Regional Trade Agreements and the Pursuit of State Interests: Institutional Perspectives from NAFTA and Mercosur
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Are regional trade agreements (RTAs) carefully crafted projects that systematically advance their member states’ interests or do they instead generate outcomes that frustrate those interests? Works on the most prominent RTA - the European Union - have traditionally been split over this question. New research on international organizations parallels that literature. Combining rational choice and historical institutionalism, this article makes a middle-ground case: the limited rationality of national representatives and the complexity of RTAs ensure both the advancement and frustration of national interests. The focus is on shifting national preferences, the unpredictable implications of decisions over time and the pursuit of short-term gains to the benefit of some constituents but not others. Evidence from NAFTA and Mercosur supports these claims while highlighting, in line with recent scholarship, the need to include politics in institutionalist accounts of integration. The conclusion reflects on the findings and explores whether alternative, more flexible designs for RTAs might satisfy more fully the interests of the member states.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".