Brazil’s entrepreneurial power in world politics: The role of great powers and regional politics for successful entrepreneurship
| Published date | 01 December 2018 |
| Date | 01 December 2018 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0020702018810876 |
| Author | Feliciano de Sá Guimarães,Maria Herminia de Almeida |
| Subject Matter | Scholarly Essays |
Scholarly Essay
Brazil’s entrepreneurial
power in world politics:
The role of great powers
and regional politics
for successful
entrepreneurship
Feliciano de Sa
´Guimara
˜es
Institute of International Relations, University of Sa
˜o Paulo,
Sa
˜o Paolo, Brazil
Maria Herminia de Almeida
Brazilian Center for Analysis and Planning (CEBRAP);
Institute of International Relations, University of Sa
˜o Paulo,
Sa
˜o Paolo, Brazil
Abstract
In this paper, we apply the concept of entrepreneurial powers to analyze Brazil’s par-
ticipation and influence in international crises. Following Ravenhill (this journal issue),
we consider three dimensions of entrepreneurship: (a) the intention to convince others
according to an actor’s interests; (b) the use of skilful politicians and bureaucracies to
persuade partners; and (c) a proactive foreign policy that ‘‘sells’’ its position regarding
the issues at stake. We argue that two other factors should be considered for a more
encompassing view of entrepreneurial powers. First, the position of the involved great
power on the crisis or in its negotiation. Second, that regional politics matter to entre-
preneurial powers. We develop our argument using two case studies of success and
failure respectively: the 1995 Cenepa War between Peru and Ecuador mediated by
Brazil, and the 2010 Iranian nuclear deal sponsored by Brazil and Turkey.
Keywords
Entrepreneurial powers, middle powers, Brazilian foreign policy, Cenepa War, Iranian
nuclear deal
International Journal
2018, Vol. 73(4) 518–534
!The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0020702018810876
journals.sagepub.com/home/ijx
Corresponding author:
Feliciano de Sa
´Guimara
˜es, University of Sa
˜o Paulo, Institute of International Relations, Av. Prof. Lu
´cio
Martins Rodrigues, s/n, travessas 4 e 5, Sa
˜o Paulo, Sa
˜o Paulo, 05508020, Brazil.
Email: felicianosa@usp.br
Introduction
Entrepreneurial powers are those states attempting to gain support of others to
advance their interests in the international system. They are proactive states that
‘‘sell’’ their policies to others to gain support. Due to their constrained agency
capacities, they rely on skilful and relatively large bureaucratic institutions capable
of building coalitions abroad according to their aims. These bureaucracies can also
rely on competent individuals and politicians that are able to convince others to
follow the country’s positions and values. Hence, the central aspect of this defin-
ition is the capacity of cajoling and attracting followers with the focus on how such
initiatives are developed and accomplished.
1
In this paper, we examine Brazil’s entrepreneurship in two cases: the 1995
Cenepa War between Peru and Ecuador, and the 2010 Teheran agreement.
In both scenarios, Brazil played the role of mediator trying to convince all sides
to reach a feasible agreement in security-related crises. In the first case, Brazil
managed to convince both sides to find a solution, whereas in the second, the
agreement failed. The comparison is relevant to the discussion on entrepreneurship
because, in both cases, all attributes of entrepreneurship were present, but in only
one instance Brazil’s endeavour can be considered successful. In both cases, Brazil
used its renowned foreign policy bureaucracy—Itamaraty—and the help of power-
ful and skilful politicians—presidents Fernando Henrique Cardoso and Luis Ina
´cio
Lula da Silva—but only in the regional crisis did it manage to strike a deal. Brazil
has constantly sought to attract other countries closer to its preferences, and was
always proactive in ‘‘selling’’ its position for both peace agreements, but in only
one scenario did Brazil succeed.
This is an apparent puzzle to the entrepreneurship concept. That is, if all aspects
of entrepreneurship were present in both crises, then why in only one did Brazil
manage to gain full support from others? What factors led its handling of
the Teheran case to fail and its handling of the Cenepa crisis to succeed?
Our argument is that, despite similar tools of entrepreneurship, two other con-
textual factors should be considered to gain a more encompassing view of the
concept. First, the position of the great power involved in the crisis. The entrepre-
neurship equation is incomplete if one does not include great power preferences
and behaviour, because the costs of opposing a dominant power can undermine the
entrepreneurial power’s capacity to cajole new partners. Others might consider
that following an entrepreneurial power that opposes a great power represents
too much of a risk. So, success is never accomplished solely by shrewd agency.
There are always environmental conditions, very often related to the dominant
power’s behaviour, that constrain the entrepreneurial country despite its intentions
and initiatives.
Focusing on issues of entrepreneurship may give us a different and more
dynamic perspective on the challenges faced by intermediate countries aiming at
1. See John Ravenhill, ‘‘Entrepreneurial states: A framework for analysis,’’ in this issue of
International Journal.
Guimara
˜es and de Almeida 519
To continue reading
Request your trial