One of the opening observations at this International Workshop was that the shape of transatlantic relations is gradually changing with the emergence of a new global order, and that an upshot of this process is the opportunity to create a “Southern Atlanticism”, which hinges on extending traditional North Atlantic ties to Latin America (and potentially to some areas of the African continent). Whilst drawing its inspiration from the positive experience of postwar Euro-American relations, this possible new grouping will naturally need to take into account the many differences, such that the European model of closer institutionalized regional integration, although it may offer some useful pointers, cannot provide a ready-made template. One of the peculiarities of the Latin American region is the relatively greater influence of Brazil, which in economic and demographic terms is by far the major power, making it a natural choice as leader, but at the same time creating undeniable difficulties in managing any multilateral agreement. The history of Mercosur is testament both to the tendency to exploit the benefits of regulated partnership, and to the limitations of regional integration processes. One of the obstacles standing in the way of closer and more binding agreements is the paramount importance ascribed to national sovereignty by almost all the countries of the region, which to some extent has even been exacerbated by the global economic slowdown.
Another key characteristic of Latin America underlined by the participants is the region’s internal diversity, including in terms of recent policy responses to global economic challenges. Whilst there is now a stronger basic consensus than in the past, there is some divergence of approach – in the wake of the overall renewed dynamism of the region – as regards certain economic policy formulas. In addition, complex internal factors inevitably play an important role within democratic systems, at times giving rise to shifts and inconsistencies in the choices of leaders.
Looking specifically at Brazil, it was noted that the country is in the midst of a delicate transition phase, the most conspicuous features of which are the nation’s huge potential for growth and its burgeoning middle class. Yet the country is also marked by the well-known problems of socio-economic inequalities and uncertainty regarding the sustainability of its rapid growth rates in a global economic climate that is far from propitious. The Brazilian market is still fairly closed, but the ability of – especially economic – elites to forge international links has improved thanks to growing business success. Hence, opportunities to gain experience and know-how are increasing, even though the country is still lacking in technical and scientific facilities, and more generally, in infrastructure. In particular, there are many gaps in education that hamper overall potential, including vis-à-vis some of the other emerging economies.
Concerns were also raised with specific reference to the financial sector. Indeed, it was suggested that in the event of a new global financial shock, even the undeniable progress made in recent years on the budgetary and monetary stabilization fronts could prove insufficient to protect the economy from serious repercussions.
An issue highlighted as crucial by the participants in relation to both Latin America and the rest of the world was the growth of large companies and the relationship between the state and the market that this entails. It was observed that the development model adopted by Brazil, as well as by other Latin American countries, has clearly tasked government with a key role in supporting the growth of certain large corporate groups – a legacy which now weighs heavily on the relationship between the public and private sectors. In this respect, the approach taken by the region and many emerging economies has been almost the opposite of that of the more advanced economies, in which the 1980s and 1990s saw a contraction in the public sector, or at least an effort to allow the private sector a greater degree of autonomy.
It was therefore suggested that efforts are needed to make the state a more efficient regulator and a less intrusive player in the economy – an essential step if the incidence of corruption, and the misallocation of resources that ensues as a consequence, are to be reduced.
