The Politics of Regional Organization in Latin America. The Latin American Free Trade Association

1974 ◽  
Vol 50 (4) ◽  
pp. 686-687
Author(s):  
P. Robson
1972 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 225-250 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin C. Kearns

The decade of the 1960s could well be termed the First Economic Integration Decade in Latin America. During this period the republics of Latin America experienced a “collective awakening,” inspiring an environment in which superficial and exclusivist values gave way to pragmatic and cooperative attitudes. Economic alliances were formed among neighbors, predicated on the rationale that, by joining forces in the spirit of cooperation and applying an ecumenical approach to common problems, each of the participating countries would be better off than pursuing a strictly autarkic course (see Figure 1).The initial effort at integration was the Central American Common Market (CACM), formed in late 1960 and including all the countries of Central America except Panama.1 That same year, the Latin American Free Trade Association (LAFTA) was created and, measured in terms of territory and population, represented the most significant economic cooperative. A third grouping was the Caribbean Free Trade Association (CARIFTA), established in 1968 as an agreement among eleven British Commonwealth nations and territories.


2003 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
pp. 423-455 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andy Baker

Despite wavy national economies and a perception among observers that economic globalization is growing increasingly unpopular, aggregate support for free trade remains quite high across Latin America. This finding is robust to the wording of survey questions and has been quite resilient through time, even in the face of economic stagnation. Current theories of trade preferences, including the widely applied Heckscher-Ohlin model, do not explain this trend. Instead, the author proposes a theory of trade preferences based not on what citizens produce but on what they consume. Statistical analyses of different surveys, including one conducted in fourteen Latin American countries, demonstrate that a consumption-based approach best accounts for trade preferences across individuals and countries. Moreover, the theory provides an explanation for the overall popularity of free trade in Latin America: citizens recognize and appreciate the lower price, increased variety, and higher quality of goods that have come in the wake of trade liberalization.


1961 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 206-207 ◽  

The seventeenth session of the contracting parties to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was held in Geneva from October 31 to November 19, 1960, under the chairmanship of Mr. Edmundo Penna Barbosa da Silva (Brazil). One of the main items of discussion was regional economic integration, considered in terms of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), the proposed Latin American free trade area, and the European Economic Community (EEC). Examination of the Stockholm Convention establishing EFTA, begun at the sixteenth session, was resumed, with the contracting parties concluding that the provisions concerning the setting up, within the time limit set forth in the convention, of a free trade area were within the definition of such an area, as contained in Article XXIV of GATT. Delegates felt, however, that there remained some legal and practical issues which could be more fruitfully discussed in the light of experience of the operation of the convention, and thus welcomed the willingness of EFTA members to furnish additional information as the organization evolved. In examining the Montevideo Treaty proposing a Latin American free trade area, delegates reached much the same conclusions. In response to the report on developments within EEC, particularly with regard to tariffs, delegates expressed a desire to receive details on the common agricultural policy of the Community, and raised queries as to the harmful effect of the Community's progressively favorable treatment of the associated territories on the trade of certain outside countries with EEC.


Author(s):  
Rubrick Biegon

Following the end of the Cold War, the hegemony of the United States in Latin America was intimately related to the globalization of the hemispheric political economy. Free-trade agreements (FTAs) were crucial to this process, helping to extend and entrench the neoliberal model. As a result of the region’s political turn to the left during the 2000s, however, the Washington Consensus became increasingly untenable. As U.S. trade policy subsequently moved in the direction of a “post-Washington Consensus,” the “Pink Tide” fostered the creation of Latin American-led approaches to integration independent of the United States. In this context, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was designed to catalyse a new wave of (neo)liberalization among its 12 participating countries, including the United States, Canada, Chile, Peru, and Mexico. The TPP codified an updated and comprehensive set of rules on an array of trade and investment disciplines not covered in existing agreements. Strategically linking the Asia-Pacific to the Americas, but excluding China, the TPP responded to China’s growing economic presence in Asia and Latin America. Largely a creation of U.S. foreign economic policy, the United States withdrew from the TPP prior to its ratification and following the election of Donald Trump as U.S. president. The remaining 11 countries signed a more limited version of the agreement, known as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), which is open to future participation by the United States and other countries in Asia and Latin America. The uncertainties in the TPP process represented the further erosion of Washington’s “free trade” consensus, reflecting, among other things, a crisis of U.S. hegemony in the Americas.


Author(s):  
Juan Carlos Lara Gálvez ◽  
Alan M. Sears

This chapter discusses the impact of free trade agreements (FTAs) on intermediary liability in Latin America, with special emphasis on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s (DMCA) provisions that have been included into every bilateral FTA the United States has entered into since 2002, thus promoting their inclusion in the national law of other countries. However, these provisions are controversial, and whether they drive the internet economy or create a more restrictive online space is a matter of debate. This chapter analyses the impact of such provisions in Latin American countries and the state of their implementation in national jurisdictions. In particular, this chapter reviews implementation and proposed implementation of the DMCA model in Chile, Costa Rica and other CAFTA bloc countries, Colombia, and Peru. It also discusses the failure of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement to create new intermediary liability rules and how the same language was ultimately included in the revision of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which became the US–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA).


2020 ◽  
Vol 69 (8) ◽  
pp. 803-822
Author(s):  
Juan I Correa ◽  
Carlos M Correa

Abstract This study shows that the main beneficiaries of the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) in three Latin American countries, which adhered to it as a result of the obligations provided for in free trade agreements, have been non-residents rather than local companies and individual inventors. This rebuts the frequently made argument that acceding to the PCT would generate incentives for local innovation and benefit local inventors by boosting their capacity to protect their developments in third countries. In the three countries considered in this study, the number of patents granted increased after accession to the treaty. This points to the risk of an erosion of the countries’ flexibilities in designing and implementing patent policies, as allowed by the TRIPS Agreement, with respect to the standards applied to assess eligibility for patent protection.


Author(s):  
Andrés Malamud

Integration attempts in Latin America have historically been linked to the European experience. Transatlantic influence has gone from policy learning through institutional mimicry to direct funding. Modern Latin American regionalism dates back to 1960, when the Central American Common Market and the Latin American Free Trade Association (LAFTA) were founded. Both associations were a response to the creation of the European Economic Community in 1957 and the fear that “Fortress Europe” would cut extra-regional markets off, so alternatives should be developed. The Latin American blocs aspired to overcome the small size of the national markets by fostering economies of scale. Shortly thereafter, European-born, U.S.-based political scientist Ernst Haas—jointly with Philippe Schmitter—put to the test the neofunctionalist theory he had developed for Europe to analyze Central American integration, correctly diagnosing the latter’s limitations and forecasting its setbacks. LAFTA also faltered and failed and, in 1980, the Latin American Integration Association (ALADI by its Spanish acronym) replaced it. A decade later, ALADI would become MERCOSUR’s umbrella organization. After the third wave of democratization, which in Latin America started in 1978, new attempts at regional integration took hold, and MERCOSUR was initially considered as the most successful. Successive leaders of the European Union (EU) nurtured big hopes and devoted a great deal of attention to EU–MERCOSUR relations, first assisting with integration technology, material resources, and intellectual guidance and, since 1995, conducting several rounds of negotiations to strike a trade deal. The path that had led to MERCOSUR resembled that of the EU, as it started in 1985 with functional and sectoral integration (wheat and oil prominently, in place of coal and steel) around the Argentina–Brazil axis. A few years later, in 1991, the binational association was opened up to Paraguay and Uruguay and transformed itself into a typical Balassa-like organization, prioritizing broader market integration over focused sectoral integration—just like the Treaty of Rome had done in Europe. Intra-regional trade tripled during the first seven years, but it later stagnated and never bounced back. As a result, the member states decided to up the rhetorical ante and broaden the areas encompassed by the organization rather than fostering economic interdependence or deepening the level of regional authority. An optional tribunal and a powerless parliament were established in 2002 and 2005 respectively. The outcome was grim: more institutions on paper did not enhance performance in practice. Having exhausted the internal agenda, the external agenda remained the only one where positive developments were still expected. In 2019, after twenty years of bumping negotiations, a political agreement on a comprehensive trade deal was reached with the European Union, MERCOSUR’s role model and largest trade partner. If this agreement is signed and ratified, it will become the largest interregional arrangement ever.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document