Regionalism, Multilateralism, and Sovereign Debt: Observations from a Latin Americanist
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper posits a powerful mutuality of interests between global multilateralism and independent regionalism in the global South. The more-or-less liberal international order established following the Second World War struggles to retain political and financial support from advanced industrial countries. Since the underlying source of this tension reflects a structural shift in the interstate distribution of power capabilities toward rising global multipolarity, the only viable medium-term solution for peak multilateralism is achieving greater legitimacy among a wider field of countries. Greater innovativeness is a second benefit to central multilateralism of expanded regional access: important international policy challenges are not “seen” until those who experience them have sufficient voice. The counterpart challenge within the global South is the frustration of policy entrepreneurs from small and intermediate powers. Most recognize the need for prior interest-aggregation to exercise influence in peak international organizations where great powers dominate. However, effective regionalism, a perennial and obvious choice for non-great powers, in practice has been difficult, especially in Latin America. Yes, one explanation is vicious partisan squabbling in the neighborhood, but subtle, structural factors also undermine cooperation, as a quick comparison with Europe demonstrates. In this context, “regionalism” is best conceptualized as a mix of formal organizations and regionally-based transnational epistemic communities or activist networks. A case study of Latin America-focused policy entrepreneurship over several decades around the global financial governance of currency and sovereign debt illustrates these observations.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".