Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T12:04:48.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Policy Networks and Business Participation in Free Trade Negotiations in Chile*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 April 2008

BENEDICTE BULL
BENEDICTE BULL
Affiliation:
Benedicte Bull is a Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for Development and the Environment (SUM), University of Oslo, benedicte.bull@sum.uio.no
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Within Latin America, Chile is distinguished by its stable trade policies and rapid negotiation of trade agreements with countries and regions all over the world. Explanations for these phenomena often point to the stable pro-free trade coalition established in the aftermath of the shock-therapy pursued in the 1970s, and Chile's professional government bureaucracy. Although both of these elements are important, this article shows how the rapid integration of Chile into the world economy has also depended on the existence of business associations with expertise on trade issues. Through the process of integration, a close policy network has evolved between key public officials and business representatives. This is premised on the mutual recognition of expertise in the public and private sectors, and is held together by close personal networks of loyalty and trust across the public-private divide. However, while the development of such a policy network has been highly favourable to the process of negotiating trade agreements, it has also contributed to the de-facto exclusion of societal actors that have less to contribute to trade negotiations than business sectors.

Resumen:

Chile se distingue en América Latina por sus políticas comerciales estables y por su rápida negociación de acuerdos comerciales con países y regiones de todo el mundo. Tales fenómenos con frecuencia se explican por la estable coalición a favor del libre comercio establecida poco después de la terapia de shock aplicada en los años 70, y también por la profesional burocracia gubernamental chilena. Aunque ambos elementos son importantes, este artículo muestra cómo la integración acelerada de Chile dentro de la economía mundial también ha dependido de la existencia de asociaciones empresariales con experiencia en asuntos comerciales. A través del proceso de integración, ha evolucionado una cerrada red de funcionarios públicos clave y representantes comerciales. Esta se basa en el reconocimiento mutuo de la experiencia existente tanto en el sector público como en el privado, lo cual se mantiene por medio de relaciones personales cercanas de lealtad y confianza entre los distintos sectores. Sin embargo, mientras que el desarrollo de tal red ha sido altamente favorable para el proceso de negociación de acuerdos comerciales, también ha contribuido para que se dé una exclusión de facto de actores sociales que tienen menor capacidad de contribuir a las negociaciones comerciales que los sectores empresariales.

Palabras clave: Chile, redes de políticas públicas, acuerdos de libre comercio, sector empresarial, participación

Resumo:

Dentro da America Latina, o Chile se destaca por suas políticas de comércio estáveis e sua rápida negociação de acordos comerciais com países e regiões do mundo todo. Explicações para esses fenômenos frequentemente apontam para a estável coalizão em prol do livre comércio, estabelecida como consequência da terapia de choque adotada na década de 1970, e à burocracia governamental profissional do Chile. Embora ambos esses elementos sejam importantes, este artigo expõe como a rápida integração do Chile na economia mundial também dependeu da existência de associações empresariais proficientes em questões relativas ao comércio. Por um processo de integração, uma rede próxima de funcionários públicos-chave e representantes empresariais evoluiu para criar diretrizes oficiais. Isso é baseado no reconhecimento mútuo da habilidade e destreza nos setores público e privado, e é mantido por redes íntimas de lealdade e confiança em ambos lados da divisa público-privada. No entanto, enquanto o desenvolvimento de uma rede para elaboração de políticas oficiais tem sido altamente favorável ao processo de negociação de acordos de comércio, ao mesmo tempo contribuiu à exclusão de fato de atores sociais que têm menos a contrubuir a negociações comerciais do que setores empresariais.

Palavras-chave: Chile, redes de criação de diretrizes, acordos de livre comércio, participação do setor empresarial.

Keywords

Chiletrade agreementstrade negotiationsbusiness organizationspolicy networksstate-society relations
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Latin American Studies , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , May 2008 , pp. 195 - 224
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

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

1 Sebastian Sáez, Trade Policy Making in Latin America: a compared analysis (Santiago de Chile, 2005).

2 Eduardo Silva, The State and Capital in Chile (Boulder, Colorado, 1996); Patricio Silva, ‘Los tecnócratas y la política en Chile: pasado y presente, Revista de Ciencia Política, vol. 26, no. 2 (2006), pp. 175–90; Patricio Silva, ‘Going Asia: Economic Internationalization and Technocratic Empowerment in Chilean Foreign Policy,’ Paper presented to the XX LASA Congress, Guadalajara, México, April 17–19.

3 Trade negotiations are often analysed as a ‘two level game’ in which chief negotiators bargain simultaneously with interest groups at home and with the international partner. The original formulation of this is that of Robert, D. Putnam, ‘Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two Level Games’, International Organization, vol. 42, no. 3 (1988), pp. 427–60.Google Scholar For analyses of trade negotiations in Latin America based on this framework see, Intal-ITD-STA, The Trade Policy-Making Process Level One of the Two Level Game: Country Studies in the Western Hemisphere (Buenos Aires, 2002); José Ignacio Porras, ‘La estrategia chilena de acuerdos comerciales: un análisis político’, CEPAL Serie Comercio Internacional 36 (Santiago de Chile, 2003).

4 For examples of the coalition approach, see e.g., Thacker, Big Business, the State and Free Trade: Constructing Coalitions in Mexico (Cambridge, UK, 2000), and Jeffrey A. Frieden, Debt Development and Democracy, 1965–1985 (Princeton, 1991).

5 Jörg, Faust, ‘Latin America, Chile and East Asia: Policy-Networks and Successful Diversification’, Journal of Latin American Studies, vol. 36, no. 4 (2004), pp. 743–70.Google Scholar

6 Judith A. Teichman, The Politics of Freeing Markets in Latin America: Chile, Argentina and Mexico (Chapel Hill and London, 2001), p. 17.

7 For a review of the argument about the structural power of business, see Sylvia Maxfield and Ben Ross Schneider (eds.), Business and the State in Developing Countries (Ithaca and London, 1997).

8 Benedicte, Bull, ‘Trade liberalization and the spread of regulatory institutions: the case of Chile’, Regulation & Governance, vol. 1, no. 4 (2007), pp. 372–84.Google Scholar

9 Silva, Los tecnócratas y la Política.

10 Augusto Aninat S., La Investigación y los Cambios en la Política Comercial de Chile: Impactos y recomendaciones, Unpublished paper (Santiago de Chile, 2004).

11 Leigh A. Payne and Ernest Bartell, C. S. C., ‘Bringing Business Back’ In: Business-State Relations and Democratic Stability in Latin America, in Leigh A. Payne and Ernest Bartell, C. S. C., Business and Democracy in Latin America (Pittsburgh and London, 1995), pp. 257–90.

12 This was the view in for example Guillermo O'Donnell, Modernization and Bureaucratic-Authoritarianism (Berkeley, 1973).

13 This process is most well described in the cases of Chile and Mexico. See, for example, Alex, E. Fernández, Jilberto, ‘Neoliberal Restructuring: The Origin and Formation of Economic Groups in Chile’, Journal of Developing Societies, vol. 20, no. 3–4 (2004), pp. 189–206Google Scholar and Judith Teichman, Privatization and Political Change in Mexico (Pittsburgh, 1996). Similar processes have occurred also in the smaller Latin American countries. See Benedicte Bull, Aid, Power and Privatization: The Politics of Telecommunication Reform in Central America (Cheltenham and Northampton, 2005).

14 Ben Ross Schneider, Business Politics and Policy Making in Contemporary Latin America (Washington, D.C., 2005).

15 Silva/Durand, ‘Organized business and Politics in Latin America’.

16 Schneider, Business Politics and Policy Making.

17 Strom C. Thacker, Big Business, the State and Free Trade.

18 Pedro da Motta Vega, ‘Trade Policy-Making in Brazil: Transition Paths’, in Intal-ITD-STA, The Trade Policy-Making Process Level One of the Two Level Game: Country Studies in the Western Hemisphere (Buenos Aires, 2002); Gian Luca, Gardini, ‘Government-Business Relations in the Construction of Mercosur’, Business and Politics, vol. 8, no. 1 (2006), pp. 1–26.Google Scholar

19 This argument about business preferences in trade negotiations was formulated by Helen Milner in 1988. See Helen Milner, Resisting Protectionism: Global Industries and the Politics of International Trade (Princeton, 1988) and Helen, Milner, ‘Trading Places: Industries for Free Trade’, World Politics, vol. 40, no. 3 (1988), pp. 350–76.Google Scholar

20 Cornelia, Woll and Alvaro, Artigas, ‘When trade liberalization turns into regulatory reform: The impact on business–government relations in international trade politics’, Regulation & Governance, vol. 1, no. 2 (2007), pp. 121–38.Google Scholar

21 Eduardo Silva and Francisco Durand, ‘Organized business and Politics in Latin America’ in Eduardo Silva and Francisco Durand (eds.), Organized Business, Economic Change and Democracy in Latin America (Miami, 1998), pp. 1–50.

22 Andrés Rivárola, Mirrors of change: A study of Industry Associations in Chile and Uruguay (Stockholm, 2003).

23 Roberto Bouzas and Enrique Avogadro, ‘Trade Policy-Making and the Private Sector: A Memorandum on Argentina’, in Intal-ITD-STA, The Trade Policy-Making Process Level One of the Two Level Game: Country Studies in the Western Hemisphere (Buenos Aires, 2002).

24 Ben Ross Schneider, Business Politics and the State in Twentieth-Century Latin America (Cambridge, UK, 2004), ch. 7.

25 Andrés Langebaek, ‘The Role of the Colombian Private Sector in Making External Trade Policy’, in Intal-ITD-STA, The Trade Policy-Making Process Level One of the Two Level Game: Country Studies in the Western Hemisphere (Buenos Aires, 2002).

26 Thacker, Big Business, the State and Free Trade.

27 Mancur Olson's classical theory focuses on the provision of selective benefits: Mancur Olson, The Logic of Collective Action (Harvard, 1965).

28 Schneider, Business Politics and the State.

29 The average tariff increased from 10.1% in 1980–82 to 22.7% in 1982–85, but was then reduced to 17.6% in 1985–89. Ricardo Ffrench-Davis, Entre el neoliberalismo y el crecimiento con equidad: Tres décadas de política económica en Chile (Santiago de Chile, 2005).

30 Interview Augusto Aninat, former director of ProChile, 9 May 2006.

31 Joseph, Ramos and Alfil Ulloa, Urrutia, ‘El Tratado de Libre Comercio entre Chile y Estados Unidos’, Revista de Estudios Internacionales, vol. XXXVI, no. 141 (2003), pp. 45–65.Google Scholar

32 A free trade agreement is characterised by a ‘negative list approach’: the goal is full free trade and the parties negotiate about exceptions. This differs from more limited Economic Complementation Agreement (ECA) in which tariff reduction is negotiated for specific products based on a ‘positive list approach’. An Association Agreement (AA) is more encompassing and includes also political collaboration.

33 Interview, Alex Foxley, ProChile, Chilean embassy in Washington, D.C., 23 Feb. 2006.

34 Mesquita Moreira M. and Blyde J., Chile's Integration Strategy: Is There Room for Improvement? IADB-INTAL-ITD Working Paper No. 21 (Buenos Aires, 2006).

35 Schneider, Business Politics and Policy Making.

36 Brian Loveman, ‘Authoritarianism, Corporatism and Chilean “exceptionalism”’, in Howard Wiarda (ed.), Authoritarianism and Corporatism in Latin America (Miami, 2004), pp. 109–40.

37 Jean Carriére, Landowners and Politics in Chile: A Study of the ‘Sociedad Nacional de Agricultura’, 1932–1970 (Amsterdam, 1981); Gerardo Arriagada, Los empresarios y la política (Lom Ediciones, 2004).

38 Eduardo Silva, ‘Organized Business, Neoliberal Economic Restructuring, and Redemocratization in Chile’, in Francisco Durand and Eduardo Silva (eds.), Organized Business, Economic Change, and Democracy in Latin America (Miami, 1998), pp. 217–52.

39 Guillermo Campero, Los gremios empresariales en el período 1970–1983: Comportamiento sociopolítico y orientaciones ideológicas (Santiago de Chile, 1984).

40 Guillermo Campero, ‘Entrepreneurs under the Military Regime’ in Paul W. Drake and Iván Jaksić (eds.), The Struggle for Democracy in Chile (Lincoln and London, 1995), pp. 128–58.

41 Guillermo, Campero, ‘La relación entre el Gobierno y los grupos de presión: El proceso de la acción de bloques a la acción segmentada’, Revista de Ciencia Política, vol. XXIII, no. 2 (2003), pp. 159–76.Google Scholar

42 Silva, The State and Capital in Chile: Business, Elites, Technocrats, and Market Economics (Boulder, Co., 1998).

43 Silva, ‘Organized Business, Neoliberal Economic Restructuring’, p. 227.

44 Schneider, Business Politics and the State.

45 Interview, Hugo Bailerlein, Head of Department of Foreign Trade, SOFOFA, 20 April 2006.

46 Silva, ‘Organized Business, Neoliberal Economic Restructuring’.

47 Schneider, Business Politics and the State.

48 Silva, The State and Capital in Chile.

49 http://www.sofofa.cl/sofofa/index.aspx?channel=3541, downloaded 19.9.2007; Schneider, Business Politics and the State, p. 269.

50 http://www.cpc.cl/profesionales.asp, downloaded 19.9.2007, and interview Carlos Urenda Aldunate, General Manager, CPC, 18 January 2006.

51 Peter Evans, Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformations (Princeton, 1995).

52 Alejandro Foxley, La economía política de la transición: el camino del diálogo (Santiago de Chile, 1994); Patricio Silva, State Capacity, Technocratic Insulation, and Government-Business Relations in South Korea and Chile (Santiago de Chile, 2000).

53 Arriagada, Los empresarios y la política.

54 Interview Augusto Aninat, former director of ProChile, 9 May 2006.

55 Porras, ‘La estrategia chilena’, p. 38.

56 Interview, Andrés Rebolledo, Director of bilateral department, DIRECON, 6 April 2006.

57 For a good account of the process of emergence of new export oriented businesses in Chile, see Cecilia Montero, La revolución empresarial chilena (Santiago de Chile, 1997).

58 Interview, Andrés Vicens, former Vice-President, ASEXMA, 8 June 2006.

59 Porras, ‘La estrategia chilena.’

60 Verónica Silva, ‘Política comercial y la relación público-privada en Chile durante los años noventa’, in Oscar Muñoz Gomá (ed.), El Estado y El Sector Privado: Construyendo una nueva economía en los años 90 (Santiago de Chile, 2000), pp. 303–42.

61 Porras, ‘La estrategia chilena.’

62 Ibid

63 Guillermo Campero, Los gremios empresariales en el periodo 1970–1983: Comportamiento sociopolítico y orientaciones ideológicas (Santiago de Chile, 1984).

64 Rivarola, Mirrors of Change.

65 Porras, ‘La estrategia chilena’.

66 Sebastian Sáez, ‘Making Trade Policy in Chile: An assessment’, in Intal-ITD-STA, The Trade Policy-Making Process Level One of the Two Level Game: Country Studies in the Western Hemisphere (Buenos Aireas, 2002), pp. 35–43.

67 Interview, Mario García, President, Instituto de Textil, 3 April 2006.

68 Silva, ‘Política comercial y la relación público-privada.’

69 Interview, Kathleen Barclay, President AmCham, 20 March 2006.

70 Interview, Manfred Wilhelmy, President, Fundación Chilena del Pacífico, 31 May 2006.

71 Osvaldo Rosales, ‘Chile-U.S Free Trade Agreement: lessons and best practices’, Paper presented to the American Chamber of Commerce in Washington D.C., 28 April 2003.

72 These dominate sectors such as forestry, mining, and services in Chile. See Hugo Fazio, La transnacionalización de la economía chilena: mapa de la extrema riqueza al año 2000 (Santiago de Chile, 2000); Hugo Fazio, Mapeo empresarial de Chile Enero 2004 (Santiago de Chile, 2004).

73 José Ignacio Porras, ‘La estrategia chilena.’

74 Interview, President of APA and AproCer, Juan Miguel Ovalle, 15 March 2006.

75 José Ignacio Porras, ‘La estrategia chilena.’

76 Marcos Robledo, ‘Sector privado, política exterior y estrategia de inserción económica internacional’, in Paz Millet, Gabriel Gaspar y Francisco Rojas A. (eds.), Chile-Mercosur: Una Alianza Estratégica (Santiago de Chile, 1997).

77 Interview former General Manager, SNA, Gustavo Rojas, 24 April 2006.

78 Eduardo, Silva, ‘Capital and the Lagos Presidency: Business as Usual?’, Bulletin of Latin American Research, vol. 21, no. 3 (2002), pp. 339–57.Google Scholar

79 Ricardo Ffrench-Davis, ‘Entre el neoliberalismo y el crecimiento.’

80 SOFOFA, ‘Sesion n°3, Consejo público-privado para el desarrollo exportador’, 11 June 2004, SOFOFA headquarters.

81 Roberto Fantuzzi in Diario Financiero, 23 January 2001. Roberto Fantuzzi was then president of ASEXMA.

82 Diario Financiero 4 Feb, 2001.

83 Interview, Juan Miguel Ovalle, President of APA, 15 March 2006. The final agreement between Chile and the United States was signed in June 2003 and represented both losses and gains for the agricultural sector. Chile did in reality lose the price-bands on sugar and wheat and dairy producers were disappointed in spite of having achieved access for 3,000 tons of milk rather than 1,000 litres. However, wine and fruit exporters were pleased and saw a bright future in the US market.

84 Interviews, Federico Mekis, President, Association of Wineries, 30 June 2006, Hector Bacigualpo, Manger of Studies, SONAPESCA, 12 April 2006.

85 Manfred, Wilhelmy, ‘Los empresarios chilenos frente a la región Asia-Pacífico’, Revista de Estudios Internacionales, vol. XXVI, no. 144 (2004), pp. 91–105.Google Scholar

86 Interview, Hugo Bailerlein, Head of Department of Foreign Trade, SOFOFA, 20 April 2006.

87 Interview, Gustavo Rojas, former General Manager, SNA, 24 April 2006.

88 Interview with Juan Miguel Ovalle, in Patricia Politzer, Chile: ¿De qué estamos hablando? Retrato de una transformación asombrosa (Santiago de Chile, 2006), pp. 164–5. La Católica (Universidad Católica) and Unión Española are Chilean soccer-teams.

89 Guillermo Campero, ‘La relación entre el Gobierno y los grupos de presión’. In SOFOFA examples of this new generation of leaders is Felipe Lamarca (SOFOFA president 1997–2001) and Juan Claro (SOFOFA president 2001–2005). Both had been top-level managers in several large companies, but were the founders of none. Diario Financiero, 31 Oct. 2001.

90 See, for example, Angelika, Rettberg, ‘Business Versus Business? Grupos and Organized Business in Colombia’, Latin American Politics & Society, vol. 47, no. 1 (2005), pp. 31–54.Google Scholar

91 Oscar Muñoz Gomá, ‘Los actores sociales y el desarrollo productivo’, in Oscar Muñoz Gomá (ed.), El Estado y El Sector Privado: Construyendo una nueva economía en los años 90. (Santiago de Chile, 2000), pp. 33–75.

92 Vicente, Espinoza, ‘De la política social a la participación en un nuevo contrato de ciudadanía’, POLÍTICA, vol. 43 (2004), pp. 149–83.Google Scholar

93 Rosales, ‘Chile-U.S Free Trade Agreement’.

94 Interview, Osvaldo Rosales, CEPAL, DIRECON director 2000–2003, 3 April 2006.

95 Interview, Osvaldo Rosales, CEPAL, DIRECON director 2000–2003, 3 April 2006.

96 Interview, Alicia Frohman, Head of Department of FTAA and North America, DIRECON, 3 March 2006.

97 Interview, Iván Vuskovic, President CONUPIA, 17 March 2006.

98 Bacarro arrives at similar findings from a study of Irish and Italian processes of concertación or social partnerships. See Lucio, Baccaro, ‘What is Alive and What is Dead in the Theory of Corporatism’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 41, no. 4 (2003), pp. 683–706.Google Scholar

99 For example, Mexican small and medium sized enterprises with less favourable attitudes towards free trade were largely marginalised from the NAFTA process. Kenneth, Shadlen, ‘Neoliberalism, Corporatism, and Small Business Political Activism in Contemporary Mexico’, Latin American Research Review, vol. 35, no. 2 (2000), pp. 73–106.Google Scholar

100 Cristobál Aninat, John Londregan, Patricio Navia and Joaquín Viál, ‘Political Institutions, Policymaking Processes, and Policy Outcomes in Chile’, IDB Research Network Working Paper R-521 (Washington, D.C., 2006).