Abstract
Purpose
– This paper aims to analyze Brazil’s governmental positions during two international conflicts involving major Brazilian firms and two South American countries: the nationalization of Petrobras in Bolivia in 2006 and the expulsion of Odebrecht from Ecuador in 2008. Brazil’s government officials showed themselves to be not only open to negotiations but also understanding and cooperative with Bolivia. The same policymakers, however, showed no trace of this accommodating behavior toward Ecuador. This paper focuses on the explanatory power of the ideas of the ruling Workers’ Party and sustains that this party has played a crucial role on shaping the current government–business relations in Brazil.
Design/methodology/approach
– This research applies process tracing analysis within two case studies; and content analysis to operationalize the concept “Workers’ Party’s ideas” using 14 Workers’ Party’s official documents. It investigates the circumstances under which political ideas guide policymaking.
Findings
– This work found a correlation between Workers’ Party’s ideas and Brazil’s governmental positions which first benefited Bolivian demands. On the other hand, these ideas found no representation during negotiations with Ecuador. To explain this variation, this study tested the link between uncertainty and influence of ideas. Uncertainty was both an “activating condition”, allowing ideas to come into play in policymaking, and a “magnifying condition” showing the dynamic relationship between the level of uncertainty and the level of influence of ideas.
Originality/value
– This study contributes to the evolving debate on business and government relations in Brazil by focusing on the role of ideas and interests on policymaking.
Subject
Business, Management and Accounting (miscellaneous),Business and International Management
Reference25 articles.
1. Barbosa, A.
(2008), A FIESP e o Estado Nacional, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo.
2. Béland, D.
and
Cox, H.
(2011), Ideas and Politics in Social Science Research, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
3. Blyth, M.
(2003), “Structures do not come with an instruction sheet: interests, ideas and progress in political science”, Perspectives on Politics, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 695-703.
4. BNDES
(2010), Relatório Anual 2009, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro.
5. Burges, S.
(2008), Brazilian Foreign Policy After the Cold War, Library Congress, University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Cited by
7 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献