universidade federal de santa catarina pós-graduação em letras ...

136The main portion of the BR is then devoted to a political dispute between thereviewer’s (contrary) opinion about the possibilities of success of the European commonmarket and what the report says (favorably) about it. What follows the introductoryparagraph is a highly evaluative appraisal of the arguments present in the book (Move3), without any sense of sequential order of presentation that may suggest an idea of howthe book is organized, which is the defining characteristic of Move 2.I was frustrated as well by the organization of the book. There is substantialrepetition of arguments and findings. Yet often the information needed to assessa particular quantitative result is withheld until the second or third statement, oreven the appendix. Consider, for example, the bottom line estimate of the totaleconomic gain from completing the internal market. This figure (4.5-6.5 percentof GDP) is first mentioned in Part A, then again in Part E. But only in theappendix do we learn that the figure has been generated by adding togethercomponents derived from standard, comparative static calculations applied to amodel of a competitive, partial equilibrium, and those that purport to measure thebenefits from increased economies of scale and more intense oligopolisticcompetition. Of course, the latter benefits can arise only if the assumptions thatunderlie the first set of calculations are violated.The failure in associating stretches of the text with the model that attempts torepresent the information organization of exemplars of BRs can be credited to the factthat the new publication being reviewed is not, in fact, a book, but a report. Thus itsreview can be expected to present some variation from that of a book per se. In addition,according to the reviewer, the academic character of the publication is doubtful:But overall, the report struck me as much more an exercise in advocacy than anattempt at serious scholarship.