and William

Demas’s juxtaposition of formal and effective sovereignty will not have

escaped the reader’s attention. Byers referred to the paradoxical process



cede control of some level of control of eco-regions and peoples within its

territory in order to increase the overall effectiveness of state sovereignty.

He argued that, based on those bargains, states voluntarily limited their

autonomy in policymaking by developing international agreements on the

protection of eco-regions within their territory or eco-regions shared with



in those eco-regions by allowing international agencies or indigenous

groups to monitor preservation activities.4 An interesting contribution



effectiveness was potentially two dimensional – measurable by better

external relations with other states and or better internal relationships

with the people within the territory over which the state had authority.



eco-politics scholar most associated with sovereignty bargains – makes a



and control attributes highlighted by Byers, with the concept of legitimacy