Search

From a Latin American’s viewpoint -where the European Union (EU) is a reference point as a transnational integration- it is remarked at first the incapacity to revert regional asymmetries so as to build a Europe for all the regions as shown by dominant neoliberal and neoregionalist agendas involved in the EU’s institutional building up. To explain that, we highlight the limitations of the regionalist perspective that had nurtured the EU’s institutions and territorial policies that were both centrally founded in the belief that regions/localities were self-reproductive containers working in an unidirectional global local relationship, and in the inconsideration of asymmetric dynamics promoted from the neoliberal strategies at a national and supranational level. Trying to overcome those limitations and to formulate a strategy of alternate regional development, we stand out the need for inserting the regions in a more realistic and integrating macro-meso relationships, in which the role of the national State and the national paths and models are computed.

Se analizan críticamente los enfoques que han sustentado el posicionamiento estratégico de las regiones en el escenario de la glocalización. Luego de presentar una contracorriente empírica que terminó debilitando en los 90s las argumentaciones sobre la expansión "horizontalizadora" y armónica de los complejos territoriales de acumulación flexible a nivel global, se examinan los enfoques que, asumiendo este escenario, sostienen la relevancia de las ventajas dinámicas fundadas en el desarrollo de un sólido orgware regional-local y cualificadas redes de cooperación, para dar continuidad a la centralidad de las regiones. Se evalúan las debilidades de estos nuevos desarrollos, destacándose: a) la reincidencia en apelar en forma selectiva a casos que reúnen un conjunto de especificidades históricas de difícil traslación; b) la exagerada prescindencia que estos enfoques realizan de los espacios nacionales y el EstadoThis work analyzes the approaches that support the strategic positions of regions into the new glocalizator scenery. After presenting an empirical countercurrent that ended, during the ‘90, weakening the arguments about the horizontality and harmonic expansion of the territorial complexes of flexible accumulation at global level, the work examined the approaches that, assuming this scenery, hold the relevance of the development of a solid regional-local orgware and qualified networks of cooperation, in order to give continuity to the centrality of regions. The weakness of the these new development were evaluated, highlighting: a) the re-invocation to empirical cases with historical specificity, that make difficult their transference; and b) the scarce presence of national spaces and the state