Notes for a Discussion on Latin American Cross-Border Regions

ABSTRACT

One of the most significant outcomes of the neoliberal globalization – and of its consequent relativization of borderland spaces – has been the emergence of cross-border regions. These regions constitute complex spaces that operate as locus for capital appreciation based on the exploitation of differential advantages and unequal exchanges. This paper acknowledges the multi-dimensional nature of such territorialities and goes on to suggest a preliminary typology of cross-border situations in Latin America, based on the economic scales on which these regions are fundamentally constituted. We suggest four types of regions – consuetudinary, self-contained, corridors and globalized – which are described as territorial overlapping and multidimensional space–time assemblies. Lastly, the article raises the need for further research on spatiality, development and governance of these space/time assemblies.

KEYWORDS:

• Regions
• borders
• Latin American
• cross-border urban complexes

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 Neoliberalism is understood as a type of accumulation and social regulation regime (according to a conceptual regulationist apparatus) articulated around the idea that markets that are deregulated and free from interference by the State and social control are the optimum mechanism for development and wellbeing. Neoliberalism implies intense processes of spatial partitions and assemblies that articulate new power relations (Agnew 2018). Regions are an accurate example of this. However, given the high capability for movement of capital, as opposed to that of the more territorialized elements, despite the orthodoxy of its doctrine, “real-life” neoliberalism is capable of parasiting diverse sociopolitical and cultural structures (Brenner and Theodore 2002; Harvey 1996; Harvey 2014) and adopting different forms. This appears clearly in the case of borderland regions: although borders become spaces for the appreciation of capital, they do so according to their own historical itineraries. As we shall see, the situations that we describe in terms of economic scale determined by the regions, do not necessarily imply a greater or lesser distance from the neoliberal accumulation processes but have to do with linkage modalities between them.

2 As noted by Harvey (2014), it refers to the space where capital can circulate and prevent the cost and time of movement from exceeding the benefits of the socially necessary turnover time.

3 The book edited by Sum and Perkman is a work of high merit as it paved the way for further reflection on cross-border regions mainly in Asia and Europe, and generated theoretical inferences that have served as the framework for other regions. It includes a first attempt at a taxonomy of CBRs, differentiating between what they called “Euro-regions” and Asian “growth triangles,” and presenting interesting analyses of border cases and issues. Particularly noteworthy are Jessop's study on European cross-border regionalism and Leresche & Sáez's study on political regimes. This article is indebted to their effort, which shall be properly acknowledged where due throughout the article.

4 In this article we refer to CBRs as ontological units. Another type of analysis, not envisaged here, would discover horizontal networks and complex urban hierarchical structures. In general, within them, we can distinguish hegemonic cities and others that play complementary roles and finally what Dilla (2015) has called cross-border urban complexes. For reasons of space this dissection is not addressed in this article.

5 Agnew and Oslender (2010) coined this concept to describe “ … the intersection of sources of territorial authority, other than the nation-state, with that of states” (193) and regarding another of their theoretical constructions: “regimes of sovereignty.” Here, we extend the concept to explain the coexistence of different space-time articulations defined by their own hierarchical codes in different the areas of economy, social relations, politics and daily life, including the interaction of two states regimes.

6 For the purposes of this paper, the terms cross-border or international corridors are understood as a hierarchical spatial linkage for the circulation of goods, services, currency and information between neighboring economies and national societies, which are regularly made viable by means of physical communication and transport vectors. Usually, these corridors articulate urban networks that contribute to their operations (Félix 1997).

7 Globalized regions are exponents of the opportunistic fragmentation of global value chains and consequently, they contain segments of these chains the commands of which are generally to be found elsewhere. All this impedes the deployment of governance strategies. Because of its complexity, this issue is beyond the scope and purposes of this paper. There is an enlightening discussion of global value chains and governance in Gereffi, Sturgen, and Humphrey (2005).

Additional information

Funding

This article was written with the support of the Conicyt / Fondecyt 1190133 project: La intermediación urbano-portuaria en un contexto transfronterizo: Arica (2008–2018).