Political and Trade Dynamics of the Pacific Alliance: Challenges and Sustainability

Abstract

The Pacific Alliance (PA), established in 2011, aims to foster economic integration among its member states—Peru, Chile, Colombia, and Mexico—by promoting trade liberalization and economic cooperation. However, recent political shifts within these countries have influenced trade policies, affecting intra-bloc commerce and relations with external markets, particularly China and the United States. This study explores how the political environment within the PA has shaped sustainable trade, considering economic policies, trade agreements, and shifts in regional priorities. Using a qualitative and descriptive approach, this research is based on a documentary review of academic literature, official reports, and international trade data. Content analysis was applied to assess the impact of political decisions on PA trade sustainability, including the examination of tariff structures, trade flows, and capital movements. The findings indicate that intra-regional trade within the PA remains limited, with an intraregional trade index below 4%. Mexico continues to prioritize exports to the U.S., while Peru and Chile strengthen ties with China. Although PA member states have maintained liberal economic policies, disparities in trade liberalization levels hinder integration. Furthermore, despite the reduction of tariffs and the implementation of digital trade facilitation measures, political instability and differences in economic strategies among member states challenge the PA’s long-term sustainability. Strengthening institutional frameworks and increasing investments in research and development are crucial for enhancing economic integration and ensuring trade resilience within the bloc.

1. Introduction

The Pacific Alliance (PA) was established in April 2011 at the initiative of the Peruvian government, with the primary objective of creating a deep integration zone within the Latin American Pacific framework, leveraging the competitiveness of Colombia, Chile, and Mexico [1] PA member countries improved their economies over the last decade due to an open market strategy towards the international environment [2]. Similarly, [3] stated that various trade agreements signed among members focused on rules of origin established under the legal framework of free trade zones.

The Pacific Alliance’s foundational objectives of fostering economic integration and trade liberalization present both opportunities and challenges for advancing sustainable trade. While increased trade can drive economic growth, it can also exacerbate environmental pressures and social inequalities if not managed sustainably [4,5]. Leveraging the PA’s existing framework to incorporate sustainability principles into trade policies and cooperation initiatives is crucial for ensuring long-term prosperity and regional well-being [6]. This requires a nuanced understanding of how political dynamics within member states influence the adoption and implementation of such sustainable trade agendas [4].The political environment within each member state significantly shapes the prioritization and implementation of sustainable development goals, including those related to trade [7]. Leadership transitions, shifts in governing ideologies, and the stability of political institutions can all influence the direction of trade policies, the stringency of environmental and social regulations, and the willingness to engage in regional cooperation on sustainability issues. Therefore, analyzing the interplay between these political dynamics and trade patterns is essential for understanding the prospects and challenges for achieving sustainable trade within the Pacific Alliance.

The PA’s policies are geared toward economic objectives, as it was founded on liberal principles [8]. Peru and Chile have stronger trade ties with China, while Mexico and Colombia maintain closer commercial and political relations with the United States. This dynamic has placed the PA at a crossroads in balancing trade relations with the Asia-Pacific region while maintaining continuity in commerce with the U.S. [9]. However, political changes within PA member states have created uncertainty. The elections of Gabriel Boric in Chile, Gustavo Petro in Colombia, Manuel López Obrador in Mexico, and Pedro Castillo in Peru have ushered in distinct policy shifts that are reshaping the Pacific Alliance [10]. These new orientations emphasize progressive social policies, greater state involvement in the economy, and a shift toward regional integration independent of U.S. influence. For example, Gabriel Boric promoted feminist and environmental agendas, while Gustavo Petro advocated for a transition to clean energy and a redefinition of Colombia’s role in international trade. Manuel López Obrador prioritized economic nationalism and social welfare programs, and Pedro Castillo emphasized rural development and redistribution. These agendas contrast sharply with the neoliberal, market-oriented policies favored by their predecessors, signaling a regional pivot toward left-leaning governance [10]. Consequently, the future of the PA depends on its leaders, whose policies may either promote further integration or diminish the alliance’s relevance [11]. Additionally, Gonzáles Parias [12] highlighted the PA’s fragility, as its progress depends on inter-institutional agreements and the decisions of each country’s leadership. The lack of an independent institutional framework further weakens the bloc. Despite these challenges, PA member states continue to adhere to liberal economic policies. Morales Giraldo [13] argued that such integration models face crises when confronted with economic or political instability; however, the PA has not yet exhibited significant signs of distress, as it continues pursuing its original objectives.

The Pacific Alliance has emerged as a strategic platform for regional integration, trade liberalization, and geopolitical cooperation among its member states [14]. Yet, the existing academic literature offers limited insight into how political dynamics within this bloc shape the trajectory and sustainability of trade. This study fills that gap by examining the causal interplay between political environments (defined by leadership transitions, institutional reforms, and policy orientations) and the sustainability of trade practices. For scholars, this research contributes to the broader understanding of regional integration models in Latin America, expanding the theoretical discourse beyond economic indicators to include political governance. For policymakers, the findings provide evidence-based insights on how political contexts can either strengthen or hinder sustainable trade, offering guidance for the design of resilient regional agreements that withstand electoral cycles and institutional changes. This article contributes a novel analytical lens by integrating regional integration theory with sustainability indicators (economic, social, environmental), enabling a multidimensional understanding of trade blocs beyond economic determinism. Unlike prior studies that prioritize market indicators, this study foregrounds political governance as a structuring force in shaping sustainable trade outcomes.

Global trade, long driven by efficiency, cost reduction, and market expansion, is now being reshaped by growing concerns over environmental degradation, social inequality, and institutional fragility. In this evolving context, the concept of sustainable trade has gained prominence, referring to trade practices that contribute to long-term economic growth while also preserving the environment, promoting social equity, and strengthening institutional capacity. International organizations such as the OECD 2025 [15], World Trade Organization 2022 [16] emphasize that sustainable trade must align with global objectives like the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by integrating climate action, decent work, and responsible governance into global commerce.

Applying this multidimensional framework allows for a deeper analysis of emerging trade trends that go beyond tariffs and market access. It highlights how trade policy must account for the environmental impacts of production and transport, labor and human rights, and institutional mechanisms that promote compliance and resilience. Within this framework, regional blocs like the Pacific Alliance face both opportunities and challenges: while their trade policies have improved economic integration, they must now evolve to meet sustainability benchmarks that ensure not only competitive advantage but also equitable and resilient development across member states.

Lámbarry Vilchis [17] asserted that internal trade within PA countries is relatively homogeneous and equitable. Mexico, in particular, maintains a positive trade balance with other PA members, primarily exporting low-value-added goods [18]. Delgado [14] noted that regional trade agreements can either create or divert trade; however, the PA has implemented policies that enhance intra-bloc trade while mitigating global trade disruptions, thus fostering trade resilience. Another crucial factor in trade policy is capital flow, which significantly influences overall trade growth through various economic [19]. However, comparative advantage is not necessarily driven by capital–labor relationships among PA states [20].

This study offers a dual contribution. Theoretically, it expands the discourse on regional integration in Latin America by incorporating political governance into the analysis of trade sustainability. Practically, it informs policymakers on how domestic political shifts can reinforce or undermine collective trade commitments, particularly in navigating ideological diversity across administrations.

Given these dynamics, the central research question emerges: How has the political environment within the Pacific Alliance facilitated sustainable trade? The newly elected leaders within PA member states have deviated from the bloc’s original objectives, shifting trade priorities toward Asian markets, particularly China, while weakening internal trade. Franzoni & Carvalho [21], argued that Mexico serves as the PA’s economic hub, with exports primarily directed toward the U.S. and imports sourced from China. This trend reduced trade among PA members between 2009 and 2019. Similarly, Gómez et al. [22] found that intra-regional trade ties within the PA remain weak, with an intraregional trade index below 4%. However, González & Lechuga [23] suggested that intra-regional foreign trade serves as a catalyst for economic development within the PA, targeting ASEAN member countries such as Brunei, Cambodia, the Philippines, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. Rijalba and Litano [24] further noted that PA member states’ trade liberalization policies exhibit sustained correlations with global trade openness, signaling increased interconnection and integration with the global economy. Finally, Frohmann and Olmos [25], affirmed that PA member states have embraced trade liberalization within the bloc, positioning the PA as a significant integration framework in Latin America. The PA’s external exports increased from 50% to 56% between 2010 and 2017. These bilateral agreements have paved the way for greater harmonization of economic policies and broader economic development [26].

2. Methodology

This study adopts a qualitative and descriptive approach based on a documentary review of academic literature and secondary sources on the Pacific Alliance (PA). The research focuses on analyzing the impact of the political environment on sustainable trade within the PA, using a content analysis method applied to academic publications, reports from international organizations, and relevant government sources.

In selecting literature, we employed a systematic process. Beyond the 2010–2022 time frame, inclusion criteria required that sources (1) directly addressed political or trade dynamics in the Pacific Alliance or its member states and (2) were peer-reviewed articles, policy documents, or institutional reports. We excluded non-empirical editorials or journalistic commentaries. Searches used Boolean combinations of keywords such as “Pacific Alliance,” “trade policy,” “regional integration,” “sustainability,” and “political economy.” A total of 54 sources met our criteria. We then used a deductive coding framework informed by regional integration theory and trade sustainability indicators to identify common political and economic themes, enabling both qualitative synthesis and thematic mapping. Inclusion criteria included empirical focus, publication in indexed journals, and explicit reference to at least one member state’s trade policies or political transitions. The coding framework was based on a deductive approach guided by regional integration theory and sustainability indicators (economic, social, environmental).

To ensure the validity and reliability of the information, articles published in globally indexed databases such as Scopus and Web of Science, as well as regional databases like SciELO, Redalyc, and Latindex, were selected. Priority was given to empirical studies and critical analyses addressing the commercial and political dynamics of the PA. The selection of sources was based on relevance, timeliness (publications between 2015 and 2024), and pertinence to the study’s objectives.

The documentary analysis included an evaluation of trade policies, regional integration agreements, and changes in the economic direction of PA member countries. Additionally, secondary quantitative data from economic reports and official databases on tariff rates, trade flows, and intra-regional exports were examined, allowing for triangulation of the collected information.

3. Results

3.1. The Political-Commercial Aspect of the Pacific Alliance

The political landscape is one of the key factors influencing the integration process among countries. In economic policy, states with weak institutional frameworks and civil unrest face greater challenges in negotiating agreements among members. Conversely, some countries opt for integration processes to secure benefits such as international security [27]. Additionally, trade policies serve as a foundation for the economic growth of a regional bloc. Establishing policies aligned with member countries’ objectives is crucial for sustainability. Mankiw [27] argued that trade policy directly impacts the exchange of goods and services and is often used to protect domestic industries. Similarly, Daniels et al. [28] asserted that the political system is structured around the governing framework, defining the norms and regulations that guide political activity. In this context, the Pacific Alliance (PA) was established based on the principles of open regionalism, aiming to gradually reduce intra-regional trade discrimination while implementing fair trade regulations, effective payment mechanisms, and trade promotion strategies without discriminatory practices [29].

Among the key trade policies within the PA are tariff systems and import quotas, both of which significantly impact exports and imports [27]. For instance, Peru has historically implemented tariffs to protect its textile industry and has employed non-tariff mechanisms in the agricultural sector. According to Cuestas Zamora and Thoene [30], the PA framework agreement requires member states to liberalize trade in goods and services, enable the free movement of capital, promote investments, facilitate customs procedures, and allow the free movement of people. However, one of the major challenges faced by the regional bloc is the disparity in development levels among its members. As seen in

Table 1. Weighted average tariff rate of AP member countries, 2022.

Country	Average Tariff (%)	Trade Agreements Signed with Peru
Peru	2.0	-
Mexico	4.8	Trade Integration Agreement–Effective since 1 February 2012
Chile	5.9	Free Trade Agreement–Effective since 1 March 2009
Colombia	6.5	Free Trade Agreement–Effective since 26 May 1969

Source: World Bank Group. Available online: https://datos.bancomundial.org/indicator/TM.TAX.MRCH.WM.FN.ZS?end=2022&locations=MX-CL-PE-CO&name_desc=false&start=2022 (accessed on 23 May 2025).

, Mexico and Chile have achieved higher levels of trade liberalization compared to Peru and Colombia, creating differences in market access and economic competitiveness within the alliance.

The observed variation in average tariff rates can be traced to distinct domestic political ideologies and coalition dynamics. For instance, Peru’s historically liberal economic governance encouraged tariff reduction in alignment with Pacific Alliance objectives, while Mexico’s policy shifts under left-leaning administrations led to selective protectionist measures to shield key sectors. These decisions reflect how domestic politics mediate each country’s adherence to regional trade liberalization, influencing both tariff convergence and long-term trade sustainability.

In 2022, Peru recorded the lowest average tariff rate at 2.0% among the Pacific Alliance (PA) member countries, demonstrating a stronger commitment to trade liberalization. This trend is rooted in the country’s 1993 constitutional reforms, which established a liberal economic framework and facilitated the expansion into new markets. Notably, Colombia had already signed trade agreements before the formation of the PA, securing deals with Chile in May 2008 and with Mexico in January 1995 [31]. According to Del Campo [32], the Additional Protocol to the PA Framework Agreement, signed during the VIII Summit in 2014 and enacted in 2016, established key trade provisions, including the elimination of tariffs on 92% of goods traded among member states. Furthermore, Rodríguez et al. [33] argued that international disruptions make Peru and Mexico more vulnerable than Chile and Colombia, as the former rely heavily on raw material exports, exposing them to significant risks from unfavorable external shocks. In this regard, the PA’s economic direction depends on the policies and geopolitical strategies of the incumbent presidents [11].

One of the PA’s most significant achievements has been the interoperability of the Foreign Trade Single Windows (VUCE), enabling the digital standardization of certificates of origin and the electronic exchange of phytosanitary certificates [34].

3.2. Exports of the Pacific Alliance Member Countries

The Pacific Alliance (PA) is built on the convergence of foreign policies, free trade, and open regionalism among its member countries, while also maintaining a harmonious relationship with the United States [35]. The exports of PA countries vary based on their economic specialization, with mining products, oil, coffee, automobiles, automotive parts, and electrical appliances being the dominant goods. In the services sector, transportation, tourism, telecommunications, and marketing stand out. However, the trade of raw materials prevails, with Mexico leading, followed by Chile, Peru, and Colombia [36].

Licona and Rodríguez [37] noted that in 2011, trade as a percentage of GDP was 72.2% for Chile, 63.8% for Mexico, 56% for Peru, and 38.6% for Colombia. The first three countries rely heavily on external markets, making it essential for them to diversify their exports and reduce dependence on raw materials.

In

Table 2. Intra-AP exports by member country (2012–2023).

Year	Peruvian Exports to AP Members	Chilean Exports to AP Members	Colombian Exports to AP Members	Mexican Exports to AP Members
2012	3,367,709	4,015,339	4,606,413	9,371,430
2013	3,051,184	4,433,370	3,709,372	8,589,600
2014	3,511,058	4,301,706	3,089,925	8,603,772
2015	2,484,412	3,861,079	2,799,087	7,180,345
2016	2,182,144	3,619,216	2,657,724	6,214,779
2017	2,132,233	3,706,827	3,687,893	6,479,243
2018	2,392,277	4,034,954	3,993,458	7,270,257
2019	2,512,624	4,310,985	3,522,807	6,523,449
2020	2,141,744	3,585,898	2,789,577	5,080,420
2021	3,119,609	4,118,933	3,376,686	6,813,923
2022	3,904,629	5,187,885	4,435,185	6,995,693
2023	3,637,934	5,035,010	4,056,183	5,302,521

Source: Trade Map. Available online: https://www.trademap.org/Index.aspx (accessed on 23 May 2025).

, it was observed that the Peruvian state increased its exports to AP members by 8.02%, while Chile experienced a 25.39% increase. In contrast, Colombia recorded a 11.94% decrease, and Mexico showed the most significant decline at 43.42%. In response to this, Stellin and Danna [38] argued that Colombia should stimulate the export of manufactured goods such as plastics, clothing, and chemical products to AP members, reducing its dependence on primary commodities like petroleum oils and coal.

Additionally, Mexico’s exports are primarily directed to the United States, with 31% of its AP-bound exports consisting of transportation equipment, 19% consisting of communication equipment and electronic accessories, 15% from the chemical industry, and 9% from basic metal industries [18]. Similarly, Arguelles [39] noted that the United States accounts for 80% of Mexico’s total exports, a trend also observed in Colombia, where the U.S. is its main trading partner. In contrast, Chile and Peru primarily direct their exports to China, facilitated by free trade agreements with the Asian country, which predominantly cover Peru’s agricultural and mining sectors [40].

Regarding Chile, the country has demonstrated growth in service exports to AP members, increasing from $444 million in 2019 to $747 million in 2023, representing a 68% rise [36]. The main exported services include ICTs, maintenance and repairs, consulting, market research, and research and development. Licona et al. [41] pointed out that trade between Chile, Colombia, and Peru accounts for less than 2% of Mexico’s total trade, highlighting weaknesses in regional integration. Furthermore, AP members’ investment in research and development (R&D) remains below 1% of GDP, resulting in low levels of competitiveness. Therefore, AP members should increase investments in science and technology to foster economic growth and development through the export of high-value-added and technology-based products, particularly in the cases of Peru and Colombia.

In

Table 3. Exports of Pacific Alliance countries to the world (2014–2023).

Year	Peruvian Exports to the World	Chilean Exports to the World	Colombian Exports to the World	Mexican Exports to the World
2014	38,645,855	75,385,700	396,890,473	54,794,812
2015	33,246,845	63,187,277	380,789,105	35,690,767
2016	36,039,994	58,659,418	373,904,303	31,095,444
2017	44,237,949	66,552,208	409,476,446	37,770,123
2018	47,223,269	75,826,997	450,920,374	41,769,699
2019	45,135,222	72,779,576	460,603,696	39,496,225
2020	38,757,234	69,964,786	416,982,170	31,045,676
2021	56,260,115	92,887,987	494,460,765	40,488,600
2022	63,648,101	102,625,791	577,730,713	57,259,330
2023	64,355,040	100,290,449	592,997,234	49,542,894

Source: Trade Map. Available online: https://www.trademap.org/Index.aspx (accessed on 23 May 2025).

, it is observed that exports from three Pacific Alliance (PA) member countries to the world increased consistently over the period from 2014 to 2023. Peru’s exports grew by 66.5%, Chile’s by 33%, and Mexico’s by 49.4%, while Colombia experienced a 9.6% decline. In the case of Peru, trade policies have yielded positive results, as seen in Table 3, with the mining sector being one of the primary contributors. However, Peru’s trade strategy aims to promote the internationalization of companies and the export of manufactured goods, similar to Chile and Mexico. In this regard, previous authors [42] stated that PA member exports are predominantly primary goods or products with minimal added value, whereas imported goods are largely manufactured products.

By analyzing data from Table 2 and Table 3 for the year 2023, an index was calculated comparing intra-PA exports to total exports. The results indicate that Peru’s intra-PA exports represent 5.7% of its total exports, Chile’s 5%, Colombia’s 8.19%, and Mexico’s only 0.89%. These figures highlight how Colombia and Peru primarily export raw materials to Mexico, while Mexico, in turn, exports mostly manufactured products to the world. Moreover, Mexico’s total trade value with the Asian market (China) increased by 469% between 1994 and 2020, making China the third-largest destination for Mexican exports, including minerals, pork, and auto parts [43].

Significant shifts in export patterns coincide with key political events. For example, Chile’s rise in high-value agricultural exports post-2018 aligns with the government’s targeted subsidies under President Piñera’s rural development strategy. Conversely, Colombia’s decline in manufactured exports after 2020 reflects policy uncertainty following the 2022 elections. These examples illustrate how electoral cycles and leadership transitions shape not only trade volumes but also the composition and strategic direction of exports.

Political transitions in the Pacific Alliance states had direct implications for trade policy continuity and innovation. Mexico’s shift from a market-liberal government under Peña Nieto to a nationalist approach under AMLO affected its commitment to trade liberalization, notably slowing tariff reduction in agricultural sectors. Peru’s frequent presidential turnover (five presidents between 2016–2021) created regulatory instability, discouraging long-term trade contracts and sustainable investment. These dynamics illustrate that political stability is a critical enabler of sustainable trade.

4. Sustainability Trends in Trade Patterns

Global trade, which is important for how economies work today, is at a turning point. For decades, the primary drivers of trade patterns have been efficiency, cost reduction, and market access, often with limited consideration for the environmental and social consequences. However, a growing awareness of the planetary boundaries and the imperative for equitable development is ushering in a new era where sustainability is increasingly influencing how goods and services are produced, exchanged, and consumed. This paradigm shift is giving rise to discernible sustainability trends in trade patterns, reshaping global value chains and demanding innovative policy responses.

One of the most prominent sustainability trends in trade is the increasing scrutiny of environmental impacts embedded within traded goods. Consumers, governments, and businesses are becoming more conscious of the carbon footprint associated with production and transportation. This is leading to a demand for greater transparency and traceability across supply chains. Initiatives such as carbon labeling, environmental product declarations (EPDs), and blockchain technologies are gaining traction, allowing stakeholders to track the environmental performance of products from raw material extraction to final consumption. This heightened awareness is influencing purchasing decisions and creating market incentives for greener production methods and shorter supply chains. For instance, the growing popularity of locally sourced food and the demand for products with recognized eco-certifications demonstrate this trend.

Furthermore, circular economy principles are beginning to permeate trade patterns. The linear “take-make-dispose” model is increasingly recognized as unsustainable, leading to resource depletion and waste accumulation. The circular economy, which emphasizes keeping resources in use for as long as possible, extracting the maximum value from them whilst in use, then recovering and regenerating products and materials at the end of each service life, is gaining momentum. This translates into trade in secondary raw materials, remanufactured goods, and products designed for durability, repairability, and recyclability. The European Union’s Circular Economy Action Plan, for example, aims to foster such trade within and beyond its borders. This trend necessitates new trade policies that facilitate the cross-border movement of waste for recycling and the trade of refurbished products, while also addressing concerns about environmental dumping.

Another significant trend is the integration of social sustainability considerations into trade. This encompasses issues such as labor rights, fair wages, safe working conditions, and the eradication of forced labor and child labor. Growing consumer activism and corporate social responsibility initiatives are pushing businesses to ensure ethical sourcing practices throughout their supply chains. Trade agreements are increasingly including provisions related to labor standards and human rights. The rise of fair trade certifications and social audits reflects this growing emphasis on the social dimension of trade. This trend requires robust monitoring and enforcement mechanisms to ensure that trade does not come at the expense of fundamental human rights.

The proliferation of green trade policies and agreements is a crucial driver of sustainability in trade patterns. Governments are implementing various measures to promote environmentally friendly trade, including tariffs on polluting goods, subsidies for green technologies, and the establishment of environmental standards for imported products. Bilateral and multilateral trade agreements are increasingly incorporating environmental provisions, aiming to harmonize regulations and promote cooperation on environmental issues. The Paris Agreement, for example, indirectly influences trade patterns by encouraging countries to adopt climate mitigation measures that can have implications for their industries and trade competitiveness. The ongoing negotiations on a global plastics treaty also have the potential to significantly reshape international trade in plastic products and waste.

The rise of digital technologies is also playing a significant role in fostering more sustainable trade patterns. E-commerce platforms can facilitate direct trade between producers and consumers, potentially shortening supply chains and reducing transportation emissions. Digital tools for supply chain management can improve transparency and traceability, enabling better monitoring of environmental and social performance. The interoperability of Foreign Trade Single Windows (VUCE) within blocs like the Pacific Alliance, as highlighted in the provided article, demonstrates how digital standardization can streamline trade processes and potentially contribute to environmental benefits by reducing paper usage and bureaucratic delays [34]. Furthermore, data analytics and artificial intelligence can be used to optimize logistics and transportation routes, minimizing fuel consumption and emissions.

However, the transition towards sustainable trade patterns is not without its challenges. Green protectionism poses a significant risk, where environmental regulations are used as disguised barriers to trade, hindering market access for developing countries or less environmentally advanced producers. Ensuring that green trade policies are genuinely aimed at environmental protection and are not discriminatory is crucial. International cooperation and the establishment of clear, science-based standards are essential to mitigate this risk.

Furthermore, the heterogeneity of sustainability standards and regulations across different countries and regions can create complexity and increase compliance costs for businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Harmonizing standards and providing technical assistance to developing countries to meet these standards are important for ensuring a just and inclusive transition to sustainable trade.

The role of consumers in driving sustainable trade patterns cannot be overstated. Growing consumer demand for environmentally and socially responsible products is creating a powerful market force for change. Educating consumers about the impacts of their purchasing decisions and providing them with clear and reliable information is essential for amplifying this effect.

Sustainability is no longer a peripheral concern in international trade but is increasingly becoming a central organizing principle. The trends discussed show how the scrutiny of environmental impacts, the adoption of circular economy principles, the integration of social sustainability, the proliferation of green trade policies, and the enabling role of digital technologies are fundamentally reshaping global commerce. While challenges such as green protectionism and the heterogeneity of standards need to be addressed through international cooperation and thoughtful policymaking, the momentum towards more sustainable trade patterns is undeniable. This transition holds the potential to decouple economic growth from environmental degradation and promote a more equitable and resilient global economy for future generations. The Pacific Alliance, like other regional blocs, must actively navigate these sustainability trends, strengthening its institutional frameworks and fostering collaboration to ensure that trade within and beyond its member states contributes to, rather than detracts from, a sustainable future.

5. Discussion

To better understand the impact of political and trade dynamics on the bloc’s cohesion, it is essential to first examine the policy divergences among member states. One of the key aspects of the Pacific Alliance is the difference in weighted average tariff rates among its member countries. In 2022, Peru recorded the lowest rate at 2.0%, while Colombia had the highest at 6.5%, reflecting different strategies in their trade policies. Peru has demonstrated a stronger commitment to trade liberalization, whereas Colombia maintains higher protection in certain sectors. Although Pacific Alliance members have maintained a consistent trade profile, they have experienced a loss of dynamism due to the increasing complexity of their negotiations [44]. Initially, the four founding countries harmonized their tariff policies through free trade agreements among themselves. However, in recent years, they have shifted towards a more progressive agenda, incorporating associated states such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Singapore, which previously had no economic agreements with the Alliance’s members.

Data shows that trade within the Pacific Alliance suffered a significant decline in 2020, coinciding with the crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. During that year, the region experienced an economic contraction of 4.4% due to reduced trade activity in China, Europe, and the United States [45], highlighting the strong dependence of Alliance countries on these global economic players. Despite this adverse context, trade dynamics have been uneven among members. Peru and Chile managed to increase their exports by 8.02% and 25.39%, respectively, while Colombia and Mexico faced a decline of 11.94% and 43.42%. These differences reflect the influence of commercial diversification strategies and the orientation of their export markets.

Despite export growth in some cases, the Pacific Alliance has struggled to translate this into deeper economic integration. The Pacific Alliance’s intraregional development strategy is still in its early stages due to low economic complementarity [46]. Mexico, for instance, directs 80% of its exports to the United States, whereas Chile and Peru have strengthened their trade relations with China, particularly in the mining and agricultural sectors [39]. In Colombia’s case, the country remains dependent on exporting primary products such as oil and coal, despite recommendations from specialists like Stellian and Danna [38], who suggest strengthening the export of manufactured products such as plastics, clothing, and chemicals within the Pacific Alliance.

While trade within the Pacific Alliance is relatively small compared to its members’ total trade, progress has been made in terms of competitiveness. However, achieving a stronger level of integration requires greater investment in science, technology, and innovation. Currently, investment in research and development in these countries is below 1% of the GDP, limiting their ability to compete in higher-value-added industries [41]. To improve this situation, Peru and Colombia must strengthen their production capacity and exportation of value-added goods, using Chile and Mexico as models, as they have successfully consolidated their industrial and manufacturing sectors. This research advances theoretical understanding by positing that trade sustainability within regional blocs is contingent not only on economic complementarities but also on the political alignments and institutional capacities that mediate integration efforts.

Despite progress in reducing trade barriers and fostering cooperation among member countries, the future of the Pacific Alliance will depend on its ability to diversify trade and reduce dependence on external markets. Greater investment in strategic sectors, industrialization, and stronger economic cooperation could be key factors in achieving sustainable growth and enhancing the economic resilience of its members in an increasingly uncertain global environment. These observations set the stage for assessing future paths for the bloc’s sustainability and integration.

6. Policy Recommendations

Considering the findings of this study, several policy recommendations emerge to strengthen the Pacific Alliance’s capacity for sustainable and integrated trade. First, it is crucial for member states to establish common guidelines that promote sustainability in trade practices. The observed disparities in average tariff rates and degrees of trade liberalization—such as Peru’s lower tariffs compared to Colombia’s more protective approach—demonstrate the need for harmonized standards. These should include not only trade facilitation measures but also environmental and social criteria that align with regional development goals, fostering more coherent and equitable trade relations within the bloc.

Second, political transitions in member countries, including the elections of leaders like Gabriel Boric, Gustavo Petro, and Pedro Castillo, have brought new ideological orientations that risk disrupting the continuity of integration policies. To mitigate these fluctuations, the Alliance should institutionalize a coordination mechanism that ensures consistency in strategic objectives regardless of political changes. A permanent intergovernmental committee or consultative council could serve this purpose, promote ongoing dialogue, and maintain focus on long-term goals.

Third, the limited investment in research and development (currently below 1% of the GDP in all member countries) hampers the capacity to diversify exports and transition toward high-value-added goods. To address this, national governments should prioritize increased funding for innovation, with a particular emphasis on science, technology, and digital transformation. Enhanced R&D efforts would support the development of competitive industries and reduce the Alliance’s current reliance on raw material exports.

Fourth, the existing digital infrastructure, exemplified by the interoperability of the Foreign Trade Single Windows (VUCE), provides a strong foundation for deeper digital integration. Expanding this initiative to include standardized electronic documentation, traceability tools, and shared trade databases would streamline customs processes and reduce administrative burdens. In doing so, the PA can promote more efficient and transparent trade practices that are aligned with sustainability goals.

Furthermore, the analysis revealed a strong dependence on external markets such as the United States and China, particularly in the cases of Mexico, Chile, and Peru. Intra-regional trade remains limited, despite the potential benefits of economic complementarity. As such, the Alliance should adopt strategies that encourage export diversification—both in terms of products and destination markets—and reinforce trade ties among member countries through targeted incentives and regional supply chain development.

Lastly, the asymmetry in trade capacity among member states suggests the need for greater technical cooperation. Countries with more advanced trade systems, such as Chile and Mexico, could support less integrated partners like Peru and Colombia through knowledge transfer, shared infrastructure, and joint policy development. Such cooperation would help reduce internal imbalances and make the benefits of integration more evenly distributed.

By addressing these key areas (policy harmonization, institutional continuity, innovation investment, digital integration, export diversification, and technical cooperation), the Pacific Alliance can strengthen its resilience, deepen its integration, and move decisively toward a sustainable trade model suited to the challenges of the contemporary global economy.

7. Conclusions

The Pacific Alliance (PA) has played a key role in fostering economic integration among its member states—Peru, Chile, Colombia, and Mexico—by promoting trade liberalization and regional cooperation. Since its establishment in 2011, the PA has sought to enhance economic competitiveness through free trade agreements and policies that encourage market openness. Empirical evidence suggests that this framework has contributed to economic growth and increased trade flows among members, albeit with varying degrees of success.

Despite its economic progress, the PA faces significant challenges stemming from political shifts and the evolving global trade landscape. The ideological differences among newly elected leaders in member countries have introduced uncertainty regarding the continuity of the PA’s objectives. Moreover, the bloc’s reliance on external markets, particularly China and the United States, has resulted in a complex trade dynamic that influences regional cohesion. While Mexico maintains strong trade ties with the U.S., Peru and Chile prioritize relations with China, creating disparities in intra-bloc trade priorities. Consequently, intra-regional trade remains relatively weak, as evidenced by low trade indices and decreasing trade volumes among PA members.

The PA’s liberal economic policies have facilitated trade and investment; however, structural weaknesses persist. The lack of an independent institutional framework leaves the alliance vulnerable to political fluctuations and economic instability. Disparities in trade liberalization levels among member countries create asymmetries in market access and competitiveness, affecting the overall efficacy of the integration process.

To ensure long-term sustainability and relevance, the PA must strengthen its institutional mechanisms, enhance intra-regional trade, and diversify its economic strategies beyond primary commodity exports. Investments in research and development (R&D), technological innovation, and high-value-added industries could bolster regional competitiveness and economic resilience. Furthermore, fostering stronger inter-institutional agreements and maintaining policy continuity despite political transitions will be crucial for the alliance’s stability.

While the Pacific Alliance has achieved notable economic advancements, its future hinges on strategic policy decisions, enhanced regional collaboration, and adaptive measures to global economic shifts. Addressing these challenges will determine whether the PA can sustain its integration objectives or risk diminishing its relevance in Latin America’s economic landscape.

To further enhance coherence and ensure the continuity of integration efforts, the Pacific Alliance must also develop strategies to navigate the ideological differences among its member states. Establishing a flexible yet binding institutional framework could help mitigate the disruptive effects of political transitions. Creating a permanent consultative council with representation from diverse political sectors across member countries would foster dialogue and consensus-building, ensuring that shifts in leadership do not derail long-term commitments. Additionally, adopting a shared agenda focused on pragmatic goals—such as infrastructure connectivity, digital integration, and climate resilience—could provide common ground, regardless of ideological leanings. By institutionalizing mechanisms for political coordination, the PA can strengthen its resilience and preserve regional cooperation in an era of shifting political landscapes.