Mercedes Botto Andrea Carla Bianculli - Flacso

5. SOME FINAL REMARKS
The case selection focused on two key moments in the process of trade liberalization launched by
Argentina in the mid-1980s. The first episode, which took place in 1988, was a process of gradual
change, where trade liberalization would be promoted through a strategy of selective integration
with Brazil. The second episode refers to the negotiation initiated in 1991, and which was intended
to attain an indiscriminate and abrupt liberalization by means of the integration process within
Mercosur. This would finally lead to the establishment of a customs union. Comparison between
these two episodes of policy change turns out to be of interest since they both show contrasting
results in terms of the academic influence on the decision-making process. While in the first case
study, academy had a rather important impact on the definition of the strategy and the final
mechanism that would promote sectoral integration, in the second case, academic production, even
if larger in number, had no impact on the final negotiation.
Five main conclusions emerge from this comparative analysis. In the first place, the window of
opportunity opened for the influence of local academia was relatively small. During the
liberalization process initiated in the 1980s, the influence of academia has been only relative and has
remained circumscribed to the implementation of the new policy paradigm. As the trade
liberalization process advanced, the episodes and window of opportunities for the participation of
academia tend to reduce and diminish. In this sense, the comparative analysis shows a larger
participation of the academia in terms of the definition of the strategy and the mechanisms in the
first episode, than in the second one, where academic production regarding trade policy issues was
largely limited to the design of the CET. Certainly, this is not an unimportant aspect since it would
contribute to the definition of which sectors or companies would be the losers and winners within
this new phase of the integration process.
Secondly, the analysis of these two episodes provides strong evidence regarding the different roles
academia and empirical research can play in terms of the trade policy decision-making process. The
most well-known role refers to providing information and proposing alternative solutions to the
given problems, either by means of academic or technical knowledge, or through argumentation.
Academia can also contribute with its ability to favour dialogue between the different stakeholders
by providing a neutral arena for the debate of conflictive interests – being the CGP a good example
of this. A third contribution refers to the fact that empirical research can give voice or amplify the
demands of those sectors traditionally disregarded, and bring to light the darkest and most secret
aspects of trade negotiations. This role is found – though still at an embryonic stage – in the CET
debate and negotiation, where academic production legitimized the participation of new public and
private actors – namely, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the chamber of chemical and
petrochemical industries, respectively – in a process that until then had remained circumscribed to
the Ministry of Economy. Closely related to this, the two cases under examination portray the
different ways in which research can turn out be of use to policy-makers, and influence thus their
decisions.
38