In this article, we assess the methodological approaches employed in articles published in Brazilian and global mainstream IR journals in order to observe the differences between the two. To this end, we compare the methodological tools applied in research articles published in the top two Brazilian journals (Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional and Contexto Internacional) vis-à-vis two other top international influential mainstream publications (International Organization and World Politics), from the year 2009 to 2019. By undertaking a Systematic Literature Review, we surveyed a total of 955 articles. Our research concluded that Brazilian IR scholarship differs from the mainstream literature because (1) most articles do not mention the mobilized methods during their analyses, (2) the field of IR presents more non- and post-positivist approaches, and (3) contrary to the mainstream outlets, quantitative methods are rarely employed in Brazil.
Este trabalho se propõe a avançar, de uma maneira hipotética e dedutiva, no debate acerca do papel das OIs na difusão de políticas públicas. Através de uma análise das literaturas sobre organizações internacionais, análise de políticas públicas e difusão de políticas públicas, discutiremos o papel das seguintes variáveis no emprego dos diferentes instrumentos, por parte dessas organizações, para a difusão: (a) a atuação das OIs nos vários campos da intervenção governamental; (b) e nas distintas “etapas” do processo de produção das políticas; (c) os distintos temas, tipos e graus de democratização das OIs; (d) os níveis e formas de autoridade das mesmas.
The Brazilian field of international relations (IRs) has evolved over the course of two centuries. Since Brazil’s independence in 1822, international topics have deserved attention from local practitioners and scholars. The emergence of Brazilian standpoints about international affairs and of a Brazilian IR scholarship developed after the consolidation of similar fields in other Western countries. Multiple schools of thought held sway over local understandings, thereby leading to the formation of a different field as compared to characteristics of the Anglo-American mainstream. The institutionalization of the area has come about through the creation of scholarly departments and national government agencies. It all led to a unique combination of methods, theories, and issues being currently explored in the Brazilian branch of IR scholarship.
Far-right populist leaders often take office promising a revolution in policies. They project themselves as counterpoints to other political competitors and defend radical positions regarding a set of issues. These contents may include nationalistic–chauvinistic measures, antienvironmental attitudes, conservative postures toward human rights, and religious leaning. According to our framework, though, leaders will only be able to pursue sharp foreign policy changes in pluralistic societies if, first, they win internal disputes at policymaking venues. Second, some policies will depend on external support or, at least, the non-imposition of unsurmountable obstacles. An acute foreign policy change may occur if such “battles” are won—home and abroad. Otherwise, a few incremental and superficial shifts are the maximum outcomes these leaders can get. A within-case study on Bolsonaro's Brazil provides useful evidence for our argument.
This article introduces the concept of international clientelism and discusses how this diplomatic tool was employed by Venezuela under Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro as a means to get political support from several Latin American and Caribbean countries. We operationalize the concept and apply it to assess Venezuelan practices put forth in the region. We argue that the reach of Caracas’s diplomatic strategy is broader and deeper than that of simple vote-buying tactics, as it implies the promotion of structural rather than contingent ties, shielding the country against unfavorable moves in international fora. An empirical test using data for all LAC countries for the years 1999–2015 confirms that clientelistic linkages produced political support for Venezuela at the United Nations General Assembly while also moving its partners away from the United States in that institution.
This article argues that the political orientation of the government in office in a country may affect its discourse regarding the United Nations Peace Operations, using content analysis to compare what has been said by officials of leftist and rightist Latin American countries about peacekeeping in the UNSC, since the 1990s.
ResumoO artigo visa evidenciar que a orientação política de um governo pode afetar o posicionamento de um país em relação às Operações de Paz das Nações Unidas, através de uma comparação entre o que foi dito por oficiais de governos latino-americanos de esquerda e direita no Conselho de Segurança, desde os anos 1990.
O artigo pretende apresentar evidências sobre a consolidação das identidades e interações relacionadas à segurança entre os atores sul-americanos na forma de instituições regionais. Recorremos à análise das dinâmicas regionais em períodos diferentes, em quatro diferentes níveis de análise, visando entender como as mesmas interferiram nessa institucionalização.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.