Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T02:15:54.230Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From Middle Powers to Entrepreneurial Powers in World Politics: Brazil’s Successes and Failures in International Crises

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Feliciano de Sá Guimarães  and
Maria Hermínia Tavares de Almeida
Feliciano de Sá Guimarães
Affiliation:
University of Sáo Paulo. felicianosa@usp.br
Maria Hermínia Tavares de Almeida
Affiliation:
University of São Paulo. mhbtdalm@usp.br
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.

This article uses the concept of entrepreneurial powers to discuss how and under what circumstances Brazil successfully accomplishes its goals in international crises. The concept of entrepreneurial power focuses on systematic evidence of middle-power behavior and its relation to foreign policy tools. Brazil resorts to three agency-based foreign policy tools that are the substance of its entrepreneurial power. These instruments are always mediated by a structural condition, the dominant power pivotal position in the crisis. This study applies qualitative comparative analysis methodology to 32 international crises since the early 1990s in which Brazil played a role. It finds that for regional crises, the use of only one agency-based tool is sufficient for success, regardless of the dominant power position; and for global crises, the use of only one agency-based tool is a necessary and sufficient condition for Brazil to accomplish its goals, despite the dominant power position on the issue.

Type
Research
Information
Latin American Politics and Society , Volume 59 , Issue 4 , Winter 2017 , pp. 26 - 46
Copyright
Copyright © University of Miami 2017

References

Amorim Neto, Octavio. 2011. De Dutra a Lula: a condução e os determinantes da política externa brasileira. Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Amorim Neto, Octavio, and Malamud, Andrés. 2015. What Determines Foreign Policy in Latin America? Systemic versus Domestic Factors in Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico, 1946–2008. Latin American Politics and Society 57, 4 (Winter): 1–27.Google Scholar
Baldwin, David. 2000. Success and Failure in Foreign Policy. Annual Review of Political Science 3: 167–82.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Oliver. 2013. Power and International Relations. In Handbook of International Relations, 2nd ed., ed. Carlsnaes, Walter et al. Los Angeles: Sage. 273–97.Google Scholar
Barnett, Michael, and Duvall, Raymond. 2005. Power in Global Governance. In Power in Global Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1–32.Google Scholar
Barreto, Fernando de Mello. 2012a. A política externa após a redemocratização, tomo 1. Brasília: Fundação Alexandre de Gusmão.Google Scholar
Barreto, Fernando de Mello. 2012b. A política externa após a redemocratização, tomo 2. Brasília: Fundação Alexandre de Gusmão.Google Scholar
Behringer, Ronald. 2012. The Human Security Agenda: How Middle Power Leadership Defined U.S. Hegemony. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Black, David. 1997. Addressing Apartheid: Lessons from Australian, Canadian, and Swedish Policies in Southern Africa. In Niche Diplomacy: Middle Powers After the Cold War, ed. Cooper, Andrew. London: Macmillan. 100–128.Google Scholar
Blatter, Joachim, Matthias Kreutzer, Michaela Rentl, and Thiele, Jan. 2009. Preconditions for Foreign Activities of European Regions: Tracing Causal Configurations of Economic, Cultural, and Political Strategies. Publius: The Journal of Federalism 40, 1: 171–99.Google Scholar
Brecher, Michael, and Wilkenfeld, Jonathan. 2000. A Study of Crisis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Burges, Sean. 2008. Consensual Hegemony: Theorizing Brazilian Foreign Policy After the Cold War. International Relations 22, 1: 65–84.Google Scholar
Burges, Sean. 2013. Mistaking Brazil for a Middle Power. Journal of Iberian and Latin American Research 19, 2: 286–302.Google Scholar
Burges, Sean. 2015. Revisiting Consensual Hegemony: Brazilian Regional Leadership in Question. International Politics 52, 2: 193–207.Google Scholar
Carr, Andrew. 2014. Is Australia a Middle Power? A Systematic Impact Approach. Australian Journal of International Affairs 68, 1: 70–84.Google Scholar
Chapnik, Adam. 1999. The Middle Power. Canadian Foreign Policy 7: 73–82.Google Scholar
Chayes, Abram, and Handler Chayes, Antonia. 1994. Regime Architecture: Elements and Principles. In Global Engagement: Cooperation and Security in the 21st Century, ed. Nolan, Janne E.. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. 65–130.Google Scholar
Cooper, Andrew. 1997. Niche Diplomacy: A Conceptual Overview. In Niche Diplomacy: Middle Powers After the Cold War, ed. Cooper, . London: Macmillan. 1–24.Google Scholar
Cooper, Andrew, and Flemes, Daniel. 2013. Foreign Policy Strategies of Emerging Powers in a Multipolar World: An Introductory Review. Third World Quarterly 34, 6: 943–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, Andrew, and Flemes, Daniel. 2015. Beyond the Middle Power Model: Canada in Reshaping a Global Order. South African Journal of International Affairs 22, 1: 1–17.Google Scholar
Cooper, Andrew F., Higgott, Richard A. and Nossal, Kim. 1993. Relocating Middle Powers: Australia and Canada in a Changing World Order. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
Cotton, James, and Ravenhill, John. 2011. Middle Power Dreaming: Australian Foreign Policy During the Rudd-Gillard Governments. In Middle Power Dreaming: Australia in World Affairs, ed. Cotton, and Ravenhill, . Melbourne: Oxford University Press. 1–12.Google Scholar
Cox, Robert W. (1989) 1996. Middlepowermanship, Japan, and Future World Order. In Approaches to World Order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 241–75.Google Scholar
Elster, Jon. 1983 (2016). Sour Grapes: Studies in the Subversion of Rationality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Flemes, Daniel. 2007. Emerging Middle Powers' Soft Balancing Strategy: State and Perspectives of the IBSA-Dialogue Forum. GIGA Working Paper 57. Hamburg: German Institute of Global and Area Studies.Google Scholar
Gallarotti, Giulio. 2015. Smart Power: Definition, Importance and Effectiveness. Journal of Strategic Studies 38, 3: 245–81.Google Scholar
Gardini, Gian Luca. 2016. Brazil: What Rise of What Power? Bulletin of Latin American Research 35, 1: 5–19.Google Scholar
Garud, Raghu, Hardy, Cynthia and Maguire, Steve. 2004. Institutional Entrepreneurship as Embedded Agency: An Introduction to the Special Issue. Organization Studies 28, 7: 957–69.Google Scholar
Guisinger, Alexandra, and Smith, Alastair. 2002. Honest Threat: The Interaction of Reputation and Political Institutions in International Crises. Journal of Conflict Resolution 46, 2: 175–200.Google Scholar
Hage, Frank. 2007. Constructivism, Fuzzy Sets and (Very) Small-N: Revisiting the Conditions for Communicative Action. Journal of Business Research 60: 512–21.Google Scholar
Higgott, Richard, and Cooper, Andrew. 1990. Middle Power Leadership and Coalition Building: Australia, the Cairns Group, and the Uruguay Round of Trade Negotiations. International Organization 44, 4: 598–632.Google Scholar
Holbraad, Carsten. 1984. Middle Powers in International Politics. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Hudson, Valerie M. 2005. Foreign Policy Analysis: Actor-Specific Theory and the Ground of IR. Foreign Policy Analysis 1, 1: 1–30.Google Scholar
Hurrell, Andrew, and Narlikar, Amrita. 2006. A New Politics of Confrontation? Global Society 20, 4: 415–33.Google Scholar
Hurrell, Andrew, Andrew Cooper, Guadalupe González, Sennes, Ricardo and Sitaraman, Srini. 2000. Paths to Power: Foreign Policy Strategies of Intermediate States. Working Paper 244. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center Latin American Program.Google Scholar
Jordaan, Eduard. 2003. The Concept of a Middle Power in International Relations: Distinguishing Between Traditional and Emerging Middle Powers. Politikon 30, 2: 165–81.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert. 1969. Lilliputians' Dilemmas: Small States in International Politics. International Organization 23, 2: 291–310.Google Scholar
Koening-Archibugi, Mathias. 2004. Explaining Government Preferences for Institutional Change in EU Foreign and Security Policy. International Organization 58, 1: 137–74.Google Scholar
Lasswell, Harold Dwight, and Kaplan, Abraham. 1950. Power and Society: A Framework for Political Inquiry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lima, Maria Regina, and Hirst, MÔnica. 2006. Brazil as an Intermediate State and a Regional Power: Action Choices and Responsibilities. International Affairs 82, 1: 21–40.Google Scholar
Lustig, Carola. 2016. Soft or Hard Power? Discourse Patterns in Brazil's Foreign Policy Toward South America. Latin American Politics and Society 58, 4 (Winter): 103–25.Google Scholar
Macdonald, Laura, and Paltiel, Jeremy. 2016. Middle Power or Muddling Power? Canada's Relations with Emerging Markets. Canadian Foreign Policy Journal 22, 1: 1–11.Google Scholar
Malamud, Andrés. 2011. A Leader Without Followers? The Growing Divergence Between Regional and Global Performance of Brazilian Foreign Policy. Latin American Politics and Society 53, 3: 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mares, David. 1988. Middle Powers Under Regional Hegemony: To Challenge or Acquiesce in Hegemonic Enforcement. International Studies Quarterly 32, 4: 453–71.Google Scholar
Nagel, Jack. 1975. The Descriptive Analysis of Power. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Narlikar, Amrita. 2003. International Trade and Developing Countries: Bargaining Coalitions in the GATT and WTO. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nolte, Detlef. 2006. Potencias regionales en la política internacional: conceptos y enfoques de análisis. GIGA Working Paper 30. Hamburg: German Institute of Global and Area Studies.Google Scholar
Nolte, Detlef. 2010. How to Compare Regional Powers: Analytical Concepts and Research Topics. Review of International Studies 36, 4: 881–901.Google Scholar
Nye, Joseph Jr. 1990. Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Patience, Allan. 2014. Imagining Middle Powers. Australian Journal of International Affairs 68, 2: 210–24.Google Scholar
Ping, Jonathan. 2005. Middle Power Statecraft: Indonesia, Malaysia and the Asia-Pacific. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Pratt, Cranford. 1990. Middle Power Internationalism and Global Poverty. In Middle Power Internationalism: The North-South Dimension, ed. Pratt, . Montreal/Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press. 3–24.Google Scholar
Ragin, Charles. 2006. Set Relations in Social Research: Evaluating Their Consistency and Coverage. Political Analysis 14, 3: 291–310.Google Scholar
Ragin, Charles. 2008. Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ravenhill, John. 1998. Cycles of Middle Powers Activism: Constraint and Choice in Australian and Canadian Foreign Policy. Australian Journal of International Affairs 54, 3: 309–27.Google Scholar
Ragin, Charles. 2014. Entrepreneurial Powers: A Draft Framework. Mimeograph.Google Scholar
Rihoux, Benoît, Rezsohazy, Ilona and Bol, Damien. 2011. Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) in Public Policy Analysis: An Extensive Review. German Policy Studies 7, 3: 9–92.Google Scholar
Rubenzer, Trevor. 2008. Ethnic Minority Interest Group Attributes and U.S. Foreign Policy Influence: A QCA Analysis. Foreign Policy Analysis 4: 169–85.Google Scholar
Schelling, Thomas. 1966 (2008). Arms and Influence. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Schneider, Carstein, and Wagemann, Claudius. 2012. Set-Theoretic Methods for the Social Sciences: A Guide to Qualitative Comparative Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sennes, Ricardo. 2003. As mudanças na política externa brasileira nos anos 80: uma potěncia media recém-industrializada. Porto Alegre: Editora UFRGS.Google Scholar
Spektor, Matias. 2006. The Middle Powers: Intermediate-State Strategies in World Politics. Unpublished mss.Google Scholar
Stokke, Olav. 2007. Qualitative Comparative Analysis, Shaming, and International Regime Effectiveness. Journal of Business Research 60: 501–11.Google Scholar
Stuenkel, Oliver. 2014. India-Brazil-South Africa Dialogue Forum (IBSA): The Rise of the Global South? New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stuenkel, Oliver, and Taylor, Matthew M.. 2015. Brazil on the Global Stage: Power, Ideas, and the Liberal International Order. London: Palgrave Macmillian.Google Scholar
Thies, Cameron, and Breuning, Marijke. 2012. Integrating Foreign Policy Analysis and IR Through Role Theory. Foreign Policy Analysis 8: 1–4.Google Scholar
Ungerer, Carl. 2007. The “Middle Power” Concept in Australian Foreign Policy. Australian Journal of Politics and History 53, 4: 538–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Westhuizen, Janis. 1998. South Africa's Emergence as a Middle Power. Third World Quarterly 19, 3: 435–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Westhuizen, Janis. 2013. Class Compromise as Middle Powers Activism? Comparing Brazil and South Africa. Government and Opposition 48, 1: 80–100.Google Scholar
Wood, Bernard. 1990. Towards North-South Middle Power Coalitions. In Middle Power Internationalism: The North-South Dimension, ed. Pratt, Cranford. Montreal/Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press. 69–107.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

de Sá Guimarães and de Almeida supplementary material

Appendix 1

Download de Sá Guimarães and de Almeida supplementary material(File)
File 123.7 KB
Supplementary material: File

de Sá Guimarães and de Almeida supplementary material

Appendix 2

Download de Sá Guimarães and de Almeida supplementary material(File)
File 59.1 KB