Golpes con adjetivos: ¿presición o confusión?

publishedVersio

Regional integration in Latin America : comparative theories and institutions

Regional integration in Latin America is a long but not-so-successful story. Only by 1990 the creation of a new regional bloc — namely Mercosur — and the relaunching of two previous attempts — the Andean Community of Nations and the Central American Common Market — allowed to envision a different trend. Today, the three referred blocs feature a series of divergent characteristics, among them the reached level of integration and the type of institutionalization. However, all three have something in common: none fits easily the theories of regional integration that were developed drawing on the European case. This paper analyzes the Latin American integration experience in light of the main contemporary integration theories, in order to pinpoint some inconsistencies between theories and cases with a view to guiding further research. Among the main findings is the increasing relevance of national executives as crucial driving force of the integration processes

Presidentialism in the Southern cone : a framework for analysis

Digitised version produced by the EUI Library and made available online in 2020

Presidential diplomacy and the institutional underpinnings of Mercosur : an empirical examination

Published under Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0. The article was downloaded under these CC 4.0 conditions from the publisher's past issue archive MUSE.It is commonplace to assert that the effective operation of Mercosur rests deeply on presidential diplomacy. Such a mechanism is understood as the usual resort to direct negotiations between the national presidents every time a crucial decision needs to be made or a critical conflict has to be solved. This paper argues that presidential diplomacy, understood as political, summit diplomacy –as opposed to bureaucratic, professional diplomacy— is not enough to account for Mercosur actual proceedings and results. Through the empirical analysis of three critical junctures of Mercosur history, a framework is thus advanced to show how long-neglected institutional incentives and constraints, defined by national executive format, have impacted upon the process of regional integration.Is partly based on author's EUI PhD thesis, 200

Jefes de gobierno y procesos de integración : las experiencias de Europa y América Latina

Los procesos históricos de integración nacional (nationbuilding) han sido usualmente conducidos por líderes que gobernaban una de las entidades políticas que constituirían el nuevo Estado. El gran ministro Cavour –bajo el reinado de Vittorio Emanuele II, en Italia— y el canciller Bismarck –en la corte de los Hohenzollern, en Alemania— constituyen paradigmas clásicos de este fenómeno. En cambio, en los procesos contemporáneos de integración regional el rol de los jefes de gobierno aparece opacado. Así, cuando se cita a los padres fundadores del caso más exitoso, la Unión Europea, se menciona a funcionarios como Jean Monnet, Robert Schuman o Jacques Delors, de los cuales sólo Schuman ejerció (brevemente) la conducción de un gobierno nacional –y no fue desde ese cargo que logró sus mayores éxitos. La menor visibilidad de los jefes de gobierno se debe, en parte, a la naturaleza voluntaria de la integración regional, que no deja lugar a la imposición de pautas y tiempos por parte de un Estado sobre los otros. Pero la razón principal reside, argumentaré aquí, en el sesgo teórico – funcionalista o liberal— de los principales esquemas desarrollados para abordar los procesos de integración. Al basarse casi exclusivamente en la experiencia europea, tales esquemas desatienden frecuentemente las lecciones derivadas de otros casos. Sin embargo, los jefes de gobierno han ejercido sobre los procesos de integración una influencia mayor que la que les suele adjudicar buena parte de la literatura. Para corroborarlo, este artículo se despliega en tres partes. En la primera se pasa revista a los atributos y mecanismos a través de los cuales los ejecutivos nacionales pueden controlar o dirigir la construcción de bloques regionales con relativa autonomía tanto respecto de actores domésticos (parlamento, partidos, grupos de interés) como externos (funcionarios e instituciones supranacionales). En la segunda parte se analiza el impacto de la intervención de los jefes de gobierno sobre la evolución de cuatro bloques regionales. Además de la Unión Europea (UE), tres casos latinoamericanos son abordados: la Comunidad Andina (CAN), el Mercado Común Centroamericano (MCCA) y el Mercado Común del Sur (MERCOSUR). En la tercera parte se realiza un análisis comparativo y se esbozan las conclusiones

Spillover in European and South American integration : a comparative evaluation

Spillover is a concept coined by neo-functionalism in the 1960s in order to give count of the process of European integration. It refers to the inner dynamics whereby the members of a regional scheme would be compelled to either enlarging the scope or increasing the level of their mutual commitments or both. However, Latin American integration processes have questioned the meaningfulness and applicability of the concept, both in its political and technical dimensions. Through a comparison between the European Union, the Andean Community and Mercosur, this paper looks into the reasons why this happened, addressing conceptual as well as empirical matters

Presidential democracies and regional integration : an institutional approach to Mercosur (1985-2000)

Defence date: 21 March 2003Examining Board: Prof. Stefano Bartolini (EUI, supervisor) ; Prof. Philippe C. Schmitter (EUI, co-supervisor) ; Prof. Félix Peña (Universidad Nacional de Tres de Febrero, Argentina) ; Prof. Giorgio Alberti (Università degli Studi di Bologna, Italia)First made available online on 23 April 2018Regional integration has become a need for national states to face the challenges of globalization. However, the ongoing integration processes are not alike, and neither are their outcomes. This research outlines the political differences concerning a few of them, particularly the two blocs that have reached the customs union stage: the European Union and Mercosur. Whereas the former features a pattern of increasing institutionalization at a regional, often supranational level, the latter does not progress along the same path but through intergovernmental mechanisms, in a more politicized -as opposed to institutionalized— shape. This research tackles two main puzzles. The first is the success of Mercosur in a region where previous attempts at integration had systematically failed. The second is the unexpected characteristics of Mercosur operation, which challenge both established theories and the archetypal model of the European Union. The main hypothesis suggests that Mercosur success-without-regional-institutions can be partially explained by the domestic institutional settings o f its member countries. Executive format is thus addressed in order to appraise whether presidential democracies have been able to back up an integration process in a previously unsuspected way. Through the empirical analysis of seven regional processes that took place between 1985 and 2000, this research looks into the extent to which national instead of regional institutions provided for decision-making, dispute settlement and rule enforcement. The conclusion arrived at is that, in the absence of regional institutions, a specific combination of national institutions with presidential diplomacy has supplied effective bases for regional integration