Suchergebnisse

Nota del traductor – Lista de acrónimos – Introducción – Cinco décadas y contando: El debate sobre el declive de la hegemonía estadounidense – Jerarquía y autoridad en los órdenes regionales: El hemisferio occidental – Sobre el poder – Economic statecraft grueso y la economía política del poder estadounidense – El economic statecraft de Estados Unidos hacia Canadá – El economic statecraft de Estados Unidos hacia México – El economic statecraft de Estados Unidos hacia Centroamérica – El economic statecraft de Estados Unidos hacia Sudamérica – Conclusiones – Índice analítico.

In this book, Arturo Santa-Cruz advances an understanding of power as a social relationship and applies it consistently to the economic realm in United States relations with other countries of the Western Hemisphere. Following the academic and popular debate on the ebb and flow of US hegemony, this work centers the analysis in a critical case for the exercise of US power through its economic statecraft: the Americas - its historical zone of influence. The rationale for the regional focus is methodological: if it can be shown that Washington's sway has decreased in the area since the early 1970s, when the discussion about this matter started, it can be safely assumed that the same has occurred in other latitudes. The analysis focuses on three regions: North America, Central America and South America. Since each region contains countries that have at times maintained very different relationships with the United States, the findings contribute to a better understanding of the practice of US power in the sub-region in question, adding greater variability to the overall results.

This book traces the process by which national elections became international events or, more precisely, what the effects of this process are on state sovereignty. Contrary to the conventional wisdom in International Relations - to judge by the neglect of this phenomenon in the literature - this book argues that the study of IEM does not belong only in the field of comparative politics. As a system-wide phenomenon, IEM should not be restricted to the study of purely domestic politics or of foreign policy. This book contends that sovereignty has been partially transformed by the recen

This book traces the process by which national elections became international events or, more precisely, what the effects of this process are on state sovereignty. Contrary to the conventional wisdom in International Relations - to judge by the neglect of this phenomenon in the literature - this book argues that the study of IEM does not belong only in the field of comparative politics. As a system-wide phenomenon, IEM should not be restricted to the study of purely domestic politics or of foreign policy. This book contends that sovereignty has been partially transformed by the recen.

Sovereignty is a key factor to consider when studying the Mexico-United States relationship. During most of the twentieth century, as a result of the new character of the Mexican post-revolutionary regime, there was a decoupling between the state's maximalist discourse on sovereignty, and its practice. Sovereignty as an undifferentiated whole does not exist; it should instead be disaggregated into the myriad issue areas in which it is constantly negotiated. Focusing on a tripartite classification relating to the construction of Mexico's sovereignty towards its northern neighbor since 1920, this volume illustrates how Mexico's sovereignty has varied not only according to the times, but also according to the issues at stake. In doing so, Arturo Santa-Cruz comprehensively covers a variety of issues in the bilateral agenda such as drug trafficking, electoral observation, human rights, investment, migration, security, and trade, as well as some defining moments in the relationship, such as the 1923 US granting of recognition to the Mexican post-revolutionary regime, the 1938 oil nationalization, the 1982 debt crisis, and the 1995 financial bailout. These diverse cases, analyzed through an original analytical approach, capture sovereignty's multifocal meaning.

Economic statecraft rested at the core of the Trump administration's foreign relations; it weaponized it and securitized it¾a departure from longstanding US practice. This article looks at the ups and downs of US hegemony in the last five decades, focusing on the US use of economic statecraft as a political power resource, with special reference to the case of Latin America. It is divided into four sections: the first focuses on economic statecraft as an academic field, making the case for what I call "thick" economic statecraft; the second reviews the political and power dimensions of US economic statecraft, whereas the third deals with the evolution, since the 1970s, of the paradigmatic instance of US economic statecraft: trade policy (broadly defined) in three distinct phases 1971-1989, 1990-2000, and 2001-2016. Finally, I summarize the argument and make some considerations about the implications Trump's presidency might have for the Biden administration's attempts to reinvigorate US hegemony.

Este trabajo tiene como objetivo presentar una panorámica general de la política exterior del gobierno de Enrique Peña Nieto hacia América del Norte, de importancia central debido al proceso de normalización de la cooperación en materia de seguridad con Washington. Asimismo, la defensa de la relativamente reciente institucionalización de la relación económica con Estados Unidos y Canadá es también relevante. Para abordar estos temas, se revisan brevemente algunos conceptos analíticos que servirán para anclar la narrativa; en la segunda sección se examina la relación de México con Estados Unidos con foco en las dos áreas temáticas antes mencionadas. En la tercera sección se hace un breve repaso de la relación con Canadá; en la cuarta se trata sucintamente la política de México hacia América del Norte en su conjunto y, a manera de conclusión, se presenta un breve señalamiento sobre el futuro de la región.

For over a decade now the United States has lived a paradox: the disparity between its material preponderance and its political influence. This situation entails an analytical puzzle: for the hegemonic power, it is more effective to socialize power than to monopolize it. I argue that the conception of power has been a key factor in the performance of the United States as an hegemonic country since the end of World War II, that resort to multilateralist or unilateralist policies on Washington's part is better explained by such understanding than by its hegemony measured in exlusively material terms, and that the United States under the Obama administrations has returned to the multilateral practice largely abandoned by its predecessor. ; Desde hace ya más de una década Estados Unidos vive una paradoja: la disparidad entre su preponderancia material y su influencia política. Esta situación conlleva un puzzle analítico: para la potencia hegemónica es más efectivo socializar el poder que intentar monopolizarlo. Sostengo que la concepción del poder ha sido un factor clave en el desempeño de Estados Unidos como país hegemónico desde el fin del Segunda Guerra Mundial. Asimismo, el recurso al multilateralismo o al unilateralismo, por parte de Washington, se explica en mayor medida por dicho entendimiento que por su hegemonía medida en términos exclusivamente materiales, y que Estados Unidos bajo el gobierno de Obama regresó a la política multilateral abandonada por su antecesor.