DOCSLIB.ORG

States and Sovereignty in the Middle East: Myths and Realities

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
States and Sovereignty in the Middle East: Myths and Realities States and sovereignty in the Middle East: myths and realities LOUISE FAWCETT* To many observers the Middle East state system since the Arab uprisings stands at a critical juncture, displaying contradictory patterns of fragility and durability. The uprisings, which started late in 2010, were undoubtedly revolutionary in their initial impact, but beyond Tunisia, it is the counter-revolutionary movement that has proved the more durable.1 The region has witnessed multiple regime changes alongside high levels of popular mobilization, violence and transnational activism. The results have been highly destabilizing, resulting in challenges, not only to regimes, but also to the very sovereignty and territorial integrity of states. This situation, in turn, has contributed to a shifting regional balance of power and repeated episodes of external intervention. Some commentators have argued that the whole regional system, always fragile and contested, is finally undergoing radical transformation; others point to its resilience.2 This article evaluates the latest wave of instability and its consequences for Middle Eastern states, their sovereignty and regional order, introducing themes and discussions taken up in other articles in this special issue. It argues—connecting directly to the article by I. William Zartman3—that despite recent upheavals (and multiple predictions to the contrary), it is likely that the Middle East system of states and borders will remain largely intact—at least in the medium term. This does not mean that states are necessarily ‘strong’ in a Weberian sense, or that sovereignty at different levels is uncontested, but that continuity—state (even regime) survival and border preser- vation—is likely to prevail over major change. To support this assertion, the article evaluates recent events against evolving patterns and conceptions of statehood and sovereignty over time. It argues that understanding the contemporary region requires stepping back from the present and taking a long view of the evolution of states and sovereignty in the modern Middle East. It rejects the use of popular myths and stereotypes about artificial or failed states or imminent system implosion, and calls for a stocktaking of the condition of the Middle Eastern state. In doing so it also considers the Middle * I am grateful to my co-editors Raffaella Del Sarto and Asli Okyay for their hard work and organization in making this special issue possible, and for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article. 1 Richard Falk, ‘Rethinking the Arab Spring’, Third World Quarterly 37: 12, 2016, pp. 2322–2334. 2 Mohammed Ayoob, Will the Middle East implode? (Cambridge: Polity, 2014). 3 I. William Zartman, ‘States, boundaries and sovereignty in the Middle East: unsteady but unchanging’, Inter- national Affairs 93: 4, July 2017, pp. 937–48. International Affairs 93: 4 (2017) 789–807; doi: 10.1093/ia/iix122 © The Author(s) 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Royal Institute of International Affairs. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: [email protected] Louise Fawcett Eastern experience comparatively, looking at parallel state trajectories elsewhere. Taking such a historical and comparative perspective permits close analysis of the particular conditions under which modern states were established and helps to track their principal features and development. There are many transforma- tive features—whether vacuums of state authority, the agency of transnational forces and border porosity—which yield new insights; but there are also conti- nuities with respect to states’ legal personalities, institutions and identities, which have survived and developed across time. Highlighting such continuities amid change, the aim of this framing piece is not to offer a fully fleshed-out conceptual framework,4 but rather to provide some tentative answers to the wider questions addressed in this special issue on contested borders in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). Namely, how robust is the Middle East state system and its accou- trements of sovereignty, ‘Westphalian’ or otherwise (a question posed by Middle East scholars long before the Arab uprisings)?5 Why has it been so often assumed that this system is in danger of implosion, and are the dangers of implosion greater today than in the past? And, in answering this question, do we need to rethink the general principles of statehood and sovereignty, adopting critical or post-colonial perspectives; or to discard such concepts altogether? Addressing these questions is important from a number of perspectives. The consequences of the Arab uprisings are of obvious significance, not only to the future of the region and its component states, but also from a wider International Relations (IR) perspective. They have multiple impacts upon major external actors and institutions, including the United States, Russia, China, the United Nations and the European Union, all of which remain deeply involved in the economics, politics and security of the region—indeed, their very actions may yet determine some of the issues at hand. Regional events are also important for testing theoretical perspectives, since they challenge us to recalibrate assumptions about political change, state durability and state survival in certain settings. This article calls for caution about predictions of state breakdown and radical changes to borders and sovereignty. After a brief review of events since the recent Arab uprisings, it first offers a critical perspective on some prevailing assumptions or myths about the current regional disorder and state fragility by placing these in comparative and temporal context. Second, it considers the wider trajectory of sovereignty and statehood in the modern Middle East, to review longer-term patterns and trends and their possible implications. Third, it considers whether or not the vocabulary of IR and its current focus on binary divisions between strong and weak states, or ‘good’ and ‘bad’ governance, is adequate for the task of under- standing the present conjuncture. Finally, it offers some more general conclusions about the implications of the present state/border contestation and assesses the extent to which recent events should be seen as a turning point or ‘critical juncture’ in terms of statehood, sovereignty and institutions. In doing so, it draws on the 4 For such a framework, see Raffaella A. Del Sarto, ‘Contentious borders in the Middle East and North Africa: context and concepts’, International Affairs 93: 4, July 2017, pp. 767–87. 5 F. Gregory Gause III, ‘Sovereignty, statecraft and stability in the Middle East’, Journal of International Affairs 54: 2, 2002, pp. 411–69. 790 International Affairs 93: 4, 2017 States and sovereignty in the Middle East work of both IR and Middle East scholars who have contributed to the debate in different ways, whether by applying a wider IR lens or by examining more closely the particularities of the Middle Eastern system, or combining both in an attempt to build disciplinary bridges.6 There are two core aspects of sovereignty to keep in mind—domestic and international—though the two are obviously interde- pendent. That the Arab uprisings and their aftermath have generated domestic political changes with long-term repercussions cannot be disputed, but how these changes will play out in terms of state authority and institutions remains unclear; whether or not they will result in major international changes, including state breakdown and the redrawing of borders, is even less certain (as evidenced by the evolution of the Syrian war towards the recentralization of Assad’s control)—and here traditional IR scholarship has hitherto proved largely correct in predicting state resilience in an anarchical self-help system, notwithstanding the multiple and often contradictory impacts of bottom-up and top-down pressures supplied by social movements and globalization. The Arab uprisings revisited Though the Arab uprisings unleashed what at first appeared as a ‘democratizing wave’,7 with no immediate implications for state borders and external sovereignty, time revealed how the initial popular movements, which saw the toppling of a number of leaders, generated processes that transcended simple regime change, while the effects of democratization remain patchy or, in some cases, tempo- rary. Moreover, what started as a series of domestically driven events have had widespread regional and international repercussions, though their long-term impact on the structure of the regional system remains uncertain. The word ‘revolution’ was widely used to describe the effects of the early Arab uprisings, but outside Tunisia the revolutions remain unfinished or have been reversed.8 Drawing up a roadmap to enable a better understanding of present events and their possible implications for Middle Eastern states is therefore important for scholars and policy-makers alike. The ‘Arab Spring’—a somewhat maligned term with Orientalist undertones, which captured the initial dynamic of the movements that swept the Arab world from late 2010—quickly evolved beyond regime change into a far more complex and multifaceted affair into which multiple players, state and non-state, regional and extra-regional, have been drawn, with the effect that in certain cases, the very states and territories upon which the modern state system has been based for nearly 6 See International Relations theory and a changing Middle East, POMEPS Studies no. 16 (Washington
Load more

Recommended publications
  • “Fertile Crescent” Will Disappear in This Century
    Hydrological Research Letters 2,1‒4 (2008) Published online in J-STAGE (www.jstage.jst.go.jp/browse/HRL). DOI: 10.3178/HRL.2.1 First super-high-resolution model projection that the ancient “Fertile Crescent” will disappear in this century Akio Kitoh1, Akiyo Yatagai2 and Pinhas Alpert3 1Meteorological Research Institute, Tsukuba, Japan 2Research Institute for Humanity and Nature, Kyoto, Japan 3Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel demand (Vorosmarty et al., 2000). Water in the environ- Abstract: ment is an international problem because it is strongly related with the import and export of agricultural and The first full projections of rainfall and streamflow industrial products and the economic and social well- in the “Fertile Crescent” of Middle East are presented being. Multi-model climate change simulations for the in this paper. Up until now, this has not been possible 21st century showed a decrease in runoff in the Middle due to the lack of observed data and the lack of atmos- East of up to 30% by 2050 (Milly et al., 2005). A 40% pheric models with sufficient resolution. An innovative decrease in the annual streamflow of the Euphrates super-high-resolution (20-km) global climate model is River has also been projected (Nohara et al., 2006). employed, which accurately reproduces the precipita- However, the horizontal resolution of the climate tion and the streamflow of the present-day Fertile models used for these projections (between 400 km and Crescent. It is projected that, by the end of this century, 125 km) is not sufficient to resolve the topography in the Fertile Crescent will lose its current shape and may the Fertile Crescent.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sovereignty of the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories in the Brexit Era
    Island Studies Journal, 15(1), 2020, 151-168 The sovereignty of the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories in the Brexit era Maria Mut Bosque School of Law, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Spain MINECO DER 2017-86138, Ministry of Economic Affairs & Digital Transformation, Spain Institute of Commonwealth Studies, University of London, UK [email protected] (corresponding author) Abstract: This paper focuses on an analysis of the sovereignty of two territorial entities that have unique relations with the United Kingdom: the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories (BOTs). Each of these entities includes very different territories, with different legal statuses and varying forms of self-administration and constitutional linkages with the UK. However, they also share similarities and challenges that enable an analysis of these territories as a complete set. The incomplete sovereignty of the Crown Dependencies and BOTs has entailed that all these territories (except Gibraltar) have not been allowed to participate in the 2016 Brexit referendum or in the withdrawal negotiations with the EU. Moreover, it is reasonable to assume that Brexit is not an exceptional situation. In the future there will be more and more relevant international issues for these territories which will remain outside of their direct control, but will have a direct impact on them. Thus, if no adjustments are made to their statuses, these territories will have to keep trusting that the UK will be able to represent their interests at the same level as its own interests. Keywords: Brexit, British Overseas Territories (BOTs), constitutional status, Crown Dependencies, sovereignty https://doi.org/10.24043/isj.114 • Received June 2019, accepted March 2020 © 2020—Institute of Island Studies, University of Prince Edward Island, Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • Nigeria's Constitution of 1999
    PDF generated: 26 Aug 2021, 16:42 constituteproject.org Nigeria's Constitution of 1999 This complete constitution has been generated from excerpts of texts from the repository of the Comparative Constitutions Project, and distributed on constituteproject.org. constituteproject.org PDF generated: 26 Aug 2021, 16:42 Table of contents Preamble . 5 Chapter I: General Provisions . 5 Part I: Federal Republic of Nigeria . 5 Part II: Powers of the Federal Republic of Nigeria . 6 Chapter II: Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy . 13 Chapter III: Citizenship . 17 Chapter IV: Fundamental Rights . 20 Chapter V: The Legislature . 28 Part I: National Assembly . 28 A. Composition and Staff of National Assembly . 28 B. Procedure for Summoning and Dissolution of National Assembly . 29 C. Qualifications for Membership of National Assembly and Right of Attendance . 32 D. Elections to National Assembly . 35 E. Powers and Control over Public Funds . 36 Part II: House of Assembly of a State . 40 A. Composition and Staff of House of Assembly . 40 B. Procedure for Summoning and Dissolution of House of Assembly . 41 C. Qualification for Membership of House of Assembly and Right of Attendance . 43 D. Elections to a House of Assembly . 45 E. Powers and Control over Public Funds . 47 Chapter VI: The Executive . 50 Part I: Federal Executive . 50 A. The President of the Federation . 50 B. Establishment of Certain Federal Executive Bodies . 58 C. Public Revenue . 61 D. The Public Service of the Federation . 63 Part II: State Executive . 65 A. Governor of a State . 65 B. Establishment of Certain State Executive Bodies .
    [Show full text]
  • British Columbia 1858
    Legislative Library of British Columbia Background Paper 2007: 02 / May 2007 British Columbia 1858 Nearly 150 years ago, the land that would become the province of British Columbia was transformed. The year – 1858 – saw the creation of a new colony and the sparking of a gold rush that dramatically increased the local population. Some of the future province’s most famous and notorious early citizens arrived during that year. As historian Jean Barman wrote: in 1858, “the status quo was irrevocably shattered.” Prepared by Emily Yearwood-Lee Reference Librarian Legislative Library of British Columbia LEGISLATIVE LIBRARY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BACKGROUND PAPERS AND BRIEFS ABOUT THE PAPERS Staff of the Legislative Library prepare background papers and briefs on aspects of provincial history and public policy. All papers can be viewed on the library’s website at http://www.llbc.leg.bc.ca/ SOURCES All sources cited in the papers are part of the library collection or available on the Internet. The Legislative Library’s collection includes an estimated 300,000 print items, including a large number of BC government documents dating from colonial times to the present. The library also downloads current online BC government documents to its catalogue. DISCLAIMER The views expressed in this paper do not necessarily represent the views of the Legislative Library or the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. While great care is taken to ensure these papers are accurate and balanced, the Legislative Library is not responsible for errors or omissions. Papers are written using information publicly available at the time of production and the Library cannot take responsibility for the absolute accuracy of those sources.
    [Show full text]
  • UK and Colonies
    This document was archived on 27 July 2017 UK and Colonies 1. General 1.1 Before 1 January 1949, the principal form of nationality was British subject status, which was obtained by virtue of a connection with a place within the Crown's dominions. On and after this date, the main form of nationality was citizenship of the UK and Colonies, which was obtained by virtue of a connection with a place within the UK and Colonies. 2. Meaning of the expression 2.1 On 1 January 1949, all the territories within the Crown's dominions came within the UK and Colonies except for the Dominions of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Newfoundland, India, Pakistan and Ceylon (see "DOMINIONS") and Southern Rhodesia, which were identified by s.1(3) of the BNA 1948 as independent Commonwealth countries. Section 32(1) of the 1948 Act defined "colony" as excluding any such country. Also excluded from the UK and Colonies was Southern Ireland, although it was not an independent Commonwealth country. 2.2 For the purposes of the BNA 1948, the UK included Northern Ireland and, as of 10 February 1972, the Island of Rockall, but excluded the Channel Islands and Isle of Man which, under s.32(1), were colonies. 2.3 The significance of a territory which came within the UK and Colonies was, of course, that by virtue of a connection with such a territory a person could become a CUKC. Persons who, prior to 1 January 1949, had become British subjects by birth, naturalisation, annexation or descent as a result of a connection with a territory which, on that date, came within the UK and Colonies were automatically re- classified as CUKCs (s.12(1)-(2)).
    [Show full text]
  • British Overseas Territories Law
    British Overseas Territories Law Second Edition Ian Hendry and Susan Dickson HART PUBLISHING Bloomsbury Publishing Plc Kemp House , Chawley Park, Cumnor Hill, Oxford , OX2 9PH , UK HART PUBLISHING, the Hart/Stag logo, BLOOMSBURY and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published in Great Britain 2018 First edition published in 2011 Copyright © Ian Hendry and Susan Dickson , 2018 Ian Hendry and Susan Dickson have asserted their right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to be identifi ed as Authors of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. While every care has been taken to ensure the accuracy of this work, no responsibility for loss or damage occasioned to any person acting or refraining from action as a result of any statement in it can be accepted by the authors, editors or publishers. All UK Government legislation and other public sector information used in the work is Crown Copyright © . All House of Lords and House of Commons information used in the work is Parliamentary Copyright © . This information is reused under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 ( http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/ open-government-licence/version/3 ) except where otherwise stated. All Eur-lex material used in the work is © European Union, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ , 1998–2018. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
    [Show full text]
  • A Global Comparison of Non-Sovereign Island Territories: the Search for ‘True Equality’
    Island Studies Journal, 15(1), 2020, 43-66 A global comparison of non-sovereign island territories: the search for ‘true equality’ Malcom Ferdinand CNRS, Paris, France [email protected] Gert Oostindie KITLV, the Netherlands Leiden University, the Netherlands [email protected] (corresponding author) Wouter Veenendaal KITLV, the Netherlands Leiden University, the Netherlands [email protected] Abstract: For a great majority of former colonies, the outcome of decolonization was independence. Yet scattered across the globe, remnants of former colonial empires are still non-sovereign as part of larger metropolitan states. There is little drive for independence in these territories, virtually all of which are small island nations, also known as sub-national island jurisdictions (SNIJs). Why do so many former colonial territories choose to remain non-sovereign? In this paper we attempt to answer this question by conducting a global comparative study of non-sovereign jurisdictions. We start off by analyzing their present economic, social and political conditions, after which we assess local levels of (dis)content with the contemporary political status, and their articulation in postcolonial politics. We find that levels of discontent and frustration covary with the particular demographic, socio- economic and historical-cultural conditions of individual territories. While significant independence movements can be observed in only two or three jurisdictions, in virtually all cases there is profound dissatisfaction and frustration with the contemporary non-sovereign arrangement and its outcomes. Instead of achieving independence, the territories’ real struggle nowadays is for obtaining ‘true equality’ with the metropolis, as well as recognition of their distinct cultural identities.
    [Show full text]
  • BOOK BANKRUPTCY of EMPIRE.Pdf
    1 Below is the index of this book by Carlos Marichal and published by Cambridge University Press in 2007. You may visualize the Introduction and chapters 1 and 2. For the rest of the text we recommend you contact Cambridge University Press web site for acquisition in the paperback edition. BANKRUPTCY OF EMPIRE: MEXICAN SILVER AND THE WARS BETWEEN SPAIN, BRITAIN AND FRANCE, 1760-1810 Acknowledgements Introduction: Chapter 1: Resurgence of the Spanish Empire: Bourbon Mexico as Submetropolis, 1763-1800 Chapter 2: An Imperial Tax State: The Fiscal Rigors of Colonialism Chapter 3: Imperial Wars and Loans from New Spain, 1780-1800 Chapter 4: The Royal Church and the Finances of the Viceroyalty Chapter 5: Napoleon and Mexican Silver, 1805-1808 Chapter 6: Between Spain and America: the Royal Treasury and the Gordon/Murphy Consortium, 1806-1808 2 Chapter 7: Mexican Silver for the Cadiz Parliament and the War against Napoleon, 1808-1811 Chapter 8: The Rebellion of 1810, Colonial Debts and Bankruptcy of New Spain Conclusions: The Financial Collapse of Viceroyalty and Monarchy Appendix: Several Tables List of Loans from Colonial Mexico for the Spanish Crown, 1780-1815 List of Loans taken by Spain from Holland with guarantees of payments in Mexican Silver, 1780-1804 Bibliography 3 INTRODUCTION From before the time of Gibbon, historians with a global perspective have been discussing the rise and fall of empires. Today political scientists frequently speak of hegemonic states. If we review some of the best-known studies conducted over the last forty-odd years, it is possible to identify a variety of theoretical approaches adopted by those working on the history of imperial or hegemonic states.
    [Show full text]
  • Domestication and Early Agriculture in the Mediterranean Basin: Origins, Diffusion, and Impact
    PERSPECTIVE Domestication and early agriculture in the Mediterranean Basin: Origins, diffusion, and impact Melinda A. Zeder* Archaeobiology Program, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20013 Edited by Jeremy A. Sabloff, University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia, PA, and approved May 27, 2008 (received for review March 20, 2008) The past decade has witnessed a quantum leap in our understanding of the origins, diffusion, and impact of early agriculture in the Mediterranean Basin. In large measure these advances are attributable to new methods for documenting domestication in plants and animals. The initial steps toward plant and animal domestication in the Eastern Mediterranean can now be pushed back to the 12th millennium cal B.P. Evidence for herd management and crop cultivation appears at least 1,000 years earlier than the morphological changes traditionally used to document domestication. Different species seem to have been domesticated in different parts of the Fertile Crescent, with genetic analyses detecting multiple domestic lineages for each species. Recent evidence suggests that the ex- pansion of domesticates and agricultural economies across the Mediterranean was accomplished by several waves of seafaring colonists who established coastal farming enclaves around the Mediterranean Basin. This process also involved the adoption of do- mesticates and domestic technologies by indigenous populations and the local domestication of some endemic species. Human envi- ronmental impacts are seen in the complete replacement of endemic island faunas by imported mainland fauna and in today’s anthropogenic, but threatened, Mediterranean landscapes where sustainable agricultural practices have helped maintain high bio- diversity since the Neolithic.
    [Show full text]
  • Program on the Middle East
    PROGRAM ON THE MIDDLE EAST FOREIGN POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE 1 PROGRAM ON THE MIDDLE EAST Despite the clamor for America’s foreign policy to pivot away from the Middle East, events in the region over the past two decades have demanded sustained American attention. The challenges at hand are many, including Iran’s regional destabilizing ambitions, the rise and fall of ISIS’s Caliphate and enduring threat of jihadi terrorism, the ostensible collapse of the old state order in the Greater Middle East, and numerous ever-entrenched conflicts between, inter alia, Sunnis and Shi‘is, Kurds and Arab, Israelis and Palestinians, and even among Syrians themselves. The Program on the Middle East at the Foreign Policy Research Institute is uniquely positioned to provide the kind of strategic thinking and thoughtful analysis required to address the perennial foreign policy challenges that this fraught region poses for American policymakers. The program brings together both established and emerging scholars from the academic, military, and policy worlds in an effort to develop a new cadre of strategic policy thinkers, versed in the languages, geography, history, culture, and politics of the region. The Middle East Program offers context, content, and policy recommendations based on this holistic view of American strategic interests in the region. Its analysis transcends headlines and catch phrases. Through its research, publications, and educational outreach, the program focuses on key themes such as authoritarianism and reform; the aftermath of the Arab
    [Show full text]
  • Integrated Renewable Resource Management for U.S. Insular Areas
    Chapter 2 Introduction CONTENTS Page Insular Relationships to the Federal Government . 39 Commonwealths. 39 Unincorporated Territories . 40 Freely Associated States . 40 The Importance of U.S.-Affiliated Islands to US. National Security . 41 Economic Development in U.S.-Affiliated Islands: The Problem . 41 Ecological Factors . 42 Geographical Factors. 43 Socioeconomic Factors . 43 Goals of Renewable Resource Management and Development . 45 Chapter 2 References . 46 Tables Table No. Page 2-1. United States-Insular Area Relationships . 39 2-2. General Characteristics of Islands . 42 Figure Figure No. Page 2-1. Comparison of Typical Population Pyramids . 44 — Chapter Introduction INSULAR RELATIONSHIPS TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT The U.S.-affiliated tropical islands have a is represented by a nonvoting Resident Com- wide range of relationships to the U.S. Govern- missioner. The Resident Commissioner and ment (table 2-1), Two are commonwealths— Delegates sit in the House of Representatives, Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands have a voice in legislation pertaining to their (NMI)–having local autonomy but voluntarily islands, and can vote in Committee. While the associated with the United States. The U.S. Vir- territories are eligible for many Federal pro- gin Islands, American Samoa, and Guam are grams on the same basis as a State, the islanders unincorporated territories (to which only cer- do not contribute to the national treasury tain provisions of the U.S. Constitution have through Federal income taxes, been expressly extended) under the administra- Determination of U.S. policy for the territo- tion of elected Governors. Finally, the Repub- ries is within the jurisdiction of Congress.
    [Show full text]
  • Defining and Describing Regions
    OECD Regions at a Glance 2011 © OECD 2011 Defining and Describing Regions Territorial grids In any analytical study conducted at sub-national levels, the choice of the territorial unit is of prime importance. To address this issue, the OECD has classified two levels of geographic units within each member country (Table A.1 in Annex A). The higher level (Territorial level 2 [TL2]) consists of 362 larger regions while the lower level (Territorial level 3 [TL3]) is composed of 1 794 smaller regions. All the territorial units are defined within national borders and in most of the cases correspond to administrative regions. Regions at the lower level (TL3) are contained within the higher level (TL2).* This classification – which, for European countries, is largely consistent with the Eurostat classification – facilitates greater comparability of geographic units at the same territorial level. Indeed these two levels, which are officially established and relatively stable in all member countries, are used as a framework for implementing regional policies in most countries. Due to limited data availability, labour-market indicators in Canada are presented for groups of TL3 regions. Since these groups are not part of the OECD official territorial grids, for the sake of simplicity they are labelled as non-official grids (NOGs) in this publication and compared with TL3 for the other countries (Table A.1 in Annex A). The OECD has recently started to extend the regional classification to new member countries and emerging economies. More precisely TL2 regions have been identified and statistics collected in Chile, Estonia, Israel and Slovenia (new OECD members); Brazil, the Russian Federation, India, China and South Africa (the BRICS countries).
    [Show full text]