Search

Under the left wing government of Luiz Inácio "Lula" da Silva, Brazil has made a far-reaching turn in its foreign trade policy. Since 2003, the government has started active coalition building both within the WTO as well as on a regional scale: Firstly, Brazil has created several negotiation groups inside of the WTO. It is playing a leading role in the G-20, NAMA-11 and the G-110. The "Lula" administration is also focusing on alternative south-south coalitions outside the WTO, with the new India-Brazil-South Africa Dialogue Forum (IBSA). Secondly, Brazil has begun to oppose the US project of a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). Together with Venezuela and Argentina the country has blocked further negotiations.Brazil has apparently returned to a policy similar to 1970's "terceiro mundismo" (Third Worldism). Its move towards a "New Axis of the South" has already changed trade flows. For example, between 2001 and 2008 the share of the traditional core countries (US, EU and Japan) in Brazilian foreign trade decreased about 15 %.This paper analyzes Brazil's project of "Neo-Third Worldism". It is argued that both a coalition of left wing nationalists in the Brazilian foreign ministry as well as the Workers' Party PT are pushing forward the new agenda. However, there have been constraints. For instance, Brazil's attempts to achieve a deeper regional integration of South America have hardly made progress. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Brazil will gain a place as a significant player in the multi-polar international system taking shape since the end of the Cold War simply on the basis of its economic size and material capabilities. However, its potential to influence international outcomes is likely to be determined more by the capacity of the country's elites to identify and harness qualitative assets associated with its stable and democratic governance than by any hard power assets. Brazil is the quintessential soft power BRIC. Among the four BRICs, Brazil is the only one positioned to become a potential environmental power in a world increasingly preoccupied with global warming. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

American hegemony has passed its peak. The twenty-first century will see a more multi-polar international system. Yet Western European countries may not be the United States' main foils in decades to come. Four new poles of the international system are now widely known in the business and financial press as the "BRICs economies" (Brazil, Russia, India, and China). Does the concept of "the BRICs" have meaning within a rigorous political science framing? From the perspective of an economic liberal employing neoclassical assumptions to understand the world economy, the category's justification is surprisingly weak. In contrast, a political or economic realist's framing instructs us to focus on states that are increasing their relative material capabilities—as each of the four is. Finally, within a liberal institutionalist's mental model, the BRICs countries are a compelling set, yet one with a deep cleavage between two sub-groups: large emerging powers likely to remain authoritarian or revert to that state, and those that are securely democratic. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Democracy is supposed to give citizens oversight of the behavior and choices of their political leaders, while providing leaders with electoral incentives to respect the preferences of citizens. A shift from authoritarian to democratic rule consequently ought to alter policymaking. Using the case of Brazilian trade policy, we explore changed versus consistent patterns of post-transition interest aggregation, political participation, and economic goal-setting. Contrary to expectations of a notably enlarged role for Congress, we find that Brazil's executive still dominates trade policymaking. However, significant and increasingly transparent interest aggregation occurs within the executive. Moreover, policy capture by sectoral special interests is down, non-traditional civil society participants have gained some influence, and trade policy outcomes are arguably more public-regarding. We judge that Brazil's trade policy process has been incrementally democratized. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]