Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-31T09:18:35.024Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bureaucratic Networks and Government Spending: A Network Analysis of Nuclear Cooperation in Latin America

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2022

Isabella Alcañiz
Isabella Alcañiz*
Affiliation:
University of Houston
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

What do technology-driven bureaucratic sectors do when their budgets are cut? In Latin America, this type of state institution has come to expect budget reductions, given recurrent economic crises, lack of coherent science policy, and more recently, state rationalization policies. On the basis of in-depth interviews I conducted with nuclear specialists of the region and drawing from network theories, I argue that bureaucratic institutions with expertise in nuclear science and technology respond strategically to decreased government spending by becoming more active in transnational policy networks. I test this argument using social network and maximum likelihood techniques to study collaborative research projects in nuclear science and technology among twenty Latin American countries over a period of twenty years (1984–2004). Study findings confirm expectations and carry implications for how science policies are adopted in Latin American states under chronic budget deficits.

Resumen

Resumen

¿Que hacen los sectores burocráticos de alta tecnología cuando enfrentan recortes presupuestarios? Dadas las recurrentes crisis económicas, la falta de coherencia en políticas científicas y—más recientemente—las reformas estructurales del estado, las burocracias científicas en América Latina continuamente anticipan reducciones presupuestarias. Sobre la base de entrevistas con especialistas nucleares en la región, y utilizando como marco conceptual la teoría de redes, mi argumento sostiene que las instituciones burocráticas en el campo de la ciencia y tecnología nuclear aumentan su nivel de actividad en redes transnacionales de cooperación como respuesta estratégica a la reducción del gasto estatal. Usando un análisis de redes y el método de máxima verosimilitud (maximum likelihood), este artículo analiza proyectos de colaboración en ciencia y tecnología nuclear entre veinte países de América Latina a lo largo de veinte años (1984–2004). Los resultados confirman el argumento central y tienen implicaciones en materia de políticas científicas en un contexto de constantes déficits presupuestarios en los países de América Latina.

Type
Research Article
Information
Latin American Research Review , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , 2010 , pp. 148 - 172
Copyright
Copyright © 2010 by the Latin American Studies Association

Footnotes

For their valuable comments and assistance, I would like to thank Katherine Barillas, Ernesto Calvo, Verónica Caro Gonzalez, Timothy Hellwig, Noah Kaplan, Robert L. Lineberry, Timothy McKeown, Charles Munnell, Maria Victoria Murillo, Stanley Wasserman, and the three anonymous reviewers from LARR.

References

Adler, Emmanuel 1988 “State Institutions, Ideology, and Autonomous Technological Development: Computers and Nuclear Energy in Argentina and Brazil.” Latin American Research Review 23 (2): 59–90.Google Scholar
Adler, Emmanuel and Haas, Peter M. 1992 “Conclusion: Epistemic Communities, World Order, and the Creation of a Reflective Research Program.” International Organization 46 (1): 367–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahmad, Ishfaq 2002 “Managing Nuclear Knowledge in Developing Countries.” Meeting of Senior Officials on Managing Nuclear Knowledge, International Atomic Energy Agency, June 17–19, Vienna. Accessed October 15, 2004, at http://www.iaea.org.Google Scholar
Alcañiz, Isabella 2000 “Slipping into Something More Comfortable: Argentine-Brazilian Nuclear Integration and the Origins of the Mercosur.” In Questioning Geopolitics: Political Projects in a Changing World-System, edited by Derluguian, G. M. and Greer, S., 155–168. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
ARCAL 2004 “Como nacio ARCAL?” Vienna: ARCAL-IAEA. Accessed August 15, 2007, at http://arcal.cnea.gov.ar/quees/como.asp.Google Scholar
ARCAL 2004 “Instituciones.” Vienna: ARCAL-IAEA. Accessed August 15, 2007, at http://arcal.cnea.gov.ar/instituciones/institu.asp.Google Scholar
ARCAL 2004 “Paises.” Vienna: ARCAL-IAEA. Accessed August 15, 2007, at http://arcal.cnea.gov.ar/paises/paises.asp.Google Scholar
ARCAL 2004 “Productos e impactos de los proyectos ARCAL durante 20 años de vida (1984–2004).” Vienna: ARCAL-IAEA.Google Scholar
ARCAL 2004 “The ARCAL Programme: Over Two Decades of Cooperation in Science and Technology.” Vienna: ARCAL-IAEA. Accessed August 15, 2007, at http://arcal.cnea.gov.ar/.Google Scholar
Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., and Freeman, L. C. 2002 Ucinet 6 for Windows. Cambridge, MA: Analytic Technologies.Google Scholar
Buch, Thomás 1998 “La Proyección Comercial Internacional.” In La Cooperación Internacional de la Argentina en el Campo Nuclear, edited by Carasales, Julio C. and Ornstein, Roberto M., 147–205. Buenos Aires: Consejo Argentino de Relaciones Interanacionales.Google Scholar
Carasales, Julio C. 1997 De divales a socios: El proceso de cooperación nuclear entre Argentina y Brasil. Buenos Aires: Grupo Editor Latinoamericano.Google Scholar
Carasales, Julio C, and Ornstein, Roberto M. 1998 La cooperación internacional de la Argentina en el campo nuclear. Buenos Aires: Consejo Argentino de Relaciones Interanacionales.Google Scholar
Carpenter, Daniel 2001 The Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy: Reputations, Networks, and Policy Innovation in Executive Agencies, 1862–1928. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Crowe, Justin 2007 “The Forging of Judicial Autonomy: Political Entrepreneurship and the Reforms of William Howard Taft.” Journal of Politics 69 (1): 73–87.10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00495.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickson, David 2003 “Science Communication Needs in Latin America.” Science and Development Network. Editorial, May 20. Accessed August 15, 2007, at http://www.scidev.net/.Google Scholar
Epstein, David L., Bates, Robert, Goldstone, Jack, Kristensen, Ida, and O'Halloran, Sharyn 2006 “Democratic Transitions.” American Journal of Political Science 50 (3): 551–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Peter 1995 Embedded Autonomy, States and Industrial Transformation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finnemore, Martha 1993 “International Organizations as Teachers of Norms: The United Nations' Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and Science Policy.” International Organization 47 (4): 565–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
George, Alexander L., and Bennett, Andrew 2005 Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Haas, Peter M. 1992 “Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination.” International Organization 46 (1): 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, Darren G., and Jacoby, Wade 2006 “How Agents Matter.” In Delegation and Agency in International Organizations: Political Economy of Institutions and Decisions, edited by Hawkins, D. G., Lake, D. A., Nielson, D. L., and Tierney, M. J., 199–228. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heclo, Hugh 1978 “Issue Networks and the Executive Establishment.” In New Political System, edited by King, A., 87–124. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.Google Scholar
Heston, Alan, Summers, Robert, and Aten, Bettina 2006 Penn World Table Version 6.2. Philadelphia: Center for International Comparisons of Production, Income and Prices.Google Scholar
Huber, Evelyn, and Solt, Fred 2004 “Successes and Failures of Neoliberalism.” Latin American Research Review 39 (3): 150–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurrell, Andrew 1998 “Security in Latin America.” International Affairs 74 (3): 529–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Atomic Energy Agency 2006 Information Circular, November 21.Google Scholar
Keck, Margaret, and Sikkink, Kathryn 1998 Activists beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert O., and Nye, Joseph S. 1989 Power and Interdependence. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.Google Scholar
Marshall, Monty G., and Jaggers, Keith 2003 “Polity IV Project: Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800–2003.”Google Scholar
Mete, Mihriye 2002 “Bureaucratic Behavior in Strategic Environments: Politicians, Taxpayers, and the IRS.” Journal of Politics 64 (2): 384–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niskanen, William A. 1971 Bureaucracy and Representative Government. Chicago: Aldine, Atherton.Google Scholar
Radicella, Renato 1998 “El Proyecto Perú.” In La cooperación internacional de la Argentina en el campo nuclear, edited by Carasales, Julio C. and Ornstein, Roberto M., 109–126. Buenos Aires: Consejo Argentino de Relaciones Interanacionales.Google Scholar
Ramos Lara, María de la Paz 2006 “Particle Accelerators in Mexico.” Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 36 (2): 297–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohrschneider, Robert, and Dalton, Russell J. 2002 “A Global Network? Transnational Cooperation among Environmental Groups.” Journal of Politics 64 (2): 510–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabatier, Paul A., and Jenkins-Smith, Hank C. 1999 “The Advocacy Coalition Framework: An Assessment.” In Theories of Policy Process, ed. Sabatier, Paul A.. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Schneider, Mark, Scholz, John, Lubell, Mark, Mindruta, Denisa, and Edwardsen, Matthew 2003 “Building Consensual Institutions: Networks and the National Estuary Program.” American Journal of Political Science 47 (1): 143–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartzman, Simon 1994 “Brazil: Scientists and the State—Evolving Models and the Great Leap Forward.” In Scientists and the State: Domestic Structures and the International Context, edited by Solingen, E., 171–188. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Sikkink, Kathryn 1991 Ideas and Institutions, Developmentalism in Brazil and Argentina. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Slaughter, Anne-Marie 2004 A New World Order. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Solingen, Etel 1994 Scientists and the State: Domestic Structures and the International Context. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solingen, Etel 1996 Industrial Policy, Technology and International Bargaining: Designing Nuclear Industries in Argentina and Brazil. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Solingen, Etel 1998 Regional Order at Century's Dawn: Global and Domestic Influences on Grand Strategy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sotomayor Velázquez, Arturo C. 2004 “Civil-Military Affairs and Security Institutions in the Southern Cone: The Sources of Argentine-Brazilian Nuclear Cooperation.” Latin American Politics and Society 46 (4): 29–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarrow, Sidney 2005 The New Transnational Activism. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Velho, Léa 2005 “Science and Technology in Latin America and the Caribbean: An Overview.” Science and Public Policy 32 (2): 95–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walton, Michael 2004 “Neoliberalism in Latin America.” Latin American Research Review 39 (3): 165–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wasserman, Stanley, and Faust, Katherine 1994 Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wayland, Kurt 2004 “Assessing Latin American Neoliberalism” Latin American Research Review 39 (3): 143–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, Max 1958 “Bureaucracy.” In From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, translated by Gerth, H. H. and Mills, C. W., 196–244. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar