PDF: Flynn, “From Structural to Symbolic Dimensions of State Autonomy”
ABSTRACT:
Theories of globalization debate the current role of the state in the contemporary world, specifically questioning how much autonomy or policy space the state has to enact policies considered to be in a country’s interest. The problem of state autonomy becomes more acute for developing countries attempting to construct or defend rights-based social programs in the face of powerful transnational corporations, foreign diplomatic pressures and new international government organizations such as the World Trade Organization (WTO). A case study of the impact the Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property System (TRIPS) on Brazil’s universal AIDS treatment program is employed to assess the various theories of globalization and state autonomy. The study reveals that, although TRIPS represents a qualitative shift in power in favor of transnational companies, centralization of power at the global level can lead to the development of domestic coalitions in defense of national projects. More importantly, when contesting powerful adversaries, state actors may increase their leverage by projecting symbolic power to a global audience. The concept of reputational dividends is developed in this paper to emphasize that as nation-states become increasingly integrated into a global social system, the symbolic dimension of power becomes more salient in forging state autonomy.
Keywords: globalization, state autonomy, Brazil, intellectual property rights, HIV/AIDS
RESUMEN:
En la actualidad, algunas de las teorías de globalización proponen que el rol del estado frente a la creación de algunas políticas es limitado. El problema de la autonomía estatal se agudiza especialmente en países en desarrollo que se encuentran en proceso de construcción y consolidación de programas sociales basados en la defensa de derechos humanos, enfrentándose a grandes corporaciones transnacionales, presiones diplomáticas extranjeras y nuevas organizaciones gubernamentales internacionales como la organización mundial del comercio (OMC). El estudio de caso del análisis del impacto del Acuerdo sobre los Aspectos del Sistema de Propiedad Intelectual (ADPIC) frente al programa universal de tratamiento contra el SIDA en Brasil, se empleó para evaluar las diversas teorías de la globalización y la autonomía del Estado. El presente estudio revela que a pesar que el ADPIC representa un cambio de poder en favor de las empresas transnacionales, la centralización del poder a nivel mundial puede dar lugar a la creación de coaliciones transnacionales en defensa de los proyectos nacionales. Más importante aún, los actores estatales pueden disminuir la influencia de poder de dichas entidades mediante la proyección de poder simbólico a una audiencia más global. El presente documento desarrolla el concepto dedividendos de reputación en donde se enfatiza que en la medida en que los estados-nación se integran en un sistema social global, la dimensión simbólica del poder se hace más notable en la creación de la autonomía del Estado.
Palabras claves: la globalización, estado de la autonomía, Brasil, los derechos de propiedad intelectual, el VIH / SIDA
Author’s contact information:
Matthew Flynn, mbf239 at austin.utexas.edu
In this paper, Matthew Flynn analyzes Brazil’s ongoing intellectual property disputes with the U.S. and international pharmaceutical companies over the use of antiretroviral drugs in HIV/AIDS prevention. This paper pushes readers to rethink state autonomy and sovereignty in the context of economic globalization. However, contrary to the familiar decline of the state dirge, Flynn argues that as economic globalization deepens, states’ symbolic power becomes more important. Furthermore, Flynn analyzes how economic power centralized in the WTO was countered by domestic coalitions in a key case, offering further evidence against the argument that globalization is a process of convergence. Flynn uses a thoroughly-researched and unique case study to illustrate the complex ways in which states can use symbolic power in international disputes.
I invite the author to respond to the following questions:
Does the salience of symbolic power or domestic coalitions change with issue area? Hunter and Brown (2000) found that powerful international actors such as the World Bank have little success in influencing social policy, where domestic coalitions are much more effective, while other studies show that the same actors have great influence in other areas, like economic policy (Stallings 1992). Your case is interesting because it straddles both social and economic policy; would your analysis change if the issue area of the case changed? Furthermore, would reputational dividends play such a central role if the issue were not as morally-charged as HIV/AIDS or if the issue did not have a broad international audience?
In the paper, you state that middle-income countries are best positioned to develop and use reputational dividends. I assume that by extension you would also say that middle-income countries can most effectively use symbolic power to articulate, establish and defend their autonomy. But your case study is intriguing in part because it – and Brazil’s place in international organizations – is unique. Can reputational dividends play a significant role in other middle income or, even more broadly, “developing” countries? Or does the concept work best in the handful of countries with a large domestic market, active civil society and steady economic growth, like India and Brazil?
Constructivism has a large literature on the role of values, norms and identities in international relations, and I am curious about how the concept of reputational dividends engages past constructivist work on norms and symbolic power. Is reputational dividends a better-specified concept? More particular? How does this concept improve upon what constructivism already uses?
You assert throughout the paper that these processes and phenomena are new; but how new are they? Increasing economic interdependence has been going on for centuries and constructivists have established that symbolic power and norm entrepreneurs have been important for at least 150 years (see Finnemore 1996, for example). What parts are new? What is innovative and surprising and what is a gradual reiteration of decades-long processes?
Similarly, what exactly do you mean by economic globalization? There are obviously many moving parts, but I would like a clearer explanation of what fits within your definition of economic globalization and what does not.