Is European Inter Regionalism a Relevant Approach for the World or Just for Europe? Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series Vol. 7 No. 14 September 2007

[Introduction]. Most of the literature on inter regionalism seems to accept that, as a region, the European Union (EU) stimulates interregional cooperation in such a way that it may be responsible for adding a new category of relevant actors to world politics. This development is usually viewed by academics, mostly Europeans, positively, as a situation born from the affirmation of a European “soft power” vis-à-vis other alternatives of world order. Additionally, it is often assumed that the successful integration model of the EU is responsible for creating the conditions for emulation in other regional integration projects elsewhere, and implicitly that it could be the cornerstone of future world order. This paper explores this argument in order to provide a more accurate reading of European actions in the international landscape. Our starting point is the fact that the characteristics of the power that a nation state, or a group of nations such as the EU, exercises can be extrapolated from its internal make-up but should not be divorced from its actual behavior in the international arena. So far the behavior of the EU in that arena has been patterned along traditional lines of behavior of aspiring powers within historical settings dominated by a nation who faces problems in maintaining its hegemony. Thus, we argue that most of the literature on European “soft power” exceptionality is based on a reading of the EU internal make-up that is not paying attention to its actual behavior in the international arena. We accept that internal factors weigh on the foreign policy decisions made by a nation state or a group of nations, but also that the feeling of exceptionality – that a nation or group can develop because of its internal make-up – does not necessarily “spill over” to its international relations. So, we are going to test the proposition that, in order to protect its exceptionality, a nation state or group of nations applies different mechanisms to its international dealings, but those mechanisms are not different from the ones employed in similar international situations by nation states whose internal make-ups differ. In other words, the participation of a group of nations in the world order does not translate into a different behavior than that of previously isolated nation states, exemplified by the realist proposition that nation states and groups of nations still “value survival above all else.” And, in the case of the EU, this implies the survival of an internal make-up that has been successful for its members. As a consequence, inter regionalism can be seen as a European centered approach aimed at defending the permanence of the gains achieved by means of regional integration, but with little relevance in the medium and long term for a more democratic or more meaningful world order for developing nations. This paper contends that hegemony and emulation are just two faces of the power exercised by an actor within the international system. When a nation or group of nations has enough power to do so, it imposes its hegemony. When it does not have enough power, especially enough power to compete with an existing hegemon1 -- or it is unwilling to do so-- it would tend to emphasize other elements (its value system, for example) as an emulation horizon for other nations. Both behaviors translate into active foreign policies toward the rest of the world, and activism in foreign policy almost always is born out of the need to defend itself. In the case of the EU, its behavior towards Eastern European countries is that of a hegemon, according to the definition of hegemony in “Theorizing Regional Integration and Inter-Regional Relations (2)” (2006) – the EU establishes the goals, monitors the course of action, and supports the instruments required to carry out the undertakings agreed upon.(3) However, beyond Eastern Europe and Turkey, the EU lacks the power to impose its hegemony and is limited to resorting to an alleged “soft power” deal –i.e., inter regionalism. In the first section of this paper, we provide historical examples of the U.S., a nation state which has employed both hegemony and emulation as defense mechanisms at different stages in its history. This will demonstrate that, though much is made out of the European Union emulation, it is a mechanism to assert economic and political power that has been used before by individual nation states. And, in the second section, we discuss aspects of EU foreign policy towards developing nations that, when taken together, suggest that the adding of new relevant actors to world order by way of inter regionalism may help create a new balance of power under European tutelage, but this balance will not necessarily lead to a more democratic or lasting world order

Values in European Union-Latin America and Mercosur-Pacific Alliance convergence. Do European shared values promote convergence?

The question if shared values between Europe and Latin America can foster convergence between both is tied to the question of how to overcome the present fragmented status of Latin America. We argue that negotiation between Southern Common Market (Mercosur) and the Pacific Alliance (PA) -- the so called “convergence in diversity” proposed in 2014 by former presidents Lula Da Silva (Brazil) and Ricardo Lagos (Chile) – provides a starting point, especially after the signing of the European Union (EU) -Mercosur association agreement (2019). This agreement has been hailed as developing a level playing field for Mercosur and PA because all their member nations have made deeper concessions on technical norms, investment, intellectualproperty, among other, to the EU than to each other (Bartesaghi and Melgar 2018).Accordingly, their normative/regulatory convergence with Europe is expected to facilitate Mercosur-PA convergence. In this article we adopt the Latin American Integration Association (LAIA/ALADI, 1980) concept of convergence: the progressive multilateralization of partial economic agreements by means of periodical renegotiations between members (Caichiolo 2019, 248). This is different from strategic convergence (“the overlap of key. objectives and interests regarding long-term developments in world politics”, Braekus and Overland, 2007, 42), but represents a specific dimension of it. [...

La relación entre PDVSA, Estado y nacionalismo económico en Venezuela (1976-2003) desde el institucionalismo

Between 1976 and 2003 the State company Petróleos de Venezuela SA (PDVSA) was the axis of the Venezuelan oil industry. Its original contract as well as its evolution were under the influence of context factors such as the State objectives and the ideas of different governments about the role of the State in the national economy. In parallel, PDVSA went through an internal process of socialization that led to the development of its own culture or philosophy. The relationship between the latter and the Venezuelan sociopolitical context was almost always predicated upon their mutual adaptation to the needs of the other, until 1999 when successive governmental decisions led to important changes in the original contract and the emergence of the so-called “new” PDVSA in 2003. In this article, contributions from different institutionalist approaches (historic institutionalism, rational choice, discursive institutionalism, etc.) are used to reconstruct the history of PDVSA and to connect it to the history of oil in Venezuela, since the third decade of the twentieth century, when it became its main exporting product. In each historical stage, we analyze how different governments interpreted the role of the State in the economy and their relationship with PDVSA, and how the company adapted or rejected those interpretations. Research for this article was based on a revision of the literature about oil history in Venezuela and economic nationalism in developing nations. Entre 1976 y 2003 la industria petrolera venezolana se concentró en una empresa estatal (Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A., PDVSA) cuya conformación y evolución estuvo bajo la influencia de factores contextuales, entre los cuales destacan los objetivos del Estado y las ideas gubernamentales acerca del rol del Estado en la economía.  En paralelo, la empresa se ajustó a un proceso de socialización interna mediante el cual fue desarrollando una cultura o filosofía propia. La relación entre esta última y el contexto sociopolítico fue casi siempre de adaptación hasta 1999, cuando se inició una etapa que culminó con la desaparición de la empresa según los términos de su contrato inicial, que fue sustituida por lo que se denomina la “nueva” PDVSA.  Los aportes de distintos enfoques del institucionalismo (histórico, sociológico, discursivo, etc.) permiten reconstruir su historia engarzándola con la historia de Venezuela desde que, en la tercera década del siglo 20, comenzó a exportar petróleo. En cada etapa se analiza la forma en que distintos gobiernos interpretaron el rol del Estado en la economía y la relación con la empresa y el modo en que PDVSA buscó adaptarse o rechazar esas visiones, en base a una revisión de la literatura sobre historia del petróleo en Venezuela y nacionalismo económico en países en desarrollo. Finalmente, se discute el aporte de la investigación a la literatura sobre historia de empresas y nacionalismo económico

Regionalismo assimétrico como o eixo de resistência da América do Sul para o Brasil (2000-2013)

Regionalism always creates tensions among its members due to its asymmetrical character, but in South America, Brazilian regionalism has realistic, constructivist, and institutional features that emphasize asymmetry with its neighbors. As a result, organizations built to support Brazil’s regional and global projection generated resistance in South American governments between 2000 and 2013. The objectives of this article are to analyze this resistance in Chile, Argentina, and Venezuela; to identify the systemic, normative, and external factors that enabled it and its stages, and link resistance with global paradigms of regionalism. As a methodology, the documentary review was used for the first objectives and discourse analysis, as a qualitative research technique, to infer the motivations and link with paradigms of regionalism. Among the results, it is highlighted that systemic factors are arising from South American historical experience that explains the emergence and maintenance of resistance. This can be divided into stages (2000-2004, 2005-2010, 2011-2013) according to the strategies applied, and it is linked to the fact that Brazilian regionalism follows the region-centric paradigm, and its neighbors prefer decentralized multipolarity.El regionalismo siempre crea tensiones entre sus miembros por su carácter asimétrico, pero en Sudamérica el regionalismo brasileño posee rasgos realistas, constructivistas e institucionalistas que enfatizan la asimetría con sus vecinos. Como resultado, las organizaciones construidas para apoyar la proyección regional y global de Brasil generaron resistencia en Gobiernos sudamericanos entre 2000 y 2013. Los objetivos de este artículo son analizar esa resistencia en Chile, Argentina y Venezuela; identificar los factores sistémicos, normativos y externos que la posibilitaron y sus etapas, y vincular la resistencia con paradigmas globales del regionalismo. Como metodología se utilizó la revisión documental para los primeros objetivos y el análisis del discurso, como técnica de investigación cualitativa, para inferir motivaciones y vinculación con paradigmas del regionalismo. Entre los resultados se destaca que existen factores sistémicos resultado de la experiencia histórica sudamericana que explican el surgimiento y mantenimiento de la resistencia. Esta puede dividirse en etapas (2000-2004, 2005-2010, 2011-2013), según las estrategias utilizadas, y se vincula al hecho de que el regionalismo brasileño sigue el paradigma región-céntrico y sus vecinos prefieren el de la multipolaridad descentralizada. O regionalismo cria tensões entre os membros devido a seu caráter assimétrico, mais o regionalismo do Brasil tem traços realistas, construtivistas e institucionalistas que enfatizam a assimetria com seus parceiros sul-americanos. Em consequência, as organizações desenvolvidas pelo Brasil para projetar-se regionalmente e globalmente produziram resistência entre os governos sul-americanos entre 2000 e 2013. Nossos objetivos são: 1) analisar a resistência no Chile, Argentina e Venezuela, 2) identificar os fatores sistêmicos, normativos e externos que possibilitaram a resistência e a fases de resistência e 3) ligar a resistência sul-americana com paradigmas globais do regionalismo. Metodologicamente, o artigo combina revisão documental e análise qualitativa do discurso para inferir as motivações dos governos do Chile, Argentina e Venezuela e suas ligações com paradigmas globais do regionalismo. Entre os resultados, o artigo evidencia os fatores sistêmicos nascidos do histórico da América do Sul. Resistência é dividida em fases (2000-2004, 2005-2010, 2011-2013), de acordo com as diferentes estratégias aplicadas, e está ligada ao fato de que, enquanto o regionalismo brasileiro segue o paradigma centrado na região, seus vizinhos preferem o paradigma multipolar descentralizado

Capítulo 2: De la cooperación al conflicto: El rol de la toma de decisiones en la integración regional latinoamericana (2000 – 2018)

Actualmente, en América Latina predomina la divergencia en torno a modelos de integración regional, que puede sintetizarse en un conflicto entre el modelo propuesto por Venezuela y representado por la Alianza Bolivariana para los Pueblos de Nuestra América (ALBA), y el de la Alianza del Pacifico (AP), auspiciada en especial por Chile y México. Ese conflicto se ha diseminado al escenario regional y exacerba la tendencia del regionalismo latinoamericano a otorgar prioridad a intereses económicos y políticos nacionales frente a los regionales

Conceptualización y marco analítico explicativo del multilateralismo latinoamericano

This article summarizes the main concepts of Latin American multilateralism found in literature, with the aim of identifying both their contributions and weaknesses. This identification serves as the basis to propose an alternative process of conceptualization that includes not only descriptive variables but also explanatory ones, and takes into account the regional system, and the national interests of state actors. The objective is to evaluate if there is a specific analytical framework for the study of Latin American multilateralism. Este artículo resume las principales conceptualizaciones del multilateralismo latinoamericano que aparecen en la literatura, a fin de identificar sus contribuciones y debilidades. A partir de esa identificación, se propone un proceso alternativo para conceptualizarlo que incluye variables descriptivas y explicativas, y tiene en cuenta el contexto del sistema regional, así como los intereses de los poderes regionales y otros actores estatales. El objetivo es evaluar si existe un marco analítico propio para el estudio del multilateralismo en América Latina

LA INICIATIVA PARA LA INTEGRACIÓN DE LA INFRAESTRUCTURA SUDAMERICANA (IIIRSA) DESDE LA PERSPECTIVA DE LA NUEVA GEOGRAFÍA ECONÓMICA

Este artículo examina la posibilidad de que la IIIRSA permita a Sudamérica convertirse en una plataforma exportadora conjunta, según el enfoque de la geografía económica, iniciado por Alfred Marshall y desarrollado por Paul Krugman, entre otros. Luego de resumir los orígenes y objetivos de la IIIRSA en la introducción, el trabajo se divide en dos secciones: en la primera se presenta el enfoque de la geografía industrial y/o nueva geografía económica; y, en la segunda sección, se discute y evalúa la posibilidad de que la IIIRSA genere capacidad exportadora agregada al nivel regional, sobre la base de comparar sus principios orientadores con elementos del enfoque teórico geográfico. La expectativa es que la discusión de los resultados obtenidos al analizar la IIIRSA desde esta perspectiva enriquecerá la comprensión de sus posibilidades en relación con una mejor inserción internacional para Sudamérica. Abstract This article examines the South American Infra-structure Integration Initiative (IIIRSA) from the perspective of the new economic geography, begun by Alfred Marshall and developed by Paul Krugman, among others, in order to explore if this program will be able to turn South America into a joint export platform. After summarizing the origin and objectives of IIIRSA in the first section, the article presents the basic elements of the new economic geography, and ends by discussing and evaluating the possibility that South America may become an export platform in the absence of other changes. &nbsp

Venezuela en Mercosur: aproximación a un balance de sus consecuencias regionales

En estas notas se plantea qué representó el ingreso de Venezuela al MERCOSUR en la polarización regional y qué rol jugó el discurso del gobierno venezolano en ella. Se busca destacar la agencia de los actores políticos en ese proceso y el uso del discurso populista como estrategia deliberada a fin de enfatizar la responsabilidad de los actores políticos en disminuir o manejar el conflicto. Aunque un balance del ingreso de Venezuela al MERCOSUR puede tener otras facetas, es importante identificar aquella que tiene consecuencias más negativas para la integración regional en la actualidad.Instituto de Integración Latinoamerican

La toma de decisiones secuenciales durante el auge y la crisis del regionalismo sudamericano (2000-2019)

La autora destaca que en América Latina, donde los Estados naciones dominan el panorama, se producen cambios abruptos de política exterior después de procesos electorales que repercuten sobre el regionalismo. El análisis de esa situación confirma que para los gobiernos latinoamericanos el regionalismo es un proyecto para reorganizar el espacio regional según líneas económicas y políticas que responden a sus intereses específicos y la importancia que tiene la toma de decisiones de política exterior en su definición (Isbell y Nolan, 2015). Ello justifica la necesidad de estudiar la dinámica regional que generan las políticas exteriores de Chile, México y Venezuela en el siglo XXI y se plasma en la Alianza del Pacífico (AP) y la Alianza Bolivariana para Nuestra América (ALBA), proyectos regionales enfrentados. El objetivo es analizar la interacción entre actores regionales a fin de enfatizar la responsabilidad de los decisores en la situación actual del regionalismo sudamericano. Sin descartar otros factores, se busca demostrar la influencia que tienen en el regionalismo las decisiones de los gobiernos, a fin de evaluar su responsabilidad en la crisis actual. Reconocer el rol de los gobiernos en la crisis del regionalismo sudamericano resulta necesario para alterar un patrón de comportamiento en el cual los intereses propios se imponen por encima de los de la región y aún de la nación misma.Instituto de Integración Latinoamerican

Business in Colombian trade negotiations: two-level games in the G-3 and the Pacific Alliance

Este artículo compara la participación de los empresarios colombianos en la negociación del Grupo de los Tres (G-3, 1994) y la Alianza del Pacífico (AP, 2012) para evaluar la validez del enfoque de juego de dos niveles cuando se aplica a negociaciones internacionales entre países en desarrollo. En las dos primeras secciones se analiza el proceso de negociación de los tratados, incorporando cambios en política económica y preferencias de distintos actores. En la tercera se compara la participación empresarial en ambas negociaciones y se discute el enfoque de Robert Putnam, además de señalarse la necesidad de realizar ajustes para adecuarlo al tipo de casos que aquí se estudia.This comparative analysis of business participation in the negotiation of the Group of Three Free Trade Agreement (G-3, 1994) and the Pacific Alliance (PA, 2012) aims at assessing the validity of Robert Putnam´s two-level game when applied to international negotiations between developing nations. Economic policy changes locked in by the treaties, as well as actors´ preferences and positions, are explored in the first two sections. The third one compares business participation in the study cases, discusses Putnam´s approach, and establishes the need to make adjustments in different aspects of the two-level game.Instituto de Integración Latinoamericana (IIL