The last quarter of the twentieth century witnessed several paradoxes. Amongst these was the determined movement by countries towards “regionalism”, wherein despite their proud proclamations about nationalism and sovereignty, several countries actually chose to abridge the latter and go easy on the former. It is true that governments often need to say one thing and act in the opposite way. This resembles what sociologists call “decoupling” where there is a split between norms and behaviour. But it is not often that so many governments do so at the same time. Clearly, regionalism was (and is) not just attractive as a fad but holds out the prospect of positive benefits, not just for the elites of countries but for the populations as a whole.

Regionalism thus has an instrumental dimension to it. Despite misgivings about the loss of autonomy states pursue it and convince their people that it is the best insurance against the tide of globalism. Strength in numbers is a powerful argument and that is the reason why even ill-performing regional outfits trundle along. The strategies underway in many regions to enter into RTAs are evidence enough for this. But this is not to say that regionalism acts as an impediment to multilateral arrangements. On the contrary, many people regard regionalism as a stepping stone and not a hurdle. Neither is regionalism perceived as being harmful to nationalism defined narrowly as national interest. Being a part of the regional whole has a comforting effect on smaller states. This is where the concept of “sovereignty bargains” is useful. It makes us aware of the underlying logic that pushes states to opt for regional cooperation.

It is hard to say with any degree of confidence exactly when nations became aware of the virtues of banding together with others in the region. But it is generally conceded that the late 1940s was when the idea germinated. Shortly thereafter Germany and France came together to form a common market for their steel and coal which effectively launched the regional project. In all probability, this was the response of French capital to the perceived threat from American capital, which was flooding Europe at the time in the drive towards post-war reconstruction.