Search

Brazil was one of the last countries in Latin America to accept neoliberalism during the most recent cycle of economic opening in the region. Despite the fact that Brazil has gone along with negotiations for a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), Brazil has been, and continues to be, at the forefront of those resisting U.S.-style trade liberalization. This paper will explain the reasons for this resistance in a comparative trade policy making framework.The paper focuses on three clusters of factors, all of which are part of general explanations of trade policy making in many contexts: state institutions, producer preferences, and ideas. It finds that while all of these factors play an important role in determining Brazilian trade policy, they operate in distinct ways when compared to more advanced countries.With state institutions?and their relationship to policy ideas?there is scant participation in trade policy making by Brazil?s legislative branch. Therefore, the contest over how Brazil will make trade policy involves several key ministries. The leading ministry is the Foreign Affairs Ministry, has long pushed a non-aligned (or diversified) trade policy. This idea?trade diversification?is one that has been important in Brazil for decades, and is a direct result of Brazil?s desire to reduce its dependency on the U.S. market.When it comes to producers, there are sectors that are more interested in free trade than others. Given the nature of state institutions described above, these producers do not go to Congress to lobby; they go to particular ministries. Usually, these interests are looking for protection or subsidies, rather than free trade. Furthermore, multinational firms?which are often associated with pro-free trade attitudes in more developed countries?are not necessarily strong advocates of free trade in developing country contexts. MNCs came to markets like Brazil in the first place to take advantage of protected markets, and have profited from protection. They are, of course, most able to take advantage of opportunities that are provided by more open trade, but they have not lobbied strongly for free trade. Finally, the sector that would be most interested in greater access to the U.S. market?agriculture?lobbies for free trade within an FTAA context, but because the United States has declared agriculture off-limits in FTAA negotiations, this advocacy of free trade goes nowhere politically. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]