Foreign Policy and Regional Integration in Argentina: A Long and Winding Road
Argentinean economic and (particularly) foreign policies are often described as erratic. Indeed, the appointment of more than 50 ministers of foreign affairs between the mid-1940s and the late 1980s surely contributes to that view.1 Pundits explain this ‘erratic’ positioning as a fluctuation between contradictory poles, such as ‘Western alignment’ or the formulation of populist nationalist and non-alignment policies (Vacs, 2003, p. 289). What is erratic is, of course, a relative matter, both concerning variables of reference and in the (inevitable) comparison with other countries. However, with regard to regional integration there seems to be an established opinion that the ‘erratic pattern’ is less prominent. In fact, in this area, many pundits seem to agree that pro-integration polices have been an anomaly, even during periods when the lines of action were distanced from Western powers. Argentinean foreign policy had a more autonomous positions vis-a-vis big powers.
Estado y mercado en el nuevo desarrollismo
espanolEl nuevo desarrollismo no es una simple teoria economica, sino una estrategia nacional de desarrollo. Se diferencia del desarrollismo de los 50 en que no defiende amplias medidas para proteger a una industria infante y en que si bien le otorga al Estado un papel central, cree que para llevar a cabo su tarea, este debe ser financieramente solido y administrativamente eficiente. Por otro lado, a diferencia de la ortodoxia convencional, el nuevo desarrollismo no cree que el mercado pueda resolverlo todo ni que las instituciones deban limitarse a garantizar la propiedad privada y el cumplimiento de los contratos. El nuevo desarrollismo es entonces un tercer discurso, un conjunto de propuestas utiles para que los paises de desarrollo medio, como Brasil y Argentina, recuperen el tiempo perdido y logren ponerse a la par de las naciones mas prosperas. EnglishThe new developmentalism is not simply an economic theory; it is more a national development strategy. It is to be distinguished from the developmentalism of the fifties in that it no longer defends protectionist policies for infant industries and that, while conceding the State a central role, it insists that, to be effective, the State needs to be solvent in financial terms and administratively efficient. On the other hand, unlike conventional orthodoxies, the new developmentalism does not believe that the market can solve everything, nor that the role of the State should be limited to the defense of private property and the inviolability of contracts. The new developmentalism is a third discourse, a series of proposals designed to allow medium-sized developing countries like Brazil and Argentina to make up for lost time and catch up to the more prosperous countries.
Analysis: The Agenda 2007 Proposals: Evolution or Revolution?
On 10 February 2004 the Commission published its proposal for the financial perspective 2007-2013. A week later it adopted the third report on economic and social cohesion. These two documents form the basis of the so-called ‘Agenda 2007 reforms’. They will be the greatest challenge for the enlarged EU after the intergovernmental conference, since they will determine the financial basis for EU policy-making until the middle of the next decade. The Agenda 2007 proposals certainly hint at courageous reforms, because they place a previously unheard-of emphasis on performance and quality. Under the proposals, structural operations should generate value for money, and the funds should focus on projects which generate added value at a European level. Overall the Commission’s proposals point in the right direction, because they balance, on the one hand, solidarity for the new Member States and weak regions in the old Member States with, on the other hand, investments in future tasks. Moreover, they constitute a paradigm shift. For the first time, the Common Agricultural Policy will not be the dominant expenditure category. Now it is up to the Member States to examine the proposals politically and find a compromise between sometimes very divergent interests. It is to be hoped that, during the debate over expenditure limits and division of funds, national interests do not outweigh European interests.