ABSTRACT

There is absolutely no better way to make sense of the world today, both geographically and conceptually, than to think of it as constituted of regions that host units called states. The world map remains one of the most celebrated innovations by humankind; with tremendous impact on nearly every field of scientific inquiry: but most particularly policy geography, political science, and international relations. Since regions form the very foundation of the world, states within regions naturally and artificially exhibit certain homogeneous characteristics that have pushed them to come together to pool up resources, expertise, and so on, and find solutions to their common challenges and threats in ways that guarantee economies of scale beyond possibilities within unilateral mechanisms. Hence regional organizations and arrangements have emerged all over the world with every state, including the most powerful, being members. Consequently, these organizations and arrangements have become critical platforms for dealing with challenges, old and emergent, facing both state members and third states. They have taken up new roles, including those that touch on public policy. This paper appreciates the influence of regional organizations in public policy.  Building on literature provided for the DPP 804 class, and others that touch on different thematic and theoretical aspects of regionalism’s interaction with four substantive policy domains: social protection, health, disaster risk management, and democracy building, the paper attempts to find a nexus between these disperate literature to understand the influence regional organizations have in the public policy processes. Two main findings emerge from the quick review: a) that regional organizations play a key role in the policy process of member and third states and; that their involvement is not without challenge, neither is it only perceived as portending only positive ramifications, especially whenever regional organizations intervene in third states.

INTRODUCTION

We live in a world of regions (Katzenstein, 2005; Reus-Smith, 1997; Ruggie, 1998). To be sure, many scholars of regionalism have contended that the world today is not only regionalized but has witnessed waves of regionalism beginning at the end of the Second World War (Spandler, 2016; Mansfield et al. 1999; Söderbaum, 2016; Väyrynen, 2003). Hence, drivers such as wars, power shifts, economic globalization, rapid innovations in the fields of information community technologies, and the spread of new ideas about political order have led to the emergence and growth of transnational and supranational organizations; these have tremendously challenged the Westphalian notions of the nation-state (Busan & Wæver, 2010). Peters & Pierre (2006) in their edited book, “The Handbook of Public Policy”, assert that this new form of governing is not only transforming the conduct of states domestically and within the international society, but is providing a whole new framework for public policy students to reconsider traditional “truths” surrounding public policy processes such as the role of government and the attendant preoccupation with policy processes/the policy model or the policy cycle. The concept of governance as opposed to government provides a new framework to reconceive the actors, action levels, and action situations (Bianculli & Hoffmann, 2016; Colebatch, 2009; Parto, 2005; Hupe & Hill, 2006, p. 22-27, in Peters & Pierre, 2006) in public policy theory and practice.

In the context of governance within an increasingly regionalizing world, a breeding ground for the proliferation of regional organizations; as existing organizations have grown in membership, and new ones have been created, there is now hardly a state in the world that is not a member of at least two regional organizations (Sprandler, 2016). As regional organizations expand in membership and geographic coverage, regional organizations have taken on new tasks and assumed more authority concerning their member and non-member states (Krasner, 1983; Krasner, 1984; Krasner, Keohane & Nye, 1977; 1989; Acharya, 2014, p. 84–93; Börzel & Risse 2016; Spandler, 2016). Put simply, regional organizations have become key actors in the various facets of public policy[1]-making continuum. Against this backdrop, this study, utilizing documentary analysis of relevant literature and interpretive methodology, appreciates the nexus between public policy and regional organizations. As Bianculli & Hoffman (2016, p. 1) aptly argues, studies are scarce that treat the two subjects jointly. This term paper is thus an attempt to bridge this identified gap, using four domains of substantive public policies: social protection, disaster risk management, public health, and building democracy: discussed in this order respectively. Due to space limitations, core concepts used: regions, regionalism, and regionalization and public policy are in Appendix 1.

REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND SOCIAL PROTECTION

Deacon et al. (2009), in their edited book: World-regional social policy and global governance: New research and policy agendas in Africa, Asia, Europe and Latin America, presents the thesis that while economic regionalism remains the main typology of regionalism, regional organizations have begun to deliberate on social governance aspects of regionalism. Social protection is a key area of social governance and where regional organizations have influenced public policy processes (World Bank, 2012). Social protection, argues, Bianculli & Hoffman (2016), has become a recurrent policy agenda for regional organizations in Europe, Latin America, and Africa. Devereux (2016) traces the origins of social protection and tracks its human rights dimension from global regimes, narrowing to regional regimes in Africa and how these have informed policy frameworks and laws at the national scale. He contends that national policies, frameworks, strategies, codes, and laws on social security in many African countries have their origins in the regional frameworks at the regional multilateral platforms that these countries are members. He asserts that the very origins of social protection discussion in Africa can be traced from the Africa Union (the successor of the Organization of African Unity) as stated in the AU Constitutive Act thus: “to promote and protect human and peoples’ rights”. This basis for the human rights approach to social security in Africa though explicitly stated in the African Charter of Human and People’s Rights (ACHPR) (1981), is implied in Article 18 thus: “The State shall have the duty to assist the family … The aged and the disabled shall also have the right to special measures of protection in keeping with their physical or moral needs”. Hence to make social security an explicit policy item in Africa, the AU launched a Protocol to the ACHPR, the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights – the Protocol on the Rights of Citizens to Social Protection and Social Security. The Protocol has 39 Articles and makes it explicit that ‘the right to social protection is a human right’ (Taylor, 2008). It spells out the duties that state actors have to provide the different elements of social protection: medical care; sickness benefits; unemployment benefits; old-age benefits; employment injury benefits; family benefits; maternity benefits; invalidity benefits; and survivors’ benefits (as spelled out in the Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention 102 [1952]) (Habtom, 2022).

The Social Policy Framework for Africa [2008] is one of the key instruments that has informed the content of social protection policies and strategies in African Countries. Citing Mpedi & Nyenti (2015, pg. 73), Devereux (2016) argues that the instrument “guides African countries in promoting the rights and ensuring the welfare of their people, especially marginalized and excluded categories”. This framework raises social protection to the same level as other areas of social policy and talks about the need for comprehensive social protection which include extending or subsidizing social insurance schemes, strengthening community-based insurance schemes, employment guarantee schemes, and social welfare schemes (including non-contributory cash transfers) (Devereux, 2016).

Habtom (2022) concurs with Devereux (2016) that at the sub-regional level, social protection provisions are not only more explicit but also have more impact on social governance within member states. Devereux (2016) utilizes the South African sub-region to make the point that a critical issue for multilateralism has been the need to harmonize and coordinate national policies of Member States, including by setting standards for social protection. Through the Code on Social Security in the Southern African Development Community [2007] for example, SADC member states have been guided in their attempts for development and progressive improvement of social security schemes, including for immigrants’ (Devereux, 2016). Moreover, like in Social Protection Policy Framework for Africa, Devereux points that the SADC Code is explicitly rights-based: “Everyone in SADC has the right to social security” (Article 4). Habtom (2022) in his assessment of social protection in sub-Saharan Africa through the lens of Eritrea validates Devereux’s assertions when he finds that Eritrea policy making on social protection has been properly influenced by sub-regional notions of the subject, albeit facing serious implementation gaps.

Social protection research in Africa establishes links between states member’s commitments at the global and regional levels through treaties, conventions, recommendations, and other forms of global instruments, and the making of social protection policies and enactment of laws at the national scale (Devereux, 2016; Mutangadura, n.d.; Holmes & Lwanga-Ntale, 2012; Deacon, 2000; Taylor, 2008). Devereux (2016) argues the manner of influence of regional organizations on social policy processes is through domestication of social policy norms and principles into national instruments via constitutions, laws, policies, strategies, programs, and projects. In Mozambique’s Social Protection Law enacted in 2007, a heavy semblance can be discerned with the AU Social Protection Framework, and the SADC’s instrument. A similar trajectory has been taken by Zambia, Kenya, Tanzania, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Lesotho, and Ethiopia (Devereux, 2016, p. 23-28; Mutangadura, n.d.; Holmes & Lwanga-Ntale, 2012; Deacon, 2000; Taylor, 2008). The biggest question to most writers (e.g., Taylor, 2008; Devereux, 2016; Bianculli & Hoffman, 2016; Deacon et al., 2009), however, is whether, the formulation of social protection policies, strategies, and laws translate into practical, transformative, and targeted social protection actions or whether there is a disconnect between principles and actions.

Devereux (2016) finds that despite embedding human rights-based notions of social protection into various national instruments of social governance, Kenya, Lesotho, Zimbabwe, South Africa and Tanzania have been unable to implement social protection as a human right, and only often taking a reactive intervention and discriminative approach – that is the affected population. Moreover, most scholars (Devereux, 2016; Holmes & Lwanga-Ntale, 2012; Taylor, 2008; Habtom, 2022) agree that lack of finances, corruption, under-coverage, emphasis on social insurance, social protection mostly through pilot protects/short-term strategies, and the exclusion of those in the informal sector constitute the greatest of challenges facing the implementation of social protection policies in the developing world.  Consequently Holmes & Lwanga-Ntale (2012) examined whether there is an African consensus on the concept of social protection; the elements of social protection that are salient as a matter of governance in Africa; and the trajectory of knowledge and gaps in social protection research. He established that a challenge in social protection research at the regional level is the attendant lack of commonality by countries what social protection means; hence social protection for most African governments is based on the context of intervention, which is often determined by the project funders – the external donors. Nonetheless, three concepts, risk, vulnerability, and extreme poverty (p. 4) are the common grounds. Secondly, the scholars also confirm that while regional organizations play key roles in influencing the content of public policy related to social protection, implementation of such principles is low and hampered additionally by lack of or low budgetary allocations with a bias toward social assistance[2] aspects of social protection – cash and food transfers and limited cases of labor-based social protection (p. 11-12). Hagen-Zanker & McCord (2011, cited in Riggirozzi & Yeates, 2015) corroborates this assertion in their study. While employing the AU Social Protection Policy Framework for Africa (2008) recommendation that 4.5% of the national GDP should be exploited on social protection, found that social protection policy does not translate into practice. All the four countries they assessed their budgetary allocations did not come closer to meeting this recommendation: Kenya – 0.3%, Mozambique – 0.1%, Uganda – 0.1%, Malawi – 0.4%, and Ethiopia – 0.7%. Finally,  Holmes & Lwanga-Ntale (2012), report that several studies examine institutional capacity and coordination of social protection programs at national levels, but much less at the decentralized levels, political economy analyses, social protection as a measure for stability and social cohesion, the role of transparent and accountable mechanisms, the role of non-state actors, how research on social protection can and has influenced national policies, and the role of traditional social protection mechanisms (ibid, p. 24-29).

REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, PUBLIC POLICY, AND DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT

In an increasingly globalizing world that continues to blur national boundaries and make nearly all problems transnational, the most critical area of utility of regional organization is perhaps in the management of disasters and emergencies. Deacon et al. (2010) in their edited book, World-Regional Social Protection Policy and Global Governance, buttress this assertion when they empirically show that regional organizations in Africa, Asia, and Latin America have had a hand in nearly all social policy and governance issues of cross-border dimension in these regions. Involvement of regional organizations in disaster risk management is an increasingly emerging global phenomenon. Holis (2015) argues that just over the last century, there have been over 30 regional DRM programs, 18 of which emerged in the period 2000 to 2006. In this sense, regional organizations appear set to provide increased resilience to their member states when states and their populations are hit with disasters beyond their capacity to contain them. This development begs the question: how have regional organizations responded to disaster risks? There are three main responses to this question: firstly, regional organizations have helped state members avert disastrous events through ad-hoc quick response mechanisms. Two instances can be used to illustrate this point: to begin with, on 6 November 2013, the Philippines was hit by the strongest typhoon recorded in the country’s history, leading to immense damage: flying debris, flattened houses, and affecting over 14 million lives (UNOCHA, 2013). This incident overwhelmed national disaster management capacity and in response the ASEAN deployed an ASEAN-Emergency Response Team (ASEA-ERT).

A recent example of an ad-hoc DRM concerns EAC’s response to COVID-19. The EAC Secretariat convened a Joint Meeting of Ministers of Health and Ministers responsible for EAC affairs to deliberate on joint and coordinated EAC Response to COVID-19 in March 2020. The meeting came up with the now-called EAC Regional Response to COVID-19, the framework set 10 directives that touched on how countries were to take steps to protect different sectors and actors including SMEs the socio-economic ramifications of COVID-19 (EAC April 27, 2020). The second approach involves a formalized regional DRM framework that preempts disasters, uses simulations for disaster preparedness, and has an office of DRM experts, organizes exchanges, as well as facilitating response to disasters. Holis (2015) argues that the European Union, through her European Union Emergency Response Coordination Centre (ERCC) represents the most advanced DRM, exhibiting these features with a strong expertise to simulate future events within the region and act very proactively. Other regions though not so advanced have laid out DRM frameworks for response to member states whenever overwhelmed by disasters. Other permanent regional DRM mechanisms include the Central American Integration System, the Caribbean Community, and the Sothern Common Market among others. Despite the critical role of regional DMR phenomenon, however, Holis (2015) asserts that the manner in which these frameworks operate, the successes, the challenges, and the dynamics, remain under-studied by international relations scholars.

REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND PUBLIC HEALTH

In Global Social Policy literature, regions also play an important role in pushing health aspects of regionalism, despite such contributions not being dominant in mainstream regionalism defined by economic and security related regional integration (Riggirozzi, 2015). Regionalism plays three main roles in health social policy and governance: firstly, regional organizations and arrangements provide state members the opportunity to engage in health diplomacy – whereby as a bloc they can advocate (health activism), or act on a given health program; in the process providing alternatives to global health governance such as through WHO. A good example is during COVID-19 where EAC countries were able to criticize the West for undertaking COVID-19 protectionism by hoarding COVID-19 vaccines why Africans died. Moreover, through regionalism, Member States of regional organizations in Africa were able to agree on frameworks to contain the spread of COVID-19 and buffer citizens from the adverse effects of the same (EAC April, 27 2022). Secondly, regional arrangements in the developing countries have given member states a bargaining voice to engage and collaborate with supra-national and powerful state actors on mutual benefits areas terms of engagement and streamline health norms and practices, a case in point is the African Union’s MoU with the WHO signed on 18th November 2018 and touching on three core areas of collaboration between AU and the WHO: “Providing technical expertise to the African Medicines Agency (AMA) and creating an enabling environment to foster local production of medicines; Strengthening collaboration between the Africa Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Africa CDC) and WHO, with a particular focus on emergency preparedness, to build AU Member States’ defenses against epidemics and other health emergencies; and supporting the implementation of the Addis Ababa Call to Action on universal health coverage and the AU Declaration on Domestic Financing” (WHO, 2019, p.1). Other than the three illustrations above on the influence of regional organizations, other domains for analysis include: democratic building and electoral processes, security communities, and climate change, among others.

REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND THE BUILDING OF DEMOCRACY

Montero, Cespedes, & Ortiz (2016) contends that the traditional focus of regionalism on the provision of trader and economic public goods has changed rapidly in the last decade with a trend where regional organizations are much concerned about the regime types in member states, and the need for a democratic type of political system. A core business of regional organizations, even as early as the onset of “the end of history” (Fukuyama, 1992), has been the facilitation of democratic transitions with a strong insistence on democratic consolidation. Motsamai (2010) and the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance [IDEA] (2016) argue that regional organizations in Africa and beyond have become so concerned with several dimensions of building democracy and most particularly electoral processes. She makes the argument that nearly all-regional bodies have made it a norm to intervene in different ways in the electoral processes of member states. However, while the involvement of foreign regional bodies is a very long and common practice especially in African electoral processes, Motsamai (2010) argues the perceptions of such involvement have not been entirely good. On one hand, regional organizations such as in the European Union’s involvement in the African continent is viewed as critical in so far it serves to fill in for the missing links for free, fair, and credible elections such as finances, technical support, electoral observation by impartial actors, and finally peaceful political transitions. On the other hand, such involvement has been criticized as heavily informed by underlying geo-political calculations and economic interests of European countries. It is this drive by interests, the literature reveals, that is of focus for extra-regional bodies’ involvement in the building of democracy through electoral processes, rather than the consolidation of democracy in Africa (Crawford, 2004; Adelaja, 2007; IDEA, 2009). Hence electoral assistance, seen as an opportunity for developed states to push for their agendas in small states, is sufficed further by the fact that in the EU for example, electoral assistance has become a core pillar in her external relations, that is, through formal regimes such as: EU Agenda for Action on Democracy Support in EU external relations (Council of the EU, 2009; European Union, 2006; UNDP, 2009). Beyond these debates and the EU, other scholars have also found a fundamental influence of external actors in electoral bodies’ management reforms and electoral laws and policies. External actors like World Bank and International Monetary Fund for example have been seen as pushers of the USA agenda in the Third World through pushing through funding, research, and other avenues of influence, for electoral reforms that are a pro-USA version of democracy leading to the embedding of principles such as gender equality, affirmative action (World Bank, 2012).

CONCLUSIONS

To sum it all up, while this short review has only highlighted the different substantive domains of public policy where regional organizations play a key role, it has shown that in-depth research into the dynamics of involvement of regional organizations in public policies of their member states: The paper shows that the desperate literature on regionalism and regional governance and public policy have not been harmonized to concretely underscore the influence regional organizations have had in public policy processes. Particularly: which organizations involve where? What are drivers? What changes and continuities obtain? What interactions are there between states and regionalization processes? And finally, how do different regions interact to influence a given substantive domain of public policy? Using social policy, disaster risk management, health, and democracy building, this paper has attempted harmonization of the regionalism literature with and literature on different aspects of public policy to underscore, albeit in highlights how regional organizations engage and influence public policy processes. A study has shown that regional organizations do this at different stages of public policy: they set agenda for national debates on the need to amend and create new policies, laws, strategies, and even constitutional amendments through setting our norms, principles binding or not, on areas of social protection, health, elections, disaster risk management, and so on. They also influence policy-making when these norms and principles find themselves as the content of such instruments. Using the case of DRM, the paper has also shown that regional organizations also engage at the public policy implementation stage. For example, when state members are hard hit by disasters beyond their national capacities to contain, regional organizations have instituted rapid response mechanisms to save lives, as in the case of ASEAR-ERC in the Philippines Archipelago.

In electoral issues, the paper has shown that regional organizations both influence the content of public policy commitments and help state members and/or non-members in the case of foreign electoral assistance to implement electoral processes and see into it that there are peaceful political transitions. Nonetheless, the paper has also underscored that involvement of regional organizations in the affairs of a state member or non-member through the influence at any given stage of public policy has not completely been viewed from a positive lens. What interests do powerful members of intervening regions have in a given country? To what extent does the fact that norms and principles have been largely domesticated by member states lead to commensurate action by these same member states? What factors affect regional capacities to bargain for transformative symmetric relationships with other regions or actors, as in the case of health diplomacy? These, among others, are questions that will need to be answered by scholars interested in finding the nexus between public policy and regionalization processes.

Odhiambo Kasera is  graduate student and part-time lecturer at Maseno University.

REFERENCES

 Bianculli, A. C., & Hoffmann, A. R. (2016). Regional organizations and social policy: The missing link. In Regional Organizations and Social Policy in Europe and Latin America (pp. 1-22). Palgrave Macmillan, London.

Buzan, Barry and Wæver, Ole (2010): Regions and Powers: The Structure of
International Security, 7th ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Cambridge
Studies in International Relations, Vol. 91).

Colebatch, K.L. (2009. Governance as a conceptual development in the
analysis of policy. Critical Policy Analysis, vol. 3(1), pp. 58-67, DOI: 10.1080/19460170903158107.

Council of the European Union, ‘EU Agenda for action on Democracy Support in EU external relations’, 2009, available at =http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/ cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/er/110576.pdf>, accessed 12 February 2010

Crawford, G., ‘The European Union and Democracy Promotion in Africa:  The Case of Ghana’, POLIS   Working          Paper 10 (2004), available at

Deacon, B., Macovei, M. C., Van Langenhove, L., & Yeates, N. (2009). World-regional social policy and global governance: New research and policy agendas in Africa, Asia, Europe and Latin America. Routledge.

Devereux, S. (2016). The Right to Social Protection in Africa: From CCCCDFPRTs to CLSPPPs. ttps://doi.org/10.5771/2363-6270-2017-1-11, accessed on: am 17.01. 2023, 17:06:5.

European Commission, The    European        Commission    Methodological           Guide  on        Electoral          Assistance, October 2006, available at , accessed 12 December 2009.

European Union, ‘Consolidated versions of the treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community’, available at

Fukuyama, F. (1992). The End of History and the Last Man. Free Press.

Habtom, K.G. (2022). Review of social protection experiences in Sub-Saharan Africa: The case of Eritrea, vol. 5(1), pp. 110-144.

Hollis, S. (2015). The Role of Regional Organizations in Disaster Risk Management. Rutledge.

Holmes, R., & Lwanga-Ntale, C. (2012). Social Protection in Africa: A Review of Social Protection Issues in Research: Policy and Programming Trends and Key Governance Issues in Social Protection.

International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance [IDEA]. (2016). The role of regional organizations in the protection of constitutionalism International IDEA Discussion Paper 17/2016.

Katzenstein, Peter J. (2005): A World of Regions: Asia and Europe in the American
Imperium, Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press (Cornell Studies in Political
Economy).

Keohane, Robert O. and Nye, Joseph S. (1977): Power and Interdependence: World
Politics in Transition, Boston et al.: Little, Brown and Company.

Keohane, Robert O. and Nye, Joseph S. (1977): Power and Interdependence: World
Politics in Transition, Boston et al.: Little, Brown and Company.

Krasner, Stephen D. (1983): Structural Causes and Consequences: Regimes as
Intervening Variables. In Stephen D. Krasner (ed.): International Regimes, Ithaca:
Cornell University Press, pp. 1–21.

Krasner, Stephen D. (1984): Approaches to the State: Alternative Conceptions and
Historical Dynamics, Comparative Politics 16 (2), pp. 223–246.

Krasner, Stephen D. (1989): Sovereignty: An Institutional Perspective. In James A.
Caporaso (ed.): The Elusive State: International and Comparative Perspectives,
Newbury Park, London, New Delhi: Sage, pp. 69–96.

Mansfield, Edward D. and Milner, Helen V. (1999): The New Wave of Regionalism,
International Organization 53 (3), pp. 589–627.

Montero, C.L., Cespedes, P.S., Ortiz, C.P. (2016). Regional Organizations and Mechanisms for Democracy Protection in Latin America, the Caribbean and the European Union. European Union Institute and Global Governance Program.

Mutangadura, G. (n.d). A review of social protection experiences in Africa.

Odukoya, Adelaja, ‘Democracy, Elections, Election Monitoring and Peace-Building in West Africa’, African        Journal            of         International       Affairs, 10/1–2 (2007), available at , accessed 21 December 2009

Parto, S. (2005). “Good" governance and policy analysis: what of institutions?

Resilience, Equity and Opportunity: World Bank’s Social Protection and Labour Strategy 2012-2022.

Reus-Smit, Christian (1997): The Constitutional Structure of International Society and
the Nature of Fundamental Institutions, International Organization 51 (4), pp. 555–
589.

Riggirozi, P., & Yeates, N. (2015). Locating regional health policy: Institutions, politics, and practices. Global Social Policy, Vol. 15(3) pp. 212–228. DOI: 10.1177/1468018115599819.

Riggirozzi, P., & Yeates, N. (2015). Locating regional health policy: Institutions, politics, and practices. Global Social Policy, 15(3), 212-228.

Ruggie, John Gerard (1998): What Makes the World Hang together? Neo-Utilitarianism