Abstract
Is it theoretically and analytically misleading to analyze regionalism in terms of success or failures? This chapter explores this question by analyzing cycles of politicization in regional political economy. It is argued that despite many crises and setbacks during the last 50 years, Latin American governments have been consistent in their commitment to regional integration and the institutional arrangements have proven to be remarkably resilient. The chapter claims that trajectories of regionalism must be seen as manifestation of a repoliticization of the region that despite stop-and-go dynamics is resilient in the understanding of common interests and a sense of Latin Americanness.
In this chapter I draw from Dabène (2009). Previous versions of this piece were discussed during presentations at Northwestern University, Columbia University, FLACSO Quito and FLACSO Buenos Aires. I thank the colleagues and students who helped me clear up my ideas and the editors of this volume for their insightful remarks.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
As Pierson (2004: 43) puts it, “Stickiness is built into the design of political institutions to reduce uncertainty and enhance stability, facilitating forms of cooperation and exchange that would otherwise be impossible”.
- 2.
Schmitter would describe this situation as a “zone of indifference” (Schmitter 1970b).
- 3.
Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua.
- 4.
With the creation of the following regional agencies: Central American University Council (CSUCA, 1948), Nutrition Institute of Central America and Panama (INCAP, 1949), Regional Organization of Agriculture Sanitation (OIRSA, 1953), Central American Institute of Public Administration (ICAP, 1954), Central American Institute of Research and Industrial Technology (ICAITI, 1955).
- 5.
Although during the years 1972–1976, a High Committee for the restructuring and improvement of the common market prepared a project for a Central American Economic and Social Community (CESCA) that was eventually ignored.
- 6.
Alliance for a sustainable development (1994); Treaty of social integration (1995); Treaty of democratic security (1995).
- 7.
With the Puebla Panama Plan (PPP) suggested by Mexico in 2001 and the opening in 2003 of the negotiations for a U.S. Central America and Panama Free Trade Agreement, including the Dominican Republic (CAFTA RD).
- 8.
ALBA: Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of our America, associating Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Honduras and the Caribbean islands of Dominica, Saint Vincent & Grenadines, and Antigua & Barbuda. Honduras withdrew from ALBA following the coup against Manuel Zelaya.
- 9.
Article 1 of the 1969 Cartagena Agreement.
- 10.
The Andeans adopted the same clause soon after (October 17, 1998).
- 11.
Fondo de Convergencia Estructural del Mercosur (FOCEM).
- 12.
MERCOSUR’s decision 30/02.
- 13.
In particular the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), whose treaty was signed in Brasilia in 2008.
- 14.
I have called this “domestically-inspired isomorphism” (Dabène 2009: 90).
- 15.
Tancredo Neves was elected president on January 15, 1985. On March 15, his vice-president José Sarney was sworn in because Neves was ill. He later died on April 21, and Sarney became president.
- 16.
Ríncon, Omar et al., Los Telepresidentes. Cerca del pueblo, lejos de la democracia, Bogota, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, 2009, cited by Erica Guevara, “La crise de la représentation médiatique en Amérique latine”, OPALC Latin American Political Outlook 2010, Paris, Sciences Po-CERI-OPALC, 2010.
- 17.
On August 28, 2009, a UNSAUR summit in Bariloche (Argentina) was broadcast live on TV.
- 18.
The photo showing a hug (abrazo) between Venezuelan and Colombian Presidents Chavez and Uribe, during a Rio Group summit in Santo Domingo a few days after the Colombian bombing of a FARC camp in Ecuadorian territory in 2008, has probably contributed to ease the tensions in the region.
- 19.
In addition to their bi-annual regional summits (MERCOSUR, CAN, SICA), the presidents meet during other summits such as Rio Group, UNASUR, summit of the Americas, Ibero-American summits, Euro-Latin American summits, and for some of them, summits with Asia Pacific, Africa, or the Arab countries.
- 20.
Philippe Schmitter (1970a) refers to this as a “spill around”.
- 21.
See note 16.
- 22.
The overall budget was not adjusted. The new programs were financed by international cooperation.
- 23.
MERCOSUR (2004: 33).
- 24.
Mercosur’s Structural Convergence Fund (FOCEM) is based on the European Structural Funds’ model, but with a much smaller budget, representing a modest 0.03% of the regional GDP (US$ 100 million per year).
- 25.
ALBA associates Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Cuba, and the Caribbean islands of Dominica, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.
- 26.
UNASUR associates the 12 South American countries: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, Guyana, Paraguay, Peru, Surinam, Uruguay, and Venezuela.
- 27.
The reactivation, deepening and politicization of integration is a claim made by the Sao Paulo Forum since its first meeting in the Brazilian city in 1990. This network of Latin American leftist parties and movements has been meeting on a yearly basis ever since. During the 1990s, each declaration emphasized the necessity to move on toward a less trade-centered type of integration. Many of the Sao Paulo Forum members won elections and are now running such countries as Brazil, Uruguay, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Salvador.
- 28.
Central America and the Dominican Republic (CAFTA DR), Chile, Peru, and Colombia.
References
Achard, D., Flores Silva, M., & González, L. E. (1994). Las elites argentinas y brasileñas frente al Mercosur. Buenos Aires: BID/INTAL.
Adkisson, R. (2003). The Andean group. Institutional evolution, intraregional trade and economic development. Journal of Economic Issues, 37(2), 371–379.
Bawa, V. (1980). Latin American integration. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.
Boas, M., Marchand, M., & Shaw, T. (2005). The political economy of regions and regionalisms. Basingstoke: Palgrave/Macmillan.
Bouzas, R., & Soltz, H. (2001). Institutions and regional integration: The case of MERCOSUR. In V. Bulmer-Thomas (Ed.), Regional integration in Latin America and the Caribbean. The political economy of open regionalism (pp. 95–118). London: Institute of Latin American Studies.
CEPAL. (1994). Open regionalism in Latin America and the Caribbean. Santiago de Chile: CEPAL.
CEPAL-BID. (1997). La integración centroamericana y la institucionalidad regional. Santiago de Chile: CEPAL.
Cohen Orantes, I. (1972). Regional integration in Central America. Toronto: Lexington Books.
Collier, R., & Collier, D. (1991). Shaping the political arena. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Corbey, D. (1995). Dialectical functionalism: Stagnation as a booster of European integration. International Organization, 49 (2), 253–284.
Dabène, O. (1992). Invention et rémanence d’une crise: Leçons d’Amérique centrale. Revue Française de Science Politique, 42(4), 555–581.
Dabène, O. (2009). The Politics of regional integration in Latin America. Theoretical and comparative explorations. New York: Palgrave McMillan.
Evans, P., Jacobson, H., & Putnam, R. (1993). Double-edged diplomacy. International bargaining and domestic politics. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
Grugel, J. (2009). New regionalism, new rights? Latin American regionalism as an opportunity structure for civic activism. FLACSO/Argentina, Documento de Trabajo N°19.
Haas, E., & Schmitter, P. (1964). Economics and differential patterns of political integration: Projections about unity in Latin America. International Organization, 18(4), 705–737.
Karnes, T. (1961). The failure of Union. Central America, 1824–1960. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press.
Kellogg, P. (2007). Regional integration in Latin America. Dawn of an alternative to neoliberalism? New Political Science, 29(2), 187–209.
Keohane, R., & Milner, H. (1996). Internationalization and domestic politics. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Malamud, A. (2003). Presidentialism and Mercosur: A hidden cause for a successful experience. In F. Laursen (Ed.), Comparative regional integration. Theoretical perspectives (pp. 53–73). London: Ashgate.
Mayhew, D. (1974). Congress. The electoral connection. New Haven, CO: Yale University Press.
MERCOSUR. (2004). Un Foco para el progreso de integración regional. Primer informe semestral de la Secretaría del MERCOSUR. Montevideo.
Moniz Bandeira, L. A. (2003). Brasil, Argentina e Estados Unidos. Conflito e integração na América do Sul. Da tríplice aliança ao Mercosul. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Revan.
Nye, J. (1965). Patterns and catalysts in regional integration. International Organization, 19(4), 870–884.
Pierson, P. (2004). Politics in time. History, institutions and social analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Roett, R. (1999). Mercosur. Regional integration, world markets. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Schmitter, P. (1970a). Central American integration: Spill-over, spill-around or encapsulation? Journal of Common Market Studies, 9(1), 1–48.
Schmitter, P. (1970b). A revised theory of regional integration. International Organization, 24(4), 836–868.
Spektor, M. (2010). Ideias de ativismo regional: A transformação das leituras brasileiras da região. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, 53(1), 25–44.
Vargas-Hidalgo, R. (1979). The crisis of the Andean pact: Lessons for integration among developing countries. Journal of Common Market Studies, 17(3), 213–226.
Weyland, K., Madrid, R., & Hunter, W. (Eds.). (2010). Leftist governments in Latin America. Successes and shortcomings. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Whitehead, L., & Barahona de Brito, A. (2005). Las Cumbres mundiales y sus versiones latinoamericanas. ¿Haciendo una montaña de un grano de arena? América Latina Hoy, 40, 15–27.
Woodward Jr., R. L. (1976). Central America. A nation divided. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wynia, G. (1972). Politics and planners. Economic development policy in Central America. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dabène, O. (2012). Consistency and Resilience through Cycles of Repoliticization. In: Riggirozzi, P., Tussie, D. (eds) The Rise of Post-Hegemonic Regionalism. United Nations University Series on Regionalism, vol 4. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2694-9_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2694-9_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-2693-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-2694-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)