In this article an alternative thinking and methodological approach for the study of regional integration is proposed, addressing the limitations of classical regional integration theories and the new regionalism approach. A ‘dominatarian’ theory is introduced as an alternative analytical framework that exposes meanings attributed to a social force called ‘personness’, and how regions could be (re)constructed through this anthropocentric lens. The East African Community (EAC, henceforth referred to as the Jumuiya) is chosen as a tour de force for regional integration theories. The triadal analysis of the three main components of classical regional integration theories—economy, institutions and politics—reveals the deficiency of these frameworks in explaining the role of ‘personness’ in regional integration processes, especially within the African context. Consequently, the phrase ‘contextual misfitability’ has been coined to describe this condition. The article concludes with a reflection on how meanings are created and re-created from the Darwinian ontologies of natural sciences into social science regimes and its application to regional integration studies.
AbbottM. F. (2007). A new dominant trade species emerges: Is bilateralism a threat?Journal of International Economic Law, 10(3), 571–583.
2.
AdelmannM. (2004). Quiet diplomacy: The reasons behind Mbeki’s Zimbabwe policy. Africa Spectrum, 39(2), 249–276.
3.
AldenC., & SokoM. (2005). South Africa’s economic relations with Africa: Hegemony and its discontents. The Journal of Modern African Studies, 43(3), 367–392.
4.
BernsS. G., & AtranS. (2012). The biology of cultural conflict. Philosophical Transactions B, 367(1589), 633–639.
5.
BeyersJ., EisingR., & MaloneyW. (2008). Researching interest group politics in Europe and elsewhere: Much we study, little we know. West European Politics, 3(16), 1103–1128.
6.
BridgewaterP., & RotherhamD. I. (2019). A critical perspective on the concept of biocultural diversity and its emerging role in nature and heritage conversation. People and Nature, 1(June), 291–304.
7.
BuigutS. (2012). An assessment of the trade effects of the East African Community customs union on member countries. International Journal of Economics and Finance, 4(10), 41–53.
8.
BurgessR., JedwabR., MiguelE., & MorjariaA. (2010). Our turn to eat: The political economy of roads in Kenya. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.352.4992
9.
ButlerJ. M. (2019). Adaptive peace-making in protracted conflict: IGAD mediation in the second Sudanese civil war. Global Policy, 10(Special Issue), 93–100.
10.
CharlesworthB. (1979). Evidence against Fisher’s theory of dominance. Nature, 278(1979), 848–849.
11.
Conflict Barometer (2017). Disputes, non-violent crises, violent crises, limited wars and wars (Research No. 26). Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Research. https://hiik.de/2018/02/28/conflict-barometer-2017/?lang=en
12.
DayA. (2018). Preventive diplomacy and the Southern Sudan independence referendum (2010–2011). United Nations University Centre for Policy Research. https://i.unu.edu/media/cpr.unu.edu/attachment/2754/PD-Sudan.pdf
13.
DeutschW. K. (1968). El analisis de las relacionales. Paidos Buenos Aires. https://www.worldcat.org/title/analisis-de-las-relaciones-internacionales/oclc/27017482/editions?referer=di&editionsView=true
14.
DraperP. (2012). Breaking free from Europe: Why Africa needs another model of regional integration. The International Spectator, 47(1), 67–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/03932729.2012.655008
15.
DrewS. C. (1993). The concept and definition of dominance in animal behaviour. Behaviour, 125(3–4), 283–313.
16.
EbsteinR. P., SalomonI., ChewS. H., ZhongS., & KnafoA. (2010). Genetics of human social behavior. Neuron, 65(6), 831–844.
17.
Fink-HafnerD., & Hafner-FinkM. (2009). The determinants of the success of transition to democracy. European-Asia Studies, 61(9), 1603–1625.
18.
FreudC., & OrnelasE. (2010). Regional trade agreements (Working Paper No. 5314). World Bank. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.economics.102308.124455.
19.
GrossmanG. M., & HelpmanE. (1995). Trade wars and trade talks. Journal of Political Economy, 103(4), 675–708.
20.
HaasB. E. (1964). Beyond the nation-state: Functionalism and international organization. Stanford University Press.
21.
HaasE. (2004). The uniting of Europe: Political, social and economic forces 1950–1957. Stanford University Press.
22.
HaleyP. H., & HansleyW. A. (2009). Social dominance and forceful submission fantasies: Feminine pathology or power?The Journal of Sex Research, 46(6), 568–585.
23.
HamillJ., & HoffmannJ. (2009). Quiet diplomacy or appeasement? South African policy towards Zimbabwe. The Round Table, 98(402), 373–384.
24.
HammerstadA. (Ed.) (2005). People, state and regions: Building a collaborative security regime in Southern Africa. South African Institute of International Affairs. https://saiia.org.za/research/people-states-and-regions-building-a-collaborative-security-regime-in-southern-africa/
25.
HaunerM. (1978). Did Hitler want a world dominion?Journal of Contemporary History, 13(1), 15–32.
26.
Hemandez-ChavezE., BurtM., & DulayH. (1978). Language dominance and proficiency testing: Some general considerations. NABE Journal, 3(1), 41–54.
27.
HettneB. (1991). Security and peace in post-Cold War Europe. Journal of Peace Research, 28(3), 279–294.
28.
HettneB., & SoderbaumF. (1998). The new regionalism approach. Politeia, 19(3), 6–21.
29.
HettneB., & SoderbaumF. (2006, 25–30April). Theorizing comparative regionalism: Bridging old divides. Paper presentation ECPR joint session on ‘Comparative Regional Integration: Towards a Research Agenda’, Nicosia.
30.
HilpertG. H. (2014). China’s trade policy: Dominance without the will to lead (Research Paper No. 1). Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik German Institute of International Trade and Security Affairs. https://www.swp-berlin.org/fileadmin/contents/products/research_papers/2014_RP01_hlp.pdf.
31.
Hodges-SimeonC. R., GaulinS. J. C., & PutsD. A. (2010). Different vocal parameters predict perceptions of dominance and attractiveness. Human Nature, 21(4), 406–427.
32.
KellyD. (2005). Trade, security and globalization. In KellyD., & GrantW. (Eds.), The politics of international trade in the twenty-first century. Palgrave Macmillan. https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/pais/research/researchcentres/csgr/research/publications/kelly/.
33.
KeohaneR., & NyeJ. (1987). Review: Power and interdependence revisited. International Organization, 41(4), 725–753.
34.
KinnvallC. (2019). Populism, ontological insecurity and Hindutva: Modi and the masculinization of Indian politics. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 32(3), 283–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2019.1588851
35.
LevyS. J. (1994). The democratic peace hypothesis: From description to explanation. Mershon International Studies Review, 38(2), 352–354.
36.
LischerK. S. (1999). Causes of communal war: Fear and feasibility. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, 22(4), 331–355.
37.
LoftusB. (2008). Dominant culture interrupted: Recognition, resentment and the politics of change in an English police force. The British Journal of Criminology, 48(1), 756–777.
38.
LovettaF. (2009). Domination and distributive justice. The Journal of Politics, 71(3), 817–830.
39.
MacDonaldK. (2009). Evolution, psychological, and a conflict theory of culture. Evolutionary Psychology, 7(2), 208–233.
40.
MacGueM., & Thoma JrB. J. (1998). Genetics and environmental influences on human behavioral difference. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 21(1998), 1–24.
41.
MaslowH. A. (1939). Dominance, personality and social behaviour in women. The Journal of Social Psychology, 10(1), 3–39.
42.
MazruiA. A. (1967). Tanzaphilia. Transition, 31(1967), 20–25.
43.
McLarenI. R. (1985). Mitranian functionalism: Possible or impossible?Review of International Studies, 11(2), 139–152.
44.
McLaughlin JrR. N., & MalikH. S. (2017). Genetic conflict: The usual suspects and beyond. Journal of Experimental Biology, 220(1), 6–17.
45.
MitranyD. (1948). The functional approach to world organizations. International Affairs, 24(3), 350–363.
46.
MugombaT. A. (1978). Regional organizations and African underdevelopment: The collapse of the EAC. The Journal of Modern African Studies, 16(2), 261–272.
47.
NovakM., & Fink-HafnerD. (2019). Slovenia: Interest group developments in post-socialist-liberal democracy. Journal of Public Affairs, 19(2), 1–13.
48.
OluochL. O. W. (2009). Legitimacy of the EAC. Journal of African Law, 53(2), 194–221.
49.
PadelfordJ. N. (1964). The organization of African unity. International Organization, 18(3), 521–542.
50.
ParkerI. (1972). Ideological and economic development in Tanzania. African Studies Review, 15(1), 43–78.
51.
SoderbaumF., & ShawT. (Eds.). (2003). Theories of new regionalism. Palgrave Macmillan.
52.
StewartF. (2019). The human development approach: An overview. Oxford Development Studies, 47(2), 135–153.
53.
TavaresR., & TangV. (2011). Regional economic integration in Africa: Impediments to progress?South African Journal of International Affairs, 18(2), 217–233.
54.
The Economist (2008, 3July. The domino effects. Finance and Economics. https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2008/07/03/the-domino-effect
55.
ThompsonJ. M. (2013). A functionalist theory of social domination. Journal of Political Power, 6(21), 79–199.
56.
WeissM., & MorrisonE. W. (2018). Speaking up and moving up: How voices can enhance employee’s social status. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 40(1), 5–19.
