If one interprets China's sizable rise in Latin America as an unprecedented phenomenon, it follows that the concurrent story of declining U.S. influence in the region is an event hastily acknowledged at best and ignored at worst. In this article, we ask whether Chinese economic statecraft in Latin America is related to the declining U.S. hegemonic influence in the region and explore how. To do so we analyze foreign direct investments, bank loans, and international trade from 2003 to 2014, when China became a major player in the region. We use data from 21 Latin American countries, and find that an inversely proportional relationship exists between the investments made by Chinese state‐owned enterprises (SOEs), bank loans, manufacturing exports, and the U.S. hegemonic influence exerted in the region. In other words, Beijing has filled the void left by a diminished U.S. presence in the latter's own backyard.

The iden of an integrnted Lntin Americnn region goes bnck to the enrly postindependence period, and yet, in s11bstance, Lnti11 American regionalism /ms remained far be/1ind its stated nims. Tlie perceived implementntion gnp /ins rnised t/1e question why policymakers continued to talk abo11t something they nppenred to nvoid in prnctice. Tl1is nrticle contributes to the dehnte 011 Lntin America's i11tegrntion gnp btJ exploriug the phe110111e11011 of declarnfory regionnlism-tfze prnctice of referring to the region m1d its institutions in politicnl speeches. Bnsed 011 quantitative text annlysis of the speec/1es presidents delivered an1111nlly nt tlze UN's General Assembly bctween 1994 nnd 2014, we slww tlznt tllis prnctice /ins not bee11 uniform. Presidents distinguish between different forms of regionnlism, integrntion nnd cooperntion, and frnme the geogrnphical region tl1ey refer to nccordingly. /11 111otivnti11g presidents to spenk nbout integrntion ns opposed to cooperntion, ideology nnd democrntic performnnce stand out ns cr11cial fnctors. We would also like to indicate lhal lhe stalbtical resulls we show can be replicaled using lhe coding and database available at the following Harvard Dataverse link: https: //dataverse.harvard. cdu/datasct. xhtml?pcrsistcntld=doi%3Al0.7910"/o2FOVN%2FUCWKGC Tue authors would like to thank the

No abstract

Public opinion plays a growing role in foreign policy formation in democratic societies. In this study, we use survey data from The Americas and the World project to establish whether Latin Americans share a common regional identity, and regard Brazil as a regional leader. Our results indicate that the majority of Brazilians do not identify themselves as Latin Americans. Moreover, while they believe their country is the most suitable candidate for regional leadership, they are unwilling to bear the costs of assuming such a role. Our study also explores perceptions of regional identity and Brazilian leadership in other Latin American countries, based on their own respective power aspirations. It shows that less powerful Latin American nations recognise Brazil as a regional leader, but citizens in middle powers, like Argentina and Mexico, still believe their countries should play a prominent regional role.

This study investigates a novel dataset comprised of a universe of 537 donations in 33 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, between 11 February and 20 June 2020, which provides a high level of detail on China’s and Taiwan’s mask diplomacy. We describe who the main donors were, who the main recipients were, what was donated to each country, and which variables explain why some countries received more aid than others. Drawing on previous literature, the article advances understanding about the political determinants of these donations. Our findings revealed that, although seemingly uncoordinated, donations made by China’s central government, Chinese companies, cities, and foundations were strongly affected by two political determinants, namely the recipient’s partnership status with China and the One China Policy. Furthermore, aid provided by China’s Central Government was larger in autocracies than in democracies.