busi 464

In 1988, Argentina's and Brazil's government joined into a free trade agreement that would eventually lead into the MERCOSUR, which was established in 1991. Members of MERCOSUR are Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Venezuela. It's main goal was to create a common market, but also to establish and incorporate economic and political agreements. The MERCOSUR is integrated regionally and its members committed to integrating "their external trade policies and adopt a common tariff and nontariff barriers on imports from nonmember nations" (Downey, 2014). Through this, the countries were hoping to create competitive advantage through increased efficiencies and taking full advantage of their similar geographic locations. MERCOSUR also assessed bankruptcy laws and procedures in order to ensure creditors are prioritized, and therefore protected. Member nations share a similar culture and language, that could be a huge advantage in creating economical growth and strength, especially compared with other trade blocs. In the beginning, MERCOSUR was economically successful as "trade between the four members quadrupled" (Downey, 2014). However, in 1998 and 1999, Brazil suffered an economic downturn. Because of the interconnectedness the entire trade bloc suffered. The trade bloc suffered many disagreements amongst themselves and member countries began isolating. The only way a bloc with this concept could be successful is through coordination and unification. For example, Uruguay and Paraguay prefer decreased barriers, while Brazil and Argentina want higher tariffs. Due to such circumstances member countries began developing their own economical separated paths. For example, Brazil's own direct relationship with China, through exports, and Cuba, through medical exchanges, has increased. Some South American countries have chosen not to join MERCOSUR because the unification issue and when one country suffers, like in the case of Brazil, the entire trade bloc suffers.

Some studies suggest the Andean Community of Nations was designed as a replica of the European Union in an attempt to experiment and compare the framework in another section of the globe. This trade block started as the Andean Pact in 1969 as a regional trade agreement between Bolivia, Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, and Peru. In 1996 it was renamed the Andean Community. Its economic policy has changed throughout the years. It began from as an "import substitution system with high tariffs and restrictions on foreign investment, towards a more liberal integrationist model" (Phelan, 2015). While the Andean Community has become liberal, they have struggled to obtain a common external tariff. They have also attempted tax harmonization. One of the Andean Community's greatest strengths is its ability to make joint policy decisions that address both trade and other policy issues across its member states. While this is their greatest strength, it also comes with a lot of politics, which is one of the reasons some South American countries have chosen not to join.

I believe Christians select to be Non-Denominational versus Denominational for a few reasons. One, denominational churches tend to have a negative reputation and feel as it is hindering their own Christian development, as well as the true purpose of Christians. Two, there is too much politics and fighting in denominations. Three, not only is there too much politics within the denomination, but denominations against denominations.

References:

Downey, C. (2014). MERCOSUR: A cautionary tale. The International Business & Economics Research Journal (Online), 13(5), 1177.

Gomez‐Mera, L., & Molinari, A. (2014). Overlapping institutions, learning, and dispute initiation in regional trade agreements: Evidence from south america. International Studies Quarterly, 58(2), 269-281. doi:10.1111/isqu.12135

Phelan, W. (2015). Enforcement and escape in the andean community: Why the andean community of nations is not a replica of the european union: Enforcement and escape in the andean community. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 53(4), 840-856. doi:10.1111/jcms.12222