Research and International Trade Policy Negotiations: Knowledge and Power in Latin America (Routledg

Research and International Trade Policy Negotiations: Knowledge and Power in Latin America (Routledge Studies in Latin American Politics) on leondumoulin.nl
Table of contents

She explores the extent to which countries that have opted for different models of integration and opening, such as Argentina, Brazil, and Chile, use social research for decision-making purposes.

The chapter centers on three main questions: What kind of studies are produced and how are they funded? How are the findings conveyed to decision makers? And to what extent are the findings used? The research is based mainly on surveys of eighty academics and officials in three countries. The conclusion points to a strong similarity among the three cases, which follow a traditional pattern inasmuch as the production and use of research remains in the hands of governments. Nonetheless, she points out some novel common features: The book continues with a selection of national cases that describe the issues that have emerged in two different geographic areas with distinct models of integration: From an international relations perspective, Blanca Torres characterizes the Mexican case as the most abrupt opening in Latin America.

On the basis of information received from twenty-four researchers and decision makers, the author shows how the role of research has changed over time as the opening has deepened. While in NAFTA the contribution of economists was to justify its entry into force, today the role of academia is more analytical and critical with regard to new agreements. As regards impact, the author concludes that although academia remains a secondary actor relative to business lobbies, its growing presence helps improve national governance by making the decision-making process more transparent and participatory.

Cristina Zurbriggen examines the Uruguayan case from a public administration perspective. The chapter begins with a description of the political and technical difficulties that globalization and regionalization pose for the government of a small country like Uruguay. On the one hand, as a smaller partner, Uruguay does not have political leadership in the regional bloc. On the other, as a relatively undiversified economy, its prospects of securing market access and attracting investment are limited today they are confined to the negotiations with the United States.

The outcome is readily apparent: Unlike the other chapters, the two cases discussed in this section analyze specific episodes in the negotiations that have arisen recently Tussie, forthcoming. The first of these centers on the use of local and international academic research in the negotiations on tariff issues. In Argentina, however, the debate spurred an abundant literature on strategic questions, such as the advisability of pursuing negotiations with the United States to establish a free-trade area, or of forging closer links with Brazil in a common market.

While more than sixty studies were produced in Argentina, in Brazil there were fewer than ten. Analysis of the substance and impact of these publications highlights the important role that academia and social research played in this case, as local-level mediators between the contending interests in both the public and private sectors. The second sectoral experience centers on services negotiations in the fields of health and education. Juliana Peixoto Batista and Mercedes Botto explore the role of academia in defining the negotiating positions that the Argentine government adopted in different fora between and They thereby shift the perspective on the production and use of research: In areas like these, there was very limited academic input to the negotiations analysis of regulatory frameworks, impact studies, examination of empirical data.

Nonetheless, such input did exert significant pressure that helped shape the defensive posture that the government adopted in each of the fora. The authors conclude that this position was short-term and markedly ideologized. The balance of preferences came to sustain a functional status quo among particular interests, to the detriment of the general interest. Comparison of the various cases analyzed in this book provides a basis for outlining a common pattern of links between knowledge and decision making in the region.

This pattern emerges from the proliferation of studies and the participation of an increasing number of actors in the production, communication, and use of research. In the past the production of knowledge was the sole preserve of governments, given their monopoly of information and financing. Today, sectoral research centers and think tanks more often produce research and convey their findings to national officials and negotiators. This process of expanding knowledge and its consequent democratization has been abetted by the availability of international financing, the creation of international networks, and easier access to information.

Nonetheless, this is an incipient and markedly asymmetrical opening in which access to these resources is very unevenly shared among the actors and sectors that seek to affect the process. The chapters in this book also recall continuity with the past. While the number of actors involved in producing and communicating knowledge has increased, governments continue to define the research agenda in line with the interests of those sectors that traditionally have dominated foreign policy.

In this respect, the ongoing international negotiations seek to secure access to agricultural markets, and most of the research that governments produce or commission tries to address urgent needs that come to the fore as the negotiations advance. By contrast, there are virtually no studies on medium- and long-term negotiating scenarios, or impact assessments that indicate the costs and benefits of the negotiations in nontrade areas such as labor, education, and so on.

The same is true of studies produced by business sectors or those financed by international organizations. The great majority are economic impact studies that use the same analytical methodology and technical language as the negotiators. For these groups, knowledge is another lobbying instrument that can be used to uphold their offensive or defensive interests in the negotiations.

Unlike traditional lobbying mechanisms, however, the management of information legitimates their positions relative to other nongovernmental actors—unions, nongovernmental organizations NGOs , small and medium-size enterprises SMEs —that take part in the negotiations with the government but that, unlike the traditional sectors, lack empirical data to support policies that are in line with their interests and outlooks. The proliferation of trade negotiations in the s had contradictory effects on the decision-making process.

On the one hand, the expansion of the talks brought a growing number of actors into the discussion; but simultaneously it fostered an elitist type of integration in which a small group of interests or businesses benefited from the negotiations to the detriment of the majority. The latter include a growing debate about the impact of trade liberalization on poverty and inequity, which is conducive to a discussion of how to ensure not only economic growth but also greater and more equitable distribution Rius and Vigorito, ; Espino and Azar, ; Giordano, ; Ventura-Dias, This new agenda is apparent on all levels—global, regional, and national.

These levels are intertwined and they nourish each other, but they have their own peculiarities. At the global and regional levels, the concern of the s for economic growth and trade liberalization now gives ground, as mentioned, to good causes and global goods individual human and social rights, climate change, access to knowledge and learning. At the national level, the concern with improving market competition entails the need to ensure growth with fair distribution, especially the development of SMEs.

It is not only the public agenda that has changed, but also the collective actions of the different actors at play. Now, Latin America seems to be witnessing the reappearance of more-inclusive fora of political activity, fora that act as a needed counterweight to the state in building a development model that is less subordinate to globalization.

Although it is too early to make recommendations, the preliminary analysis of the studies in this book offers some interesting suggestions to induce decision makers, researchers, and donors to encourage the production of knowledge based on local needs and on the management of information on these issues. As mentioned at the outset, we are aware that very often these roles could overlap in a single individual.

While the latter base their decisions on simpler narratives that adhere to previous experiences, international negotiators are more sensitive to innovation and to changes in scenarios, most of them proposed from outside.

Research and International Trade Policy Negotiations

Nonetheless, they prefer research that they commission themselves or that is produced in their own environments. They are wary and somewhat mistrustful of research findings from groups with direct interests in the negotiations, or from academics who propose substantial changes in the way they act. This endogamous thinking, however, contains some contradictions, such as the tendency to lose sight of the indirect impact of the negotiations and to trim their demands to short-term emergencies.

There is also a contrary attitude on the part of other ministries, such as those responsible for education, labor, health, and so forth. These have been included in the negotiations only recently, and their officials maintain maximalist positions that disregard the political and theoretical constraints of international negotiations. In both cases there is a need for knowledge that enhances coordination in state bureaucracies, and that helps increase their capacity to commission and interpret research findings, as well as to put them into practice.

The first is the quality of the information used, which should reflect and interpret, in the most credible way possible, links of causality that are not immediately clear in reality. This difficulty explains the success of econometric analyses in quantifying the trade impacts of the negotiations. The second matter concerns the way in which knowledge is communicated: The evidence presented in this book shows that a very small circle of researchers have links to decision makers.

In general these researchers have experience in public administration and strong international links, and they are part of academic networks. In these kinds of public policies, isolated academic milestones such as a book or methodological innovation matter less than a long career path and vertical linkages. What is required, by contrast, is an expansion of horizons and research topics in order to generate empirical knowledge of the links between trade and other aspects of sustainable development, such as labor, gender, SMEs, education, and health.

The number of people who use this knowledge must grow, so that the findings not only help negotiators to define their negotiating strategy but also serve to train the various social and economic actors hereto excluded from the policy-making process and its outcomes. What is needed, finally, is to foster alliances that link local and regional organizations in order to give them voice, and help them influence the way in which agendas are designed. The author is grateful for the comments of Juan Carlos Torre and Ricardo Carciofi, and for the generous assistance of Daniela Perrotta.

The rationalist view takes us back to authors such as Lasswell and Kaplan , who defined public policies as a planned program of values, ends, and practices in which good planning necessarily entails good implementation and a good outcome. In the incrementalist view, public policy is only an approximation of a desired goal, which is the same one put under constant consideration and in which each stage assumes an adjustment of ends and a reciprocal negotiation and accommodation Lindblom, These reforms involve not only a change to the development model—from one centered on protection of the domestic market to one based on free trade—but also a profound transformation in the procedures used to devise and apply public policies.

In effect, time speeded up, legislative processes were omitted, and public and private actors—which traditionally had lobbied heavily—gave ground to new actors see, for example, Torre, ; Botto; In this workshop, the IEIP presented the initial findings of its research on Mercosur and defined with the other researchers the terms of reference for future research. As regards looking forward, from research to its consequences, questions of particular importance are what to look at and where to look, and on the basis of what time period.


  • What is Kobo Super Points?!
  • Coastal Fluxes in the Anthropocene: The Land-Ocean Interactions in the Coastal Zone Project of the I?
  • THE ANGELIC MYSTERIES: A Novella?
  • Exploring the Information Superiority: A Methodology for Measuring the Qualtiy of Information and it?
  • Urgences psychiatriques (French Edition).
  • Campaigns of Walkers Texas Division [annotated].

As regards looking back, from the decisions to the influence, the problem arises of how to separate the impacts of many influences and participants on the decision. In the s and s, there were negotiations among various countries of the region to reach preferential agreements in the LAIA framework. Economists from Nationalism to Neoliberalism.

Princeton, NJ, and Oxford: Evidence from Eight Countries. Doctoral thesis, European University Institute, Italy. Policy Research or Politics of Ideas , edited by D. Facultad Latinoamerican de Clencias Sociales. Technocratic Revolution in Mexico. Pennsylvania State University Press. An Analytical and Practical Framework. Conceptual, Methodological and Practical Issues. Origins, Embedding and Evolution , edited by V. Global Development Network Understanding Reform: Positive Economics and Negative Politics.

Perspective of the New Political Economy , edited by G. Lessons from the Brazilian Experiences. WEB Voting for Reform: Democracy, Political Liberalization and Economic Adjustment. World Bank and Oxford University Press. Mandates, Crisis and Extraordinary Policy Making. A Framework for Political Inquiry. The Role of Ideas and Democracy. Inquires, Expertise and Public Policy. Policy Change and Learning. An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Business Elites Technocrats and Market Economists. Debt, Stabilizations and Structural Influence. Los think tanks en Argentina.

The Chicago School in Chile. Like everyone else, I have only three means of assessing human existence: On the other hand, life clarified the books for me later. Knowledge, learning, and research are always intrinsic components of the policy-making process. When, what, how, and to what extent are matters that are widely discussed, as evidenced by the epigraphs at the start of this chapter. Nonetheless, these exercises in self-reflection have not been extended to the more technocratic and polemical fields, such as trade policy and negotiations.

The debate on trade policy, an inherently distributive policy, has paid little attention to the struggle of ideas or the role played by research and the systems used to disseminate it. How research is used, produced, and viewed by public policy in developing countries, and the specific nature of the trade policy field, are matters that have not been subject to close scrutiny, despite the extent to which thinking has shifted as times have changed.

Research and International Trade Policy Negotiations: Knowledge and Power in - Google Книги

It is as if this kind of knowledge is deemed to be absolved of the duty to examine and question itself, or to justify the validity of its explicit or implicit assumptions. Consistent with the rest of the book, the present chapter seeks to contribute to the discussion by advancing some thoughts on the various contextual factors that play a key role in defining a trade policy problem, one whose resolution is often subject to influence, for the specific case of Latin America since the reforms of the s and their aftermath.

In different ways, all the countries of the region have since sought to diversify markets and have taken various steps to conclude more bilateral and regional trade agreements, as well as accords with other parts of a geographically mobile world. The world is set to be one of permanent negotiations. Taking the experience of Latin American countries at the start of the twenty-first century as a point of reference, one can discern the development of a trade policy that seeks a better distribution of global income. The debate is no longer framed in terms of right versus left or statism versus the market.

When there is widespread disillusion with the poor results of the s, elected governments seem resolved to maintain the same course in trade policy, a course that emerged after their economies were devastated by the cycles of boom and subsequent financial breakdown that succeeded each other like a trail of gunpowder from the Mexican crisis of to the Uruguayan crisis of Currently, the debate seems to be framed in terms of securing a new balance between growth and distribution, of the necessary and inevitable power sharing between the state and the market, both of them mutually dependent on each other and neither of them conceivable without the other.

Given the social discredit suffered by orthodox policies, Latin American public opinion has evinced less fascination with the free play of market forces and is mobilizing in various ways in favor of more state intervention. The electorate is plainly displaying a greater tendency to mobilize, and is simultaneously expressing a deep weariness with the reforms of the s. For more than a decade, those reforms received a blank check for pro-opening and pro-market policies promising benefits that would be widely distributed.

Too often the outcome was high rates of unemployment, stagnation, and rising inequality. The gap between the rhetoric and the much more gloomy reality has proved to be fertile ground for discontent, mobilization, and electoral reactions against pro-market orthodoxy. What are the challenges for academic research in this volatile context of permanent negotiations? Part of our discussion is fueled by the results of the evaluation of the program of technical assistance that the World Trade Organization WTO provides to developing countries. At the same time, the debate that prompted these reflections, as well as previously published studies and those presented in this volume, have provided additional inputs to this chapter.

The aim is to make a contribution, from the sidelines, to two fields of thought: The chapter is divided into four sections following this introduction. The first outlines the shift that has taken place from trade opening to the current setting of permanent trade negotiations. The second briefly analyzes the debates about the role of ideas and research in the economic sphere. The third examines how technical assistance can be used to build a set of ideas. Before the conclusions, the fourth section discusses the research challenges in a context of permanent negotiations.

The purpose of these sections is to analyze the place of ideas in the economic field, specifically as regards a contingent issue such as trade negotiations.

Knowledge and Power in Latin America

To these ends the final sections use current examples to illustrate conditions in the countries of the region. In developing countries, import substitution policies regulated and restricted trade flows during the greater part of the twentieth century. It is widely known that from the perspective of liberalism and neoliberalism, the omnipresence of closed economies throughout history was an aberration that hampered proper resource allocation. Protection was explained by the power of sectoral interests that operated under the cover of import substitution and that had extensive political resources to ensure colonization of significant parts of the state.

In that regard we can recall the notion, one that was broadly accepted in the late s, that authoritarian regimes, especially the military dictatorships of the Southern Cone, were more able to embark on opening because they used terror and repression to eradicate resistance. Experience, however, showed that the political explanation democracy versus dictatorship seems to refer to context-specific conditions that enclosed and shaped government elites, and that demanded responses in the form of different policies—policies consistent with the challenges and pressures in which they are subsumed and in line with the prevailing culture.

The preference for protectionist or liberal policies, in both democratic governments and authoritarian regimes, was a function of circumstances, and the aim was to manage the distributive struggles that emerged from the kind of external insertion chosen. The revolution in trade policy during the s, which drew one country after another toward unrestricted opening, spurred a new series of explanations that focused on the recurrent and ever more serious economic crises experienced by the countries of the region Torre, ; Drazen and Grilli, ; Keeler, ; Bruno, The crises certainly produced a powerful incentive to reform: Another spate of studies focused on analyzing the influence of the international financial institutions, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

The terms under which the rescue loans were guaranteed were not simply financial: Such studies tended to seek explanations in indebtedness, and especially in World Bank adjustment loans Kahler, ; Botzman and Tussie, ; Drazen, There were some gaps in the explanations for the reforms, whether based on the crises of the s or the conditionality to which they gave rise. First, for a crisis to trigger a particular reform, there has to have been a structured political option, one that was ready to grasp the opportunity and drive the process in the desired direction.

Absent such a political force, the crisis can explain only the change, not the choice and adoption of a particular policy. Why did the crises of the s lead to opening while earlier crises did not, and those of the s produced an array of responses, both for and against opening? Similarly, as regards the role of financial conditionality, why was urgent stabilization in the s accompanied by opening while the same combination did not emerge under earlier circumstances of conditionality?

Moreover, the knowledge offered by the classical and neoclassical theory underlying the doctrine of conditionality was far from maintaining that such a combination was necessary or even feasible. Quite the contrary, it was generally known that unless it were properly timed, opening posed the danger of undermining stabilization by causing currency depreciation. Alternatively, stabilization undermines opening because of the overvaluation of the exchange rate, stimulating imports, and hampering exports Papageorgiou et al. If the trade opening attendant on stabilization programs had not been based on the available knowledge, it must be assumed that in their time the crises and the accompanying conditionality were seen as a window of opportunity for latent interests: The result of the crises of the s, the so-called crises of globalization, is that this agenda of unilateral opening has been replaced by more moderate and pragmatic strategies featuring demands for guarantees in return— in short, reciprocity in access to external markets.

Thus began the stage of permanent negotiations to conclude market access agreements in the form of free-trade areas, customs unions, or simple fixed-preference accords. In this context of permanent negotiations, new questions arise about the acquisition of technical capacities and the ability of the state administration to tackle the negotiating agenda. The effort to build capacity is closely linked to the current demands and complexities of trade negotiations, which are remote from strategic calculations and must be addressed not only with greater mental openness but also with staff that have a range of technical skills.

The effort is also consistent with the need to imagine possible scenarios and make sense of them, and to avoid becoming trapped in analysis of what must inevitably happen , as if it were impossible to bring about change or progress. Which ideas and which policies in particular? Autarkic models that are closed to international trade have been abandoned, and now there is broad acceptance of lower levels of protection for national markets than in the past. But there is still a dispute about the level of protection that allows significant growth, job—creation, and improvements in economic efficiency.

Institutions may not have the proper structure to operate in a context of uncertainty, where a lack of clear knowledge about the effects of proliferating negotiations can lead to a multiplicity of decisions. There is no doubt about the significant change in the intellectual landscape from which emerged a new consensus on opening as the starting point for new development strategies. With the preaching of a new paradigm, government elites have not only accepted the initial opening but are increasingly willing to deepen it through trade negotiations.

In this context of multiple negotiations, export interests in every country have gained fresh and flourishing influence relative to the once more powerful producers who are tied to the domestic market, those who previously had enjoyed the benefits of import substitution. Today, the alliance of export interests leads trade negotiations whenever there is a chance or hope of gaining access to international markets.

When a negotiating partner offers access to its market, exporters see a clear sectoral benefit. That mobilizes a powerful interest group that will push for the state apparatus to be deployed in favor of the negotiations. Aware of the attraction of the potential gains, and naturally moved by economic logic, exporting interest groups organize themselves, link their interests to the export market, and exert pressure to ensure that their sectoral preferences are acceptable and made viable in the trade negotiations.

Today, business interests not only are organized sectorally through their national chambers of commerce, but have also forged links through transnational networks to monitor the negotiations see Chapter 3 , comparing Chile, Argentina, and Brazil. Thus the national actors themselves sought to convince their governments, which were resisting the FTAA, of the benefits of opening. On that occasion the BNHI demanded that the governments allow it to play a greater role in the FTAA decision making and negotiations as observers in the ministerial meetings and the working groups.

Similarly, in each subregion, business interests organized themselves for the negotiations with the European Union EU. They seek not only to influence the decisions of their respective governments, as well as to build trust and foster coordination within their own sector, but also to influence public opinion in general Botto and Tussie, Obviously, nobody can doubt the influence and strength that these actors have gained, but it is also true that their interests require mediating networks.

The creation of a common framework of economic ideas with policy makers is clearly essential if those ideas are to be sustained in practice. This approach offers a broad array of opportunities to affect the tradenegotiating agenda, such that it does not solely respond to short-term gains for the factors of economic power. In this respect there is fertile ground to explore the impact that these ideas can have—especially their strength and legitimacy—in shaping behavior and policy.

There is practically no economic policy in Latin America today that does not define itself as pragmatic. The agenda features the economic and social demands of growth and redistribution, as well as demands for citizen participation. While the United States remains the main guarantor of investment or the most dynamic market for exports, agreements with Washington cannot be excluded from or diluted in the agenda of any Latin American country.

In practice, the search is for creative formulas that allow government leaders a freer hand than with a merely ideological approach. Acknowledgment of the errors that hamper understanding of many public-policy processes has led some academics to focus on rediscovering the importance of ideas, beliefs, and research in making and sustaining policies. In this context, research especially research rooted in national demands can serve as a focal point for members of a community to share symbolic maps and beliefs regarding the characteristics of the milieu and the consequences of policies.

Thus the explanations of decision making in a context of uncertainty require, in addition to shared interests and institutional factors, cognitive elements, mental maps to tackle uncertainty, to arrange the possible visions of reality in proper order, to assess consequences, and to share perspectives on action to be taken. The cognitive elements make it possible to build an intersubjective consensus among the actors, one that constructs or reconstructs their identities and interests.

Shared knowledge shapes the actors and their interests, a circumstance that also alters their behavior. But how should the link between research and policy making be examined? Before answering that question, a few points should be clarified. In economic matters, the adoption of ideas has certain specific qualities.

Hall suggests that a new system of economic ideas will materialize in a society when there is a clear need for them, as well as a political outlook that is consistent with that need. Summarizing the empirical and theoretical literature on the role and power of ideas, and making reference to the European and U.

In contrast to how new economic notions spread in industrialized countries, in developing countries international pressures should be regarded as an active factor in building ideas and models, rather than as a mere condition or circumstance. Education and economic training in select universities is a crucial transmission mechanism in the creation of thought communities.

Moreover, the abundance of information emanating from international organizations, as well as being a window of opportunity offered by conditionality, facilitates the creation of broad and active networks for cooptation. External political and economic interests are present in the world of ideas by omission or commission: While institutions can produce stable and predictable patterns of behavior, ideas can influence policy outcomes only under certain circumstances.

Often there is more than one way to resolve a problem, and that is when related research helps frame the debate and focus attention on possible policy options underpinned by evidence and convincing argument. The sociology of revealed policy preferences suggests that whoever supports or opposes a particular policy and the resources it commands will condition change. Hence class or sectoral interests have a greater or lesser impact at different moments in time.

In short, the third driver of change—national policy and the configuration of interests reflected by it—is the dominant factor. To understand this dimension, attention must be paid to the distribution of institutional power and its relationship to the construction of communities of beliefs and knowledge production, the so-called espistemic communities.

Recommended For You

Unlike other transnational networks, such as trade unions or professional and business associations, these communities are linked by an issue and a set of analytical methodologies that apply to the development of their subject matter. Because of this joint development, they can strengthen their own position and technical resources at the national level.

The question that arises, then, is how the knowledge that the epistemic communities produce can be introduced into the public management of national policy—a question to be addressed by analyzing the interactions between the two spheres of policy design. The management of trade negotiations is revealing the need to introduce new kinds of knowledge and new skills into public administration. This means that, though academics and researchers probably have not had a significant role in changing trade policies, in the wake of wholesale opening there is a constant need to draw sustenance from that development in several ways.

In the subsections that follow is a description of cases in which our own research shows how government capacities constrain or affect the policy instruments used to meet the goals of their mandates. We hope to draw some lessons from these experiences. Although they are not limited solely to trade issues in the strictest sense, they are all important for their link to trade, and especially to the way the negotiations are conducted and their consequences. The first case concerns the physical infrastructure for international trade, an area in which regulatory failings in the s led to an inadequate supply of roads and excessive costs for users in Latin America.

In the late s, a Brazilian undertaking sought to remedy this situation in South America. Contributors also address the main obstacles for creating a virtuous circle between research and decision-making as they examine the links between the research centers, think tanks and international organizations who produced the information and the Latin American governments who used it. Think Tanks in External Trade Negotiations.

A Comparative Analysis of the Southern Cone. The Management of Knowledge in Trade Policy: The Case of Uruguay Cristina Zurbriggen 6. She teaches undergraduate and graduate courses at the University of Buenos Aires. In addition, she has worked as a consultant for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Argentina, the Mercosur Secretariat, and several civil society organization. Learn More about VitalSource Bookshelf. This book provides empirical-based analyses on the role of this research in the policymaking process. Each case study is based on primary fieldwork - either at the national or sectoral level - which was guided by the following overarching questions: Who are the main actors producing useful research for trade policymakers?

Who are the main financial supporters of such work? What use do policymakers give to research? The volume offers a deep analysis of the nexus and interactions between the academic and public spheres, among researchers and decision-makers. Contributors also address the main obstacles for creating a virtuous circle between research and decision-making as they examine the links between the research centers, think tanks and international organizations who produced the information and the Latin American governments who used it.

Understanding Brazil - United States Relations. Decentralization and Popular Democracy. Contesting Trade in Central America. The Resilience of the Latin American Right. Latin America in the 21st Century. Feminist Agendas and Democracy in Latin America. Portugal in the European Union. Crisis, Austerity, and Transformation. Constructing Democratic Governance in Latin America. Brazil on the Global Stage.

Dragon in the Tropics. The New Latin American Left. Do the Poor Count? The Political Economy of Integration. Brazil Under the Workers' Party. Routledge Handbook of Latin America in the World. Market Reforms in Mexico. Law and the New Developmental State. Latino Politics in America. The European Approach to Peacebuilding.