Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:20:48.887Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Government-Business Relations in the Construction of Mercosur

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Gian Luca Gardini
Gian Luca Gardini*
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Democratic consolidation was the top priority of re-democratized Argentina and Brazil. Regional integration was also part of this goal from two perspectives: from the outside, through a treaty that diminished the scope for political manoeuvring by the military and increased international support for the incumbent administrations, and; from within, through encouragement of a proactive role for business in integration that would give it democratic legitimacy, while, at the same time, exercising democratic practices. Argentine and Brazilian political classes expected to combine these two aspects but soon had to face business reluctance. Government-business relations in the construction of Mercosur reflected government attempts to balance the trade-off between the approaches from without and from within. Although business was largely excluded from the strategic formulation of integration, in a democratic context, governments have to accommodate societal interests. This occurred through a significant overlap between powerful business interests and the executive's plans. The achievement of integration helped consolidate democracy and the choices made by political elites drove forward the democratic process.

Keywords

businessMercosurintegrationArgentinaBrazilprivate sector
Type
Article
Information
Business and Politics , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , April 2006 , pp. 1 - 26
Copyright
Copyright © V.K. Aggarwal 2006 and published under exclusive license to Cambridge University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alimonda, Héctor. 2002. “Brazilian Society and Regional Integration”. Latin American Perspectives, 27 (6): 27–44.Google Scholar
Allison, Graham and Zelikow, Philip, 1999. The Essence of Decision. Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Bekerman, Marta. 1995. “Las Ventajas Economicas Potenciales del Mercosur para la Economia Brasileña”. In Integración y Sociedad en el Cono Sur, edited by Bekerman, Marta and Rofman, Alejandro. Buenos Aires: Espacio Editorial, 35–55.Google Scholar
Bizzozero, Lincoln and Grandi, Jorge. 1992. “Vers une Société Civile du Mercosur. Anciens et Nouveaux Acteurs”, Cahiers des Amériques Latines, 24: 53–75.Google Scholar
Bouzas, Roberto and Avogadro, Enrique. 2002. “Trade Policy-Making and the Private Sector: A Memorandum on Argentina”. In The Trade Policy-Making Process. Level One of the Two Level Game: Country Studies in the Western Hemisphere, edited by IADB. Buenos Aires: INTAL, 1–12.Google Scholar
Campbell, Jorge. 1999. “Quince Años de Integración, Muchos ruidos y Muchas Nueces”. In Mercosur. Entre la Realidad y la Utopia, edited by Campbell, Jorge. Buenos Aires: Nuevohacer Grupo Editor Latinoamericano, 39–228.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert. 1971. Polyarchy. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dàvila-Villers, David. 1992. “Competition and Co-operation in the River Plate - The Democratic Transition and Mercosur”. Bulletin of Latin American Research, 11 (3): 261–277.Google Scholar
Favelevic, Roberto. 2000. “¿Aprenderemos de Nuestros Erores?”, Informe Industrial, January: 6–8.Google Scholar
Giarracca, Norma and Teubal, Miguel. 1995. “Los Pequeños Productores Cañeros y la Integración Economica con el Brasil”. In Integración y Sociedad en el Cono Sur, edited by Bekerman, Marta and Rofman, Alejandro. Buenos Aires: Espacio Editorial, 61–84.Google Scholar
Hirst, Monica. 1992. “Mercosur and the New Circumstances for its Integration”. CEPAL Review, 46: 139–150.Google Scholar
Hirst, Monica. 1996. “The Foreign Policy of Brazil: from the Democratic Transition to its Consolidation”. In Latin American Nations in World Politics, edited by Muñoz, Heraldo and Tulchin, Joseph. Boulder CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Hirst, Monica. 1999. “Mercosur's Complex Political Agenda”. In Mercosur. Regional Integration, World Markets, edited by Roett, Riordan. Boulder CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 35–48.Google Scholar
Hurrell, Andrew. 2001. “The Politics of Regional Integration in Mercosur”. In Regional Integration in Latin America and the Caribbean. The Political Economy of Open Regionalism, edited by Bulmer-Thomas, Victor. London: Institute of Latin American Studies, 194–211.Google Scholar
Jelin, Elizabeth. 2001. “Cultural Movements and Social Actors in the New Regional Scenarios: The Case of Mercosur”, International Political Science Review, 22 (1): 85–98.Google Scholar
Kooning, Kees. 2000. “Globalization and Regional Integration: The Brazilian Industry and Mercosur”. In The Dialectics of Globalization, edited by Vellinga, Menno. Boulder CO: Westview Press, 177–200.Google Scholar
Lavagna, Roberto. 1998. Argentina, Brasil, Mercosur. Una Decisión Estratégica. Buenos Aires: Ciudad Argentina.Google Scholar
Lucangeli, Jorge. 1998. “Argentina and the Challenge of Mercosur”. In Mercosur, edited by Coffey, Peter. Boston and London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 21–112.Google Scholar
Mainwaring, Scott. 1989. “Transitions to Democracy and Democratic Consolidation: Theoretical and Comparative Issues”. Notre Dame Working Paper 130. http://www.nd.edu/∼kellogg/WPS/130.pdf, last visit: 30/03/2006Google Scholar
Majoral, Alejandro. 1999. “Expectativas Empresariales ante el proceso de Integración”. In Mercosur. Entre la Realidad y la Utopia, edited by Campbell, Jorge. Buenos Aiores: Nuevohacer Grupo Editor Latinoamericano, 447–488.Google Scholar
Motta Veiga, Pedro da. 1999. “Brazil in Mercosur: Reciprocal Influence”. In Mercosur. Regional Integration, World Markets, edited by Roett, Riordan. Boulder CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 25–34.Google Scholar
Motta Veiga, Pedro da. 2002. “Trade Policy-Making in Brazil: Transition Paths”. In The Trade Policy-Making Process. Level One of the Two Level Game: Country Studies in the Western Hemisphere, edited by IADB. Buenos Aires: INTAL, 13–21.Google Scholar
Neto, João Hermann. 1988. “La Visión de Brasil”. In Argentina-Brasil. El Largo Camino de la Integración, edited by Hirst, Monica. Buenos Aires: Editorial Legasa, 179–184.Google Scholar
O'Donnell, Guillermo and Schmitter, Philippe. 1986. “Tentative Conclusions about Uncertain Democracies”. In Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Prospects for Democracy, edited by O'Donnel, Guillermo, Schmitter, Philippe, and Whitehead, Laurence. Baltimore: John's Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Portelli, Alessandro. 1998. “What Makes Oral History Different”. In The Oral History Reader, edited by Perks, Robert and Thomson, Alistair. London and New York: Routledge, 63–74.Google Scholar
Sáez, Sebastián. 2005. “Trade Policy-Making in Latin America: A Compared Analysis”. ECLAC Paper, January. http://www.esri.go.jp/jp/workshop/050316/050316ECLA-R1.pdf, last visit 31/03/2006.Google Scholar
Schedler, Andreas. 1998. “How Should We Study Democratic Consolidation?”. Democratization, 5 (4): 1–19.Google Scholar
Schedler, Andreas. 2001. “Measuring Democratic Consolidation”. Studies in Comparative International Development, 36 (1): 66–92.Google Scholar
Schneider, Ben Ross. 2001. “Business Politics and Regional Integration: The Advantages of Organization in NAFTA and Mercosur”. In Regional Integration in Latin America and the Caribbean. The Political Economy of Open Regionalism, edited by Bulmer-Thomas, Victor. London: Institute of Latin American Studies, 167–193.Google Scholar
Schneider, Ben Ross. 2005. “Business Politics and Policy Making in Contemporary Latin America”. OECD Paper, April. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/13/0/35496225.pdf, last visit 30/03/2006.Google Scholar
Silva, Patricio. 1989. “Democratization and Foreign Policy: the Cases of Argentina and Brazil”. In Democratization and the State in the Southern Cone, edited by Galjart, Benno and Silva, Patricio. Amsterdam: CEDLA, 104–123.Google Scholar
Steves, Franklin. 2001. “Regional Integration and Democratic Consolidation in the Southern Cone of Latin America”. Democratization, 8 (3): 75–100.Google Scholar
Thacker, Strom. 2000. “Private Sector Trade Politics in Mexico”, Business and Politics, 2 (2): 161–187.Google Scholar
Valenzuela, Samuel J. 1990. “Democratic Consolidation in Post-transitional Settings: Notion, Process, and Facilitating Conditions”. Notre Dame Working Paper 150. http://www.nd.edu/∼kellogg/WPS/150.pdf, last visit: 30/03/2006.Google Scholar
Whitehead, Laurence. 1999. “Three International dimensions of Democratization”. In The International Dimensions of Democratization: Europe and the Americas, edited by Whitehead, Laurence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3–26.Google Scholar