Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-5wvtr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T10:13:55.689Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Presidential Diplomacy and the Institutional Underpinnings of Mercosur: An Empirical Examination

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 October 2022

Andrés Malamud
Andrés Malamud*
Affiliation:
CIES-ISCTE, Lisbon and University of Buenos Aires
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The relative success of the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR) is a puzzle for most theories of regional integration. This is due to its having achieved remarkable progress in spite of lacking features such as significant levels of previous interdependence (demand factor) or major regional institutions (supply factor). To account for this puzzle, it has been claimed that the operation of MERCOSUR rests on presidential diplomacy. Such a mechanism is understood as the resort to direct negotiations between the national presidents whenever a crucial decision has to be made or a critical conflict solved. This article argues that presidential diplomacy—understood as political, summit diplomacy as opposed to institutionalized, professional diplomacy—is insufficient to account for the performance of MERCOSUR. Through the empirical analysis of three critical episodes, the article shows how institutional structures, shaped by the system of government of the member countries, have sustained presidential intervention and, hence, the process of regional integration.

Resumen

Resumen

O relativo sucesso do Mercado Comum do Sul (MERCOSUL) constitui um enigma para muitas teorias da integração regional. Isto resulta do facto de este ter atingido um progresso notável, não obstante a ausência de características tais como níveis significativos de interdependência prévia (factor de procura) ou instituições regionais supranacionais (factor de oferta). Um dos argumentos invocados no sentido de explicar este enigma é o de que o MERCOSUL assenta na diplomacia presidencial. Esse mecanismo é entendido como o recurso a negociações directas entre os presidentes nacionais sempre que está em causa a tomada de uma decisão crucial ou a resolução de conflitos sensíveis. Este artigo argumenta que a diplomacia presidencial—entendida como diplomacia política de cúpula, por oposição a diplomacia burocrática profissional—é insuficiente para explicar o funcionamento do MERCOSUL. Através da análise empírica de três episódios críticos, o artigo mostra como as estruturas institucionais, marcadas pelo sistema presidencialista de governo dos países membros, sustentaram a intervenção presidencial, e assim, o processo de integração regional.

Type
Research Article
Information
Latin American Research Review , Volume 40 , Issue 1 , 2005 , pp. 138 - 164
Copyright
Copyright © 2005 by the University of Texas Press

Footnotes

∗

A previous version of this article was presented at the 2003 meeting of the Latin American Studies Association, Dallas, Texas, March 27–29. Translations of interviews, documents and newspapers are my own. I am deeply grateful to Alexandra Barahona de Brito, Sebastián Etchemendy, Carlos da Fonseca, Félix Peña, Philippe Schmitter, Luís de Sousa and the anonymous reviewers of LARR.

References

Bastos Tigre, Paulo, Laplane, Mariano, Lugones, Gustavo, and Porta, Fernando 1999 “Cambio tecnológico y modernización en la industria automotriz del Mercosur.” Integración y Comercio 7/8:133–56, (January–August).Google Scholar
Caputo, Dante M. 1999 Former Argentine Foreign Minister: Author's Interview. September. Buenos Aires.Google Scholar
Cardoso, Fernando H. and Toledo, Robert P. 1998 O presidente Segundo o sociólogo. Entrevista de Fernando Henrique Cardoso a Roberto Pompeu de Toledo. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras.Google Scholar
Cason, Jeffrey 2000 “On the Road to Southern Cone Economic Integration.” Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs 42 (1): 23–42. (Spring).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheibub, José A. and Limongi, Fernando 2002 “Democratic Institutions and Regime Survival: Parliamentary and Presidential Democracies Reconsidered.” Annual Review of Political Science 5:151–79.Google Scholar
Danese, Sérgio 1999 Diplomacia presidencial. Histôria e crítica. Rio de Janeiro: TopBooks.Google Scholar
Danese, Sérgio 2001 Secretary of the Brazilian Embassy in Argentina: Author's Interview. February. Buenos Aires.Google Scholar
Eaton, Kent 2000 “Parliamentarism versus Presidentialism in the Policy Arena.” Comparative Politics 32 (3): 355–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fávero, Mauricio 2000 Brazilian Officer at MERCOSUR Division: Author's Interview. December. Brasília.Google Scholar
Figueiredo, Argelina C. and Limongi, Fernando 2000 “Presidential Power, Legislative Organization, and Party Behavior in Brazil.” Comparative Politics 32 (2): 151–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graça Lima, José Alfredo 2000 Brazilian Undersecretary of Trade and Economic Integration: Author's Interview. December. Brasília.Google Scholar
Haggard, Stephan and McCubbins, Matthew D. 2001 Presidents, Parliaments, and Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lacalle, Luis A. 2001 Former President of Uruguay: Author's Interview. May. Montevideo.Google Scholar
Lavagna, Roberto 1999 “La agenda futura del Mercosur: La insoportable levedad de las propuestas.” Archivos del Presente 5 (17): (July–September), 121–30.Google Scholar
Lavagna, Roberto 2000 “Entrevista.” In video Tiempo Internacional. Ciclo Mercosur. La Plata: Instituto de Relaciones Internacionales (UNLP).Google Scholar
Lucca, Cecilia 2001 “Grupos de Interés en el MERCOSUR.” Unpublished manuscript, Carrera de Ciencia Política, Universidad de Buenos Aires.Google Scholar
Mainwaring, Scott and Shugart, Matthew S., eds. 1997 Presidentialism and Democracy in Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malamud, Andrés 2001 “Presidentialism in the Southern Cone. A Framework for Analysis.” EUI SPS Working Paper 2001 (01).Google Scholar
Malamud, Andrés 2003 “Presidentialism and Mercosur: A Hidden Cause for a Successful Experience.” In Comparative Regional Integration: Theoretical Perspectives, edited by Laursen, Finn, 53–73. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Milner, Helen 1993 “Maintaining International Commitments in Trade Policy.” In Do Institutions Matter? Government Capabilities in the United States and Abroad, edited by Weaver, R. K. and Rockman, Bert A., 345–69. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Milner, Helen 1997 Interests, Institutions, and Information: Domestic Politics and International Relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Andrew 1998 The Choice for Europe. Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Moretti, Norberto 1999 Secretary of the Brazilian Embassy in Argentina: Author's Interview. September. Buenos Aires.Google Scholar
Mustapic, Ana María and Geneyro, Rodolfo 2000 “Fortalecimiento de la dimensión parlamentaria e institucional del proceso de integración.” In Parlamentos e instituciones en el Mercosur: Los nuevos desafíos, edited by Gerardo Caetano and Rubén Perina, 73–94. Montevideo: CLAEH-UPD/OEA.Google Scholar
Nino, Carlos 1992 “El hiper-presidencialismo argentino y las concepciones de la democracia.” In El presidencialismo puesto a prueba, edited by Nino, Carlos et al. Madrid: Centro de Estudios Constitucionales.Google Scholar
Núñez, Alberto de 1997 “La diplomacia presidencial.” Archivos del Presente 3 (10): 133–9. (October–December).Google Scholar
Peña, Félix 2001 Former Argentine Undersecretary of Foreign Trade: Author's Interview. February. Buenos Aires.Google Scholar
Pereira, Celso de Tarso 2000 Brazilian Officer at Mercosur Division: Author's Interview. December. Brasília.Google Scholar
Putnam, Robert D. 1988 “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games.” International Organization 42 (3): 427–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redrado, Martín 1999. “La agenda futura del Mercosur: Los avances institucionales.” Archivos del Presente 5 (17): (July–September), 141–51.Google Scholar
Rockman, Bert A. 1997 “The Performance of Presidents and Prime Ministers and of Presidential and Parliamentary Systems.” In Presidential Institutions and Democratic Politics. Comparing Regional and National Contexts, edited by Mettenheim, Kurt von. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Rogowski, Ronald 1999 “Institutions as Constraints on Strategic Choice.” In Strategic Choice and International Relations, edited by Lake, David A. and Powell, Robert, 115–36. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Romero, Raúl 2001 “Azúcar e integración regional en el Mercosur.” Unpublished manuscript, Buenos Aires: Centro de Estudios Avanzados, Universidad de Buenos Aires.Google Scholar
Sajem, M. Carola 1999 “The Active Presence of the Economic Groups in the Dynamics of Change of Integration Models: A Case Study on Mercosur.” Master's thesis. Geneva: Institut Universitaire des Hautes Études Internationales.Google Scholar
Sandholtz, Wayne and Sweet, Alec Stone 1998 European Integration and Supranational Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sanguinetti, Julio M. 2001 Former President of Uruguay: Author's Interview. May. Montevideo.Google Scholar
Schlesinger, Arthur M. Jr. 1974 The Imperial Presidency. London: André Deutsch Limited.Google Scholar
Schmitter, Philippe C. 1970 “Central American Integration: Spill-Over, Spill-Around or Encapsulation?” Journal of Common Market Studies 9(1): 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Ben Ross 2001 “Business Politics and Regional Integration: The Advantages of Organisation in NAFTA and MERCOSUR.” In Regional Integration in Latin America and the Caribbean: The Political Economy of Open Regionalism, edited by Bulmer-Thomas, Victor, 167–93. London: ILAS, University of London.Google Scholar
Seixas Corrêa, Luíz Felipe 1999 “La visión estratégica brasileña del proceso de integración.” In Mercosur. Entre la realidad y la Utopía, edited by Jorge Campbell, 229–72. Buenos Aires: CEI-Nuevohacer.Google Scholar
Shugart, Matthew S. and Carey, John M. 1992 Presidents and Assemblies. Constitutional Design and Electoral Dynamics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Siavelis, Peter 2002 “Exaggerated Presidentialism and Moderate Presidents: Executive/Legislative Relations in Chile.” In Legislative Politics in Latin America, edited by Scott Morgenstern and Benito Nacif. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silva, Patricio 1989 “Democratization and Foreign Policy: the Cases of Argentina and Brazil.” In Democratization and the State in the Southern Cone. Essays on South American Politics, Galjart, Benno and Silva, Patricio, eds. Amsterdam: CEDLA.Google Scholar
Stone Sweet, Alec and Sandholtz, Wayne 1998 “Integration, Supranational Governance, and the Institutionalization of the European Polity.” In European Integration and Supranational Governance, edited by Sandholtz, Wayne and Sweet, Alec Stone, 1–26. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vigevani, Tullo, Mariano, Karina L. Pasquariello, and de Oliveira, Marcelo Fernandes 2001 “Democracia e atores políticos no Mercosul.” In Los rostros del Mercosur. El difícil camino de lo comercial a lo societal, edited by Sierra, Gerónimo, 183–228. Buenos Aires: CLACSO.Google Scholar
von Mettenheim, Kurt, ed. 1997 Presidential Institutions and Democratic Politics. Comparing Regional and National Contexts. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Weaver, R. K. and Rockman, Bert A. 1993 “Assessing the Effects of Institutions.” In Do Institutions Matter? Government Capabilities in the United States and Abroad, edited by Weaver, R. K. and Rockman, Bert A., 1–41. Washington DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar