Comparative Paradiplomacy

Jorge Schiavon

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781351012294
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Studying paradiplomacy comparatively, this book explains why and how sub-state governments (SSG) conduct their international relations (IR) with external actors, and how federal authorities and local governments coordinate, or not, in the definition and implementation of the national foreign policy.

Sub-state diplomacy plays an increasingly influential international role as regions, federal states, provinces and cities seek to promote trade, investments, cooperation and partnership on a range of issues. This raises interesting new questions about the future of the state system. Schiavon conducts a comparative study of paradiplomacy in 11 federal systems which are representative of all the regions of the world, stages of economic development and degree of consolidation of their democratic institutions (Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Germany, India, Mexico, Russia, South Africa and the United States). The author constructs a typology to measure and explain paradiplomacy based on domestic political institutions, especially constitutional provisions relating foreign affairs and the intergovernmental mechanisms for foreign policy decision making and implementation.

This comparative, systematic and theoretically based analysis of paradiplomacy between and within countries will be of interest to scholars and students of comparative politics, diplomacy, foreign policy, governance and federalism, as well as practitioners of diplomacy and paradiplomacy around the world.

1 Paradiplomacy

Concepts, definitions, questions and hypotheses

1.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the concepts and definitions used throughout the book. It also discusses its central questions and hypothesis, as well as the strategies used to submit them to empirical testing. The chapter is divided into two sections. The first one introduces the terminology coined and used in the literature on paradiplomacy or international relations of sub-state governments (IRSSG). It briefly presents the most important concepts and ideas that have been developed in the field of international relations to analyze this phenomenon, providing some basic information on their scope and limitations. It organizes the literature in two big paradigms: one that considers that paradiplomacy can be complementary to the state’s foreign policy, and the other that proposes that these international activities can jeopardize a unified and coherent national foreign policy. The second section, building upon the previous discussion, presents the five central research questions, providing tentative and testable answers, or hypotheses, to each of them. These hypotheses are organized, presented and tested organizing them according to the levels of analysis, starting with more general and parsimonious explanations (systemic). Then, to explain variations between and within countries, national variables are integrated (domestic). Finally, to explain specific outlier cases, explanations on the behavior of leaders (individual) are used. Special emphasis is placed on analyzing the interactions between systemic, domestic and individual variables, since as a result of growing interdependence and globalization in the course of the last decades, domestic and international politics are increasingly merged, and interactive approaches that integrate internal and external variables offer better and richer understanding of foreign policy and paradiplomacy (Gourevitch 1978; Putnam 1988; Haggard 1990; Risse-Kappen 1995; Milner 1997; Hale and Held 2011).

1.2 Concepts and definitions

When reviewing the literature on paradiplomacy, there are three basic agreements. First, that this is a growing phenomenon (both in specific activities and geographic spread around the world). Second, that scholars use a wide number of concepts, definitions and methodologies to analyze it. Thereby, third, there is no theory of paradiplomacy, so scholars interested in studying the phenomenon borrow theories from other disciplines to analyze it.

The international relations or activities of sub-state governments (SSGs) include the actions of regions, states, provinces, cities and local governments, which have labelled and termed in different ways in the literature over the years. Some of the most widely used concepts are paradiplomacy; sub-state, constituent, multilayered, local or federative diplomacy; international affairs or relations of sub-state or sub-national governments; and many others.

The first authors to coin a specific term to define this phenomenon were Ivo Duchacek (1990) and Panayotis Soldatos (1990). The concept of “parallel diplomacy” or “paradiplomacy” was introduced to describe the international relations of SSGs in federal and centralized systems, where local governments became increasingly active internationally during the 1970s and 1980s. Until recently, practically everywhere in the world national governments had the legal monopoly over foreign policy, and paradiplomacy had started to create frictions between national governments, especially in those areas that were not the exclusive responsibility of the local governments. When these frictions became apparent, the academic interest in explaining them increased and the institutional mechanisms to coordinate the activities of different orders of government thrived.

For Duchacek and Soldatos, paradiplomacy is defined as the external contacts, activities, relations and actions of non-central governments (federal units, provinces, cantons, länder etc.) with other international actors, such as nation states, other local governments, transnational enterprises, international organizations and civil society organizations, among others (Duchacek 1990; Soldatos 1990, 1993). These activities are not part of the foreign policy of a state; however, since they are international relations of government units, even if from the non-central order, they are defined as paradiplomatic, using the prefix “para” to mean, parallel, next to or associated with the traditional diplomacy of the state (Soldatos 1990). Duchacek and Soldatos believe that these international activities could conform, run parallel to or even conflict with the foreign policy of the national government. Duchacek also uses the term “protodiplomacy” to define the actions conducted by SSGs to gain international support in their separatist or independence objectives. In this vein, Lecours and Moreno (2003) analyze sub-state nationalisms, and argue that paradiplomacy could be a purposeful projection of these governments to seek greater autonomy or the recognition of their cultural distinctiveness both nationally and internationally, thus being of conflictive nature with national foreign policy.

To describe the different forms of participation of non-central governments, Duchacek (1990, 15–27) proposes a typology of three different types of international relations of regions based on their geopolitical dimensions: “transborder paradiplomacy”, which includes the international activities of SSGs along national borders (i.e., California and Baja California); “transregional and paradiplomatic contacts”, referring to the international actions of SSGs whose jurisdictions are not contiguous territorially, but whose national states are neighbors (i.e., Jalisco and Texas); and “global diplomacy”, which refers to SSG links with foreign sub-state and national governments (i.e., Bavaria and Buenos Aires).

To refer to the same phenomenon, Hocking (1993a) uses the term “multilayered diplomacy”, arguing that SSGs participate in a wide and complex diplomatic network with several levels or layers of governments and other actors, both inside and outside of their domestic system. Therefore, instead of conducting government-centered relations exclusively, SSGs participate in this wide diplomatic array of relations, or multilayered diplomacy. Kincaid (1990, 2001) prefers using the term “constituent diplomacy”, arguing that concepts like paradiplomacy or subnational diplomacy imply that the external activities of SSGs are inferior or supplemental to national diplomacy; since SSGs legitimately represent the interests of their constituents and have powers to conduct international activities in the areas where they are competent, their external actions are to be labelled constituent diplomacy. Both Kincaid and Hocking (McMillan 2012, 19) believe that it is in the best interests of national democratic governments to support SSGs to actively participate internationally, since they are in direct contact with the people and more accurately represent their interests.

During these first decades of academic analysis of the phenomenon, the debate has centered on whether these international activities of SSGs strengthen (Hocking and Kincaid) or threaten (Soldatos and Duchacek) the national conduction of foreign policy. Aldecoa (1999) adds another ingredient to the debate, coining the concept of “plurinational diplomacy” to explain the evolution of the international activities of SSGs in multicultural or plurinational states, especially, as in the case of the European Union, in the context of regional integration. These SSGs not only perform international activities, but also desire to influence the foreign policies of their own states and the creation and implementation of European legislation.

Cornago (2010) goes a step further, arguing that the IRSSGs have an innovative process that generates its own institutions and practices, and that this could challenge the traditional diplomacy of national governments. Following this same line, Criekemans (2010a) analyzes how the international actions of SSGs that have considerable constitutional powers (like in Belgium, Canada and Spain) can be very similar to those of the national government, making it difficult to differentiate one from the other.

In the diplomatic studies literature, according to Kuznetsov (2015, 87), paradiplomacy is depicted as a process that has a universal character, and is inherent to all types of nations to a certain degree. Also, the boundaries between diplomacy and paradiplomacy are becoming increasingly blurred, opening the door for comparative research between them (Criekemans 2010b), to the degree that the normalization of paradiplomacy has occurred because its practices, institutions and activities are increasingly widespread around the world (Cornago 2010).

The literature has found that there is an important variation in the objectives or goals that SSGs seek to achieve through their international actions, including a set of economic, political, social and cultural goals (Michelmann 2009). As will be discussed, different types of goals pursued by SSGs generate differentiated reactions from national governments. First and foremost, SSGs are interested in promoting local development, and therefore the most basic activities conducted are of external economic promotion, like securing markets for their products, attracting FDI and tourism, promoting technological transfers and receiving international cooperation and development assistance. Other times, the objective is to promote socio-cultural exchanges to project the sub-state unit’s distinct culture, values or language or to promote cooperation and exchanges in the areas of education, science, technology, culture or sports. These two types of activities are most of the time accepted by national governments. The motivations can also be of political nature, like advancing local autonomy or even preparing for national secession or independence; these politically motivated activities are the most sensitive for the central state.

In other cases, SSGs want to influence regional or global policy debates in areas or issues in which they are particularly interested, like regional integration, climate change, sustainable development and human rights, among others; this is particularly true of SSGs whose countries actively participate in regional integration processes, like the European Union. Depending on the issue and the distribution of competences between national and local governments, these areas of international activity can be harmoniously conducted between them. Finally, the goals can also be very pragmatic, like addressing common-border or regional issues, like infrastructure, trade, investment, migration, development and the environment (Nganje 2013).

The literature has also analyzed the instruments of paradiplomacy, which are diverse and evolve over time. They range from concluding non-binding, sisterhood and inter-institutional agreements, to participating in local, regional and international networks and organizations. Local executives conduct public diplomacy, receive visitors from around the world and organize international events; they also travel to foreign countries in trade and investment missions, to strengthen relations with their diaspora, to conclude cooperation agreements or to participate in regional or global meetings. Some even establish offices of representation of interests abroad.

One of the most important recent contributions to the literature on paradiplomacy is Kuznetsov’s Theory and Practice of Paradiplomacy: Subnational Governments in International Affairs (2015). This book is the first comprehensive volume that seeks to organize and summarize the different theories that have been used to study this phenomenon. Based on a vast review of the questions and explanations available in the literature, Kuznetsov constructs an “explanatory framework of paradiplomacy” (p. 116) that can be used as a supplementary tool to analyze and compare cases of paradiplomacy around the world.

It is important to summarize Kuznetsov’s approach to the study of paradiplomacy, since parts of its explanatory framework will be used to organize the information presented in the case studies. Also, it is an excellent summary of the state of the art in the study of paradiplomacy using different disciplinary approaches, ranging all the way from legal studies to foreign policy, diplomatic studies, comparative politics, international relations, public policy, sociology and economics.

As a first step, he analyzes the two central concepts in the study of paradiplomacy: on one hand, the sub-state, sub-national or regional actor; on the other, the international action of this actor, labelled paradiplomacy, microdiplomacy or constituent diplomacy, among many others, as it was previously discussed. For the actor, he prefers the concept of region, defined as the “territorial and administrative unit on the first level of authority after the central government in both federal and unitary state systems, like Ontario in Canada or Hokkaido in Japan” (p. 22) or the Mexican states. He discusses other terms used in the literature, such as non-central governments (NCG), introduced by Duchacek (1990), Hocking (1993b), and Cornago (2010), sub-national governments/actors, used by Aldecoa and Keating, who refer to them as “public authorities at the regional level, below the sovereign state, in the full knowledge that many of these regard themselves as national, if not fully sovereign actors” (Aldecoa and Keating 1999, 2) and federated units, favored by Soldatos (1990).

Regarding paradiplomacy, Kuznetsov argues that several authors have used similar terms to refer to the same idea. As previously discussed, he recalls that Duchacek (1990) prefers to use the term “paradiplomacy” instead of “microdiplomacy” based on Soldatos’ definition of the former term. Kincaid (1994) used the term “constituent diplomacy” because it “captures the idea that states, provinces, cantons, Länder, and the like are constituent units of federal systems”. In the USA, for example, “the states are co-sovereign constitutional polities with the federal government, not sub-national governments” (Kincaid 2001). Hocking (1993a) introduced the term “multilayered diplomacy” and described it as a “densely textured web”. Based on these and other definitions, Kuznetsov defines paradiplomacy as “a form of political communication for reaching economic, cultural, political, or any other types of benefits, the core of which consists in self-sustained actions of regional governments with foreign governmental and non-governmental actors” (pp. 30–31).

He also argues that the terms paradiplomacy, constituent diplomacy, sub-national government diplomacy, sub-state diplomacy, IRSSG and regional diplomacy can be used in an interchangeable way. In this book, the terms paradiplomacy or IRSSG are preferred; however, there is agreement with Kuznetsov that all these terms refer to the same phenomenon, and, therefore, can be used interchangeably.

After analyzing the various concepts related to paradiplomacy, Kuznetsov summarizes the historical path in the study of this phenomenon and underscores the main scholars that have contributed to this field, such as Duchacek, Kincaid, Soldatos, Michelmann, Fry and others, as was previously discussed. He states that the 1970s were a period of the “genesis of paradiplomacy studies” (p. 43), whereas the 1980s witnessed real progress in the quality of paradiplomacy. The 1990s was a decade of changes in the international system that contributed to the proliferation of paradiplomatic activities, mainly in Europe and the USA, but also in other regions. Finally, the 2000s can be defined “as a period when the study of subnational authorities’ activities in the international arena is decisively crystallized in a sustainable subdiscipline in contemporary political science” (p. 44).

Kuznetsov’s most important contribution is that he systematically organizes the different analyses and explanations of paradiplomacy that exist in the literature in what he calls the “eleven dimensions of paradiplomacy” (p. 50): 1) The constitutional dimension researches “paradiplomacy from the position of legal expertise”, where scholars analyze constitutions and other legal documents to identify the competences that sub-state governments have in foreign affairs. 2) The federalist or intergovernmental relations dimension seeks to understand paradiplomacy as an important variable for the development of intergovernmental relations and the federal system, as well as how the federal arrangement explains paradiplomatic actions and activities. 3) The nationalism dimension tries to explain IRSSG as an important variable in the study of nationalist aspirations at the sub-state level in multinational countries. 4) The international relations dimension looks at paradiplomacy from the perspective of the great changes in international system in recent decades, especially the proliferation of non-state or sub-state actors that challenge the monopoly of states as the only relevant actors in foreign policy making. 5) The border studies dimension studies paradiplomacy to better understand the political, economic and social transformations that take place in geographical border regions. 6) The globalization dimension analyzes IRSSG as a manifestation of regionalization and globalization. 7) The security or geopolitical dimension studies primarily the security and the geopolitical consequences of SSGs’ activities in international affairs. 8) The global economy dimension analyzes paradiplomacy through its relations with the development of contemporary global economics and world trade. 9) The environmental dimension focuses on IRSSG impact on international environmental regimes and standards. 10) The diplomacy dimension studies how paradiplomacy may affect the domain of the diplomacy of the central state and the consequences of its decentralization. Finally, 11) the separatist dimension analyzes non-recognized states and their international relations activities in their search for international recognition (pp. 50–51). In this book, all these dimensions of paradiplomacy will be analyzed in the comparative case studies, some in general terms (nationalism, border, security, environmentalism and separatism), but others in depth (constitutionalism, federalism, international relations, globalization, global economics and diplomacy).

Based on his analysis of the dimensions of paradiplomacy, Kuznetsov argues that the most important challenge in its study is its multidimensional character. To incorporate the 11 dimensions in a single explanatory framework, he proposes a multiple-response questionnaire (MRQ), and argues that it is necessary to answer six questions to systematically analyze cases of paradiplomacy. These questions are: 1) What are the causes of the growing IRSSG? 2) What are the legal bases of the paradiplomatic activities? 3) What is the predominant motive of the SSGs to conduct paradiplomacy? 4) How has the IRSSG been institutionalized? 5) What is the attitude of the central government towards the international activities of its SSG? Finally, 6) what are the consequences of paradiplomacy in the development of the whole nation? (pp. 100–101). All these questions are tackled in the comparative analysis of paradiplomacy to follow.

He recommends that several elements are taken into consideration when answering these questions. For the first question, some of the variables that could explain the external causes of paradiplomacy are globalization, regionalization, democratization and the domestication of foreign policy and the internalization of domestic politics. To explain its domestic causes, some explanatory variables could be federalization and decentralization, nation-building problems, ineffectiveness of the central government’s foreign policy, asymmetries between SSGs, the role of sub-state leaders and the role of borders (pp. 102–108). To tackle the second question, two variables must be considered: the level of legal powers of treaty making granted by the national constitutions and laws, and the constitutional requirements for consultations with SSGs on foreign affairs issues (pp. 108–109). When answering the third question, three sets of motivations of paradiplomacy should be assessed: economic, cultural and political (pp. 109–111).

To attend the fourth question, the more widely used mechanisms of institutionalizing paradiplomatic activities must be analyzed, among them: 1) the establishment of a special ministry, department or office responsible for IRSSG; 2) the opening of SSG offices of representation in foreign countries; 3) official visits of SSG authorities to other countries; 4) participation in international events like conferences, exhibitions and forums; 5) establishment of and participation in international networks and working groups to attend specific problems like sustainable development, the environment, energy and transpo...