Foreign Policy Analysis in (and on) Brazil: towards the consolidation of the use of middle-range theories
Keywords:
Brazil, Brazilian Foreign Policy, Foreign Policy Analysis, comparative analysis, middle-range theoriesCopyright (c) 2022 Mónica Salomón, Feliciano De Sá Guimarães
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Abstract
The article reviews the Brazilian academic contribution to the sub-discipline of Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA) over the last twenty years published in the main Brazilian and Anglo-Saxon journals. We argue that the Brazilian academic production in FPA should continue focusing on producing middle-range theories. We note that, more recently, as occurs in the global sub-discipline of FPA, the Brazilian academy has opted for medium-range theorization (as opposed to that linked to the great paradigms of International Relations), that is, focused on the elaboration of models aimed at well-defined empirical problems that can be more easily verified. Our review shows a harmony between the Brazilian sub-discipline of FPA and the Anglo-Saxon core. The Brazilian academic community very often uses FPA instruments rather than relying upon IR's great theoretical paradigms (Realism, Liberalism, Marxism).
In the last two decades (more in the last one than in the previous one) the efforts to use and also, to a lesser extent, propose medium-range theories clearly framed FPA research in and on Brazil. In fact, even the previous production, not so committed to the development of theoretical models, had accumulated theorizing comparable to eclectic medium-range theorizing. This article briefly presents the typical middle-range theorization (which not a few authors in the area defend as the ideal one), then it exposes the factors that explain the remarkable growth of Brazilian production on foreign policy in the last two decades, and lastly, it points out the main trends in the local production in the sub-area. In addition to gauging the growth in the use of FPA models and concepts and verifying the preference for medium-range theorizing in Brazil, we identify the research areas that present a greater density: the use of models on actors and decision-making processes and those focused on the role of ideas (including norms and identities) in foreign policy.
We also detect that the study of public opinion in foreign policy on the one hand and the research that connects the FPA to Public Policy Analysis on the other have good development potential. We point out some recent efforts by Brazilian scholars to build original models replicable in other contexts. The first is the set of articles published in 2017 in International Affairs around the concept of the "graduation dilemma" (Milani, Pinheiro and Lima, 2017; Milani, da Conceição and M'Bunde, 2017; Harig and Kenkel, 2017). The authors build the concept by taking into account (1) the scope of the international ambition of decision-makers, the material capacities of the country, and the permissiveness of the system; (2) the possible contradictions related to the expectations of the international and domestic public in relation to the country’s identity; (3) the uncertainty associated with unforeseen results and perceptions of third countries in relation to political decisions. We consider that the authors have constructed a typical middle-range theory, in which an empirical problem (the dilemma) guides the construction of a more general concept and analysis model. The second example is the article published in Latin American Politics and Society by Feliciano Guimarães and Maria Herminia Tavares de Almeida (2017), in which the authors seek to refine the discussions on the controversial concept of "middle power" by coining that of entrepreneurial powers, a more specific sub-concept referred to the performance of this category of countries in international crises. Like the previous example, the model has the potential to be replicated beyond the case of Brazil. Our third example is the article published in Foreign Policy Analysis (2022) resulting from the collaboration of three Brazilian researchers (Pedro Feliu Ribeiro, Dawisson Belem Lopes and Guilherme Casarões with the Argentine researcher based in the United Kingdom Luis Schenoni (Schenoni, Ribeiro, Belém Lopes and Casarões, 2022). Starting from the paradigmatic case of Brazil, the authors model the situation they call “overstretch”, described as one in which the costs of a foreign policy strategy far exceed the means available to implement it, and the eventual benefits of it.
Thus, the recent use of middle-range theorizing in Brazil is, in our opinion, a positive trend, because it favors the replication of models in other regional environments beyond Latin America and the internationalization of national production. Our positive view of the Brazilian trend toward middle-range theorizing is based on three reasons. First, eclectic theorization focused on specific problems largely avoids the ideological biases of the great theoretical narratives of IR (which would anyhow be difficult for the North to accept coming from the South). Second, as the middle-range models are potentially replicable (which does not mean universal) in other regional environments beyond Latin America, the accumulation of knowledge is facilitated, especially in Global South contexts where research fragmentation frequently takes place. Third, middle-range theorizing allows taking advantage of concepts and arguments (on autonomy/dependence, relations with the US and other powers, among others) already present in traditional discussions (academic and pre-academic) on Brazilian foreign policy.
In sum, our review of the local production allowed us to identify the main trends in its evolution in recent decades: a significant increase in analyzes that use concepts and models from the academic sub-discipline of FPA; preference, as in FPA, for middle-range theorizing as opposed to that based on the great paradigms of International Relations; greater concentration of research on models on actors and their decision-making process; respectable production on the role of ideas (including norms and identities) in foreign policy; incipient research, but with growth potential, on public opinion and research that connects FPA to public policy analysis. Those trends and the examples of indigenous middle-range theorizing with good potential for use in comparative studies allow us to glimpse a change in the international division of labor in the academic market and, specifically, the role of the Brazilian academy in that market. Many local scholars seem to have realized that, to become an international reference for high-quality research in FPA, they need to look beyond Brazil and Latin America.
Downloads
References
Albuquerque, F. L. (2019). Coalition making and norm shaping in Brazil’s foreign policy in the climate change regime. Global Society, 33 (2), 243-261.
Alejandro, A. (2018). Western dominance in international relations? The internationalisation of IR in Brazil and India. Routledge.
Allison, G. T. (1969). Conceptual models and the Cuban missile crisis. American Political Science Review, 63 (3), 689-718.
Allison, G. T. (1971). Essence of decision: explaining the Cuban missile crisis. Little, Brown and Company.
Amorim Neto, O. y Malamud, A. (2015). What determines foreign policy in Latin America? Systemic versus domestic factors in Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico, 1946–2008. Latin American Politics and Society, 4 (57), 1-27.
Arbilla, J. M. (2000). Arranjos institucionais e mudança conceitual nas políticas externas argentina e brasileira (1989-1994). Contexto Internacional, 22 (2), 337-383.
Baum, M. y Potter, Ph. B. K. (2019). Media, Public Opinion, and Foreign Policy in the Age of Social Media. Journal of Politics, 81 (2), 1-31.
Casarões, G. S. P. (2018). The evolution of Brazilizan foreign policy studies: four perspectives. En Ames, B. (Ed.). Routledge Handbook of Brazilian Politics (pp. 406-429). Routledge.
Carlsnaes, W. (2002). Foreign policy. En Carlsnaes, W., Risse-Kappen, T. y Simmons, B. A. (Eds.). Handbook of International Relations (pp.331-350). Sage.
Cervo, A. L. (2008). Conceitos em relações internacionais. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, 51 (2), 8-25.
Checkel, J. T. (2013). Theoretical pluralism in IR: possibilities and limits. En Carlsnaes, W., Risse, T. y Simmons, B. (Eds.). Handbook of International Relations (pp. 220-241). Sage.
Clarke, M. y White, B. (Eds.) (1990). Understanding foreign policy: the foreign policy systems approach. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Cox, R. (1987). Production, power, and world order: social forces in the making of history. Columbia University Press.
Cruz, M. M. (1987). Política externa brasileira: três autores em questão. Contexto Internacional, 6, 125-137.
Faria, C. A. P., Nogueira, J. L. M. y Lopes, D. B. (2012). Coordenação intragovernamental para a implementação da política externa brasileira: o caso do Fórum IBAS. Dados, 55 (1), 175-220.
Figueira, A. R; (2010). Rupturas e continuidades no padrão organizacional e decisório do Ministério das Relações Exteriores. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, 53 (2), 5-22.
Fonseca, G. (1987). Studies on international relations in Brazil: recent times (1950-80). Millennium, 16 (2), 273-280.
George, A. (1967). The “operational code”. A neglected Approach to the Study o Political Leaders and Decision-Making. RAND Corporation.
Giacalone, R. (2012). Latin American foreign policy analysis: external influences and internal circumstances. Foreign Policy Analysis, 8 (4), 335-354.
Goldstein, J. y Keohane, R. O. (1993). Ideas and foreign policy: beliefs, institutions, and political change. Cornell University Press.
Gonçalves, F. N. y Pinheiro, L. (2020). Análise de Política Externa. O que estudar e por quê. Intersaberes.
Guimarães, F. S. y Almeida, M. H. T. (2017). From middle powers to entrepreneurial powers in world politics: Brazil’s successes and failures in international crises. Latin American Politics and Society, 59 (4), 26-46.
Guimarães, F.; Fernandes, I. y Maldonado, G. (2020). Domestic Attitudes toward Regional Leadership: A Survey Experiment in Brazil. Foreign Policy Analysis, 16 (1), 98-117.
Guimarães, F. S. y Maitino, M. E. (2019). Socializing Brazil into regional leadership: The 2006 bolivian gas crisis and the role of small powers in promoting master roles transitions. Foreign Policy Analysis, 15 (1), 1-20.
Harig, C. y Kenkel, K. M. (2017). Are rising powers consistent or ambiguous foreign policy actors? Brazil, humanitarian intervention and the ‘graduation dilemma’. International Affairs, 93 (3), 625-641.
Hermann, C. F. (1990). Changing course: when governments choose to redirect foreign policy. International Studies Quarterly, 34 (1), 3-21.
Hermann, M. y Hermann, C. (1989). Who makes foreign policy decisions and how: an empirical inquiry. International Studies Quarterly, 33, 361-387.
Hermann, M. G. (2001). How decision units shape foreign policy: a theoretical framework. International Studies Review, 3 (2), 47-81.
Herz, M. (1994). Análise cognitiva e política externa. Contexto Internacional, 16 (1), 75-90.
Herz, M. (2002). O crescimento da área de relações internacionais no Brasil. Contexto Internacional, 24 (1), 7-40.
Hill, C. (2003). The changing politics of foreign policy. Palgrave MacMillan.
Hoffmann, S. (1977). An american social science: international relations. Daedalus, 106, 41-60.
Holsti, K. J. (1970). National role Conceptions in the Study of Foreign Policy. International Studies Quarterly, 14 (3), 233-309.
Holsti, O. R. (1977). The "operational code" as an approach to the analysis of belief systems. Duke University.
Holsti, O. R. (1992). Public Opinion and Foreign Policy: Challenges to the Almond-Lippman Consensus. International Studies Quarterly, 36, 439-466.
Hopf, T. (2002). Social construction of international politics: identities and foreign policies, Moscow 1955 and 1999. Cornell University Press.
Hudson, V. M. (2005). Foreign policy analysis: actor-specific theory and the ground of international relations. Foreign Policy Analysis, 1 (1), 1-30.
Hudson, V. M. (2007). Foreign policy analysis: classic and contemporary theory. Rowman and Littlefield.
Hudson, V. y Day, B. (2020). Foreign Policy Analysis. Classic and Contemporary Theory. Rowman and Littlefield.
Hurrell, A. (2004). Power and the International System. Security Dialogue, 35 (2), 254-257.
Ingram, H. M. y Fiederlein, S. L. (1988). Traversing boundaries: a public policy approach to the analysis of foreign policy. The Western Political Quarterly, 41 (4), 725-745.
Jaguaribe, H. (1979). Autonomía periférica y hegemonía céntrica. Estudios internacionales, 46, 91-130.
Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: a psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Houghton Mifflin.
Jervis, R. (2005). American Foreign Policy in a New Era. Routledge.
Kaarbo, J. (2003). Foreign policy analysis in the Twenty-First Century: back to comparison, forward to identity and ideas. International Studies Review, 5 (2), 156-163.
Kegley, E. R. (1979). American foreign policy. St. Martin’s Press.
Lake, D. A. (2013). Theory is dead, long live theory: the end of the great debates and the rise of eclecticism in international relations. European Journal of International Relations, 19 (3), 567-587.
Lafer, C. (1967). Uma Interpretação do sistema das Relações Internacionais do Brasil. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, 39/40, 81-100.
Lima, M. R. A (1990). Economia política da política externa brasileira: uma proposta de análise. Contexto Internacional, 12, 7-28.
Lohmann, S. (2007). The trouble with multi-methodism. Newsletter of the American Political Scienc Association, 5 (1), 13-17.
Lopes, D. B., Faria, C. A., y Santos M. L. (2016). Foreign Policy Analysis in Latin American democracies: the case for a research protocol. Revista Brasileira de Politica Internacional, 59 (1).
Lopes, D. B. y Pereira, A. (2021). Segurança e instituições internacionais. O Brasil em perspectiva. En Batista, M., Ribeiro, E. y Arantes, R. (Orgs.). As Teorias e o Caso (pp. 349-382). Editora da UFABC.
Marcondes D. y Mawdseley, E. (2017). South-South in retreat? The transitions from Lula to Rousseff to Temer and Brazilian development cooperation. International Affairs, 93 (3), 681-699
Martin, L. L. (2000). Democratic commitments: legislatures and international cooperation. Princeton University Press.
Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure. Free Press.
Mielniczuk, F. (2013). BRICS in the contemporary world: changing identities, converging interests. Third World Quarterly, 34, 1075-1090.
Milani, C. R. S. y Pinheiro, L. (2017). The politics of Brazilian foreign policy and its analytical challenges. Foreign Policy Analysis, 13 (2), 278-296.
Milani, C. R. S., Pinheiro, L. y Lima, M. R. S. (2017). Brazil’s foreign policy and the ‘graduation dilemma’. International Affairs, 93 (3), 585-605.
Milani, C. R. S., Da Conceição, F. C. y M’Bunde, T. S. (2017). Brazil’s international educational cooperation in African countries: a case of ‘graduation dilemma’? International Affairs, 93 (3), 661-679.
Milner, H. (1997). Interests, institutions, and information: domestic politics and international relations. Princeton University Press.
Miyamoto, S. (2003). O ensino das relações internacionais no Brasil: problemas e perspectivas. Revista de Sociologia e Política, 20, 103-114.
Nacos, B., Shapiro, R. Y. e Isernia, P. (2000). Decisionmaking in a glass house: Mass media, public opinion, and American and European foreign policy in the 21st century. Rowmann and Littlefield.
Neack, L., Hey, J. y Haney, P. (1995). The evolution of the study of foreign policy. En Neack, L., Hey, J. y Haney, P. (Eds.). Foreign policy analysis: continuity and change in its second generation (pp. 17-32). Prentice-Hall.
Pinheiro, L. y Vedovelli, P. (2012). Caminhos cruzados: diplomatas e acadêmicos na construção do campo de estudos de política externa brasileira. Revista Política Hoje, 21, 211-254.
Putnam, R. D. (1988). Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games. International organization, 42 (3), 427-460.
Ramanzini Junior, H. y Farias, R. de S. (2021). Análise de Política Externa. Editora Contexto.
Ribeiro, P. F. y Pinheiro, F. (2016). Presidents, legislators, and foreign policy in Latin America. Contexto Internacional, 38, 467-501.
Risse-Kappen, T. (1995). Bringing transnational relations back. En Risse-Kappen, T. (Ed.). Non-State actors, domestic structures and international institutions. (pp. 3-36). Cambridge University Press.
Rodrigues, P., Urdinez, F. y Oliveira, A. de (2019). Measuring international engagement: systemic and domestic factors in brazilian foreign policy from 1998 to 2014. Foreign Policy Analysis, 15 (3), 370-391.
Rosenau, J. N. (1974). Comparing foreign policies: theories, findings, and methods. Halsted Press.
Rosenau, J. N. (1989). Global changes and theoretical challenges: toward a post-international politics for the 1990s. En Czempiel, E.O. y Rosenau, J. (Eds.). Global changes and theoretical challenges. Approaches to world politics for the 1990s (pp. 1-20). Lexington Books.
Salomón, M. y Nunes, C. (2007). A ação externa dos governos subnacionais no Brasil: os casos do Rio Grande do Sul e de Porto Alegre. Um estudo comparativo de dois tipos de atores mistos. Contexto Internacional, 29, 99-147.
Salomón, M. y Pinheiro, L. (2013). Análise de política externa e política externa brasileira: trajetória, desafios e possibilidades de um campo de estudos. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, 56, 40-59.
Salomón, M. y Guimarães, F. S. (2021). O que a análise de política externa já nos disse e ainda tem a nos dizer sobre Brasil? Uma agenda de pesquisa com teorias médias. En Batista, M., Ribeiro, E. y Arantes, R. (Orgs.). As teorias e o caso. (pp. 417-468). Editora da UFABC.
Santos, N. B. dos y Fonseca, F. E. (2009). A pós-graduação em relações internacionais no Brasil. Contexto Internacional, 31 (2), 353-380.
Schenoni, L., Ribeiro, P. F., Lopes, D. B. y Casarões, G. (2022). Myths of Multipolarity: the Sources of Brazil’s Foreign Policy Overstretch. Foreign Policy Analysis, 18.
Sennes, R. (1998). Potência média recém-industrializada: parâmetros para analisar o Brasil. Contexto Internacional, 20 (2), 385-413.
Shapiro, S. P. (2005). Agency Theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 31 (1), 263-284.
Sil, R. y Katzenstein, P. J. (2010). Beyond paradigms: analytic eclecticism in the study of world politics. Palgrave Macmillan.
Silva, A. E. (1998). Ideias e política externa: a atuação brasileira na Liga das Nações e na ONU. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, 41 (2), 139-158.
Smith, S. (1986). Theories of foreign policy: an historical overview. Review of International Studies, 12 (1), 13-29.
Smith, S., Hadfield, A. y Dunne, T. (Eds.) (2012). Foreign policy: theories, actors, cases. Oxford University Press.
Snyder, R. C., Bruck, H. W. y Sapin, B. (1954). Decision-making as an approach to the study of international politics. Princeton University Press.
Souza, A. de (2001). Agenda Internacional do Brasil. CEBRI.
Souza, A. de (2008). Agenda Internacional do Brasil revisitada. Percepções da comunidade brasileira de política exterior. CEBRI.
Thies, C. (2009). Role theory and foreign policy. International Studies Association Compendium Project.
Thies, C. y Breuning, M. (2012). Integrating Foreign Policy Analysis and International Relations through Role Theory. Foreign Policy Analysis, 8 (1), 1-4.
Tickner, A. (2003). Seeing IR differently: notes from the Third World. Millennium, 32 (2), 295-324.
Vieira, M. A. (2013). Brazilian foreign policy in the context of global climate norms. Foreign Policy Analysis, 9 (4), 369-386.
Vigevani, T., Thomaz, L. F. y Leite, L. A. B. (2016). Pós-graduação em relações internacionais no Brasil: Anotações sobre sua institucionalização. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais, 91 (31), 1-30.
Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics. International Organization, 46 (2), 391-425.
Apéndice
Artículos de autores brasileños que usan modelos / conceptos de APE publicados entre los años 2000 y 2019 en Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, Contexto Internacional, Dados, Brazilian Political Science Review, Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais, Revista de Sociologia e Política, Opinião Pública, Latin American Politics and Society, Global Society, Policy Studies, International Interactions, Foreign Policy Analysis y International Affairs agrupados por temas:
a) Decisores y procesos de toma de decisiones:
Albuquerque, F. L. (2019). Coalition making and norm shaping in Brazil’s foreign policy in the climate change regime. Global Society, v. 33, n. 2, 243-261.
Amorim Neto, O. A. y Malamud, A. (2015). What determines foreign policy in Latin America? Systemic versus domestic factors in Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico, 1946–2008. Latin American Politics and Society, v. 57, n. 4, 1-27.
Anastasia, F.; Mendonça, C. y Almeida, H. (2012). Poder legislativo e política externa no Brasil: jogando com as regras. Contexto Internacional, v. 34, n. 2, 617-657.
Arbilla, J. (2000). Arranjos institucionais e mudança conceitual nas políticas externas argentina e brasileira (1989-1994). Contexto Internacional, v. 22, n. 2, 337-383.
Burges, S. y Bastos, F. (2017). The importance of presidential leadership for Brazilian foreign policy. Policy Studies, v. 38, n. 3, 277-290.
Carvalho, M. (2003). Estruturas domésticas e grupos de interesse: a formação da posição brasileira para seattle. Contexto Internacional, v. 25, n. 2, 363-401.
Carvalho, M. (2010). Condicionantes internacionais e domésticos: O Brasil e o G-20 nas negociações agrícolas da Rodada Doha. Dados, v. 53, n. 2, 405-445.
Carvalho, F. (2012). The Brazilian position on forests and climate change from 1997 to 2012: from veto to proposition. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional., v. 55, 144-169.
Casarões, G. (2012). O papel do Itamaraty na definição da política externa do governo Collor de Mello. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional., v. 55, n. 1, 135-153.
Castelan, D. (2010). A implementação do consenso: Itamaraty, Ministério da Fazenda e a liberalização brasileira. Contexto Internacional, v. 32, n. 2, 563.
Castelan, D. (2016). Domestic coalitions in the FTAA negotiations: The Brazilian case. Contexto Internacional, v. 38, n. 1, 313-348.
Diniz, S. y Ribeiro, C. (2010). Acordos internacionais e controle parlamentar no Brasil. Revista de Sociologia e Política, v. 18, n. 37, 75-92.
Faria, C. (2012). O Itamaraty e a política externa brasileira: do insulamento à busca de coordenação dos atores governamentais e de cooperação com os agentes societários. Contexto internacional, v. 34, n. 1, 311-355.
Faria, C.; Lopes, D. B. y Casarões, G. (2013). Itamaraty on the move: institutional and political change in Brazilian foreign service under Lula da Silva’s presidency (2003-2010): Itamaraty on the Move. Bulletin of Latin American Research, v. 32, n. 4, 468-482.
Fernandes, I. (2013) A construção institucional da política comercial brasileira: a Câmara de Comércio Exterior (Camex) no governo Cardoso. Revista de Sociologia e Política, v. 21, n. 45, 123-148.
Figueira, A. (2010). R. Rupturas e continuidades no padrão organizacional e decisório do Ministério das Relações Exteriores. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, v. 53, n. 2, 5-22.
Lima, M. (2000). Instituições democráticas e política exterior. Contexto internacional, v. 22, n. 2, 265-303.
Mariano, M. y Ramanzini Júnior, H. (2012). Uma análise das limitações estruturais do Mercosul a partir das posições da política externa brasileira. Revista de Sociologia e Política, v. 20, n. 43, 23-41.
Oliveira, M. y Moreno F. (2007). Negociações comerciais internacionais e democracia: o contencioso Brasil x EUA das patentes farmacêuticas na OMC. Dados, v. 50, n. 1, 189-220.
Onuki, J. y Oliveira, A. (2006). Eleições, política externa e integração regional. Revista de Sociologia e Política, n. 27, 145-155.
Ribeiro, P. y Onuki, J. (2014). Unidade partidária e política externa na América Latina. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais, v. 29, n. 86, 125-143.
Salomón, M. y Nunes, C. (2007). A ação externa dos governos subnacionais no Brasil: os casos do Rio Grande do Sul e de Porto Alegre. Um estudo comparativo de dois tipos de atores mistos. Contexto Internacional, v. 29, n. 1, 99-147.
Santana, H. (2001). Grupos de interesse e a política externa brasileira para a Alca. Contexto internacional, v. 23, n. 1, 167-196.
Saraiva, J. (2004). A busca de um novo paradigma: política exterior, comércio externo e federalismo no Brasil. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, v. 47, n. 2, 131-162.
Schleicher, R. y Platiau, A. (2017). What is the relation between Brazilian Foreign Policy and the implementation of bilateral technical cooperation projects in African Countries? Lessons from a South-South cooperation project implemented by the Brazilian National School of Public Administration - ENAP (2009-2012). Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, v. 60, n. 1, 1-19.
Vigevani, T. (2006). Problemas para a atividade internacional das unidades subnacionais, Estados e municípios brasileiros. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais, v. 21, n. 62, 1-14.
Vigevani, T. y Cepaluni, G. (2007). A política externa de Lula da Silva: a estratégia da autonomia pela diversificação. Contexto Internacional, v. 29, n. 2, 273-335.
Vigevani, T. y Ramanzini Júnior, H. (2011). The impact of domestic politics and international changes on the Brazilian perception of regional integration. Latin American Politics and Society, v. 53, n. 1, 125-155.
Viola, E. (2002). O regime internacional de mudança climática e o Brasil. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais, v. 17, n. 50, 25-46.
b) El papel de las ideas:
Abdenur, A. y Gama, C. (2015). Triggering the Norms Cascade: Brazil’s Initiatives for Curbing Electronic Espionage. Global Governance, v. 21, n. 3, 455-474.
Abdenur, A. y Souza Neto, D. (2014). O Brasil e a cooperação em defesa: a construção de uma identidade regional no Atlântico Sul. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, v. 57, n. 1, 5-21.
Arbilla, J. (2000). Arranjos institucionais e mudança conceitual nas políticas externas argentina e brasileira (1989-1994). Contexto Internacional, v. 22, n. 2, 337, 2000.
Guimarães, F. y Maitino, M. (2019). Socializing Brazil into regional leadership: The 2006 Bolivian gas crisis and the role of small powers in promoting master roles transitions. Foreign Policy Analysis, v. 15, n. 1, 1-20.
Jesus, D. (2009). Da redução da incerteza estratégica à perpetuação da exclusão: a relevância dos fatores ideacionais na análise de política externa. Contexto internacional, v. 31, n. 3, 503-534.
Khalil, S. y Alves, V. (2014). Ideias e política externa: as relações do Brasil com o Terceiro Mundo durante o Governo Castelo Branco. Contexto Internacional, v. 36, n. 2, 683-708.
Kotyashko, A.; Fereira-Pereira, L. y Vieira, A. IEIRA, A. (2018). Normative resistance to responsibility to protect in times of emerging multipolarity: the cases of Brazil and Russia. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, v. 61, n. 1, 1-22.
Medeiros, S. (2011). Modelos de reputação internacional e paradigmas de política externa. Contexto Internacional, v. 33, n. 2, 435-453.
Meunier, I. y Medeiros, M. (2013). Construindo a América do Sul: identidades e interesses na formação discursiva da Unasul. Dados, v. 56, n. 3, 673-712.
Mielniczuk, F. (2013). BRICS in the contemporary world: changing identities, converging interests. Third World Quarterly, v. 34, n. 6, 1075-1090.
Saraiva, M. (2010). Brazilian foreign policy towards South America during the Lula administration: caught between South America and Mercosur. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, v. 53, n. special, 151-168.
Saraiva, M. y Briceño Ruiz, J. (2009). Argentina, Brasil e Venezuela: as diferentes percepções sobre a construção do Mercosul. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, v. 52, n. 1, 149-166.
Spektor, M. (2010). Ideias de ativismo regional: a transformação das leituras brasileiras da região. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, v. 53, n. 1, 25-44.
Stuenkel, O. (2011). Identity and the concept of the West: the case of Brazil and India. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, v. 54, n. 1, 178-195.
Vieira, M. (2001). Ideias e instituições: uma reflexão sobre a política externa brasileira do início da década de 90. Contexto Internacional, v. 23, n. 2, 245-293.
Vieira, M. (2018). (Re-)imagining the ‘Self’ of ontological security: the case of Brazil’s ambivalent postcolonial subjectivity. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, v. 46, n. 2, 142-164.
Villa, R. (2006). Política externa brasileira: capital social e discurso democrático na América do Sul. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais, v. 21, n. 61, 1-28.
c) Opinión publica:
Faria, C. (2008). Opinião pública e política externa: insulamento, politização e reforma na produção da política exterior do Brasil. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, v. 51, n. 2, 80–97.
Guimarães, F.; Fernandes, I. y Maldonado, G. (2020). Domestic Attitudes toward Regional Leadership: A Survey Experiment in Brazil. Foreign Policy Analysis, vol. 16, No. 01, 98-117.
Lopes, D. B. (2012). Democratic foreign policy: oxymoron, chimera, or trend? Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais, v. 27, n. 80, 185-202.
Loureiro, F.; Guimarães, F.; y Schor, A. (2015). Public opinion and foreign policy in João Goulart’s Brazil (1961-1964): Coherence between national and foreign policy perceptions? Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, v. 58, n. 2, 98-118.
Mouron, F.; Urdinez, F. y Onuki, J. (2016). Framing effects on foreign policy: experimental evidence from emerging countries and the Argentine-Brazilian rivalry Opinião Pública, vol. 22, No. 1, 195-218
Reynolds, E.; Oliveira, A.; Onuki, J. y Winters, M. (2018). Attitudes toward consent-based and non-consent-based international law in a regional power context. International Interactions, v. 44, n. 4, 661-680.
d) Política exterior como política pública:
Lopes, D. y Valente, M. (2016). A construção social dos princípios conformadores e das normas programáticas de política externa brasileira na Constituição Federal de 1988. Dados, v. 59, n. 4, 995-1054.
Milani, C. y Pinheiro, L. (2013). Política externa brasileira: os desafios de sua caracterização como política pública. Contexto Internacional, v. 35, n. 1, 11-41.
Milani, C. y Pinheiro, L. (2017). The politics of Brazilian foreign policy and its analytical challenges. Foreign Policy Analysis, v. 13, n. 2, 278-296.
Sanchez, M.; Silva, E.; Cardoso, E. y Spécie, P. (2006). Política externa como política pública: uma análise pela regulamentação constitucional brasileira (1967-1988). Revista de Sociologia e Política, n. 27, 125-143.
e) Artículos sobre la disciplina y teoría de APE en Brasil:
Pinheiro, L. y Vedovelli, P. (2012). Caminhos cruzados: diplomatas e acadêmicos na construção do campo de estudos de política externa brasileira. Revista Política Hoje, v. 21, n. 1, 211-254.
Salomón, M. y Pinheiro, L. (2013). Análise de política externa e política externa brasileira: trajetória, desafios e possibilidades de um campo de estudos. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, v. 56, n. 1, 40-59.
Ramanzini Júnior, H. y Farias, R. (2016). Participation and Influence: democratization and the shaping of a public policy in Brazil. Latin American Policy, v. 7, n. 1, 106-125.
Lopes, D.; Faria, C. y Santos, M. (2016). Foreign policy analysis in Latin American democracies: the case for a research protocol. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, v. 59, n. 1, 1-17.