Advertisement

Brazil’s Status Struggles: Why Nice Guys Finish Last

  • Paul BeaumontEmail author
  • Pål Røren
Chapter

Abstract

Recent domestic crises have put a dampener on Brazil’s great power aspirations. We suggest that this period of pessimism is an apt moment to take long-lens perspective on Brazil’s historical quest for status. To be sure, the “rise of Brazil narrative” was certainly ubiquitous, but prior research has lacked a means of assessing the extent to which international recognition for Brazil’s rise was forthcoming. Therefore, to complement existing research into Brazil’s status seeking, we provide a systematic evaluation and analysis of Brazil’s status performance between 1970 and 2010. To what extent was Brazil able to translate its economic resources into international status across the period? Compared to its BRICS peers, did Brazils status seeking bring about relative improvement in international recognition? To this end, we put to work a recently developed mixed-methods framework for systematically assessing and comparing countries’ status performance across time. Our results will be chastening to Brazilians but not entirely surprising. In short, our findings suggest that not only does Brazil underperform compared to its status resources, but also that it performs worse than any of its BRICS peers. While Brazilian politicians have tended to blame the P5 for excluding them from the high status “in group”, our findings show that Brazil has also struggled with recognition from smaller powers for a prolonged period stretching from the 1970s and into the twenty-first century.

References

  1. Adler-Nissen, R. 2014. Stigma Management in International Relations: Transgressive Identities, Norms, and Order in International Society. International Organization 68 (01): 143–176.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818313000337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barber, J., and J. Barratt. 1990. South Africa’s Foreign Policy 1948–88: The Search for Status and Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Basrur, R. 2011. India: A Major Power in the Making. In Major Powers and the Quest for Status in International Politics, ed. T.J. Volgy, R. Corbetta, K.A. Grant, et al., 181–202. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beaumont, P. 2018. Brexit, Retrotopia and the Perils of Post-Colonial Delusions. Global Affairs 3 (4–5): 379–390.  https://doi.org/10.1080/23340460.2018.1478674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bu, Q. 2010. China’s Sovereign Wealth Funds: Problem or Panacea? The Journal of World Investment & Trade 11 (5): 849–877.  https://doi.org/10.1163/221190010X00419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burges, S.W., and F.H. Chagas Bastos. 2017. The Importance of Presidential Leadership for Brazilian Foreign Policy. Policy Studies 38 (3): 277–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cheung, Y.-W., and X. Qian. 2009. The Empirics of China’s Outward Direct Investment. Pacific Economic Review 14 (3): 312–341.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0106.2009.00451.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Christensen, S.F. 2013. Brazil’s Foreign Policy Priorities. Third World Quarterly 34 (2): 271–286.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2013.775785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Christopher, A.J. 1994. The Pattern of Diplomatic Sanctions Against South Africa 1948–1994. GeoJournal 34 (4): 439–446.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00813139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clunan, A.L. 2014. Why Status Matters in World Politics. In Status in World Politics, ed. T. Paul, D.W. Larson, and W.C. Wohlforth, 365–406. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. de Carvalho, B., and I.B. Neumann. 2015. Introduction: Small States and Status. In Small States and Status Seeking: Norway’s Quest for International Standing, ed. B. de Carvalho and I.B. Neumann, 1–21. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Deng, Y. 2008. China’s Struggle for Status: The Realignment of International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. ———. 2011. The Power and Politics of Recognition: Status in China’s Foreign Relations. In Major Powers and the Quest for Status in International Politics, ed. T.J. Volgy, R. Corbetta, K.A. Grant, et al., 78–95. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  14. Duque, M.G. 2018. Recognizing International Status: A Relational Approach. International Studies Quarterly 0: 1–16.  https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqy001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Erthal Abdenur, A. 2014. Emerging Powers as Normative Agents: Brazil and China within the UN Development System. Third World Quarterly 35 (10): 1876–1893.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2014.971605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Forsberg, T., R. Heller, and R. Wolf. 2014. Status and Emotions in Russian Foreign Policy. Communist and Post-Communist Studies 47 (3–4): 261–268.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postcomstud.2014.09.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Galtung, J. 1964. A Structural Theory of Aggression. Journal of Peace Research 1 (2): 95–119.  https://doi.org/10.2307/423250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goh, E. 2005. Nixon, Kissinger, and the “Soviet Card” in the U.S. Opening to China, 1971–1974. Diplomatic History 29 (3): 475–502.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7709.2005.00500.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Herz, M. 2011. Brazil: Major Power in the Making? In Major Powers and the Quest for Status in International Politics, ed. T.J. Volgy, R. Corbetta, K.A. Grant, et al., 150–180. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  20. Hochstetler, K. 2000. Democratizing Pressures from Below? Social Movements in the New Brazilian Democracy. In Democratic Brazil: Actors, Institutions, and Processes, ed. Kingstone PR and Power, 167–182. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  21. Kinne, B.J. 2014. Dependent Diplomacy: Signaling, Strategy, and Prestige in the Diplomatic Network. International Studies Quarterly 58 (2): 247–259.  https://doi.org/10.1111/isqu.12047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Larson, D.W., and A. Shevchenko. 2014. Russia Says No: Power, Status, and Emotions in Foreign Policy. Communist and Post-Communist Studies 47 (3–4): 269–279.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postcomstud.2014.09.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leith, R., and J. Pretoruis. 2009. Eroding the Middle Ground: The Shift in Foreign Policy Underpinning South African Nuclear Diplomacy. Politikon 36 (3): 345–361.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02589341003600171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Malone, D.A. 2013. The Modern Diplomatic Mission. In The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy, ed. A.F. Cooper, J. Heine, and R.C. Thakur, 122–141. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Marcondes, D., and E. Mawdsley. 2017. South–South in Retreat? The Transitions from Lula to Rousseff to Temer and Brazilian Development Cooperation. International Affairs 93 (3): 681–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Miller, J.L., J. Cramer, T.J. Volgy, et al. 2015. Norms, Behavioral Compliance, and Status Attribution in International Politics. International Interactions 41 (5): 779–804.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03050629.2015.1037709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Neumayer, E. 2008. Distance, Power and Ideology: Diplomatic Representation in a World of Nation-States. Area 40 (2): 228–236.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2008.00804.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. O’Neill, J. 2001. Building Better Global Economic BRICs. Global Economics Paper (66): 1–16.Google Scholar
  29. Paul, T., and M. Shankar. 2014. Status Accommodation Through Institutional Means: India’s Rise and the Global Order. In Status in World Politics, ed. T. Paul, D.W. Larson, and W.C. Wohlforth, 165–191. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Reid, M. 2014. Brazil: The Troubled Rise of a Global Power. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Renshon, J. 2016. Status Deficits and War. International Organization 70 (3): 513–550.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818316000163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. ———. 2017. Fighting for Status: Hierarchy and Conflict in World Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Røren, P. 2019. Status Seeking in the Friendly Nordic Neighborhood. Cooperation and Conflict.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836719828410.
  34. Røren, P., and P. Beaumont. 2018. Grading Greatness: Evaluating the Status Performance of the BRICS. Third World Quarterly: 1–23.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2018.1535892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schweller, R.L., and X. Pu. 2014. Status Signaling, Multiple Audiences, and China’s Blue-Water Naval Ambition. In Status in World Politics, ed. T. Paul, D.W. Larson, and W.C. Wohlforth, 141–162. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Stolte, C. 2015. Brazil’s Africa strategy: Role Conception and the Drive for International Status. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. The Economist. 2012. Fernando Henrique Cardoso on Brazil’s Future More Personal Security, Less Inequality. Available at: https://www.economist.com/americas-view/2012/01/19/more-personal-security-less-inequality. Accessed 27 Sep 2018.
  38. Tucker, N.B. 2005. Taiwan Expendable? Nixon and Kissinger Go to China. The Journal of American History 92 (1): 109–135.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3660527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Volgy, T.J., R. Corbetta, K.A. Grant, et al. 2011. Major Power Status in International Politics. In Major Powers and the Quest for Status in International Politics, ed. T.J. Volgy, R. Corbetta, K.A. Grant, et al., 1–26. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wohlforth, W.C., B. de Carvalho, H. Leira, et al. 2017. Moral Authority and Status in International Relations: Good States and the Social Dimension of Status Seeking. Review of International Studies: 1–21.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210517000560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wood, B. 1990. Towards North-South Middle Power Coalitions. In Middle Power Internationalism: The North-South Dimension, ed. C. Pratt, 69–107. Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Woods, N. 2008. Whose Aid? Whose Influence? China, Emerging Donors and the Silent Revolution in Development Assistance. International Affairs 84 (6): 1205–1221.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2346.2008.00765.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Norwegian University of Life SciencesÅsNorway
  2. 2.University of Southern DenmarkOdenseDenmark

Personalised recommendations