http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7009-5952
![Sample our Global Development journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5929/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Global-Development.jpg"})
Abstract
Since the 1990s, Brazil’s foreign policy-making, traditionally a highly centralised and hierarchical process, has become more fragmented, plural and horizontal. In this context, the role of non-state actors has been increasingly relevant. The impact and significance of these actors have been however a matter of debate. While there are authors that consider that non-state actors play only a secondary role in the policy-making process, there are others that assert that these actors work alongside governmental actors and directly influence policy choices. Drawing on the concept of network governance, the paper proposes a different view from the two recurrent approaches in the literature mentioned above. It argues that the recent steps to transform Brazil’s state governance from hierarchy to horizontal networks have indeed expanded the room for the direct participation of non-state actors in the policy process. However, state authorities fought to adjust this tendency, in order to retain control over the decision-making process, by putting in place formal and informal coordinating mechanisms led by the Ministry of Foreign Relations and the Presidency. This suggests Brazil’s foreign policy was made in the shadow of hierarchy. The paper demonstrates the argument using the case of Brazil’s foreign policy towards China.
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank the editors of the Special Issue and organisers of the workshop ‘Rising Powers and State Transformation’ as well as the workshop participants for feedback on the article. The author is especially grateful to Shahar Hameiri and the three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and advice.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes
1 Hurrell, “Hegemony, Liberalism and Global Order”; Ikenberry and Wright, Rising Powers and Global Institutions; Narlikar, New Powers.
2 Flemes, “Network Powers.”
3 Hameiri and Jones, “Rising Powers and State Transformation.”
4 Ibid.
5 Scharpf and Mayntz, “Der Ansatz Des Akteurszentrierten Institutionalismus.”
6 Ibid.
7 Hameiri and Jones, “Rising Powers and State Transformation.”
8 Pinheiro and Milani, Política Externa Brasileira, 12; Faria, “Itamaraty and Brazilian Foreign Policy.”
9 Cason and Power, “Presidentialization, Pluralization, and the Rollback of Itamaraty.”
10 Pinheiro and Milani, Política Externa Brasileira, 12; Faria, “Itamaraty and Brazilian Foreign Policy.”
11 Milani and Pinheiro, “The Politics of Brazilian Foreign Policy,” 279.
12 Mesquita, “Sociedade Civil e Política Externa Brasileira.”
13 Moravcsik, “Why the European Union.”
14 Mayntz, “New Challenges to Governance Theory.”
15 Jessop, “The Rise of Governance.”
16 Ibid.
17 Kenis and Schneider, “Policy Networks and Policy Analysis,” 34; Mayntz, “New Challenges to Governance Theory.”
18 Jessop, State Power; Bevir, Democratic Governance; Marsh, “The New Orthodoxy.”
19 Hameiri and Jones, “Rising Powers and State Transformation,” 78.
20 Bevir, Democratic Governance, 25–6.
21 Hameiri and Jones, Governing Borderless Threats, 60.
22 Rhodes, “The Hollowing Out of the State.”
23 Jessop, State Power.
24 Bevir, “Governance as Theory, Practice, and Dilemma.”
25 Rhodes, “Understanding Governance.”
26 Bevir, “Governance and Governmentality,” 466.
27 Scharpf and Mayntz, “Der Ansatz Des Akteurszentrierten Institutionalismus.”
28 Slaughter, “America’s Edge.”
29 Jessop, “The Rise of Governance.”
30 Börzel and Heard-Lauréote, “Networks in EU Multi-Level Governance.”
31 Cason and Power, “Presidentialization, Pluralization, and the Rollback of Itamaraty,” 119.
32 Cervo, “Brazil in the Current World Order.”
33 Skidmore, Brazil, 109.
34 Hilton, “Vargas and Brazilian Economic Development.”
35 Figueira, Processo Decisório Em Política Externa No Brasil, 137; Faria, “Public Opinion and Foreign Policy,” 81.
36 Cervo and Bueno, História Da Política Exterior Do Brasil, 237.
37 Moura, O Instituto Rio Branco e a Diplomacia Brasileira.
38 Hilton, “Vargas and Brazilian Economic Development”; Cervo and Bueno, História Da Política Exterior Do Brasil.
39 Schmalz, “The Brazilian Economic Policy,” 266.
40 S⊘rensen and Torfing, Theories of Democratic Network Governance.
41 Diniz and Bresser-Pereira, “Industrial Entrepreneurs”; Boito and Saad-Filho, “State, State Institutions, and Political Power.”
42 Diniz and Bresser-Pereira, “Industrial Entrepreneurs.”
43 Cardoso and Winter, The Accidental President of Brazil, 233.
44 Figueira, Processo Decisório Em Política Externa No Brasil, 154.
45 Cervo and Bueno, História Da Política Exterior Do Brasil, 456.
46 Barros, “A Execução Da Política Externa Brasileira,” 18.
47 Figueira, Processo Decisório Em Política Externa No Brasil, 156–7; França and Sanchez, “A Horizontalização Da Política Externa Brasileira.”
48 Cervo and Bueno, História Da Política Exterior Do Brasil, 456.
49 Cervo, “Brazil in the Current World Order,” 37.
50 Boschi, “Estado Desenvolvimentista No Brasil.”
51 Figueira, Processo Decisório Em Política Externa No Brasil, 163.
52 Saraiva, “Continuidade e Mudança Na Política Externa Brasileira.”
53 Mello, “Ninguém Quer Sair Na Foto Com o Brasil.”
54 Hearn et al., China Engages Latin America.
55 Cardoso, “Network Governance and the Making.”
56 Ibid.
57 Armijo, “The Public Bank Trilemma.”
58 Interview with Ricardo Schaefer, MDIC’s Deputy Secretary, conducted by the author in Brasilia 2012.
59 Zweig and Jianhai, “China’s Global Hunt for Energy.”
60 Garcia, “Política Externa Brasileira”; Amorim, “Brazilian Foreign Policy,” 232–7.
61 Silva, “Discurso de Posse.”
62 Agência Estado, “Conselho Empresarial Brasil–China.”
63 Interview conducted by the author in Rio de Janeiro, December 2012.
64 Dantas, “BNDES Repensa Estratégia Nacional.”
65 Ibid.
66 MDIC-Brazil, “Agenda China Será Lançada.”
67 Interview with a former member of CEBC, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 4 December 2012.
68 Interview with Wladimir Pomar, former president of ICOOI, conducted by the author in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, December 2012.
69 MDIC-Brazil, “Estratégia Da Apex-Brasil.”
70 COPPE, “Coppe e Universidade de Tsinghua.”
71 US Embassy in Brasilia, “Scene Setter.”
72 BNDES, “BNDES Assina Contratos de R$4,5.”
73 BNDES, “BNDES Assina Contrato de Financiamento.”
74 Reuters, “BNDES Libera R$7,3 Bi Para.”
75 Pamplona, “LLX Consegue Financiamento”; LLX Logística SA, “LLX Aumentará Capital.”
76 LLX Logística SA, “Açu Superport Industrial Complex”; Philips, “Brazil’s Highway to China.”
77 Cardoso, “Network Governance and the Making.”
78 Cordeiro, “Fiesp Quer Proteger a Indústria Brasileira.”
79 A safeguard is an ‘emergency’ measure taken on a non-selective basis in order to restrict temporarily imports of a product.
80 Nunes, “Fiesp Quer Mudar MP 232.”
81 Agência Brasil, “Presidente da CNI pede salvaguarda.”
82 Agência Indusnet FIESP, “Seminário Internacional”; Machado, “Evento Na Fiesp.”
83 Silva and Amaral, “Perspectivas Da Gestão Pública No Brasil,” 7.
84 Department of Trade Defense, “DECOM Report.”
85 Cardoso, “Network Governance and the Making.”
86 Interview with Ricardo Schaefer, MDIC’s Deputy Secretary, conducted by the author in Brasilia 2012.
87 Correio 24horas, “Governo Cria Grupo China.”
88 Boschi, “Estado Desenvolvimentista No Brasil.”
89 Spring, “Bolsonaro’s Anti-China Rants.”
90 Rhodes, “Understanding Governance,” 9.
Additional information
Funding
Notes on contributors
Daniel Cardoso
Daniel Cardoso is a postdoctoral fellow and a Guest Assistant Professor at IPRI-NOVA University of Lisbon and a Guest Assistant Professor at the University of Coimbra, Portugal. He Holds a PhD in Political Science and International Relations from Free University of Berlin, Germany. His research interests revolve around public policymaking, governance and the interplay between domestic and international politics.