ABSTRACT
There is a growing literature on the new regionalism in Latin America and other parts of the Third World. There is a sense that the new regionalism is different from the old regionalism but as Percy Mistry points out, much of the literature is ambiguous and confusing:
The absence of definitional focus is reflected in the variety of terms used to describe the new regionalism: "deep integration" (as opposed to "shallow integration"); "open regionalism"; "soft regionalism," "market integration." The problem is compounded by the dominance of economic arguments. As Percy Mistry points out, "trade economists have monopolised debate on regional integration since the invention of Vinerian analysis in the early 1950s."2 Consequently, mainstream analyses of the new regionalism excessively focus on the "trade creation/trade diversion" issue, thus neglecting the political dimensions of the new regionalism. Yet as Mistry also notes, the new wave of regional integration efforts is probably not just a passing fad. states are turning to regionalism "as a practically more realistic and more feasible approach" even if it is sub-optimal according to neoliberal trade theory.
