busi 464

Running head: DB FORUM THREE – SOUTH AMERICAN RTA 0

DB Forum Three: South American RTAs

Conner Linde

BUSI 464-B01

Liberty University

Respectfully submitted to Dr. Hammett

February 1, 2017

South American RTAs:

Long unwelcoming to any form of international trade, the nations of South America are in the process of strengthening the continent’s negotiating position by integrating their economies through trade (Lynch, 2010, pp. 88-89). Though regional and national tensions still exist, the continent has come together by means of two primary trade agreements, MERCOSUR and the Andean Community of Nations (CAN). Though they are unique from one another, these two agreements, together, attract the membership of the majority of the South American nations, yet there are a notable few nations that belong to neither. The distinctions, benefits, and disadvantages of the agreements illustrate well the current standing of South American international trade and consideration of those independent nations is indeed intriguing.

MERCOSUR

MERCOSUR, with the greater economic weight behind it (Lynch, 2010, p. 87), is currently officially made up of four full member nations and six associate member nations (Lynch, 2010, p. 113). Considered the world’s fourth largest trading bloc, MERCOSUR has incredible potential for making a lasting impact in South America, yet it has not been very sluggish in doing so (Downey, 2014, p. 1178). While MERCOSUR definitely has substantially lowered the trade barriers of its full member nations, it does have ambitious goals of completely lowering trade barriers, further integrating its member nations, becoming a common market (Lynch, 2010 p. 115), and strengthening South America within the global economy and “it has not made substantial progress aligning its policies, thereby hindering its progress” (Downey, 2014, p. 1178). These conflicted agendas have caused MERCOSUR to progress very slowly towards its ambitious goals. Though MERCOSUR has the magnitude of a juggernaut, momentum is still needed to actually accomplish that which it has set out to accomplish.

Andean Community of Nations (CAN)

Originally intended to become an Andean common market, the Andean Community of Nations (CAN) has become “one of the most institutionalized regional agreements among developing nations” (Lynch, 2010, p. 99). Though integration slowed during the 1970s, CAN has continued to bridge cultural and national divides, resolving disputes and bringing peace to many of its member nations (Lynch, 2010, p. 99). However, CAN’s primary member nations all rely heavily upon agriculture and remain poor, with a high percentage of their populations living in poverty (Morles, 2012). This creates a dependence, first of all, upon the nation’s current agricultural capacity, and secondly, upon imported external goods. This is problematic, however, if each of the primary member nations are experiencing the same needs and none are able to provide it. Additionally, as one of the most institutionalized RTAs, CAN is incredibly strict when it comes to its member nations adhering to the policies set forth by the community and enforced by the Andean Tribunal of Justice (Phelan, 2015). Failure to adhere to such standards can result in severe discipline including high tariff sanctions on goods from the noncompliant nation. While such actions help to maintain the order of the RTA, the centralized power has caused or aggravated may conflicts within CAN.

While a large number of South American nations belong to either MERCOSUR or CAN, there are several that don’t belong to either. Among these nations are Chile, Guyana, Suriname, and French Guyana. While these nations obviously have their own individual histories and reasons for remaining independent from MERCOSUR and CAN, it is imperative to note that each of the nations’ reasons can be explained either as a discontentment with the slow, disjointed, and ineffective processes of MERCOSUR or the overbearing, centralized, institutionalism of CAN. Both agreements’ weaknesses provide unique challenges, causing nations like Chile to avoid such issues by remaining independent or unattached.

Many Christians have a similar approach to denominations. It is attractive to some to join a non-denominational church because, in their opinion, denominations are either too chaotic and ineffective, changing its stance on issues when influential individuals persuade them to do so, or because they are too institutionalized and disciplinarian. Denominations can either be fluid to the point of chaotic relativism or strict to the point of exclusion. Those who favor a non-denominational church may do so because of these weaknesses. Because humans are not perfect, no church or denomination will ever be perfect, either. However, Christ desires that those who gather in His name seek a balance between these two extremes. The Bible teaches that churches are to appropriately discipline its members (Matthew 18:15-20, 1 Corinthians 5), yet also embrace the unique distinctions of its members, embracing their gifts, perspectives, and individuality for what they are worth within Christ’s body and as His child (Galatians 3, 1 Corinthians 12:12-31). Though this balance is a difficult one to strike, it is one that is worth striving for, whether it is as a body of believers or as a group of nations within an RTA.

References

Downey, C. (2014). MERCOSUR: A cautionary tale. The International Business & Economics Research Journal (Online), 13(5), 1177-n/a. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/docview/1562445077?accountid=12085

Lynch, D. A. (2010). Trade and globalization: An introduction to regional trade agreements. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Morles, G. (2012). CATASTROPHE LURKS IN SOUTH AMERICA: TAINTED FOOD AND INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE IN THE ANDEAN COMMUNITY OF NATIONS. Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce, 39(2), 411-439. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/docview/1033048894?accountid=12085

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