Page - (000103) - in Knowledge and Networks

95 Statements by Regional Groups and States Table 5.1 provides a general picture of this phenomenon. The increase in the num- ber of states that support a group’s statements is quite impressive (from 10 to 100 in 20 years), whereas the progression of groups is less marked (from 3 to 14). Before the graphs from Fig. 5.3 are interpreted, one distinction is necessary regarding the type of groups investigated. Some groups can be called ideological because they defend specific points of view on topics examined in the UNGA, whereas others can be labeled regional because their main ambition is integration at a supranational level—although some regional formations may indeed be based on ideological considerations. (The EU, for instance, is based mainly on the liberal free-market ideology.) Among the initial groups, the Nonaligned Movement (NAM) and the Group of 77 (now called the Group of 77 plus China) are emblematic of the 1970s at the UNGA, with NAM supporting an alternative political path between capitalism and socialism and the G77 promoting a new and less disparate world economic order. These two groups remain active, giving voice to the weakest states and advancing their claims. In 1990 (Fig. 5.3, Session 45) the situation was quite simple: The European Commission was the only group whose statements were regularly supported by its member states. Although the EC was not the only group to make statements, indi- vidual states did not support statements made by other groups. The other two sup- ported groups (G77 and the least developed countries) can be considered ideological because they do not promote a regional integration process but defend a more gen- eral point of view based on uneven economic development. Six years later (Fig. 5.3, Session 51) the situation was not so different, although there were more member states that supported groups’ statements. Although EU member states often supported EU statements, most of the links in the component illustrated on the left reflected ideological considerations (degree equal to 6 for NAM, degree equal to 9 for the G77 plus China). Nevertheless, the increase in the number of regional groups in the strict sense (Latin America and the Caribbean, the Rio Group, and the Organization of African Unity) was notable, and some member states chose to support one group or another, depending on the topic under consideration. Table 5.1 Main properties of bipartite state–group network Session No. of states No. of groups Density Diameter Components 45 (1990–1991) 10 3 .367 3 2 51 (1996–1997) 52 6 .196 6 2 57 (2002–2003) 54 14 .098 7 5 63 (2009–2010) 100 14 .129 6 3 Source: UNGA verbatim records 5 Studying Networks Geographically: World Political Regionalization in the United…