Mercedes Botto Andrea Carla Bianculli - Flacso

Brazil’s total exports, in the case of Argentina this stood at 80%. In qualitative terms, this increase
also benefited Argentina through the diversification of its export supply.
Nevertheless, this was a short-term process and one of limited scope. Different analyses emphasize
that even if the CGP led to an increase in productivity and a better use of installed capacity in both
countries, there were neither significant investments nor important transformations in the structure
of the national supply. In effect, difficulties in the availability and conditions of credit to acquire
capital goods and the perception that this was not definitive hindered the decision-making of
Argentine producers in the medium-term. In addition, the increase in bilateral trade – by 40%
between 1985 and 1988 – was circumscribed to certain sectors, particularly capital goods and wheat,
products of relative importance in macroeconomic terms. Most of the relevant productive sectors
had only a marginal or symbolical participation in the impact of the integration initiative. Moreover,
they did not seem to be interested in assuming a more active role in the near future. These included
the steel and iron industry, different branches of the food sector, and the automotive complex.
For many of those who took part in the narrated events, the PICE was the only experience where
academic results were the source, and, moreover, the unique source of knowledge and advice in the
trade policy decision-making process. This leads us to both the facilitating and inhibiting factors in
this particular research-policy relationship.
A first factor refers to the novelty. This issue was new not only for public officials but for the
private sector involved in the decision-making as well. It should be noted that these were the first
steps promoted by a democratic government after years of military dictatorship. Even if there had
been previous trade liberalization processes – the negotiation of tariff preferences within LAIA
during the 1970s – the military coup would then disarticulate these networks by breaking the
constitutional order and replacing public officials and cabinets. The only sectors that were involved
in this learning process were those related to the most concentrated sectors of the economy and
which also experienced a large economic growth during the military coup – such as the steel and
iron industry, or the automotive and petrochemical industries. However, these sectors did not
participate in the formulation or implementation of the CGP, which was limited to smaller sectors
and industries.
The second element that accounts for the influence academics had vis-à-vis other actors involved in
the decisional process refers to the relative poor capacity or ability of the sector to respond or
produce alternative strategies. In effect, the capital goods industry is not a concentrated sector in
Argentina. Unlike other sectors showing great political leverage – such as the steel and iron
industry, or the automotive and petrochemical industries – it is highly disarticulated and does not
have a strong and clear labour organization. This allowed the executive to design and implement
the sectoral opening without consulting with the actors involved.
Finally, a third element that can help us explain the leading role academia played in the formulation
and implementation of the liberalization process that was launched from 1986 to 1991 refers to the
integration model adopted. A selective, gradual and complementary approach to trade liberalization
24