Search

Proponents of pro-market reforms argued that the main difference between the development strategies of Spain and many countries in Latin America is the degree of involvement of the state in the economy: too much involvement in Latin America since the 1930s led to the crisis of the 1980s, while in Spain the liberalization of the Spanish economy after 1975 facilitated the expansion of the economy. Taking Argentina and Spain as case studies, the author argues that the difference is not one of states vs markets, but of the kind of partnership between the state and the market. Both the Spanish and the Argentinean developmental states picked a number of "winners" and liberalized their sectors gradually as the firms operating in these sectors became more competitive. However, they also sheltered some "losers", thus undermining the overall competitiveness of the firms in some of the main industries. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the underlying factors that explain the success and failure of firms that entered Latin America since the wave of deregulation and liberalization in 1991. The authors begin by isolating the country level and firm level factors that have been shown to affect a firm's entry decision. Then a comprehensive definition of success and failure is proposed. The authors hypothesize that the probability of success increases with increases in degree of control and firm size, and decreases with increases in economic distance, political risk, regulatory hurdles, and cultural distance. Finally, using a uniquely compiled archival dataset the authors correlate the degree of success to firm level and country level factors that affect entry decisions. Our preliminary findings show directional support for the effect of firm size, economic distance and regulatory hurdles on the success of firms entering Latin America. The findings of the paper will serve researchers in international business, practitioners, and policy makers. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The liberalization of the rules that govern the entry and operation of foreign direct investors was one of the key public policy changes implemented by neoliberal governments in Latin America in the early 1990s. Recent changes to the taxation of foreign investors in Venezuela and Chile, renegotiation of public service contracts in Argentina, and threats of nationalization of extractive industries in Bolivia and Peru suggest a major shift in public policy towards foreign investors by some new left governments proclaiming a post-Washington Consensus era. However, these same governments find themselves constrained by domestic political lobbies, pressure from capital-exporting countries and international investment treaties. This paper examines the extent of the change in policy towards foreign investorsin the countries cited above. It seeks to explain why some new left governments have pursued a more radical revision of the rules on investment, while others continue to accept the broad neoliberal framework exemplified by the Washington Consensus. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A complete explanation for Spain's economic performance vis-à-vis that of Latin American economies must take into account the institutional frameworks in which decision-makers were allowed (or not) to carry out liberalization. This study examines whether post-Franco Spain "inherited" certain institutional frameworks that still centralized economic policy and allowed decision-makers to enact economic liberalization policies. Other Latin American countries with a similar institutional heritage, like Chile and Brazil, are then compared to underperforming Latin American economies to see if institutional heritage after dictatorships allows for easier enactment and enforcement of liberalization. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper documents and examines the historical development of the debate over water resources and the waning influence of countries of the North over water liberalization. The paper argues that countries of the North have been less able to influence and shape the regulation of water in Latin America, and indeed in the entire South, in recent years. This contrasts with the 1980s and 1990s, when water regimes were increasingly liberalized and water increasingly treated as a purely tradable commodity, a result of the North?s ability to influence the water debate in the South. This mirrored the trend towards liberalization taking place around the world, part of the overall process of globalization. However, recent years have witnessed the willingness of Latin American governments, and other governments of the South, to increasingly intervene in the water debate in terms of creating new and stronger domestic institutions to protect water and other resources, and by the South?s calling for greater global governance of water resources through new global institutions. The current trend reflects a general growth in the clout of countries of the South in the international system and likely may lead to a noticeably lesser impact of the North in shaping the global water debate. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent literature has demonstrated that elite opinion leadership is a central influence on trade policy preferences among the masses in Latin America (see especially Baker 2003). While research suggests that Latin American elites overwhelmingly favor trade liberalization and/or regional integration, the determinants of these attitudes remain largely unexplored. Given the importance of opinion leaders? attitudes in influencing both the policy-making process and mass opinion, an understanding of the sources of elites? attitudes on trade may go a long way toward explaining the characteristics of support for liberalization and, more generally, for improving our understanding of competing theories that explore individuals? trade policy preferences. Studies of trade policy preferences that employ mass public opinion surveys find consistently that income strongly positively conditions support for more liberal trade policies. Not surprisingly, high-income earners also tend to be nations? opinion leaders. By removing much of the variation on income by focusing specifically on economic elites, we can explore better other key variables that shape their influential views. In particular, working from traditional IPE theory, we seek to identify the impacts of elites? sector-level participation in the economy on trade policy preferences. Accordingly, this paper examines the influences on elites? opinions on trade using two novel surveys of elites in six Latin American countries conducted recently by the University of Miami and Zogby International. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]