{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02626123013130615, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.378854625550661, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Towards a conceptual framework for regionalisation: Bridging 'new regionalism' and 'integration theory'

This paper argues that the divide between 'new' and 'old' regionalisms in international politics is increasingly seen as exaggerated, but that the conceptual implications of this non-difference have yet to be taken seriously. The attempt to build a new body of theory to explain and describe recent forms of region-building—the 'New Regionalist Approach'—is mistaken, and falsely sets up classical integration theory as an Other in an act of auto-definition. Likewise, the acceptance of this divide by EU scholars—whether explicitly or by default—hampers their own attempts to elaborate useful theory. The two areas of study are properly understood not as separate paradigms, but rather as sub-divisions of the same one. Thus, a fruitful way to harness the insights of scholars in both sub-fields of study is to undertake an explicit programme of comparative research based around an agreed set of independent variables, research issues and hypotheses, all stemming from a common definition of the dependent variable. The paper sets out a definition and typology of this dependent variable—'regionalisation'—and argues for a reflexive approach to the elaboration of a conceptual framework for its study. The paper finishes with a discussion of suitable independent variables and four tentative hypotheses to be explored in empirical research.