Two critical passages on the Road to Mercosur

G L Gardini

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This article challenges two traditional interpretations of the genesis of Mercosur. First, the literature is evenly divided among those who trace back the beginning of the process to the military administrations of both Brazil and Argentina, and those who entirely credit their newly democratic administrations. By contrast, this paper argues that integration was initially discussed in a situation of regime asymmetry, Argentina having already returned to democracy and Brazil being still in the final stage of transition. Second, the creation of the common market is generally associated with the 1988 Treaty of Integration signed by Presidents Alfonsín and Sarney of Argentina and Brazil respectively, while Presidents Menem and Collor are deemed to have simply reduced the period for its implementation from ten to five years. By contrast, this article suggests that in 1988 the project of a common market was still just an aspiration and that in fact that treaty only established a free trade area, its actual progression into a common market being undertaken by the latter two leaders. The first argument tempers the democratic mysticism surrounding integration, the second suggests a partial rehabilitation of the now discredited neo-liberal presidents.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)405-420
Number of pages16
JournalCambridge Review of International Affairs
Volume18
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Oct 2005

Fingerprint

Argentina
president
Brazil
treaty
market
free trade area
mysticism
asymmetry
rehabilitation
credit
Military
regime
leader
democracy
interpretation
literature

Cite this

Two critical passages on the Road to Mercosur. / Gardini, G L.

In: Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Vol. 18, No. 3, 10.2005, p. 405-420.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Gardini, G L. / Two critical passages on the Road to Mercosur. In: Cambridge Review of International Affairs. 2005 ; Vol. 18, No. 3. pp. 405-420.
@article{2144e3e5e5f34b1cb24c38b2effb7695,
title = "Two critical passages on the Road to Mercosur",
abstract = "This article challenges two traditional interpretations of the genesis of Mercosur. First, the literature is evenly divided among those who trace back the beginning of the process to the military administrations of both Brazil and Argentina, and those who entirely credit their newly democratic administrations. By contrast, this paper argues that integration was initially discussed in a situation of regime asymmetry, Argentina having already returned to democracy and Brazil being still in the final stage of transition. Second, the creation of the common market is generally associated with the 1988 Treaty of Integration signed by Presidents Alfons{\'i}n and Sarney of Argentina and Brazil respectively, while Presidents Menem and Collor are deemed to have simply reduced the period for its implementation from ten to five years. By contrast, this article suggests that in 1988 the project of a common market was still just an aspiration and that in fact that treaty only established a free trade area, its actual progression into a common market being undertaken by the latter two leaders. The first argument tempers the democratic mysticism surrounding integration, the second suggests a partial rehabilitation of the now discredited neo-liberal presidents.",
author = "Gardini, {G L}",
year = "2005",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1080/09557570500238035",
language = "English",
volume = "18",
pages = "405--420",
journal = "Cambridge Review of International Affairs",
issn = "0955-7571",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Two critical passages on the Road to Mercosur

AU - Gardini, G L

PY - 2005/10

Y1 - 2005/10

N2 - This article challenges two traditional interpretations of the genesis of Mercosur. First, the literature is evenly divided among those who trace back the beginning of the process to the military administrations of both Brazil and Argentina, and those who entirely credit their newly democratic administrations. By contrast, this paper argues that integration was initially discussed in a situation of regime asymmetry, Argentina having already returned to democracy and Brazil being still in the final stage of transition. Second, the creation of the common market is generally associated with the 1988 Treaty of Integration signed by Presidents Alfonsín and Sarney of Argentina and Brazil respectively, while Presidents Menem and Collor are deemed to have simply reduced the period for its implementation from ten to five years. By contrast, this article suggests that in 1988 the project of a common market was still just an aspiration and that in fact that treaty only established a free trade area, its actual progression into a common market being undertaken by the latter two leaders. The first argument tempers the democratic mysticism surrounding integration, the second suggests a partial rehabilitation of the now discredited neo-liberal presidents.

AB - This article challenges two traditional interpretations of the genesis of Mercosur. First, the literature is evenly divided among those who trace back the beginning of the process to the military administrations of both Brazil and Argentina, and those who entirely credit their newly democratic administrations. By contrast, this paper argues that integration was initially discussed in a situation of regime asymmetry, Argentina having already returned to democracy and Brazil being still in the final stage of transition. Second, the creation of the common market is generally associated with the 1988 Treaty of Integration signed by Presidents Alfonsín and Sarney of Argentina and Brazil respectively, while Presidents Menem and Collor are deemed to have simply reduced the period for its implementation from ten to five years. By contrast, this article suggests that in 1988 the project of a common market was still just an aspiration and that in fact that treaty only established a free trade area, its actual progression into a common market being undertaken by the latter two leaders. The first argument tempers the democratic mysticism surrounding integration, the second suggests a partial rehabilitation of the now discredited neo-liberal presidents.

UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09557570500238035

U2 - 10.1080/09557570500238035

DO - 10.1080/09557570500238035

M3 - Article

VL - 18

SP - 405

EP - 420

JO - Cambridge Review of International Affairs

JF - Cambridge Review of International Affairs

SN - 0955-7571

IS - 3

ER -