Mercedes Botto Andrea Carla Bianculli - Flacso

4. IMPACT EVALUATION: AN INITIAL COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
Along this section we will present a brief comparative analysis of both episodes in order to identify
their similarities and differences in terms of the agenda-setting process, the production of
knowledge, and its articulation with the policy-making process and utilization.
When thinking in terms of the agenda-setting process, both episodes share a similar paradigm,
which is clearly based on the idea promoted by international financial institutions – especially the
World Bank – that portray trade liberalization policies undertaken as a change of paradigm, as being
the unique possible solution to financial and economic crisis, and to growth problems as well.
Promoted by the global epistemic community, this vision would find support at the domestic level:
the economic and political elites were deeply convinced of the need of reform. However, the
strategies designed and implemented by the first two democratic governments – the Radical
administration, and the one led by the Peronist Party – would show important differences.
The administration headed by Raúl Alfonsín followed the reform path proposed by the World
Bank, but only partially. This government’s innovation was evident in the promotion of a trade
liberalization process based on bilateral negotiations and tariff preferences, precisely when at the
global level unilateral liberalization was actively promoted in order to deepen multilateralism. Thus,
the negotiations initiated with Brazil would be structured around a set of sectoral agreements,
which followed a clear logic of productive complementarity.
On the contrary, the following administration strictly and unquestionably followed the policy
recommendations of the so-called Washington Consensus, which mainly consisted of an
indiscriminate opening of the economy at all levels – unilateral, regional, and multilateral – together
with the establishment of high exchange rates. At the regional level, the logic of the integration
process with Brazil changed dramatically. Negotiations with Brazil, and with Paraguay and Uruguay
in order to create Mercosur, were only aimed at attaining a free trade zone and a zero tariff within a
period of five years. The proposal of creating a customs union would be brought about by the
larger partners – Argentina and Brazil – that clearly needed to establish a lock-in mechanism for the
trade liberalization already achieved, and to resist the pressures of protectionist sectors interested in
reversing the process.
When analyzing the academic production that influenced on the design of these strategies, both
experiences exhibit great similarities. In both cases, governments were faced with new challenges,
but they also lacked the basic expertise and information required to effectively implement these
transformations. This would not be the case with the private sector, where a reduced group
comprising the most concentrated industries that were in need of wider markets, had undergone a
“regional” learning process since the negotiations within LAIA. Unlike governments, these
companies had constructed continuity in time and had developed an increasing professionalization
of their staff members.
34