Policy-Making in UNASUR Councils: Comparative Analysis

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


This chapter first evaluates the common characteristics of UNASUR’s sectoral councils and, second, compares them in order to derive general findings for regional public policy-making. The analysis of individual councils in Chap.  6 revealed that councils do not interrelate with each other and that they do not have a national, centralized coordination. Accordingly, policy-makers interact on a technical level in the limited context of their policy field. Although Ministries of Foreign Affairs play an essential role in regional integration, they do not contribute to public policy-making in sectoral councils. Moreover, apparent political developments or conflicts do rarely influence the technical work of policy-makers. While Brazil and Venezuela displayed leadership ambitions at a presidential level, these ambitions are not reflected in sectoral councils. Essentially, the politicization of public policy-making leads to stagnation rather than progress. Moreover, institutional flexibility proved to be essential for collective action and the development of a regional policy perspective.


  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. El Diário. 2014. Mujica Insiste En Que Brasil ‘Tiene Que Pagar La Cena’ de La Integración, 2014.
  3. Graeme, Currie, Suzana Grubnic, and Ron Hodges. 2011. Leadership in Public Services Networks: Antecedents, Process and Outcome. Public Administration 89 (2): 242–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. March, James G., and Johan P. Olsen. 1995. Democratic Governance. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  5. ———. 2009. The Logic of Appropriateness. ARENA Working Papers 04, 2–28.Google Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Schlappa, Hans, and Yasmin Imani. 2013. Leadership in the Co-Production of Public Services: An Initial Conceptual Framework.
  8. Slaughter, Anne-Marie. 2009. A New World Order. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar


  1. Abrahão de Castro, Jorge. 2014.Google Scholar
  2.  Director of PlanningGoogle Scholar
  3.  Secretaria de Planejamento e Investimentos EstratégicosGoogle Scholar
  4.  Ministerio do Planejamento, Orçamento e Gestão, BrazilGoogle Scholar
  5.  Interview: 15.12.2014Google Scholar
  6. Carrión, Francisco Mena. 2014.Google Scholar
  7.  Former Minister of Foreign AffairsGoogle Scholar
  8.  Coordinador URAI, FLACSO EcuadorGoogle Scholar
  9.  Interview: 23.11.2014Google Scholar
  10. Paoloni, María Florencia. 2015.Google Scholar
  11.  Technical CoordinatorGoogle Scholar
  12.  Direccion Nacional de Relaciones InternacionalesGoogle Scholar
  13.  Ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación Productiva, ArgentinaGoogle Scholar
  14.  Interview: 06.02.2015Google Scholar
  15. Quintela Santos, Adroaldo. 2014.Google Scholar
  16.  Project Manager for TransportGoogle Scholar
  17.  Secretaria de Planejamento e Investimentos EstratégicosGoogle Scholar
  18.  Ministerio do Planejamento, Orçamento e Gestão, BrazilGoogle Scholar
  19.  Interview: 12.12.2014Google Scholar
  20. Schinca, Pedro. 2015.Google Scholar
  21.  Technical AssessorGoogle Scholar
  22.  Unidad de Asuntos Internacionales y CooperaciónGoogle Scholar
  23.  Ministerio de Desarrollo Social, UruguayGoogle Scholar
  24.  Interview: 09.02.2015Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations