Networks of Cross-border Non-State Actors: The Role of Social Capital in Regional Integration

ABSTRACT

This paper examines the contribution of networks of cross-border grassroots non-State actors to regional integration. It uses three assumptions to determine whether sub-regional schemes augment regional integration: (a) networks of grassroots non-State actors connect communities that share common backgrounds, histories and cultures; (b) interactions in the networks generate a trust that stabilizes them and contributes to network efficiency; and (c) where these networks straddle State boundaries, they integrate the economies that host the communities of actors in the networks and thus enhance integration. The paper achieves its objective by illustrating these assumptions in the context of sub-regional integration in Southeast Asia and Southern Africa. A thorough review of the literature on regional and sub-regional integration, borderland studies, etc. is conducted along with the use of social capital and historical, socioeconomic and political accounts to illustrate the role of informal networks in integration. Because networks, norms and trust dominate conceptual discussion of social capital (Schuller, T., S. Baron, and J. Field. 2000. Social capital: A review and critique. In Social capital: Critical perspectives, eds. S. Baron, J. Field, and T. Schuller, 1–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press.), the paper conceptualizes the terms in the context of social capital. Participant observations, face-to-face interviews and focus group discussions conducted during extensive fieldwork between September 2013 and November 2014 at selected border posts, in the major border towns of the adjacent provinces of the ZMM-GT, in markets and villages in the contiguous border areas of the growth triangle also provide the primary data employed in the analysis. Sub-regional initiatives contribute to development, as does macro-regionalism. Unlike Southeast Asians, people in southern Africa are primarily driven by the need for survival and operate less on ethnic lines. However, a clear demonstration of social capital and cohesion is evident here. Leaders in Africa should encourage cross-border ethnic and kinship ties rather than abuse ethnicity for political gain.

ORCID

Christopher Changwe Nshimbi 0000-0001-6245-4233

Notes

1. Violet Banda, contribution in focus group discussion, 28 September 2013, Saturday Market, Chipata, Zambia.

2. The Abuja Treaty (Treaty establishing the AEC) hails from then OAU Extraordinary Summit of 1980, which adopted the Lagos Plan of Action for Africa’s integration. The Plan of Action and Final Act of Lagos were concretized in 1991 in Abuja, Nigeria, at the 27th Ordinary Session of the Assembly of OAU Heads of State and Government Summit. The AEC Treaty and AU Chatter provide the bases of operation for the AU Secretariat.

3. Including the Community of Sahel-Saharan States (CEN-SAD), Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS), Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), Intergovernmental Authority for Development (IGAD), Southern African Development Community (SADC), Union du Maghreb Arabe (UMA). See http://www.au.int/en/recs/ (accessed May 12, 2013).

4. ASEAN founding members plus Brunei adopted this principle as a means of resolving deadlocks given their desire for consensus rather than binding obligations in ASEAN deliberations. Member States not “comfortable” with particular cooperation schemes could opt out. Not all suggestions or agreed programs have to be undertaken by all members in the group. (This in my view is less fair than the democratic principle of a conclusion based on votes as practiced in other RECs where the majority carries the day. First, it is a poorer imitation of the principle of voting where the majority wins. Second, the implication in the “6 minus x” principle is that the minority do not get to benefit or be covered and included in the decision reached by the majority. When implementing a given project, for instance, Member States that opt out also by implication stand to lose out on the project decided by the other 5).

5. This argument is based on a GATT Article XXIV provision, which allows regional trade agreements (RTAs) so long as the RTAs include all trade. GATT Article XXIV is available on the World Wide Web: <http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/region_e/regatt_e.htm#gatt> (accessed October 4, 2009).

6. Dona Moya, personal interview, 30 September 2013, Lilongwe, Malawi.