Suchergebnisse

A diferencia de los estudios sobre la integración europea, los trabajos sobre integración regional en América Latina suelen caracterizarse por la falta de rigor conceptual, poca profundidad teórica y escaso interés en la evidencia empírica. Esta presentación busca precisar el significado de conceptos clave como regionalismo, regionalización, cooperación e integración regional, sistematizar las teorías que pretenden dar cuenta de dichos fenómenos y ofrecer una base empírica para proceder a la clasificación, comparación y explicación de los casos latinoamericanos. Abstract: Unlike the studies on European integration, the work on regional integration in Latin America are characterized by a lack of conceptual rigor, little theoretical depth and low interest in empirical evidence. Thus, the present study attempts to clarify the meaning of key concepts such as regionalism, regionalization, cooperation and regional integration; systematize theories that purport to explain such phenomena, and provide an empirical basis to proceed with classification, comparison and explanation of the Latin American cases.

Brazil has been labeled an anchor country, a leading area, and a regional power. Yet, even before the crisis triggered by Operation 'Car Wash' began, several scholars had called into question Brazil's driving role in regional integration, stressing political challenges and economic weaknesses that hindered closer relationships among the South American countries. More optimistic research tends to concentrate on initiatives and visions of Brazil's regional leadership, with lesser focus on obstacles and implementation. We develop the concept of 'geoeconomic nodality' to assess Brazi's impact on South America and shed light on the structural sources of economic fragmentation, namely geographical conditions and their interaction with public policies. A geoeconomic node is the core of economic networks in a geographically delimited system. The flows of the system's units are focused on the node, enabling it to transfer impulses for development – and reflecting what the concepts on anchor countries, leading areas, and regional powers suggest. Our findings show that long distances, physical barriers, the maritime orientation of core zones of population and economic activity, and the poor state of transcontinental infrastructure reduce Brazil's geoeconomic nodality. Resource nationalism, volatile public policies, and fluctuating exchange rates contribute to this structural mix, so that the prospects to overcome the obstacles imposed by geography appear dim.

Brazil has been labeled an anchor country, a leading area, and a regional power. Yet, even before the crisis triggered by Operation 'Car Wash' began, several scholars had called into question Brazil's driving role in regional integration, stressing political challenges and economic weaknesses that hindered closer relationships among the South American countries. More optimistic research tends to concentrate on initiatives and visions of Brazil's regional leadership, with lesser focus on obstacles and implementation. We develop the concept of 'geoeconomic nodality' to assess Brazi's impact on South America and shed light on the structural sources of economic fragmentation, namely geographical conditions and their interaction with public policies. A geoeconomic node is the core of economic networks in a geographically delimited system. The flows of the system's units are focused on the node, enabling it to transfer impulses for development – and reflecting what the concepts on anchor countries, leading areas, and regional powers suggest. Our findings show that long distances, physical barriers, the maritime orientation of core zones of population and economic activity, and the poor state of transcontinental infrastructure reduce Brazil's geoeconomic nodality. Resource nationalism, volatile public policies, and fluctuating exchange rates contribute to this structural mix, so that the prospects to overcome the obstacles imposed by geography appear dim. ; info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

Was Brazil's President Dilma Rousseff victim of a coup or removed through a legal process of impeachment? The heated debate on the 2016 ousting of Brazil's president testifies to the growing controversy around the definition of coups. Focusing on Latin America, we show that the use of coups with adjectives have become more frequent in public and scholarly debates. Occurring at a time when coups are becoming rarer, we argue that this development is linked to prevalence-induced concept change, meaning that when instances of a concept become less prevalent, the understanding of the concept expands. The meaning of coups has expanded through a proliferation of adjectives. Coups with adjectives are not new, but recent usage changes the concept from a classic to a family resemblance structure. Although this strategy can avoid stretching and increase differentiation, we urge caution and warn against harmful consequences, whether conceptual, theoretical, or practical.

Political scientists from the Southern Cone have enriched the discipline with pioneering work. Many of them went into exile for political reasons, and thus produced part of their work abroad. Although Latin American political science has professionalized since the 1980s, many scholars still emigrate for study and employment. Argentines most numerously seek academic careers abroad, while Brazil has many more domestic doctorates and returns home after doctoral studies abroad. Uruguayans emigrate in proportionally high numbers and tend to settle in Latin American countries, while the number of Chileans and Paraguayans abroad is minimal. These contrasting patterns are explained by reference to factors such as the availability of high-quality doctoral courses, financing for postgraduate studies, and the absorptive capacity of national academic markets. Paradoxically, the size and performance of the diasporas may increase rather than reduce the visibility and impact of national political science communities.

'Spillover' refers to the inner dynamics whereby the members of a regional scheme feel compelled to either enlarging the scope or increasing the level of their mutual commitments or both. It is promoted by actions crystallized into institutions, whose performance creates demand for further action and incremental institution-building. In the case of the EU, the institutions commonly acknowledged as greatest 'spillover promoters' are the Commission, the Court, and the European Parliament; in Mercosur there are no functional equivalents to the two former institutions yet, but a common Parliament (Parlasur) has been established and is often purported as a potential engine of integration. This paper addresses its structure and performance in order to assess whether it has produced, or may produce, some kind of spillover by either fostering new regional dynamics or cajoling national governments into upgrading their commitments to the region.

To speak of a relationship between the European Union on the one hand and Latin America and the Caribbean on the other (hereinafter EU-LAC) suggests a symmetry between the two partners that is difficult to substantiate. Actually, the EU is a treaty-based organization with legal personality and exclusive competences vested in common authorities, while the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC, as for its Spanish acronym) is an informal forum fully deprived of legal structure, headquarters, competences and budget. While the (now 28) European heads ofstatejointly integrate the European Council, a top EU decision-making body, their 33 LatinAmerican counterparts participate in nothing even remotely similar. Therefore, the biennial EU-LAC summits that have taken place since 1999 * and all things related - may bring together two regions, but not two organizations. If this distinction is relevant in several issue areas, it is even more so in the security and defence realm, where organization is crucial for decision-making, monitoring and enforcement.

AbstractPolitical scientists from the Southern Cone have enriched the discipline with pioneering work. Many of them went into exile for political reasons, and thus produced part of their work abroad. Although Latin American political science has professionalized since the 1980s, many scholars still emigrate for study and employment. Argentines most numerously seek academic careers abroad, while Brazil has many more domestic doctorates and returns home after doctoral studies abroad. Uruguayans emigrate in proportionally high numbers and tend to settle in Latin American countries, while the number of Chileans and Paraguayans abroad is minimal. These contrasting patterns are explained by reference to factors such as the availability of high-quality doctoral courses, financing for postgraduate studies, and the absorptive capacity of national academic markets. Paradoxically, the size and performance of the diasporas may increase rather than reduce the visibility and impact of national political science communities.