Le cas de Cascadia

Global governance and cross-border regions 

As CBRs neither lend themselves to elegant theorizing within traditional, state-centered IR paradigms, nor do they fit within neat conceptual categories (Scott, 1999; Berg and Ehin, 2006), a multi-disciplinary, global governance perspective enables a more sophisticated research program that transcends stringent theoretical and disciplinary boundaries (Biermann et al., 2002; Berg and Ehin, 2006; Dingwerth and Pattberg, 2006). This section provides an overview of the global governance perspective and its associated concepts and propositions as the foundation for the research and analysis of Canada-US CBRs.

Global governance perspective 

Governance is a system of rules backed by shared goals and intersubjective meanings, which embraces “governmental institutions and informal, non-governmental mechanisms whereby needs and wants are fulfilled” (Rosenau, 1992: 4). The linking of governance to the global realm indicates a shift from statism to integration by transcending the domestic-foreign frontier and reflects the expanded scope of actors, authorities and levels of social relation ‘beyond’ and ‘below’ the state (Rosenau, 1997: 44; Dingwerth and Pattberg, 2006).² Global governance constitutes the global order as a layered, complex and constantly evolving system of independent and interdependent ideas, interests, authorities, institutions, actors, movements and relations that perform governance functions, “embracing every region, country, international relationship, social movement, and private organization” that engages internationally (Ibid, 12-13). It emphasizes that states, although central, are only part of the picture – as a multiplicity of actors not derived from governments possess varying degrees of legitimate authority to command mechanisms, make demands, frame goals and pursue policies (Rosenau, 1992, 1997; Dingwerth and Pattberg, 2006). Indeed, ideas and identities of actors are considered to be critical in shaping and steering the global order. Moreover, the global governance perspective encompasses social relations in which local, national, regional and global processes are linked through a variety of horizontal, vertical and supraterritorial forms of governance, enabling spheres of authority to exist, in part, independently from states (Rosenau, 1997; Dingwerth and Pattberg, 2006: 193).

Cross-border regions as a level of governance in the global order 

Although the global governance perspective is not without its drawbacks, namely its lack of conceptual clarity, it enables the development of an integrated and encompassing image of CBRs as governance arrangements, carving out new spatial contexts (Scott, 1999), accounts for the transnational engagement of NSAs and sub-national governments (Hocking, 1993: 34-36), and provides for the identification of the interaction between material flows, e.g. socio-economic exchanges and ecological interdependencies, and ideational flows, e.g. shared visions, beliefs and identities, based upon ‘networks of interaction’ in fluid governance spaces (Blatter, 2001; Jessop, 1995). From this perspective, CBRs are considered to be intersubjectively constructed levels of governance that shape, and are shaped by, cross-border regional awareness in relation to shared problems, material incentives and overlying discourses of interdependence and integration (Clarke, 2002; Scott, 1999; Storper, 1997). The ensuing analysis of Canada-US CBRs utilizes the insights, concepts and propositions afforded by the global governance perspective.

²  Examples of relevant actors include: individuals (Rosenau, 1997), non-governmental organizations (NGOs) (Rosenau, 1992, 1997; Weiss, 2000; Stoker, 1998), transnational networks (Keck and Sikkink, 1998), epistemic communities (Benz and Furst, 2003), multinational corporations (MNCs), and international organizations (IOs) (Weiss, 2000; Rosenau, 1992, 1997).