Advertisement

The Case of UNASUR

  • Anne Marie Hoffmann
Chapter
Part of the Governance, Development, and Social Inclusion in Latin America book series (GDSILA)

Abstract

After elaborating the conceptual model of regional public policy-making, this chapter illustrates how it can be applied in the study of South American regionalism. The Union of South American Nations, UNASUR, as a relatively young regional organization, is built on the foundations of existing regional institutions. Moreover, the central structural characteristic is the 12 so-called sectoral councils. These councils each represent a distinct policy field at the regional level. This chapter introduces UNASUR as a regional organization and provides the methodological background for its analysis. In line with the practice of triangulation, which is the combination of analytical approaches, methods of this study are introduced. The macro-level of regional public policy-making is analyzed using organization theory. The micro-level will be examined by collective action theory. Collective action is determined by group cohesion and the usage of a common language. It is the basis for the identification of shared problems and the development of regional policy objectives in sectoral councils.

References

  1. Bátora, Jozef. 2005. Does the European Union Transform the Institution of Diplomacy? Journal of European Public Policy 12 (1): 44–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blumer, Herbert. 1986. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bohnsack, Ralf, Iris Nentwig-Gesemann, and Arnd-Michael Nohl. 2013. Einleitung: Die dokumentarische Methode und ihre Forschungspraxis. In Die dokumentarische Methode und ihre Forschungspraxis, ed. Ralf Bohnsack, Iris Nentwig-Gesemann, and Arnd-Michael Nohl, 9–32. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bohnsack, Ralf, Nicolle Pfaff, and Wivian Weller. 2010. Qualitative Analysis and Documentary Method in International Educational Research. Opladen and Farmington Hills: Barbara Budrich.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Denzin, Norman K. 1989. The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods. London: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. Entman, Robert M. 1993. Framing: Towards Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. McQuail’s Reader in Mass Communication Theory 43: 390–397.Google Scholar
  7. Finnemore, Martha, and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. International Norm Dynamics and Political Change. International Organization 52: 887–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fischer, Frank. 2006. Deliberative Policy Analysis as Practical Reason: Integrating Empirical and Normative Arguments. In Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics, and Methods, ed. Frank Fischer, Gerald J. Miller, and Mara S. Sidney, 223–236. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fischer, Frank, and John Forester. 1993. The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Flick, Uwe. 2008. Triangulation: eine Einführung. 2. Qualitative Sozialforschung 12. Wiesbaden: VS, Verl. für Sozialwiss.Google Scholar
  11. Flyvbjerg, B. 2006. Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research. Qualitative Inquiry 12 (2): 219–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gamson, William. 1992. Talking Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Garfinkel, Harold. 1964. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Wiley.Google Scholar
  14. Giddens, Anthony. 1986. The Constitution of Society. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  15. Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  16. Goodin, Robert E. 1998. The Theory of Institutional Design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hassard, John. 1995. Sociology and Organization Theory: Positivism, Paradigms and Postmodernity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hettne, Björn, and Frederik Söderbaum. 2007. The Future of Regionalism: Old Divides, New Frontiers. In Regionalisation and Global Governance—The Taming of Globalisation? ed. Andrew F. Cooper, Christopher W. Hughes, and Philippe De Lombaerde, 61–79. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Holzner, Burkart. 1972. Reality Construction in Society. Rev. ed. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Publication.Google Scholar
  20. Labov, William, and Joshua Waletzky. 1997. Narrative Analysis: Oral Versions of Personal Experience. Journal of Narrative & Life History 7 (1–4): 3–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Levy, Jack. 2008. Case Studies: Types, Designs, and Logics of Inference. Conflict Management and Peace Science 25 (1): 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. March, James G., and Johan P. Olsen. 1984. The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life. The American Political Science Review 78 (3): 734–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. ———. 1995. Democratic Governance. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  24. ———. 2006. Elaborating the ‘New Institutionalism’. In The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions, ed. Rod A.W. Rhodes, Sarah A. Binder, and Bert A. Rockman, 3–20. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. ———. 2009. The Logic of Appropriateness. ARENA Working Papers, no. 04: 2–28.Google Scholar
  26. Meyer, John W., and Brian Rowan. 1977. Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology 83 (2): 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Moran-Ellis, J. 2006. Triangulation and Integration: Processes, Claims and Implications. Qualitative Research 6 (1): 45–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Munck, G.L., and R. Snyder. 2007. Debating the Direction of Comparative Politics: An Analysis of Leading Journals. Comparative Political Studies 40 (1): 5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. North, Douglass C. 1991. Institutions. Journal of Economic Perspectives 5 (1): 97–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Owen-Smith, Jason, and Walter W. Powell. 2008. Networks and Institutions. In The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, ed. Royston Greenwood et al., 594–621. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  31. Payne, Rodger A. 2001. Persuasion, Frames and Norm Construction. European Journal of International Relations 7 (1): 37–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Powell, Walter W., and Jeannette A. Colyvas. 2008. Microfoundations of Institutional Theory. In The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, ed. Royston Greenwood et al., 276–298. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Powell, Walter W., and Paul J. DiMaggio. 2012. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  34. Schnell, Rainer, Paul B. Hill, and Elke Esser. 2008. Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung. München: Oldenbourg Verlag.Google Scholar
  35. Scott, W. Richard. 2005. Institutional Theory: Contributing to a Theoretical Research Program. In Great Minds in Management: The Process of Theory Development, ed. Ken G. Smith and Michael A. Hitt, 460–485. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Seawright, J., and J. Gerring. 2008. Case Selection Techniques in Case Study Research: A Menu of Qualitative and Quantitative Options. Political Research Quarterly 61 (2): 294–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Siedschlag, Alexander. 2013. Der institutionelle Anpassungsprozess der NATO und die Zukunft post-strategischer Sicherheitspolitik in Europa. In Institutionelle Herausforderungen im Neuen Europa: Legitimität, Wirkung und Anpassung, ed. Stefanie Pfahl, Elmar Schultz, Claudia Matthes, and Katrin Sell, 157–190. Springer.Google Scholar
  38. Verloo, Mieke. 2005. Mainstreaming Gender Equality in Europe. A Critical Frame Analysis Approach. The Greek Review of Social Research 117: 11–34.Google Scholar
  39. Yanow, Dvora. 1996. How Does a Policy Mean?: Interpreting Policy and Organizational Actions. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  40. ———. 2000. Conducting Interpretive Policy Analysis. Qualitative Research Methods. Beverly Hills, CA [u.a.], 1986–47. Thousand Oaks, CA [u.a.]: Sage.Google Scholar
  41. Yanow, Dvora, and Peregrine Schwartz-Shea. 2006. Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Official Documents

  1. UNASUR (Union of South American Nations). 2008. Constitutive Treaty. Brasilia, Brazil.Google Scholar
  2. Interviews

    1. Samper, Ernesto. 2014.Google Scholar
    2.  Former General Secretary of UNASURGoogle Scholar
    3.  General Secretariat UNASURGoogle Scholar
    4.  Quito, EcuadorGoogle Scholar
    5.  Interview: 22.11.2014Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anne Marie Hoffmann
    • 1
  1. 1.Hamburg University of Applied SciencesHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations