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

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have substantially improved the work, addressing most suggestions. I consider the article suitable for publication.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your feedback and comments. Below, I provide a point-by-point response to your recommendations and suggested areas for improvement

 

Comment 1: The authors have substantially improved the work, addressing most suggestions. I consider the article suitable for publication.

Response 1: We sincerely thank the reviewer for their positive assessment and constructive feedback throughout the review process. We are pleased that the revisions have strengthened the manuscript and that it is now considered suitable for publication. We truly appreciate the reviewer’s time, insight, and support.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is good for publication in its current form; however, you should remove the citation from the conclusion section. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your feedback and comments. Below, I provide a point-by-point response to your recommendations and suggested areas for improvement

 

Comment 1: The article is good for publication in its current form; however, you should remove the citation from the conclusion section.

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. As recommended, we have removed the citation from the conclusion section to align with the journal’s style and maintain a concise closing to the manuscript.

 

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article offers a timely and relevant analysis of the Pacific Alliance, with solid empirical grounding and recent references. However, it still requires minor refinements. The structure, while generally coherent, lacks clarity in some transitions, particularly in the Discussion section. The originality lies more in synthesis than in offering new theoretical contributions. The Policy Recommendations are useful but would benefit from tighter integration with the analysis. Overall, the submission is suitable for publication after small improvements.

Author Response

Reviewer 3:

 

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your feedback and comments. Below, I provide a point-by-point response to your recommendations and suggested areas for improvement

 

Comment 1: The structure, while generally coherent, lacks clarity in some transitions, particularly in the Discussion section.

Response 1: We appreciate this observation and have revised the Discussion section (Section 5) to improve the clarity of transitions between key ideas and paragraphs (changes in yellow). Specifically:

We added a new introductory sentence at the beginning of the section to connect the findings to the broader implications for trade dynamics.

We inserted transitional sentences between paragraphs to enhance the flow of arguments (e.g., clarifying the shift from statistical trends to strategic implications).

We also concluded the section with a stronger link to future prospects, creating a logical bridge to the Policy Recommendations.

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. According to Castro (2022), 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. 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 (Reyes Ortiz, Mendoza-Sáenz, and Robayo-Piñeros 2021), 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 (Ramírez Montañez, Sarmiento Suarez, and Suarez Quintero 2023). 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 (Argüelles Arredondo 2024; Angulo Chocano 2024). In Colombia’s case, the country remains dependent on exporting primary products such as oil and coal, despite recommendations from specialists like Stellin and Danna (2019), 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 GDP, limiting their ability to compete in higher-value-added industries (Licona Michel, Rangel Delgado, and González García 2020). 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.

 

 

Comment 2: The originality lies more in synthesis than in offering new theoretical contributions.

Response 2: Thank you for this insightful comment. In response, we have made explicit the theoretical contribution of the article (changes in yellow). We clarified this in two key areas:

In the Introduction (end of Section 1): We now state that the article integrates political governance into the analysis of trade sustainability, moving beyond traditional economic indicators.

The Pacific Alliance has emerged as a strategic platform for regional integration, trade liberalization, and geopolitical cooperation among its member states (Delgado-Martínez 2024). 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.

 

In the Discussion (Section 5): We added a sentence explaining how our study contributes to regional integration theory by emphasizing the role of political transitions and institutional stability as determinants of trade sustainability.

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 GDP, limiting their ability to compete in higher-value-added industries (Licona Michel, Rangel Delgado, and González García 2020). 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.

 

This clarification demonstrates that the paper does not only synthesize existing literature but also advances theoretical understanding of sustainable regional integration in Latin America.

 

Comment 3: The Policy Recommendations are useful but would benefit from tighter integration with the analysis.

Response 3: We fully agree with this suggestion. The Policy Recommendations (Section 6) have been completely rewritten in prose format to ensure tighter integration with the results and discussion. Each recommendation now directly corresponds to a specific issue or trend identified in the empirical sections of the paper.

6. 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 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.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work addresses the political and trade dynamics of the Pacific Alliance (PA) and evaluates their implications for sustainable trade within the bloc. Given ongoing political shifts in Latin America and the global debate on regional integration and sustainability, the topic is timely and relevant.

However, the article, in its current form, does not yet meet the standards of rigor and clarity expected. The study lacks a robust conceptual framework, does not clearly define key terms such as "sustainable trade," and provides limited analytical insight into how political dynamics affect sustainability outcomes. Substantial improvements are required regarding methodology, theoretical grounding, and structural clarity.

1. Conceptual Ambiguity around Sustainability

Although the manuscript is submitted to a journal focused on sustainability, the concept is unclear or operationalized. Whether the authors refer to environmental, social, economic, or institutional sustainability—or a combination thereof remains unclear. The analysis predominantly focuses on trade flows and tariffs, with only marginal consideration of sustainability indicators. 

Recommendation: Provide a conceptual framework for sustainable trade (e.g., integrating OECD, WTO, or UNCTAD approaches) and revise the analysis accordingly.

2. Weak Methodological Design

The manuscript claims to employ a qualitative and descriptive approach based on content analysis. However, there is no explanation of how the content analysis was conducted, and no categories, codification criteria, or systematic procedures are outlined. The approach appears more like a traditional literature review than an analytical study.

Recommendation: Specify the methodology used for content analysis, including selection criteria and analytical dimensions.

3. Descriptive and Redundant Structure

Much of the manuscript is devoted to reporting trade statistics and describing tariff rates without critically linking these data to political dynamics or sustainability goals. Several paragraphs and tables are repetitive or poorly integrated into the discussion.

Recommendation: Reorganize the results section to avoid duplication and focus on key findings that directly support the research question.

4. Lack of Analytical Depth on Political Dynamics

Although the paper mentions recent political changes in member countries (e.g., Boric, Petro, López Obrador), their specific influence on trade and sustainability is only superficially addressed. There is little discussion on how governance models, institutional reforms, or ideological shifts tangibly affect integration and policy continuity. 

Recommendation: Deepen the political analysis using case studies or policy comparisons across countries to support claims.

5. Tables Require Revision

Tables 2 and 3 appear to contain overlapping information, and there are issues with inconsistent formatting and labeling. For instance, Table 3 includes global export data but is titled in a way that could be confused with intra-bloc exports.

Recommendation: Ensure tables are clearly labeled, mutually exclusive in content, and directly tied to the core argument.

In addition to these more specific aspects, I suggest the authors improve the introduction. It could better situate the study within the broader literature on regional integration and sustainable trade. I also recommend avoiding citations of introductory economic textbooks (e.g., Mankiw), as this reduces the academic depth expected for a research article. Finally, authors should strengthen the conclusion by explicitly returning to the research question and proposing concrete policy implications.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper explores the intersection of political and trade dynamics within the Pacific Alliance (PA), and I found it timely and relevant. The topic is significant, particularly in light of recent political transitions across member states. However, the manuscript exhibits several critical weaknesses that require attention:

1. The sentence, “For instance, the election of Gabriel Boric in Chile, Gustavo Petro in Colombia, Manuel López Obrador in Mexico, and Pedro Castillo in Peru introduced new political and commercial orientations within the regional bloc, shaped by their ideological profiles (Ayala & Castiblanco, 2022),” lacks specificity. The authors should elaborate on the nature of these new political and commercial orientations and how they diverge from previous approaches.
2. The paper does not clearly articulate its contribution to the existing literature. While the introduction references political change and trade sustainability, it fails to define a specific gap in prior studies or to position the research within current scholarly debates.
3. The absence of a dedicated literature review section is a major shortcoming. References are dispersed throughout the introduction and discussion without a coherent synthesis of prior work. A structured review is necessary to contextualize the study and establish its relevance.
4. The methodology section lacks depth and clarity. The authors describe their approach as "qualitative and descriptive" based on "documentary review" and "content analysis," yet provide little detail on implementation. Specific concerns include:
• No explanation is given for how the study evaluated the impact of political decisions on trade sustainability. Were themes identified or coded? What analytic framework was applied?
• The process for selecting academic literature and trade data is inadequately described. Vague terms like “relevance” and “timeliness” (2015–2024) are insufficient without defined search parameters, inclusion/exclusion criteria, or the number of sources reviewed.

5. Much of the discussion summarizes data from tables without examining underlying drivers.

1. Several assertions are inadequately supported by data or literature.
2. The paper suffers from verbosity and unnecessary repetition, especially in the introduction, discussion and conclusion sections. Transitional phrases such as “additionally” or “similarly” are often redundant and detract from the flow. Improved structure and logical transitions between ideas are needed.
3. Recommendations such as “strengthen institutional mechanisms” are overly general. The authors should tailor their suggestions to the specific institutional realities and challenges within the Pacific Alliance.
4. The conclusion does not revisit or provide strategies for navigating ideological differences among leaders, despite their prominence in the introduction. This omission weakens the paper’s internal coherence.

While the topic is important and relevant, the paper requires substantial revisions to strengthen its methodological rigour, analytical depth, and overall clarity.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript examines the interplay between political environments and trade sustainability within the Pacific Alliance. While it addresses an important topic and provides data on trade patterns among member states, several substantive issues require attention. Specific comments are as follows:

1. While the authors provide background information on the Pacific Alliance, they fail to articulate why understanding the political and trade dynamics of this regional bloc is relevant. The manuscript would benefit from a clear explanation of the value this study offers to academia and policymakers alike. Questions such as how this research contributes to existing knowledge on regional integration in Latin America, or how it might inform future policy decisions regarding trade liberalization within the Pacific Alliance, remain unanswered. The authors should strengthen this section by explicitly stating the practical and theoretical significance of their investigation.
2. While the authors specify the time range for literature selection, several critical aspects remain unexplained: (1) specific selection criteria beyond the time frame, such as keyword filtering, literature types, or inclusion/exclusion criteria; (2) the total number of sources ultimately included in the analysis; (3) the systematic process and coding framework used for content analysis.
3. Table 1 displays weighted average tariff rates for member countries, yet fails to adequately explain the political origins of these differences or their implications for trade sustainability. The authors need to establish stronger analytical connections between the presented data and the political factors that have shaped these trade patterns. Without this deeper analysis, the results appear largely descriptive rather than explanatory, limiting their contribution to answering the central research question about how political environments facilitate sustainable trade.
4. There is insufficient linkage between the presented data and the paper's central research question regarding how "the political environment within the Pacific Alliance has facilitated sustainable trade." The export data in Tables 2 and 3 are presented without explicit connections to political factors. For instance, when reporting significant changes in exports, the authors fail to analyze how specific political decisions or environments contributed to these divergent outcomes. To strengthen this section, the authors should explicitly connect each major trade pattern identified to relevant political developments within the respective member countries.
5. While the authors mention electoral changes in the Introduction, they do not analyze how these specific political transitions affected trade patterns in the Results section. This represents a missed opportunity to demonstrate the causal relationships between political shifts and trade outcomes, which should be central to a paper examining political-trade dynamics. The authors should identify key political moments across the time period studied and analyze corresponding changes in trade data.
6. Despite "Sustainability" being a key component of the paper's title, the Results section contains minimal analysis of sustainability dimensions in trade patterns. The authors should expand their analysis to include considerations of environmental impacts, social implications, or long-term economic stability within the Pacific Alliance trade framework. Additionally, the section relies exclusively on tables to present data, without supplementary visualizations (trend lines, bar charts, or scatter plots) that could more effectively illustrate the temporal relationships between trade patterns and political events. Strategic use of visual representations would significantly enhance the communication of key findings regarding political-trade dynamics.
7. The paper suffers from a fundamental misalignment between its title and content. Despite claiming to address "Political and Trade Dynamics of the Pacific Alliance: Challenges and Sustainability," the structure remains fragmented with inadequate integration between political analysis and trade data. Instead of a cohesive examination of how politics shapes trade sustainability, these elements exist in parallel with weak logical connections. The authors should restructure the paper to establish clearer relationships between political developments and trade outcomes, while substantially developing the sustainability dimension promised in the title but largely absent from the analysis.

 

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Entirely Descriptive Approach Without Analytical Depth The manuscript offers a narrative summary of policy shifts and trade statistics across Pacific Alliance countries without formulating or testing any hypothesis. No interpretative framework is applied to connect political changes with measurable trade outcomes, limiting its academic contribution.

Lack of Originality or Theoretical Contribution The study reiterates well-known trade patterns (e.g. Mexico’s dependence on the U.S., Chile and Peru’s trade with China) without offering new interpretations or comparative models. The absence of a conceptual model renders the manuscript little more than a literature-backed report.

Superficial Treatment of Key Variables Critical elements such as institutional weaknesses, tariff heterogeneity, and capital flows are only briefly mentioned without deeper analysis. Data are reported but not subjected to meaningful statistical or causal investigation.