cascadia in comparative perspectives: canada‐u.s

CanadianPoliticalScienceReviewVol2(2)June2008

CascadiainComparativePerspectives(104‐124) 104

CascadiainComparativePerspectives:Canada‐U.S.RelationsandtheEmergenceofCross‐BorderRegions

EmmanuelBrunet‐Jailly(UniversityofVictoria)1

Abstract

This paper drawson findings from research on theCanadian‐AmericanborderledbythePolicyResearchInitiative(PRI)since2004andontherecentPRIsurveyofCanadian‐Americanleaders,aswellasontheauthor’sfieldworkonmultilevelgovernanceissuesarisingfromtheemergingcross‐borderregionsinEuropeandNorthAmerica.Relyingonfouranalyticallenses—theeconomy,localandcentralpolitics and policies, and local cultures—this paper examines how emergingcross‐border regions, and particularly the Cascadia region,1 are changingCanadian‐American relations. Specific attention is given to the varied formsofco‐operationacrosspolicyfieldsinordertodetail(1)thegeneralandspecializedand(2)theformalandinformalrelationsand(3)theemergingborderregions.Thispaperunderlinestheimportanceofunderstandingcross‐borderrelationsatthesub‐nationallevelinordertounderstandCanada‐U.S.relations.Theoverallargumentisthattheappearanceofcross‐borderregionsindicatesaprogressiveemergenceof policy parallelism in amultitudeof policy arenas, particularly, aspecificallyNorthAmericanformofintegration.

Introduction2

CanadaandtheUnitedStatesshareatraditionofday‐to‐dayco‐operationandhavedevelopedan “intimate” knowledge of each other that is apparent in the current tradition of quietdiplomacyand low‐level functionalsolutions ina fewkeypolicyarenas (freetrade, labor,andenvironmental standards). For Canadians, co‐operation with the U.S. always involvesconsiderations of identity and sovereignty. Generally, Canadian officials resolve this issue bymaintaininglow‐keyfunctionalandeffectiverelationswiththeirAmericancounterparts,whichinherently limits any expansion of the supranational role of the North American Free TradeAgreement (NAFTA), but concurrently enhances other multilateral relations among CanadianandAmericanpublicandprivateorganizations.

1EmmanuelBrunet‐Jailly,LocalGovernmentInstitute,UniversityofVictoriaBC,[email protected]



This phenomenon of multilevel governance, also identified by academics in Europe, helpsdifferentiate betweenwhat policy is in the realm of a national government andwhat resultsfromtheinteractionsofamultiplicityofrelations(e.g.,local,regional,provincialandstatelevelpolicy actors). In Canada‐U.S. relations,multilevel governance is defined in large part by thepublicandprivatesub‐national‐levelactorswithinthe intergovernmentalnetworksandacrosstheinternationalborder.3

ThispaperdrawsonfindingsfromresearchontheCanadian‐AmericanborderledbythePolicyResearchInitiative(PRI)since2004andontherecentPRIsurveyofCanadian‐Americanleaders,aswellasontheauthor’sfieldworkonmultilevelgovernanceissuesarisingfromtheemergingcross‐borderregionsinEuropeandNorthAmerica.Relyingonfouranalyticallenses—theeconomy,localandcentralpoliticsandpolicies,andlocalcultures—thispaperexamineshowemergingcross‐borderregions,andparticularlytheCascadiaregion,4arechangingCanadian‐Americanrelations.Specificattentionisgiventothevariedformsofco‐operationacrosspolicyfieldsinordertodetail(1)thegeneralandspecializedand(2)theformalandinformalrelationsand(3)theemergingborderregions.Thispaperunderlinestheimportanceofunderstandingcross‐borderrelationsatthesub‐nationallevelinordertounderstandCanada‐U.S.relations.Theoverallargumentisthattheappearanceofcross‐borderregionsindicatesaprogressiveemergenceofpolicyparallelisminamultitudeofpolicyarenas,particularly,aspecificallyNorthAmericanformofintegration.

WhatisnotinquestionisthatNorthAmericanpoliticalintegrationwouldfollowinthefootstepsof the European Union (EU), where countries have delegated large portions of sovereignprerogatives to supranational institutions. The integration question in North America, it isarguedhere,proceedsthroughaprocessofsystematicharmonizationofpolicy,amechanismofco‐operation,collaborationandcoordinationthatleadstopolicyparallelism.Thismechanismissimilar to thatpresentedbyKarlDeutch inNationalismandSocial Communication,andmorerecentlybyPeterKatzensteininDisjoinedPartners,byHenryJacekinUnequalPartners,andbyJohnMcDougallinCanada‐U.S.Integration:History,Theory,Prospects.CanadaandtheU.S.arenotonly integratingeconomically,butalsoprogressively followingapathofharmonizationofpolicies,partly toaddressmarket‐drivenneedsofcorporations thatareexpandingtheir reachacrosstheNorthAmericanmarketandpartlyasaresultoftheculturalinterdependencythatisexpandingbetweenCanadaandtheU.S.

Inthispaper,thecontentionisthateconomicintegrationhasseepedintopoliticalintegrationina very North American manner; political integration is synonymous with processes of policyparallelism,thatis,policycoordination,co‐operation,andcollaborationleadtoharmonization.InNorthAmerica,politicalintegrationresultsfromeconomicintegrationandpolicyparallelism.Sinceacentralargumentofthispaperisthatbotheconomicintegrationandpolicyparallelismleadtopoliticalintegration,canwedocumentincreasedformsoflow‐profile,bureaucraticanddiscretediplomaticprocessesdevelopingacrossgovernmentlinesandthe49thparallel?

The empirical evidence presented here is based on contemporary social science research onborderstudies,aswellasonnewandrichdataresultingfromfourPRIborderstudiesfocusingon(1)economicrelations,(2)socialandculturalvalues,(3)institutionaldevelopmentacrossthe49thparalleland(4)anelitesurvey.



Thefirstsectionofthispaperisareviewoftheliteratureonborderregionsandintegration.Thesectionsthatfollowarereviewsofthedebatesandnewevidenceavailableon(1)borderregionsand economic integration, (2) border regions and social and cultural value convergence, (3)cross‐borderinstitutionaldevelopmentand(4)theresultsofaleadersurveythatpointstowardtheemergenceofpoliticalintegrationandpolicyparallelism.

ReviewofDebates:EconomicandPoliticalIntegration

Isitpossiblethateconomicintegrationleadstopoliticalintegration?Thisdebateseemstohavepreoccupied Canadians since confederation and has become particularly salient since NAFTAwassigned.HistoriansofCanadian‐AmericanrelationsaretoowellawareofCanadiansongoingfear that toomuch economic integrationmight lead to continental integration to ignore thequestion.However,oftentheproponentsofsuchviewsarenotacknowledgedseriouslyenough.

KimNossal,5forinstance,describedthedebatebetweenthosehecalled“economicnationalists”and “integrationists.” His realist position is that political nations should hold firm to theireconomy and that integrationists always underestimate the political costs of politicalintegration. For Nossal, economic interdependence is a threat to political independence andCanadiansshouldstrive toprotect theirpolitical independence tomitigate the implicationsofeconomic interdependency. Clearly, Nossal equates independencewith sovereignty, thus, hismainargumentisthateconomicinterdependencemayleadtoalossofsovereignty.Nossalalsosuggests that economic integration is not safe for Canadians, and it is very plausible thateconomicintegrationmayleadtopoliticalintegration.

Inthesamevein,thereisalargeliteratureontheeconomicandpoliticalintegrationofEurope.Themodel of integration at stake is in opposition to the realist views that are prone to theemergenceofanintergovernmentalmodelofEUgovernanceandtothefunctionalistandneo‐functionalist arguments that defend the progressive emergence of a federal model ofgovernment. Inboth instances, it isclearthatEUmember‐statesaredelegating largeareasofresponsibilitiestothesupranationallevel.Inturn,politicalintegrationintheEUtakestheformofexpansiveinstitutionalizationatasupranationallevelofgovernment.

Originally,ErnstHaas (1958,1964)observedthatpolitical integration tookplacewhenastatetransferred functions and responsibilities to state‐like institutions at the supranational level,which in turn expanded the scope of intervention. Haas identified that the European‐levelbureaucracyatthetimewasabletoincreaseitsactivitiesbyspillingoverfromonepolicyfieldtoanother,as illustratedbythesteelandcoalcommunitiesthathadexpandedintotheEuratomcommunity.

WithregardtoNAFTA,fewscholarshavefoundanyreasontoassumethatitwouldexpandintopolicyarenasotherthanfreetrade,labor,andenvironmentalstandards.6However,thereareafewexceptions.MichaelPastor,forinstance,arguedthatNorthAmericawouldhavetoconfrontthis issueof supranational institutions,whileThomasCourchene raised the issueofeconomicintegrationandtheneedforasinglecurrency.Further,consistentwiththehistoryofCanada‐U.S. relations, Canada might seek closer relationships with the U.S., particularly to furthersecure its economic wealth. However, from a Canadian point of view, there would be littlesupportforstrongNAFTAinstitutions,andthusanexpansionofthesupranationalroleinitiatedbyNAFTAinstitutionsseemsunlikely.7



Both realist and multilevel governance perspectives suggest that state sovereignty is intact.Realists assert that central states remain in control of the supranational institutions,whereasmultilevel‐governance proponents suggest that central states and all of their levels ofgovernments end up working together and across not only intergovernmental lines but alsointernationalborderstodevelop,designandimplementpolicies.8Forrealists,thepriorityisthatcentral governments initiate and control the implementation of international agreements. Inthis paper, political integration would then result from activities involving policy arenastraditionallyintherealmofcentralgovernment;theywouldfollowawell‐establishedtraditionoflow‐profile,bureaucraticanddiscretediplomaticprocesses.

AnothermultilevelgovernanceapproachhasemergedfromtheworkofGaryMarksandLiesbetHooghe on European policy‐making process.9 They observed that the implementation ofEuropeanstructuralfunds(regionalandsocialpolicyfunds)dependsexclusivelyonlowerlevelsofgovernment,whichbecomescriticalforthesuccessfulimplementationofmostsupranationalpolicies.TheauthorsarguethatalthoughEuropeancentralgovernmentsandtheEuropean‐levelbureaucracymaycontroltreatiesandothermajorpiecesoflegislationandfinancialdecisions,itistheincreasinglyimportantandcomplexnetworksoflower‐levelgovernmentsandthemyriadconnectionsof thosedecision‐makers that explain their successes. In our case, the importantvariablesaretherolesofsub‐national‐levelagenciesandthemultitudeofrelationshipswithintheintergovernmentalnetworksandacrosstheinternationalborder.

Clearly, both in NAFTA and the EU, central‐state actors are important for the pan‐European/NAFTA coordination of policies. But how are those policies implemented? Forinstance,areweabletodocumentclearpatternsofpolicyparallelismswhereprocessesofco‐operation, coordination and collaboration go beyond federal‐level co‐operation to involve amultitude of lower‐level governments and security agencies? Are these occurring not only atstate andprovincial levels but also at the local level, as hasbeendocumented in the areaofbordersecurity?10

Contrary to the intergovernmental and the multilevel governance arguments, somefunctionalistscontendthatmarketforcesandfreetradesustainintegratingforcesagainstwhichfederal governments can do little. Kenishi Ohmae, for instance, believes that cross‐borderrelationsresultfromfreetradeandthenew“interlinkedeconomy”fosterseconomiczonesofinclusionthateventuallydevelopintopoliticalcommunities.11

Another functionalist view, initially formulated by Deutch,12 later developed by Keohane andNye13andmostrecentlydevelopedbyAlderandBarnet,14hasledtothesuggestionthatCanadaandtheU.S.formasecuritycommunitybecausetheyare“atrans‐nationalregioncomprisedofsovereign states whose people maintain dependable expectations of peaceful changes.”15Indeed, thescholarlycommunityagrees that the twonationsaremore thanastrictlydefinedsecurity community. Both countries share a traditionof day‐to‐day co‐operation andhave an“intimate”knowledgeofeachotherthatisapparentinthecurrenttraditionofquietdiplomacyand low‐level functional solutions.16And,asmanyprominent scholars suchas Ignatieff17havenoted,Canadaissocomfortableinthisrelationshipthatitassertsitsviewsbettertodaythaninthepast.Furthermore,althoughitisstillamatterofsomedebate18itisprogressivelybecoming



apparentthatCanada,theU.S.andMexiconotonlyshareacommonidentitybutalsoseemtohaveconvergentvaluesystems.19

Inhisarticle“UnequalPartners,”HenryJacekreliesontheDeutchianviewoftheCanada‐U.S.relationship.20WithoutacceptingtheconclusionsofKatzenstein’sstudyoftheAustrian‐Germanrelationship, Jacek admits that theCanada‐US relationship is that of unequal partners, a nowwell‐known term. More recently John McDougall argued that Canada and the U.S. areintegrating.21 In Political Community and the North Atlantic Area, Karl Deutch’s centralintegrationargumentisthat“communication”leadstointegration.Accordingly,integrationistooccur because of increased levels of communication, which over time will bring about thepoliticaltransformationofthecommunitiesinvolved.Hissocialcommunicationthesissuggestsit is because they develop and sustain common goals that that political communities movetowardoneanother.

Thecontention in thispaper is that there isenoughevidence todocument theemergenceofcross‐border regions, which in turn demonstrates the existence of a relationship betweeneconomic and political integration and of a nascent policy process that leads toward thefulfillment of common goals. In the spirit of the work of Karl Deutsch, Peter Kasensteing orKenishiOhmae,whoarguedthatborderregionsareemergingbecauseofeconomicintegrationinculturallyhomogeneousareas. In thispaper Iargue thateconomic integration is correlatedwith increased occurrences of border‐spanning network institutions that is leading to a clearmechanism of policy parallelism, which is leading to a North American form of politicalintegration.

In effect, we are witnessing an intriguingly similar relationship to what Peter Katzensteinidentified as a “disjointed partnership” between Austria and Germany, in which policyparallelism,harmonizationandpolitical integrationdidnotchallengeeachstate’s sovereignty.Katzenstein noted that it was particularly intriguing that both countries continued a distinctexistence, despite the multitude of linkages integrating them culturally, socially andeconomically.What is so interesting inKatzenstein’sview is thatAustriaandGermanydonotdeveloppoliticalinstitutionsbutrather“thepurposefulcoordinationofpoliticalbehaviorintheachievementofcommontasks.”22 Integration,according toKatzenstein,emergesoutof thosemechanisms that bring forth harmonization and the standardization of national policies inGermanyandAustria.

It is particularly relevant that the Katzenstein model suggests a different venue to politicalintegration than that of the EU member‐states. In short, institutionalization is not a basicrequirement,andasthemodelsuggests,therearevariedformsofpoliticalintegration.Ononehand, (1)political integrationmayarise fromamultitudeof linkagesofcommunication,alongwith(2)aharmonizationofsocio‐culturalvaluesandwith(3)thedevelopmentofnetworksofmultilevel governance, all of which would lead to the emergence of border‐regions. On theotherhand,thereisthepossibilityoftheformationofstate‐likeinstitutionsatthesupranationallevel,whichtheEuropeanexperienceexemplifies.

Thecoreoftheargumentpresentedinthispaperfocuseson(1)economic integration,(2)theconvergenceofsocio‐culturalvalues, (3) the formationofborder‐spanning institutionsand (4)the emergence of policy mechanisms that lead to policy parallelism. It is argued that policyparallelism serves common policy goals, which in turn lead to a particular form of political



integration.However,thisargumentdoesnotcontradicttheviewsofthosewhostatethatthesymbolicvalueofborderscanbereaffirmedbyprotectingnationalsovereignty.Ineffect,manyobservers argue that the asymmetric relations that link Canada and the U.S. inform theCanadian view in particular. For Canadians, co‐operation with the U.S. always involvesconsiderations of identity because, to a certain extent, Canadian nationalism is defined inopposition,oratleast,inrelationtotheU.S.Similarly,fortheAmericans,theprimaryfunctionoftheirbordersistoprotectthenascentnationagainstintruders.Thus,forCanadians,relationsacrossthe49thparallelarecomplex,symbolic,andemotionalbecausetheyareperceivedasapotentialthreattotheirgeneralsenseofself,whereasforAmericans,theirbordersshelterthemfrom external threats. Still, it is remarkable that for the last century, Canadian officials haveresolvedthesecomplexrelationsbymaintaininglow‐keyfunctionalandeffectiverelationswiththeirAmericancounterparts.

Intheend,thisreviewofdebatesunderscoresthatinNorthAmerica,althoughtheEuropeanmodelofpoliticalintegrationisgenerallyperceivedasimprobable,ifnotunrealistic,theconceptofpoliticalintegrationisnotimprobable.IthasbeenathemeinthepoliticalscienceliteratureinCanada,inwhichauthorssuchasNossal,Jacek,andMcDougall,pointtowardvenuesthatcorrelateeconomicintegrationwithpoliticalintegrationor,asitisarguedinthispaper,insuccessivesteps,fromfreetradetocommongoals,topolicyparallelism,coordinationandharmonization.

Thus, theemergenceofborderregionspresentsevidenceofaprocessof integration inNorthAmerica.The following four sectionsof thispaper review fourcentral issuesofeconomicandpolitical integration: (1) the economic integration of North America, (2) the convergence ofsocialandculturalvalues,(3)theinstitutionaldevelopmentacrossthe49thparalleland(4)theemergenceofmechanismsofpolicyparallelism.Theevidencepresentedheremaynotdirectlycorrelateeconomicandpoliticalintegration,butitcertainlysuggeststhateconomicintegrationisdrivingpolicymakerstosharegoalsandadoptparallel‐policysolutions.

Economic Integration in North America and the Emergence of Cross‐BorderRegions

Overall, it is beyonddoubt thatCanadaand theU.S. dependoneachother’s economy. Theireconomicinterdependencehasbeendocumentedsinceconfederation.Thequestion,however,concerns the progress toward economic integration andwhether economic interdependenceleadstoeconomicandpoliticalintegration.

The literature reflects this controversial debate. Has the economy of Canada become moreclosely integrated to that of the U.S.? For instance, Engel and Rogers suggest that the 49thparallel is 2,500 miles wide in terms of price variability between two regions, and Helliwellillustrated that theCanadian‐bias factorwasabout12 for1993–96,whereas itwas17beforethe1988FreeTradeAgreement(FTA)wassigned.23

An important indicator of increasing interdependence is that Canada and the U.S. are eachother’s number‐one trading partner. Indeed, since the beginning of free trade, the two‐waytradebetweenCanadaandtheU.S.increasedfrom$45.6billionin1977to$675billionin2001,an increase of 1,480 percent. The cross‐border trade of goods has increased faster than the



growth of the GDP;24 according to Curtis, cross‐border trade is three time higher than GDPgrowth.

Furthermore, relying on the Frankel model of economic integration to assess the degree ofintegrationofa regionaleconomy, someprovinces, suchasOntarioandBritishColumbia,areeconomicallyintegratedwithneighbouringAmericanstates.25AccordingtotheFrankeltest,thedegreeof integrationofCanada into theNAFTAeconomic realm is 2.06, amuch‐lower resultthantheEUaverageof4.7,whichsuggeststhattheCanadianeconomyshouldonlytradetwiceasmuchtobeperfectlyintegrated.WhentheFrankeltestisused,Ontarioscoresaratioof1.3andBritishColumbiascores3.3;bothtestssuggestthatOntarioisalmostperfectly integrated,althoughOntario’sscore is lowerthanthatof Ireland(1.8) in theEU.BritishColumbia’s intra‐NAFTAtrade,however,shouldbe3.3timesgreatertoreachperfecteconomicintegrationintotheNorthAmericaneconomy.26

CourchenehasalsoemphasizedthattradeflowsbetweenAmerican‐borderstatesandCanadianprovincesisincreasing.Hemakesthecasethat,inCanada,thehistoricaleast‐westtradeamongprovinces is shifting toward a north‐south flow of goods. Three provinces—Ontario, BritishColumbiaandQuebec—trademorewithAmericanstatesthanwiththerestofCanada(ROC),27whileOntariotradesthreetimesmorewiththerestoftheworld(ROW)—inthiscase,Michigan,Ohioandtherestof theU.S.—thanwiththeROC.BritishColumbiaalsotradesmorewiththeROWthanwiththeROC.TheROW‐ROCratio,however,standsat1.2,suggestingthatbothflowsof trade are balanced. Similarly, Abgrall (2005)28 and the Policy Research Initiative recentresearch29 have documented that cross‐border regions in provinces and states form cross‐bordereconomicregionsacrossthe49thparallel.

Thismorerecentresearchsuggeststhat“inborderareas,Canada‐USeconomicandcommercialactivitiesaredefinitivelystrongerandmoreinvolved,”30thattradelevelsandtradegrowtharehigher between provinces and neighboring states,31 and that trade is also about a greatervariety of goods.32 Finally, trade flows form clear geographical cross‐border regions, whichinclude,forinstance,Ontario,Michigan,OhioandIndianaintheGreatLakesregionandBritishColumbia,Alberta,Yukon(withAlaska),Washington,Idaho,OregonandMontanainthewest.33These cross‐bordereconomic regionshaveeconomic activities that arehighly correlatedwithkeyclustersstraddlingtheborder.InthePacificNorthWest(Cascadia),forinstance,economicclusters exist around transportation and logistics, heavy construction services, oil and gasproductsandservices,andagriculturalandfishingproducts,whileintheGreatLakesheartland,automotiveproduction,equipmentservicesandmetalmanufacturingdominate.34

This research confirms that there is economic evidence of the existence of economic cross‐borderregionsinwhich“valueoftradeisquicklygrowing,involvingawidervarietyofexports,many reflecting higher‐knowledge activities and higher market dependency on cross‐borderstates.”35Allofthefiguresleadtotheconclusionthat,duetothehighlevelofeconomiclinkageandcommunications,itisreasonabletoassumethattheCanadianandAmericaneconomiesarehighly interdependent and that there are clear cases of integrated cross‐border economicregions emerging across the 49th parallel, particularly in the Great Lakes heartland and thePacificNorthWest(Cascadia).



However, does economic integration precede political integration?Do economic cross‐borderregionsleadtotheemergenceofcross‐bordersocialandculturalregions?Thesetwoquestionsareaddressedinthefollowingsectiononsocialandculturalvalues.

ConvergenceofSocialandCulturalValues

Thework of Karl Deutch is particularly relevant to this section of the paper because Deutchdeveloped a theory of national social and political integration, the foundations of“transactionalism and social communication.”36 For Deutch, transaction is aboutinterdependence; anational communityemerges froma collectivememory that is associatedwith a high level of interdependence or transaction. Political integration includes theconvergenceof corevaluesandcentral to thisprocess is the idea that increased trust resultsfrom increased transaction and communication. Deutch asserts that there is a correlationbetweenincreasedcommunicationandsimilarvaluesthatturnssimilarvaluesintogreatertrust,andthengreaterco‐operation,andfinallyturnseconomictransactionsintopoliticalintegration.Hence,forDeutch,economicandpoliticalintegrationresultsfromasocialprocessinwhichtwocommunities or peoples experience a realignment of their views of each other because ofincreased communication. As they become more predictable and receive more positiveresponses,ahighlevelofco‐operationandpredictabilityemerges,whichresultsingreatertrust.In the same vein, Katzenstein relied on those ideas to suggest a scale of cultural and socialintegrationinwhichhighlevelsoftransactionswouldleadtothecreationofa“society,”which,inturn,maybecomea“community”and later,possiblywith increased levelsof transaction,a“nation.”37

Ifwewereable todocument thatcross‐border regionsemergedoutofeconomic integration,wecouldalsodocumenttheemergenceofsharedvaluesandbeliefsandsimilarideologies.TheworkofDeutchandKatzensteinon increasedcommunicationwould leadus toassumethatacommoncultureandvaluesystemwouldbecentralnotonlytoinstitutionbuildingbutalsotoorganizationaleffectiveness.

ItisclearthatCanadiansfaceaculturalandsocialchallengebecausetheyliveinanenvironmentwheremarketforceshavecreatedanimmenseculturalindustryintheU.S.thatproducesmostoftheculturalmediaavailableinNorthAmerica.Forinstance,Canada’sculturalmarketisaboutonetenthofthatoftheU.S.Today,95percentofthemoviesavailableinCanadaareproducedintheU.S.,asare80percentofallmagazinesand70percentofallbookssoldinCanada.38

There are numerous studies in the social science literature on Canadian and American valuesystems,whichis,initself,anindicatoroftheintensescrutinygiventhisissue.However,thereislittleagreementonaspecifictrend.SomestudiespresentdifferentviewsoftheNorthAmericanculture and value system.39 For instance, Grabb and Curtis argue that there are two majorgeographic sub‐regions that differ from two larger regions: Quebec, which is primarilyFrancophone, differs from the rest of Canada, while the American south, which is primarilyHispanic speaking, differs from the rest of theU.S.Moreover,Adams suggests that the valuesystemsofCanadaandtheU.S.areactuallyincreasinglydifferent,despiteeconomicintegration.

Other scholars, for instance, Earl, Gibbins, or Balthazar, note the existence of ideologicalcongruencebetweenNewfoundlandandNewEngland,betweenprovincesandborderstatesinthewest,orbetweenQuebecandtheU.S.40IntherecentPRIsurveyofleaders,itappearsthat



leaders acknowledge the existence of cultural linkages across the border. However, whenlookingatpolicyconvergencesincethesigningoftheFTAin1989,GeorgeHoberg,KeithBantingandRichardSimeondonot find clear trends.41 In the samevein,BoychukandVanNijnattenhave found limited policy convergence in a few policy arenas, such as environmentalstandards.42

Morerecently,inareviewofsocio‐culturalvaluesinCanadaandtheU.S.,ChristianBoucherofthePRIdocumentedthatsharedvalues,culturesand ideologicalchoicesaremore likelytobecross‐borderandnorth‐southinnaturebecause“proximityisgenerallyagoodpredictorofvaluesimilarities, (2) because trade and socio‐cultural values are loosely connected, and finallybecause (3) communicational exchanges and socio‐cultural values are loosely connected aswell.43TherecentsurveyofleadersbyPolicyResearchInitiativealsoconfirmsthosefindings.44

Specifically,thePRIsurveyofthirty‐twovaluescollectedin1990and2000suggesttheexistenceof specific cultural and ideological communities. The northeast and northwest regions sharesimilarvalues, ideologicalcommunitiesandidentity,asillustratedbytheexistenceoftheNewEngland Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers group or the Pacific North West Region.Similarly, the heartland region of theGreat Lakes shares socio‐cultural values and ideologicalcommunities.45ThePRIsurveyunderscoredthatitisincoastalregionsthatsocio‐culturalvaluesareclearest: (1)AtlanticCanadaand theU.S.eastcoastand (2)PacificNorthWest (Cascadia)thatisAlbertaandBritishColumbiaandtheU.Swestcoast.Overall,thisworkconfirmspreviousstudies by Garreau and by Nevitte46 that found that western Canadian values are closer towesternU.S.valuesthantoanyotherprovinceofCanada.47

In sum, the social scientific research picture provides some serious and recent evidence thatsocio‐cultural values straddle the 49th parallel and link bordering states and provinces intocommunities,whichsuggeststhatpatternsoftransactionandcommunicationaretransformingthose North American regions from distinct societies toward border communities. TheseconclusionsareconsistentwithtwoofthefourstepsidentifiedbyKatzensteinandalsomirrorDeutch’s best theoretical insights.48 These patterns are important they confirmed theemergenceof linkages,policynetworksand institutions straddling theborder, asdiscussed inthenextsection.

InstitutionalDevelopmentacrossthe49thParallel

Asargued inthefirstsectionofthispaper,NorthAmericaneconomicandpolitical integrationclearly does not conform to the steps of the better‐known European experience because nostate‐likeinstitutionsexistatthesupranationallevelandbecausesuchinstitutionsareunlikelytodevelopinthenearfuture.However,asnotedearlier,aswell,economicregionsareformingacrossthe49thparallel,and,assuggestedinthenextsectionofthispaper,thereisevidencethatasocialandculturalcongruenceisformingacrossnorth‐southregionsstraddlingtheborderandthat recent and significant institutional development is spanning the border. The evidencepresentedinthefollowingsectionalsosuggeststhatamultitudeof institutionalnetworksandlinkagesiscoherentwithprocessesthatKarlDeutchidentifiedastransactional,thatis,thoseinwhich economic integration leads to political integration; a North American form of politicalintegrationnevertheless.



Itisimportanttonotethatcross‐borderlinkagesofanykindofinstitutionalformarearelativelyrecentphenomenoninNorthAmerica.Thereare,however,afewexamplesofitfromthe1980s:Gerard Rutan emphasized his disappointmentwith his research on cross‐border linkages andmicro‐diplomatic relations in the Pacific North West, in which he found no relation and nointerestinanyrelations49;similarly,MartinLubin,inhis1988studyofNewEnglandandQuebecrelations, foundonly very loose interactions.50 In themid 1990s, although Emmanuel Brunet‐Jaillyfoundnopublic‐sectorlinkagesbetweenDetroit,Michigan,andWindsor,Ontario,despiteamultitudeofprivate‐sectorlinkagesintheautomobileindustry,51hesuggestedthateconomicintegrationmay lead to cross‐border institutionbuildingwhenborderland communities sharethesamevaluesystem.52

Since the implementation of the FTA and, more recently, NAFTA, scholars have witnessed amultitude of linkages of various forms. For instance, commenting on a PRI survey of cross‐border relations and institutions, Jean Francois Abgrall suggested amultitudeof cross‐borderorganizations have emerged recently.53 Basic agreements were institutionalized into, forinstance, a memorandum of understanding, while other organizations were multilateral innature,suchastheolderandbetter‐establishedorganizationsintheAtlanticregions—theNewEnglandGovernorsandEasternCanadianPremiersor the International JointCommission (IJC)fortheGreatLakesbeingtwoimportantexamples.54

What is most interesting is the multitude of linkages that bring together private or publicorganizations for varied purposes. Some have set up single‐purpose intergovernmentalrelations,whileotherslinkingcitiesorcivicorganizations.Thisresearchdocumentsagreementsin a multitude of policy arenas, such as Agriculture, Borders, Energy, Environment, Forestry,Fisheries,Culture,HealthCare,IndigenousPeople,HighTech,Infrastructure,MaritimeSecurity,SustainableDevelopment,Tourism,Trade/EconomicDevelopment,Transportation,WorkForce,Education,SecurityandDisputeResolutionMechanisms.55

ThePacificNorthWest‐Cascadiaregion–ishostofalargenumberofsuchorganizations;theCascadia Project, the Pacific North West Economic Region (PNWER), the British Columbia‐WashingtonCouncil, and thePacificCorridorEnterpriseCouncil characterize these links. Theyarefunctionaltransnationalandtrans‐governmentalorganizationsofco‐operation.TheSeattle‐based Discovery Institute and the Cascadia Institute of Vancouver co‐operate within theCascadiaProjectthatfocusesonthedevelopmentoftransportationacrosstheregion.Private‐sector representatives and academics sit on the board of both the Discovery and CascadiaInstitutes. The Pacific Corridor Enterprise Council (PACE) is a non‐profit, private‐sectororganization that promotes free trade. PACE boardmembers come from the regions’ largestprivate‐sector corporations: banks, transportation companies, manufacturing firms, cross‐borderbrokeragefirms,lawyers,andbiotechnologyfirms.

Geographically, the most comprehensive of these organizations is the Pacific NorthwestEconomicRegion(PNWER). ItgroupsfiveU.S.statesandthreeCanadianprovinces/territories:Alaska, Idaho,Montana, Oregon, andWashington, and British Columbia, Alberta, and Yukon.PNWER was initiated in 1989 to bring together public and elected officials and the privatesector.ItsgovernmentbodiesareonaCouncilofDelegates,andanExecutiveCommitteethatconsists of seven legislators from theprovincesor states, sevenprivate‐sectormembers, andthechairofthePrivate‐sectorCouncil.TheExecutiveCommitteeelectsthepresidentandtwovice‐presidents (one from the USA, one from Canada). PNWER’s 14 working groups develop



ideasonvariedpolicyissuessuchastransportation,environmentalissues,forestproducts,tradeandfinance,tourism,recycling,governmentprocurement,telecommunication,andagriculture.Eachgrouphasthreeco‐chairs:one fromthe legislature,one fromthepublicsector,andonefrom the private sector. It is important to note here that the private‐sector representative isexpectedtoidentifyissuesforandsetthedirectionoftheworkinggroups.Inotherwords,theprivatesectorcontrolstheagendaoftheworkinggroups.56“Theroleandpreeminenceoftheprivatesector…isnoticeable.Today,PNWERisanoperatingpublic/privatesectorpartnershipdesignedforthepublicsectortoopendoorssothattheprivatesectorcanmakethesale.”57

Overall,thoserecentfindingsimplythatthethicknessandintensityoflinksaregreatestinthePacific NorthWest (Cascadia) because culture and values aremost similar there, which alsosuggeststhateconomicandorganizationallinkagesaremostimportant.58ThePRIsurveyfoundthat cultural and social values and organizational linkages were weakest in the Prairies andGreatPlains,despitestrongeconomicexchanges,andthatstrongsocio‐culturalandeconomicand organizational links exist in the heartland of the Great Lakes. For the Atlantic region, itnotedstrongeconomicandsocio‐culturallinks,alongwiththeoldestorganizationalrelations.

Inmostcases,thoseorganizationssharesomecommonfeatures.Forinstance,mostsharethesameeconomicinterest.Often,cross‐borderlinkagesincludestatesandprovincesbecausethecross‐borderactivityinquestionoccurswithintheirjurisdiction.Also,thefederalgovernmentisoften part of those linkages. Their primary shared characteristic, however, is their organizedcommunication,exchanges,andinteractions,includingcommercialexchangesandgovernmentinteractions. Although the goal is to deal with differences, sometimes conflicts, it seems tofurtherfacilitatepolicyparallelismandintegration.59

WhatemergesfromthosestudiesisthatorganizationallinkageshavearisensincetheFTAwassigned. Organizations on both sides of the border co‐operate, collaborate or coordinateactivitiesinamultitudeofpolicyarenas.Theyworkwitheachothertoaddressdifferences,bothin the private and public sectors. In the past, these organizations were credited withparticipating in the development of policy networks, or policy communities, and in low‐leveldiplomatic activities,60 but clearly what we are witnessing has greater implications. Theseorganizational linkages indicate theworkings of transactions and communications between amultitudeof task‐oriented, low‐levelbureaucratsandadministratorsof thepublicandprivateandnon‐profitsectors,and,possiblyofharmonizingsolutionstosimilarproblems.Thissuggeststhattheyaredevelopingparallelsolutionstocommonproblems,whichisnowconfirmedbyasurveyofleadersconductedbyCanadianPolicyResearchInitiativein2005.

Leaders’SurveyResults:PoliticalIntegrationandPolicyParallelism

Inthefallof2005,thePRIconducteda119‐questionsurveywith110CanadianandAmericanleaders.Thesurvey, the first in the fieldofborderlandstudies,uncoverednewandextremelyimportant findings and provided a comprehensive view of how cross‐border linkages areperceivedbyNorthAmericanleaders.

Thesurveyresultsprovidecleardataregardingthetypesofrelationsthatareformingacrossthe49thparallel.Theysuggestthatwheretherearesustainedactivities,therearehighlyusedformalinstruments of cross‐border interaction, primarily interactive instruments of communication,including conferences, round tables, binational committees and working groups, which were



ratedthemosteffective.Othercommunicationinstrumentsincludedofficialvisits,advocacyandlobbying, as well as joint research. What is remarkable is that those results downplay theinfluenceofpara‐diplomacyand, instead,notethe importanceof functional relationships thatresult frommid‐levelofficials. Inotherwords, thesurvey findingsunderscoretheexistenceofdiscrete administrative relations that involve a multitude of organizational linkages in theformationoftransnational,trans‐governmentalparallelpolicymaking.

The surveydata suggest that amultiplicity of forumsof discussion is being established andaharmonizationofpolicyactivityacrossarangeofpolicyarenasisoccurringwithoutcompetitionfrom traditional local/provincial and state/federal relationships. Furthermore, these relationsareneithercompetitivenorbureaucratic,butcomplementary.

Overall,61percentoftheleaderssurveyedbelievedthatcross‐borderrelationsareimportanttoCanada‐U.S. relations (specifically, 65 percent of Canadian leaders versus 57 percent ofAmerican leaders had this view). In terms of regional views, 72 percent in theWest had thisview,asopposedto48percentintheEast.Whensegmentedbytypesoforganizations,theviewthat cross‐border relations are important varies but remains strong: associations (71%),government organizations (69%), business organizations (59%) and research organizations(44%).

Leadersbelieved that cross‐border relationswere importantbecause theyhelp circumventorworkoutbinationaldifferences.Hereagain,CanadiansandWesternersaremorepositivethanU.S. citizens and Easterners: specifically, 61 percent of Canadians versus 55 percent of U.S.citizensand75percentofWesternersversus67percentofrespondentsfromtheGreatLakesregionand45percentof those from thePrairies. Finally,businesses, at45percent,were theleast in favour of cross‐border regions, as compared to 56 percent of those in research, 58percentofthoseinassociationsand72percentofthoseingovernmentorganizations.

Furthermore, most respondents agreed with the following statement: “CBRs [cross‐borderrelations] could facilitate further economic integration between Canada and the UnitedStates/the United States and Canada.” The most positive views came from Americanrespondents,at84percent,versus78percentofCanadians.Inthiscase,therewerenegligiblegeographical differences, and business and government organizations, at 72 percent and 76percent,respectively,hadamorepositiveviewthanassociations.

Leaders also believed that cross‐border relations are important because they are “keyinstrumentstocompeteintheglobaleconomy.”Overall,58percentofrespondentssharedthisview, with more U.S. respondents (65%) than Canadians (51%), and more Pacific NorthWesterners (69%) than Prairie (67%) or Eastern (41%) respondents. The sectoral views alsovaried from very positive to less so: associations (71%), government organizations (62%),businessorganizations(52%)andresearchorganizations(44%).

Itisinterestingtonotethatthisviewre‐enforcedthehypothesisthatcross‐borderrelationsare“the direct consequence of economic integration” that was shared by 66 percent ofrespondents.Inthiscase,therewasverylittlebinationalorgeographicvariationintheresults,but businesses stood out with 59 percent, a less positive view than that of associations andgovernmentorganizations,with83percentand62percent,respectively.



Anotherveryimportantfindingwasthat84percentofCanadianrespondentsagreedthatcross‐borderrelationsdonotinvolvealossofnationalidentity.Again,theresponsestothisquestionhadnosignificantbinational,geographicorsectoralvariation.

Clearly,theleadersapproachedtotakepart inthissurveyhighlightedeconomicintegrationasleading to the formationof cross‐border regions.However, these respondentsdidnotequateeconomicintegration,theengineofintegration,withathreattonationalidentityorevenwiththe development of complex political issues. Rather, the leaders directed attention toward aspecifically North American form of integration, one that, rather than driving toward thedevelopmentofsupranationalinstitutions,isemergingfromamultitudeoflinkages,knowledgeandexchangesofinformationinaconstellationofpolicyarenasthatarefacilitatingcross‐borderpolicy parallelism. Brunet‐Jailly has argued elsewhere, with Susan Clarke and Deborah VanNijnatten, that this phenomenonwas “developing from common policy spaces, withinwhichbothCanadaandtheUnitedStatesareinterdependentyetindependent.”Inthesamevein,theysuggested that “policy parallelism results from shared policy goals that are not necessarilyimplementedsimilarly”andthat“themechanismsofpolicyparallelismresultfromamultitudeof low‐level politics and high‐level administrative linkages,where trans‐bureaucratic relationsdominate and span the international border to identify those policy arenaswhere policy co‐operation,orco‐ordination,orcollaborationarepossible.Parallelpolicydevelopmentemergesfromtwovastlydifferentfederalsystemsofgovernment,butwithsomedegreeoftrustinviableadministrativeandpolicyresponsestosharedissues.”61

Another extraordinarily interesting survey finding was that respondents agreed that cross‐border relations serve both a political and policy role that does not exist otherwise,with 92percent of respondents confirming that “CBRs facilitate the involvement of regionalstakeholders in Canada/US‐US/Canada issues.” Overall, 86 percent of business organizationssharedthisview,asdid88percentofresearchand93percentofgovernmentorganizations,and100 percent of associations. Again, this finding was strengthened by the shared view by 60percent of all respondents that cross‐border relations—due to regional groupings—allow forgreaterlinkageswithfederalgovernments

Finally,61percentofallrespondentsagreesthattheadoptionofsimilaractionsandpoliciesareeither important ormoderately important to cross‐border linkages. This clearly points to theideathatcross‐borderrelationsarecontributingtoaprogressiveharmonizationofpolicyactivitythat encompasses all levels of government by implementing parallel policies in a growingnumberofpolicyarenas.

Clearly,theassumptionthatcross‐borderrelationshaveanimportantpoliticalandpolicyroleisconfirmedby thisdata. Suchviewsareknown tobe sharedby scholarsof theEU,where theprocess of economic and political integration developed into a specific supranational/federalgovernancesystem.Whatisinteresting,however,isthatthisdataconfirmstheemergenceofaspecificallyNorthAmericangovernancesystemofNAFTA.Clearly,thisNorthAmericansystemisnot challenging either sovereign governments or their monopoly of border control andinternationalrelations.Whatistakingplace,however,istheemergenceofamultiplicityofco‐operative agreements in amultiplicity of policy arenas, which are articulated by overarchingpolicy networks spanning the border and fostering cross‐border relations. For instance, bothNAFTAandtheSmartBorderAgreementhavedevolvedpolicyresponsibilitiestootherlevelsofgovernment, includingstatesandprovincesand localgovernments,aswellasothernecessary



agencies, thus creating an imperative for cross‐border co‐operation that develops policyparallelism.

Conclusion

CanadaandtheU.S.havesharedatraditionofday‐to‐dayco‐operationandhavedevelopedan“intimate”knowledgeofeachotherthatisapparentinthecurrenttraditionofquietdiplomacyand low‐level functional solutions in a few key policy arenas (free trade, labor, andenvironmental standards). This paper has drawn on the findings from the research on theCanadian‐U.S. border led by PRI since 2004 and on the recent PRI survey of Canadian‐U.S.leaders to show that the emergence of cross‐border regions is an indicator of economic andpoliticalintegration.

Economic interdependence and integration are reorganizing around north‐south economicclusters that span the 49th parallel. Intense communication is leading to shared cultural andpoliticalvalues,andcross‐borderorganizationsandinstitutionsarenowpartofthegovernanceofthoseemergingcross‐borderregions.

Today,thePacificNorthWest‐Cascadiacross‐borderregionisnottheonlycasestudybutbestillustratestheseobservationsofriseofborderregionsspanningtheU.S.Canadianborder.Itisinthe Pacific North West that this emerging complex ideational construct spanning economic,social and cultural, and political elements and influencing policymaking across the boundaryline in increasingly numerous policy fields is most easily documented. Indeed, according toSusanClarke,Cascadiaformsaregionalandtransnational“symbolic”regimeinwhicheconomicactors,aswellasstateandprovincialofficials,localgovernmentofficials,portofficials,andnon‐governmentalofficials,promotetheirspecificagendaforCascadia.62Yet,similarprocessesareinmotion elsewhere across the 49th parallel, and particularly in the Great Lake and Atlanticregions.

Thispapermakesthecasethatwhatwearewitnessing isaparticularNorthAmericancaseofpolitical integration, where public and private actors and organizations at all levels ofgovernmentareparticipatinginaprocessofpolicyparallelism.Inotherwords,thoseemergingcross‐border regions are changing Canadian‐ American relations because the politicalintegrationofNorthAmerica is taking the formof cross‐border regionsorofprogressiveandbottom‐uppolicyparallelisminamultitudeofpolicyarenas.

Endnotes

1Definingacross‐borderregionismatterofdebate.Inthisarticle,IuseasreferencestheworksofSmith,andofSigne,Cold,Singh,andLee,andparticularly theirdefinitionof theCascadiaregion;a regionthat is understood as a geographical cross‐border areaof the PacificNorthWest and includes themetropolitan regions of both Vancouver (Canada) and Seattle (USA). See, Patrick Smith (2004)“Transborder Cascadia:Opportunities andObstacles” in Journal of Borderland Studies 19/1. p. 99‐122. And, SigneMarie Cold Ravnkilde, Jaidev Singh, and Robert Lee (2004) “ Add Title, Journal ofBorderland Studies 19/1, p. 59‐78 all in Emmanuel Brunet‐Jailly (2005) Theorizing Borders: An



InterdisciplinaryPerspective.Geopolitics#10,p.633‐649.OnCascadia,pleaseseealsotheworksofMcDougallandPhilips,DupeyronandSmithinthisnumber.

2Thispaperispartofalargeresearchprogram,whichfindingswillbepublishedin2009inabooktitled“Understanding Borders.” It was originally drafted for presentation at the Linea TerranumConference,UniversityofTexas–ElPaso,March27‐30,2006–onbehalfoftheCanadianAgencyPolicyResearchInitiative,Canada,May30,2006.ItwasthenpresentedattheAAG,April2007,andtheUVicLGIseminarseries2007‐08;Iwanttothankmycolleaguesforinvitationscommentsonthispaper and particularly: Tony Payan (UTEP), Andre Down (PRI‐Canada), Christian Boucher (PRI‐Canada),VictorKonrad(Carleton),JimMcDavid(UVic),andPaddySmith(SFU).

3GaryMarksfirstusedthisideain(1993)“StructuralPolicyandMultilevelGovernance”inAlanCafruny,andGlendaRosenthaled.TheStateoftheEuropeanUnion.Harlow,UK:Longman.SincethenLiesbetHoogheandhimselfhavefurtherrefinedthemultilevelgovernanceapproachinLiesbetHoogheandMarks, Gary (2001). Multilevel Governance and European Integration. New York: Rowman andLittlefield. However,multilevel governance also helps understand border security policies inNorthAmerica. See for instance: Emmanuel Brunet‐Jailly (2004a) Journal of Borderland Studies. “NAFTA,Economic Integration,andtheCanadianAmericanSecurityRegime inthePost‐September11,2001era:Multi‐levelGovernanceandTransparentBorder?”19(1).EmmanuelBrunet‐Jailly(2006a)Journalof Borderland Studies “Security and Border Security Policies: Perimeter or Smart Border. AComparisonoftheEuropeanUnionandCanadian‐AmericanBorderSecurityRegimes.”Vol.22.1.

4Definingacross‐borderregionismatterofdebate.Inthisarticle,IuseasreferencestheworksofSmith,andofSigne,Cold,Singh,andLee,andparticularly theirdefinitionof theCascadiaregion;a regionthat is understood as a geographical cross‐border areaof the PacificNorthWest and includes themetropolitan regions of both Vancouver (Canada) and Seattle (USA). See, Patrick Smith (2004)“Transborder Cascadia:Opportunities andObstacles” in Journal of Borderland Studies 19/1. p. 99‐122. And, SigneMarie Cold Ravnkilde, Jaidev Singh, and Robert Lee (2004) “ Add Title, Journal ofBorderland Studies 19/1, p. 59‐78 all in Emmanuel Brunet‐Jailly (2005) Theorizing Borders: AnInterdisciplinaryPerspective.Geopolitics#10,p.633‐649.OnCascadia,pleaseseealsotheworksofMcDougallandPhilips,DupeyronandSmithinthisnumber.

5 KimNossal, (1985) “EconomicNationalismandContinental Integration” inDenis Stairs andGilbertR.Winham,PoliticsofCanada’sEconomicRelationshipwiththeUnitedStates.Volume29oftheRoyalCommissiononEconomicUnionandDevelopmentProspectsforCanada.TorontoUniversityPress.

6Thereareafewexceptions.MichaelPastorhasarguedthatNorthAmericawouldhavetoconfrontthisissueinPastor,Robert.(2001).TowardsaNorthAmericancommunity:Lessonsfromtheoldworldtothenew.Washington,DC: Institutefor InternationalEconomics,and,ThomasCourchenehasraisedtheissueofeconomicintegrationandtheneedforasinglecurrency.

7 Veronica Kitchen. (2002).working paper. “Canadian American Border Security After September 11,”DepartmentofPoliticalScience,BrownUniversity.

8 The realist view hasmany sub‐schools of thoughts: realism, neo‐realism, intergovernmentalism, andliberal intergovernmentalism among others. However, this paper does not venture into the realistdebate but relies on the shared view that states would effectively be in control of their borders:Moravcsik, Andrew. (1993). Preference and power in the European Community : A liberalintergovernmental approach. The Journal of Common Market Studies, 21(4), 473–524; Moravcsik,Andrew.(1991).NegotiatingthesingleEuropeanact.InR.Keohane&S.Hoffmann,ThenewEuropeanCommunity. Boulder, CO: Westview Press; Taylor, Paul. (1983). The limits of European integration.London,UK:CroomHelm;Taylor,Paul.(1991).TheEuropeanCommunityandthestate.TheReviewofInternationalStudies,17,109–125.

9Hooghe, LiesbetandMarks,Gary (2001).MultilevelGovernanceandEuropean Integration.NewYork:RowmanandLittlefield



10EmmanuelBrunet‐Jailly(2004a)JournalofBorderlandStudies.“NAFTA,EconomicIntegration,andtheCanadianAmericanSecurityRegimeinthePost‐September11,2001era:Multi‐levelGovernanceandTransparentBorder?”19(1).EmmanuelBrunet‐Jailly(2006a)JournalofBorderlandStudies“SecurityandBorderSecurityPolicies:PerimeterorSmartBorder.AComparisonof theEuropeanUnionandCanadian‐AmericanBorderSecurityRegimes.”Vol.22.1.

11KenishiOhmae(1990)TheBorderlessWorld.NewYork:HarperBusinessBooks.KenishiOhmae(1995a)TheEvolvingGlobalEconomy.CambridgeMA:HarvardBusinessBookReview.KenishiOhmae(1995b)TheEndoftheNationState.NewYork:TheFreePress.

12KarlDeutsch (1957)PoliticalCommunityandtheNorthAtlanticArea.PrincetonUniversityPress.KarlDeutch(1966)NationalismandSocialCommunication:anEnquiryintotheFoundationsofNationality.MIT Press. Karl Deutsch. (1969)Nationalism and its alternatives, New York: Knopf. Karl Deutsch.(1980)TheAnalysisofInternationalRelations,EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:PrenticeHall.

13RobertO.KeohaneandJosephS.Nye(1977)PowerandInterdependence:WorldPolitics inTransition.Toronto:Little,BrownandCo.

14 Emmanuel Adler and Michael Barnett. (1998) Security Communities, Cambridge: University ofCambridgePress.

15 Emmanuel Adler and Michael Barnett. (1998) Security Communities, Cambridge: University ofCambridgePressseepage357‐358.

16SeeVeronicaKitchen’sargument.17MichaelIgnatieff(2003)PolicyOption.“CanadaintheAgeofTerror‐MultilateralismMeetsaMoment

ofTruth.”Montreal,Canada.18AnthonyDePalma,(2001)Here:ABiographyoftheNewAmericanContinent.CambridgeMAPeuseus

BooksGroup.AndJohnHelliwell(2003),GlobalizationandWellBeing.Toronto:UBCPress.19Ronald Inglehart,Neil Nevitte and Miguel Basanez (1996) The North American Trajectory: Cultural,

Eocnomic and Political Ties among the United States, Canada and Mexico. New York: Adline DeGruyter.

20HenryJ.Jacek,(1993)“UnequalPartners:TheHistorical,Political,EconomicandCulturalDimensionsofthe Austrian‐Federal Republic Of Germany/Canadian –United States Dyads” in Harold von RiekoffandHanspeterNeuhold,eds.UnequalPartners:AComparativeAnalysisofRelationsBetweenAustriaandtheFederalRepublicofGermanyandBetweenCanadaandtheUnitedStates(Boulder:WestviewPress).

21JohnMcDougall(2006)DriftingTogether,BroadviewPress.22PeterJ.Katzenstein(1976)DisjointedPartners:AustriaandGermanysince1815.Berkeley:UCP.Pp.14‐

16.23 Charles Engel and Rogers John (1996), HowWide is the Border?American Economic Review,86(5),

1112–1125; John Helliwell (1998), How Much Do National Borders Matter? Washington, DC:BrookingsInstitution.

24 John Curtis (2001), Trade Update 2001, Economic Trade Analysis Division, Department of ForeignAffairsandInternationalTrade,p.5.

25JeffreyA.Frankel(2000),GlobalisationandtheEconomy,NBERpaperseries7858,KennedySchoolofGovernment;andJosephNye(Ed.)(2000),GovernanceinaGlobalizingWorld,BrookingsInstitutionPress.Frankelsuggestsbenchmarkingeconomicintegrationbycomparingameasureofidealintra‐EUexportsofgoodsandserviceswiththerealvalueofintra‐EUexportofgoodsandservices.Itresultsina ratio that is close to “0”when the economy of a country is highly integrated into the EU. (TheBeneluxcountriesrank#1with1.8,Ireland#2with2,theNetherlands#3with2.5…France#14with5.7, and the UK #15 with 5.8.) Paul Brenton (2001, November),What are the Limits of EconomicIntegration? Centre for European Policy Studies, Working Document # 177; Volker Nitsch (2000),



NationalBorders and International Trade: Evidence from theEuropeanUnion,Canadian JournalofEconomics,33(4),1091–1105.

25ThomasJ.Courchene(1998),FromHeartlandtoNorthAmericanRegionState,Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress

26 The Frankel test suggests that in a perfectly integrated economy, transport is costless, there areabsolutelynobarrierstotrade,noonehasanynationalbiasoverothergoodsorservices,andthereisnoworldbeyondNAFTA. Iused the followingdata:USGDP$10,197billion;CanadaGDP$1,039billion;MexicoGDP$350billion;CanadianexportsaspercentageofGDP43%in2001.OntarioGDP$429billion,exports$313billion,exportsaspercentageofGDP73%.B.C. trade figures:exports toROW$33.2billion,toU.S.andMexico$22.5billion,toROC$16billion;B.C.GDP$126billion,exportsaspercentageofGDP30%.

http://www.dfait‐maeci.gc.ca/eet/SOT_2002‐e.pdfhttp://www.gov.on.ca/FIN/english/eca013e.pdfhttp://www.cse.gov.bc.ca/Trade&Export/2000_Commodity_Exports/Commodity.htm#Trade and

http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/bus_stat/bcea/bcgdp00.htm27ThomasJ.Courchene(1998),FromHeartlandtoNorthAmericanRegionState,Toronto:Universityof

TorontoPress.28Abgrall,JeanFrancois(2005)EconomicRelationsandCross‐BorderOrganizationsAlongthe49thParallel,

WorkingpaperSeries001,PolicyResearchInitiative,GovernmentofCanada.29PolicyResearchInitiativesteaminTheEmergenceofCrossBorderRegions,InterimReport,November

2005.30IbidTheEmergenceofBorderRegions,PRI,pp.5.31IbidTheEmergenceofBorderRegions,PRI,pp.832IbidTheEmergenceofBorderRegions,PRI,seefigure9,p.10.33IbidTheEmergenceofBorderRegions,PRI,seefigure5,p.7.34IbidTheEmergenceofBorderRegions,PRI,seefigure8,p.9.35IbidTheEmergenceofBorderRegions,PRI,seepages5.36 Karl Deutch (1966) Nationalism and Social Communication: an Enquiry into the Foundations of

Nationality.MITPress.37SeeKatzenstein,Chapter1.38KevinV.Mulcahy“CulturalImperialismandCulturalSovereignty:US‐CanadaCulturalRelations”inThe

AmericanReviewofCanadianStudies,32/2pp.184.39 EdwardGrabb and James Curtis, (2004) RegionsApart: the four societies of Canada and theUnited

States,OxfordUniversityPress.MichaelAdams,(2003)FireandIce:theUnitedStates,Canada,andthemythofconvergingvalues.Penguin.

40Balthazar,L.(1993)“Quebec’sInternationalRelations:AResponsetoNeedsandNecessities”inForeignRelations and Federal States. Ed. B.Hocking. London: LeicesterUniversity Press. pp. 140‐152. Earl,Karl M. (1998) “Cousins of a Kind:The Newfoundland and Labrador Relationship with the UnitedStates. InAmericanReviewofCanadianStudies,28/4.pp.387‐411.Gibbins,Roger(2002)“RegionalDiversity and Coherence in Western Canada: Reflections on the Canadian‐American Relationship”BorderlineConferencePaper,Calgary.

41GeorgeHoberg,KeithG.Banting,andRichardSimeon. (2002)“Thescopefordomesticchoice:policyautonomyinaglobalizingworld”inGeorgeHoberged.CapacityforChoice:CanadainaNewNorthAmerica.Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress.

42GerardBoychukandDeboraVanNijnatten(2003)EconomicIntegrationandCrossBorderConvergence:Social and Environmental Policy in Canadian Provinces and American States. The Association of



CanadianStudiesintheUnitedStates.Seealso,GerardBoychuckandDeboraVanNijnatten,(2005)“Economic IntegrationandCross‐BorderConvergence:SocialandEnvironmentalPolicy inCanadianProvincesandAmericanStates”JournalofBorderlandStudies.19/2pp.

43ChristianBoucher(2005)“TowardNorthAmericanorRegionalCross‐BorderCommunities–Alookateconomic integration and socio‐cultural values in Canada and the United States” Policy ResearchInitiativeWorkingPaperSeries002.pp.28‐29.

44CanadaCross‐BorderRegions:AnAnalysis.GovernmentofCanada.(EmmanuelBrunet‐Jailly,SusanE.Clarke, Debora L. VanNijnatten, Derek Jansen, Christian Boucher and Andre Downs.www.policyreserach.gc.ca.

45 Policy Research Initiatives (2005) Interim Report ‐ The Emergence of Cross Border Regions, Ottawa:GovernmentofCanada.Seefigure10,page12.

46 Joel Garreau, (1981)TheNineNations of North American. New York: Avon.Neil Nevitte (1996)TheDeclineofDeference.CambridgeUniversityPress.

47 The emergence of shared values is also apparent in Dupeyron’s work in this number of CPSR 2/2,summer2008.andisalsoclearinTheEmergenceofCross‐BorderRegions,2005,seefigure10page12andconclusionspage13‐14.

48SeeKatzenstein,chapter1,andDeutsch(1957)Chapter1.49GerardRutan,(1988)“Micro‐diplomaticrelationsinthepacificnorthwest:WashingtonStateandBritish

Columbia Interaction” in Duchacek et all. Perforated Sovereignties and International Relations,GreenwoodPress.

50MartinLubin,(1988)“NewEngland,NewYorkandtheirFrancophoneneighborhood”inDuchaceketall.51EmmanuelBrunet‐Jailly(2000)52This issuggestedinEmmanuelBrunet‐Jailly(2006b)JournalofBorderlandStudies“NAFTAandCross‐

BorderRelationsinNiagara,Detroit,andVancouver”Fall.Vol.21.253JeanFrancoisAbgrall(2005)“ASurveyofMajorCross‐BorderOrganizationsBetweenCanadaandthe

United States.” Working Paper Series 009 – Policy Research Initiative. Ottawa: Government ofCanada.

54Abgrall(2005)PRIWorkingPaper009.pp.36.55TheEmergenceofCrossBorderRegions,InterimReport,November2005.Seefigure11page15.56http//www.pnwer.org/background/leadersh.html57http//www.pnwer.org/background/history.html58ThisargumentalsoemergesoutoftheworksofDupeyronandSmithaspresentedinthisspecialissue

ofCanadianPoliticalScienceReview,2/2,Summer2008.59TheEmergenceofCrossBorderRegions,InterimReport,November2005.pp.19‐24.60 See the papers in (2000) International Journal of Economic Development by Susan Clarke, Joachim

Blatter,andEmmanuelBrunet‐Jailly.61PolicyResearch Initiatives.GovernmentofCanada.2006b.LeaderSurveyonUS‐CanadaCross‐Border

Regions: An Analysis. Government of Canada. (Emmanuel Brunet‐Jailly, Susan E. Clarke, Debora L.VanNijnatten, Derek Jansen, Christian Boucher and Andre Downs. www.policyreserach.gc.ca. seepage16‐17.

62SusanClarke (2000,August),ConstructingMulti‐governanceRegimes inNorthAmericaandNorthernEurope,paperpresentedattheInternationalPoliticalScienceAssociationMeeting,Quebec,Canada.



ReferencesEmmanuelAdlerandMichaelBarnett.(1998)SecurityCommunities,Cambridge:UniversityofCambridge

Press.JeanFrancoisAbgrall,(2004)EconomicRelationsandCross‐BorderOrganizationsAlongthe49thParallel,

Working Paper Series 001, Policy Research Initiative, Government of Canada.www.policyreserach.gc.ca

Jean Francois Abgrall (2005) “A Survey ofMajor Cross‐Border Organizations Between Canada and theUnited States.” Working Paper Series 009 – Policy Research Initiative. Ottawa: Government ofCanada.www.policyreserach.gc.ca

Michael Adams, (2003) Fire and Ice: the United States, Canada, and the myth of converging values.Penguin.

LouisBalthazar(1993)“Quebec’sInternationalRelations:AResponsetoNeedsandNecessities”inForeignRelationsandFederalStates.Ed.B.Hocking.London:LeicesterUniversityPress.pp.140‐152.

Joachim Blatter, International Journal of Economic Development Emerging Cross‐Border Regions As AStepTowardsSustainableDevelopment?Volume2,Number3,pages402‐439.

Christian Boucher (2005) “Toward North American or Regional Cross‐Border Communities – A look ateconomic integration and socio‐cultural values in Canada and the United States” Policy ResearchInitiativeWorkingPaperSeries002.www.policyreserach.gc.ca

GerardBoychukandDeboraVanNijnatten(2003)Economic IntegrationandCrossBorderConvergence:Social and Environmental Policy in Canadian Provinces and American States. The Association ofCanadianStudiesintheUnitedStates.

Gerard Boychuck and Debora Van Nijnatten, (2005) “Economic Integration and Cross‐BorderConvergence:SocialandEnvironmentalPolicyinCanadianProvincesandAmericanStates”JournalofBorderlandStudies.19/2pp.

PaulBrenton(2001,November),WhataretheLimitsofEconomicIntegration?CentreforEuropeanPolicyStudies,WorkingDocument#177.

Emmanuel Brunet‐Jailly, (2000) International Journal of Economic Development. “Globalization,Integration, and Cross‐Border Relations In the Metropolitan Area of Detroit (USA) and Windsor(Canada).”Volume2,Number3,page378‐401.

Emmanuel Brunet‐Jailly (2004a) Journal of Borderland Studies. “NAFTA, Economic Integration, and theCanadianAmericanSecurityRegimeinthePost‐September11,2001era:Multi‐levelGovernanceandTransparentBorder?”19(1).

EmmanuelBrunet‐Jailly(2004b)JournalofBorderlandStudies.“TowardofModelofBorderStudies:WhatDoWeLearnfromtheStudyoftheCanadianAmericanBorder?”19(1).

Emmanuel Brunet‐Jailly (2006a) Journal of Borderland Studies “Security and Border Security Policies:Perimeter or Smart Border. A Comparison of the European Union and Canadian‐American BorderSecurityRegimes.”Spring.Vol.21.1

Emmanuel Brunet‐Jailly (2006b) Journal of Borderland Studies “NAFTA and Cross‐Border Relations inNiagara,Detroit,andVancouver”Fall.Vol.21.2

Susan Clarke, (2000), International Journal of Economic Development, Regional And TransnationalDiscourse:ThePoliticsOfIdeasAndEconomicDevelopmentInCascadia.Volume2,Number3,Page360‐378.

Susan Clarke (2000, August), Constructing Multi‐governance Regimes in North America and NorthernEurope,paperpresentedattheInternationalPoliticalScienceAssociationMeeting,Quebec,Canada.

Thomas J. Courchene (1998), From Heartland to North American Region State, Toronto: University ofTorontoPress.

JohnCurtis(2001),TradeUpdate2001,EconomicTradeAnalysisDivision,DepartmentofForeignAffairsandInternationalTrade,p.5.

JohnM.CurtisandAaronSydor.(2006).GovernmentofCanada.NAFTA@10.MinisterofPublicWorksandGovernmentServicesCanada.http://www.dfait‐maeci.gc.ca/eet/KarlDeutsch(1957)PoliticalCommunityandtheNorthAtlanticArea.PrincetonUniversityPress.



Karl Deutch (1966) Nationalism and Social Communication: an Enquiry into the Foundations ofNationality.MITPress.

KarlDeutsch.(1969)Nationalismanditsalternatives,NewYork:Knopf.KarlDeutsch.(1980)TheAnalysisofInternationalRelations,EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:PrenticeHall.KarlM. Earl, (1998) “Cousins of a Kind:The Newfoundland and Labrador Relationship with the United

States.InAmericanReviewofCanadianStudies,28/4.pp.387‐411.John McDougall in Drifting Together, The Political Economy of Canada‐U.S. Integration.Toronton:

BroadviewPress.CharlesEngelandRogersJohn(1996),HowWideistheBorder?AmericanEconomicReview,86(5),1112–

1125Jeffrey A. Frankel (2000), Globalisation and the Economy, NBER paper series 7858, Kennedy School of

Government.JoelGarreau,(1981)TheNineNationsofNorthAmerican.NewYork:Avon.RogerGibbins,(2002)“RegionalDiversityandCoherenceinWesternCanada:ReflectionsontheCanadian‐

AmericanRelationship”BorderlineConferencePaper,Calgary.EdwardGrabbandJamesCurtis,(2004)RegionsApart:thefoursocietiesofCanadaandtheUnitedStates,

OxfordUniversityPress.ErnstHaas,(1964)BeyondtheNationState.Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress.ErnstHaas,(1958)TheUnitingofEurope.Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress.JohnHelliwell(1998),HowMuchDoNationalBordersMatter?Washington,DC:BrookingsInstitution.JohnHelliwell(2003),GlobalizationandWellBeing.Toronto:UBCPress.George Hoberg, Keith G. Banting, and Richard Simeon. (2002) “The scope for domestic choice: policy

autonomyinaglobalizingworld”inGeorgeHoberged.CapacityforChoice:CanadainaNewNorthAmerica.Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress.

Liesbet Hooghe andMarks, Gary (2001). Multilevel Governance and European Integration. New York:RowmanandLittlefield.

MichaelIgnatieff(2003)PolicyOption.“CanadaintheAgeofTerror‐MultilateralismMeetsaMomentofTruth.”Montreal,Canada.

Ronald Inglehart, Neil Nevitte and Miguel Basanez (1996) The North American Trajectory: Cultural,Eocnomic and Political Ties among the United States, Canada and Mexico. New York: Adline DeGruyter.

Henry J. Jacek, (1993)“UnequalPartners:TheHistorical,Political,EconomicandCulturalDimensionsofthe Austrian‐Federal Republic Of Germany/Canadian –United States Dyads” in Harold von RiekoffandHanspeterNeuhold,eds.UnequalPartners:AComparativeAnalysisofRelationsBetweenAustriaandtheFederalRepublicofGermanyandBetweenCanadaandtheUnitedStates(Boulder:WestviewPress).

PeterJ.Katzenstein(1976)DisjointedPartners:AustriaandGermanysince1815.Berkeley:UCP.Pp.14‐16.RobertO.Keohane and Joseph S. Nye (1977) Power and Interdependence:World Politics in Transition.

Toronto:Little,BrownandCo.Veronica Kitchen. (2002). working paper. “Canadian American Border Security After September 11,”

DepartmentofPoliticalScience,BrownUniversity.MartinLubin,(1988)“NewEngland,NewYorkandtheirFrancophoneneighborhood”inDuchaceketall.

PerforatedSovereigntiesandInternationalRelations,GreenwoodPress.NeilNevitte(1996)TheDeclineofDeference.CambridgeUniversityPress.Volker Nitsch (2000), National Borders and International Trade: Evidence from the European Union,

CanadianJournalofEconomics,33(4),1091–1105.Kim Nossal, (1985) “Economic Nationalism and Continental Integration” in Denis Stairs and Gilbert R.

Winham,PoliticsofCanada’sEconomicRelationshipwiththeUnitedStates.Volume29oftheRoyalCommissiononEconomicUnionandDevelopmentProspectsforCanada.TorontoUniversityPress.

JosephNye(Ed.)(2000),GovernanceinaGlobalizingWorld,BrookingsInstitutionPress.AndrewMoravcsik,(1991).NegotiatingthesingleEuropeanact.InR.Keohane&S.Hoffmann,Thenew

EuropeanCommunity.Boulder,CO:WestviewPress.



Andrew Moravcsik. (1993). Preference and power in the European Community : A liberalintergovernmentalapproach.TheJournalofCommonMarketStudies,21(4),473–524;

JohnMcDougall(2006)DriftingTogether,BroadviewPress.Kevin V. Mulcahy “Cultural Imperialism and Cultural Soveignty: US‐ Canada Cultural Relations” in The

AmericanReviewofCanadianStudies,32/2pp.184.KenishiOhmae(1990)TheBorderlessWorld.NewYork:HarperBusinessBooks.KenishiOhmae(1995a)TheEvolvingGlobalEconomy.CambridgeMA:HarvardBusinessBookReview.KenishiOhmae(1995b)TheEndoftheNationState.NewYork:TheFreePress.PolicyResearchInitiatives.GovernmentofCanada.2005.TheEmergenceofCrossBorderRegions:Interim

Report, Government of Canada. November 2005.www.policyreserach.gc.ca/doclib/PRI_Xborder_e.pdf.

Policy Research Initiatives. Government of Canada. 2006a. Canada‐US Relations and the Emergence ofCross‐BorderRegions.BriefingNotes.GovernmentofCanada.www.policyreserach.gc.ca

Policy Research Initiatives. Government of Canada. 2006b. Leader Survey on US‐Canada Cross‐BorderRegions: An Analysis. Government of Canada. (Emmanuel Brunet‐Jailly, Susan E. Clarke, Debora L.VanNijnatten,DerekJansen,ChristianBoucherandAndreDowns.www.policyreserach.gc.ca.

GerardRutan,(1988)“Micro‐diplomaticrelations inthepacificnorthwest:WashingtonStateandBritishColumbia Interaction” in Duchacek et all. Perforated Sovereignties and International Relations,GreenwoodPress.

Taylor,Paul.(1983).ThelimitsofEuropeanintegration.London,UK:CroomHelm;Taylor, Paul. (1991). The European Community and the state. The Review of International Studies, 17,

109–125.

cascadia in comparative perspectives: canada‐u.s

Documents