The Pacific Alliance Integration Process: A Systematic Literature Review

Abstract

The Pacific Alliance has established itself as one of the most dynamic regional economic integration initiatives, standing out for its pragmatic and consensual approach to trade, capital and people liberalisation. However, between 2020 and 2025, the bloc faced both opportunities and challenges arising from the international situation, including global tensions, internal political crises and the need for technological adaptation. Against this backdrop, this study aims to conduct a systematic review of the scientific literature published between 2020 and 2025 on the Pacific Alliance, identifying the predominant theoretical approaches and the main findings on the integration process. This systematic review followed the PRISMA methodology, which contributed fundamentally to this research by providing a structured, transparent and rigorous framework for a deeper and more informed understanding of the integration process. The results show that, despite some progress, structural limitations persist, such as asymmetries between countries, institutional obstacles and superficial integration in economic and social aspects, as well as fragmentation in academic production and little incorporation of geopolitical perspectives. This study contributes to a critical understanding of the current state and future challenges of the Pacific Alliance, offering inputs for the formulation of public policies and future research in the field of Latin American integration.

1. Introduction

Integration is a dynamic process that builds the international economic structure, allowing member countries to benefit from the measures adopted jointly, which boost their development (Argüelles Arredondo, 2023). In this context, the Pacific Alliance (hereinafter PA), formed in 2011 by Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Peru, aims to be a mechanism for economic and trade integration, through the free movement of goods, services and capital between member countries. In this sense, the PA has stood out as a regional integration initiative, attracting growing international interest, reflected in the incorporation of observer countries and candidates for associate states, due to its achievements in economic, commercial, social and educational matters.

Between 2020 and 2025, the PA faces new opportunities and threats arising from the changing international scenario. The emergence of crises with global repercussions, regardless of their causes, will have an impact on both real economic and financial behaviour. The transmission channels of these crises manifest particular characteristics in emerging markets, as is the case of the PA countries, whose financial systems are particularly sensitive and share common features in terms of economic openness (Rijalba Palacios & Litano Boza, 2021), as well as cooperation networks that promoted previous alliances and facilitated the progress of negotiations through horizontal dynamics, allowing a commercial institutional framework influenced by multiple regional references, without reaching total convergence (Castro-Silva, 2022). Despite the PA’s internal tensions, it managed to position itself as an innovative mechanism with a real impact in a short period of time, which highlighted the limitations of previous regional integration schemes and opened space for the participation of non-state actors in economic decisions (Vargas-Alzate & Amaya Alviar, 2021). Current challenges include the need to move towards more complex economic integration, which implies highlighting technical barriers, improving labour and customs mobility, and consolidating regional production chains that expand joint exports (Vidarte Arévalo, 2024). In this context, the internationalisation of SMEs (Small and Medium-sized Enterprise) becomes relevant, despite its complexity, as they must adapt to more demanding and changing markets, facing trade barriers, lack of resources and the need for constant innovation (Becerra-Pérez & Sánchez-Meléndez, 2021).

Despite the favourable perception of the bloc’s trade openness, different studies agree that the integration process remains at a superficial level. Although initiatives such as the digital market have been promoted in the region through e-commerce to foster greater growth and competitiveness, the low volume of trade between member countries reveals that there are still structural limitations that prevent deeper economic integration (Oviedo Facundo & Bocanegra Gastelum, 2023). However, differences persist in the destinations of production with the countries involved in the PA that prioritise extra-regional markets, which reflects implicit barriers that hinder the articulation of common policies, especially in the social and labour spheres (Brondino et al., 2023). Added to this is the lack of a well-structured fund or any redistributive mechanism within the bloc, which limits the possibilities of providing for economic asymmetries between member countries and hinders the consolidation of regional value chains, despite attempts such as the cumulation of origin foreseen in the trade protocol (Zuluaga, 2024), while the lack of attention to the particularities of local contexts, including the capacity for action of governments and the environment for entrepreneurs, compresses the possibilities of articulating a solid and adaptive regional strategy in the face of the challenges of a more effective integration (Aguilar Barceló et al., 2023). Faced with the challenges of multilateralism and the need to advance towards sustainable trade, a concerted regional strategy is required that not only responds to the economic profile of PA member countries but also incorporates differentiated mechanisms capable of addressing their diverse structural realities and strengthening their articulation in the long term.

In this scenario of limited progress and internal tensions, the need for a systematic review of the scientific literature that evaluates the research generated during the integration process between 2020 and 2025 is justified. This review will make it possible to identify the dominant theoretical approaches, the most used methodologies and the key findings on the bloc. Recent academic production is fragmented and focused on case studies or comparative analyses without rigorous systematisation. There is therefore a need for an integrated perspective that coherently articulates the political, economic and social studies linked to the Alliance, incorporating methodological approaches that allow for a more precise evaluation of its impacts. In particular, research that, using techniques such as the synthetic control method, manages to estimate more clearly the specific effects of the integration process on strategic variables and proposes counterfactual scenarios that enrich the analysis of the bloc’s real effectiveness in the Latin American context (Carrillo Maldonado & Flores, 2024). A more precise measurement of value added in trade is also required, especially given the predominance of intermediate goods that cross borders several times and tend to be counted more than once if appropriate methodologies are not applied (Landa-Arroyo, 2020), as well as recognising that trade within the bloc is still small, with little use made of the agreement in several countries, which limits its impact (Martenetti, 2022). Analysing the evolution of initiatives such as the Latin American Pacific Arc Forum makes it possible to visualise the opportunities and limitations of integration schemes in the region, as well as to understand the institutional and political effects that have conditioned their development beyond the strictly economic. From a policy diffusion approach, the countries’ decision to join the Pacific Alliance does not only respond to internal factors, but also to complex historical conditions and international dynamics that favoured the adoption of a common agenda and the formalisation of multilateral commitments (Contreras Capella et al., 2020).

Despite the formal consolidation of the Pacific Alliance as a regional economic integration bloc, questions remain about the real depth of its integration and the effectiveness of the mechanisms adopted in the five-year period 2020–2025. Although the bloc has promoted trade liberalisation, mobility of people and rapprochement with the Asia-Pacific region, its tangible impacts on intra-regional economic flows, the articulation of common policies and the improvement of joint competitiveness remain limited. Structural asymmetries between member countries generate imbalances in the construction of an effective regional market, which is also reflected in the challenge of adopting a common digital strategy to take advantage of the opportunities of the global digital economy, improve transparency in public management and strengthen the rule of law, overcoming local resistance linked to inherited neoliberal models that hinder the public provision of essential services (Corredor Castellanos, 2020). Furthermore, differences in institutional capacities have made it difficult for inclusive policies to be implemented in a coordinated manner. This is the case even when the PA represents a political commitment to an open integration model, aimed at boosting the role of the productive sector through a strategic regionalism approach (Corredor Castellanos, 2020). It is also important to bear in mind that the cultural, political and linguistic diversity of the countries that make up the PA, added to their different levels of development and forms of government, represents a considerable challenge in advancing towards a common agenda. Although they share a strategic geographical location and account for a significant part of the world’s gross domestic product, the differences between these states have made it difficult to form a truly cohesive bloc (Maúrtua de Romaña, 2024). Finally, the lack of common strategies aimed at generating shared value has prevented progress towards a more articulated insertion in global value chains (Prado Lallande & Rouvinski, 2023).

In this context, it is pertinent to question the coherence, effectiveness and sustainability of the integration process in the PA, particularly in a period characterised by health crises, geopolitical tensions and new trade dynamics. Although the economies of the Latin American Pacific Arc have shown sustained growth in the last decade, there is still no systematic and rigorous evaluation of the bloc’s progress as a regional unit, especially considering that its functioning implies the articulation of a complex network of public and private actors, whose demands generate challenges that governments must resolve as public problems (Gasca Torres & Delgado López, 2023). Added to this is the limited dynamism of foreign direct investment among member countries, as in the case of Mexico, where the participation of PA partners remains low, which is evidence of a lack of effective integration in terms of capital and innovation. At the same time, low levels of investment in research and development limit the capacity of the bloc’s countries to generate high value-added goods, reducing opportunities for productive complementarity and maintaining poorly articulated competitive structures (Licona Miche et al., 2019). In this scenario, it is necessary to question the extent to which governments have recognised and incorporated approaches linked to the social economy as part of their integration strategies. Although the PA has identified the innovative and entrepreneurial potential of the region, there is still a weak valorisation of the role played by the social economy in terms of cohesion and social capital, key dimensions for achieving more inclusive and resilient sustainable development (García Alonso et al., 2020). The predominance of traditional economic approaches, together with the limited inclusion of critical geopolitical perspectives, reveals a theoretical and methodological vacuum that makes it difficult to fully understand the regional integration process and its evolution in recent years (Ganic & Novalic, 2023). Consequently, a systematic review is needed to organise the existing findings and identify both the achievements and the structural limitations of the integration process.

Several recent studies agree on the need to adopt more integrative theoretical frameworks that address the political, economic and institutional dimensions of the Pacific Alliance in a cross-cutting manner. In this sense, the importance of analysing not only the normative and commercial advances, but also the geopolitical and economic implications of the bloc have been emphasised, considering the influence of regional and global actors such as Brazil, China and the United States (Trejo Picazo, 2016). Despite recent meetings such as the January 2024 conferences in Chile and the fact that Peru has held the pro tempore presidency since August 2023, leading the bloc’s diplomatic meetings, there is still a gap between the commitments made and the concrete implementation of coordinated regional policies (Cuestas Zamora & Thoene, 2020). Furthermore, the absence of common coordination bodies and institutional differences between member countries hinder the development of effective and sustainable long-term governance (León-Silva et al., 2022). These structural weaknesses not only slow down the progress of the integration process, but also reduce the bloc’s credibility vis-à-vis key international actors, such as ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) or the European Union (Jeifets & Konovalova, 2022).

On the other hand, the systematic analysis of studies has focused on evaluating economic indicators such as entrepreneurship, the projected growth of companies and the impact of the Alliance on business aspiration, leaving in the background dimensions such as social inclusion, sustainable development or citizen participation, which shows a thematic imbalance in the academic production on the integration process (Puente Castro et al., 2020). This disproportion shows a lack of comparative studies that address legal and economic aspects in an integrated manner within the context of the Pacific Alliance, especially about the analysis of the labour market, informality and the constitutional protection of the right to work, which limits a more comprehensive understanding of regional development (Julio-Rospigliosi Porretti et al., 2024). Furthermore, there is still a low level of scientific production on topics such as SDG 2, centred on a few institutions and with little regional collaboration, which shows the need to broaden approaches and strengthen applied research on sustainable development in the PA (Herrera-Calderon et al., 2021). In this context, it is essential to move towards a more balanced research agenda (Tremolada Álvarez, 2023), which includes critical and interdisciplinary perspectives aimed at evaluating in greater depth the tangible results of the integration process in the 2020–2025 period.

This systematic review seeks to offer a comprehensive and critical view of the Pacific Alliance integration process between 2020 and 2025, based on an analysis of the specialised scientific literature. Considering the progress, limitations and structural challenges faced by the bloc, the aim is to identify the most relevant theoretical and methodological contributions, as well as the existing gaps in academic production. This review will not only contribute to a better understanding of the real scope of the integration process but will also serve as an input for the formulation of more coherent and sustainable public policies adapted to the current regional and international context. Along these lines, the general objective of this study is to analyse current research trends on the Pacific Alliance integration process between 2020 and 2025, through the evaluation of its economic, financial and political impact. Accordingly, this study is guided by the following research questions: (1) What are the prevailing research trends regarding the economic impact of the Pacific Alliance integration process during the period 2020–2025? (2) How has academic research addressed the financial impact generated by this integration? (3) What are the main research trends concerning the political impact of the Pacific Alliance over these years?

Finally, this article is organised into five main sections. The introduction sets out the context and objectives of this study, followed by the methodology, which outlines the conceptual approaches and the regional integration process. The results synthesise the findings, which are further examined in the discussion through various thematic axes ranging from governance, international cooperation and economic impacts to labour, technological and comparative aspects. Finally, the conclusions bring together the main contributions of this work, highlight its limitations and open avenues for future research, emphasising the theoretical and practical implications of the analysis undertaken.

2. Methodology

The PRISMA methodology was used for this systematic review, with the aim of guaranteeing a transparent, complete and precise publication in the search, selection, collection and analysis of scientific information (Page et al., 2021). This strategy allows us to organise the different phases of this study in a coherent manner and to improve its reproducibility.

After conducting a thorough analysis of the available academic repositories, we selected those databases that provide the highest levels of quality, diversity and reliability in relation to scientific production on the Pacific Alliance. Among them, Scopus, Web of Science (WoS), ScienceDirect and SciELO stand out, being internationally recognised for their rigorous indexing standards, strict selection processes and broad thematic coverage. These sources were chosen not only for their prestige but also because they concentrate highly relevant literature in key areas such as economics, regional integration, international trade and the social sciences, with significant representation of Latin American scholarship. Furthermore, they provide a considerable number of open-access documents, which facilitates consultation, ensures the traceability of results and strengthens transparency in the research process.

The search strategy employed Boolean operators and key terms directly linked to the research question, applied to the fields “Article Title”, “Abstract” and “Keywords” to maximise precision and relevance. Research articles published between 2020 and 2025, written in either English or Spanish, were included, provided they were open access and directly addressed the Pacific Alliance, its integration process, or its political, economic and social dimensions. Studies that did not meet these criteria were excluded. Of the databases consulted, ScienceDirect (1530) and Scopus (951) produced the highest number of initial results, while Web of Science and SciELO yielded fewer. After applying the eligibility filters, the number of relevant articles was considerably reduced; nevertheless, ScienceDirect (325) and Scopus (244) remained the principal sources of analysis. The search was completed on 11 May 2025.

For the PRISMA methodology, a set of inclusion filters was established: type of document (scientific articles, reviews, empirical studies); publication period (2020–2025); accessibility (open access or not); language (English); and thematic relevance (direct connection to the integration of the Pacific Alliance). The search strategy was developed through a carefully designed equation based on key terms related to the object of study. English descriptors and Boolean operators—specifically AND and OR—were applied across the fields Article Title, Abstract and Keywords.

To construct these search equations, the artificial intelligence tool in Scopus was employed, requesting alternative Boolean code formulations in English concerning the Pacific Alliance, its integration process, approaches to integration, comparisons with other regional blocs, institutional governance, and economic and trade prospects. Furthermore, the AI was instructed to group the Boolean codes into three blocks, as presented below.

Articles were selected for each of the combinations described in Blocks 1, 2 and 3, to maximise the breadth of the literature retrieved on the subject. This procedure ensured that the search strategy was not limited to a single perspective but rather captured a wide range of studies addressing the Pacific Alliance from different angles, including institutional, economic, political and comparative dimensions. By systematically applying this approach, the review was able to incorporate a comprehensive body of evidence, thereby strengthening the robustness and validity of the analysis.

Table 1. Boolean codes corresponding to block 1.

Block 1—Integration and Regional Approaches
(“Pacific Alliance” OR “Alianza del Pacífico”) AND (“regional integration” OR “economic integration”) AND (process* OR dynamic* OR framework)
(“Pacific Alliance” OR “Alianza del Pacífico”) AND (“integration process” OR “regional integration”) AND (implementation OR negotiation OR convergence)
(“Pacific Alliance” OR “Alianza del Pacífico”) AND (Latin America OR “South America”)
(“Pacific Alliance” OR “Alianza del Pacífico”) AND (integration OR cooperation)
(“Pacific Alliance” OR “Alianza del Pacífico”) AND (“member countries” OR Chile OR Colombia OR Peru OR Mexico)
(“Pacific Alliance” OR “Alianza del Pacífico”) AND (“regional integration”)
(“Pacific Alliance” OR “Alianza del Pacífico”) AND (“economic integration”)
(“Pacific Alliance” OR “Alianza del Pacífico”) AND (regionalism OR multilateralism)
(“Pacific Alliance” OR “Alianza del Pacífico”) AND (integration OR “regional integration”) AND (process OR development OR evolution)
(“Pacific Alliance”) AND (“regional cooperation” OR “economic integration” OR “international relations”) AND (Latin America OR “South America”)
(“Pacific Alliance” OR “Alianza del Pacífico”) AND (“regional integration” OR “economic integration”)
(“Pacific Alliance”) AND (integration OR cooperation) AND (process OR evolution OR development)

in Block 1 presents 12 Boolean academic search codes obtained with the support of artificial intelligence (Scopus). These codes were designed to gather information on the Pacific Alliance £ in the context of regional and economic integration. The objective of the research is to analyse the role, evolution and cooperation and negotiation processes of this Latin American bloc, considering both its internal dynamics and its positioning in the global context. The expected results aim to obtain the relevant scientific literature to understand how the member countries (Chile, Colombia, Peru and Mexico) implement and coordinate integration policies, as well as to evaluate the progress, challenges and prospects of Latin American regionalism through this mechanism.

Table 2. Boolean codes corresponding to Block 2.

Block 2—Comparison and Economic-Trade Perspective
(“Pacific Alliance” OR “Alianza del Pacífico”) AND (“regional integration”) AND (“Mercosur” OR “CAN” OR “Andean Community” OR “UNASUR”) AND (comparison OR comparative OR differences)
(“Pacific Alliance” OR “Alianza del Pacífico”) AND (“Mercosur” OR “CAN” OR “Andean Community” OR “UNASUR”) AND (comparison OR comparative OR differences)
(“Pacific Alliance” OR “Alianza del Pacífico”) AND (“Mercosur” OR “CAN”) AND (strategies OR approaches OR development)
(“Pacific Alliance” OR “Alianza del Pacífico”) AND (“trade liberalisation” OR “economic cooperation” OR “market integration”) AND (GDP OR exports OR trade flows OR investment)
(“Pacific Alliance” OR “Alianza del Pacífico”) AND (“economic integration”) AND (“foreign direct investment” OR FDI)
(“Pacific Alliance” OR “Alianza del Pacífico”) AND (“international trade”) AND (exports OR imports OR commerce)
(“Pacific Alliance” OR “Alianza del Pacífico”) AND (competitiveness OR productivity) AND (“economic integration”)
(“Pacific Alliance” OR “Alianza del Pacífico”) AND (trade OR exports OR imports)
(“Pacific Alliance”) AND (integration OR “regionalism”) AND (“Mercosur” OR “UNASUR” OR “CAN” OR “regional blocs”)
(“Pacific Alliance”) AND (economy OR trade OR politics OR diplomacy) AND (integration OR cooperation)
(“Pacific Alliance”) AND (trade OR economy OR “economic cooperation”) AND (integration OR bloc)

in Block 2 presents 11 Boolean academic search codes obtained with the support of artificial intelligence (Scopus). These codes are aimed at comparing the Pacific Alliance with other regional blocs such as Mercosur (Southern Common Market), Andean Community (CAN) and UNASUR (Union of South American Nations). The objective of this part of the research is to carry out a comparative analysis between these integration mechanisms, focusing on their strategies, development approaches, economic cooperation and trade performance. It also seeks to examine aspects such as trade liberalisation, foreign direct investment, competitiveness and export and import flows. As a result, it is hoped that the scientific literature will be obtained that will allow us to contrast the integration models, identify their similarities and differences, and evaluate the economic and political impact of the Pacific Alliance in relation to other Latin American blocs.

Table 3. Boolean codes for Block 3.

BLOCK 3—Governance, Institutions and International Relations
(“Pacific Alliance” OR “Alianza del Pacífico”) AND (institutions OR governance OR “decision-making”) AND (“integration process” OR “regional cooperation”)
(“Pacific Alliance” OR “Alianza del Pacífico”) AND (institutions OR governance) AND (“decision-making” OR policy)
(“Pacific Alliance” OR “Alianza del Pacífico”) AND (governance OR institutions)
(“Pacific Alliance” OR “Alianza del Pacífico”) AND (government OR “public administration”)
(“Pacific Alliance” OR “Alianza del Pacífico”) AND (“foreign investment”) AND (“business environment” OR strategy)
(“Pacific Alliance” OR “Alianza del Pacífico”) AND (“foreign policy” OR “international relations” OR “strategic partnerships”) AND (EU OR China OR United States OR ASEAN)
(“Pacific Alliance” OR “Alianza del Pacífico”) AND (“foreign policy” OR diplomacy)

in Block 3 identifies 7 Boolean academic search codes obtained with the support of artificial intelligence (Scopus). These codes are focused on the institutional, political and diplomatic analysis of the Pacific Alliance. The objective of this section of the research is to study the role of institutions, governance, decision-making and public administration within the regional integration process promoted by this bloc. It also seeks to examine how the Pacific Alliance is linked to the international environment through foreign investment, foreign policy, strategic alliances and relations with global actors such as the European Union, China, the United States and ASEAN. The expected results are oriented towards obtaining the literature that allows for an understanding of the Alliance’s institutional structure, its policy-making capacity, its diplomatic strategy and its international positioning.

Continuing with the data collection process, the data extraction was carried out by the entire team of reviewers, who entered the Boolean codes in the different repositories, and after receiving the search codes, articles that did not belong to the period studied (2020–2025) and that were not open access were excluded. The articles that passed these filters were downloaded in CSV or text format to load the information into Excel, where the data was cleaned, eliminating duplicates. Subsequently, the file was uploaded to Google sheets, so that the authors could jointly review the pre-selected articles (137) and eliminate those that were not related to the topic, leaving only the relevant studies (53) for the analysis matrix (for more details, see Figure 1). The protocols of this systematic review are registered in the Open Science Framework.

During the extraction process, the following data were collected for each article: author, title, journal name, year, abstract, keywords, DOI, ISSN, direct access link and others allowed by the different repositories. Discrepancies in data extraction were resolved by discussion and consensus and no automatic data extraction tools were used.

The analysis matrix was made in Google sheets in a collaborative way. Through a meeting it was agreed which aspects were to be included in the database, and they are presented below: (a) article number (its position in the matrix), (b) academic repository, (c) references in APA 7, (d) number of times cited, (e) abstract, (f) type of document, (g) objectives, (h) discussion, (i) conclusions, (j) relevance to the topic. The relevance of the topic is the main selection criterion, since if it is not relevant it will not contribute to this study. The distribution of the articles analysed by the team members is shown below

Table 4. Distribution of articles by specialist.

Reviewer Specialist	Correspondence of Documents Analysed	Documents
Moscoso, R	1–53	53
Canovas, A	1–9	9
De Vinatea, J	10–18	9
Perez, A	19–27	9
Quimper, R	28–36	9
Tapia, A	37–45	9
Torres, J	46–53	8
Total		53

.

2.1. General Definitions of the Main Categories of Analysis

2.1.1. Pacific Alliance

The Pacific Alliance is a regional integration initiative established in 2011 by Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Peru. Its primary objective is to promote deeper economic, commercial and political cooperation, with a strong emphasis on trade liberalisation, the free movement of goods, services, capital and people, as well as closer ties with the Asia-Pacific region. Unlike other Latin American integration projects, it is characterised by its pragmatic and open regionalism, prioritising competitiveness, economic modernisation and the international projection of its member states (Fairlie & Collantes, 2022; Quiliconi & Espinoza, 2017).

2.1.2. Regional Integration Process

A regional integration process refers to the gradual and structured association of sovereign states within a defined geographical area, aimed at promoting cooperation and reducing barriers in areas such as trade, investment, infrastructure, security and political coordination. It involves institutional mechanisms and agreements that regulate interactions between member countries, ranging from preferential trade areas to customs unions and political communities. Theories of regional integration highlight both economic drivers (such as market enlargement and efficiency gains) and political or social motivations (such as stability, security and identity-building) (Gallegos-Zúñiga, 2021; Oyarzún Serrano, 2018; Zuluaga, 2024).

3. Results

The results of this study can be summarised in 10 essential pillars. The findings are presented below in a table documenting the pillars and the number of studies in each pillar.

The results of this study are summarised in ten essential thematic pillars, presented in

Table 5. Specific references associated with each pillar.

Thematic Pillar	No. of Study	% of Study
Legal and Labour Aspects	3	5.66%
International Cooperation and Geopolitics	4	7.55%
Criticism of the integration model	1	1.89%
Regional Governance and Institutionality	6	11.32%
Financial Impact and Capital Movements	3	5.66%
Social Inclusion, Human Development and SDGs	6	11.32%
Regional Innovation, Technology and Digitalisation	4	7.55%
Economic and Trade Integration	17	32.08%
SMEs and Productive Internationalisation	8	15.09%
Environmental Sustainability and Regional Development	1	1.89%
Grand Total	53	100.00%

alongside the number of studies assigned to each category. The definition of these pillars was based on a systematic review of the 53 studies selected under the PRISMA methodology. This process involved identifying recurring patterns in the objectives, discussions and conclusions of the articles, extracting keywords, core concepts and predominant approaches. These were subsequently grouped into broader categories, distinguishing between economic, institutional, social and environmental dimensions. The categories were then refined and unified to avoid duplication, ensuring that each pillar represented a distinct analytical domain without overlapping with others. In this way, the classification of the pillars reflects both the thematic diversity of the literature on the Pacific Alliance and the relative weight of the issues most frequently examined during the period under review.

Table 5 provides the percentage distribution of the 53 studies according to their main thematic focus. Economic and trade integration emerges as the most prominent category, with 17 studies (32.08% of the total). This is followed by research on SMEs and productive internationalisation, comprising 8 studies (15.09%), and governance and regional institutionality, with 6 studies (11.32%). An equivalent share (11.32%) is observed in studies addressing social inclusion, human development and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Other areas are less represented: innovation, technology and regional digitalisation, as well as international cooperation and geopolitics, each account for 7.55% of the total, while legal and labour issues, together with financial impacts and capital flows, represent 5.66% each (3 studies). By contrast, critical perspectives on the integration model and those addressing environmental sustainability and regional development are clearly underrepresented, with only one study each (1.89%). Importantly, all studies were thematically classified, with no omissions. Taken together, this distribution reveals a marked research bias towards economic approaches, underscoring their centrality in the academic analysis of regional integration processes.

Table 6. Distribution of bibliographic references by author and pillar.

Thematic Pillar	APA Citation	Number	%
Regional governance and institutionality	Cuestas Zamora and Thoene (2020)	1	1.89%
	Licona Miche et al. (2019)	1	1.89%
	Morales-Fajardo (2022)	1	1.89%
	Ramírez Montañez et al. (2023)	1	1.89%
	Toro-Fernandez and Tijmes-IHL (2021)	1	1.89%
	Briceño-Ruiz et al. (2021)	1	1.89%
Subtotal		6	11.32%
Economic and trade integration	Castro-Silva (2025)	1	1.89%
	Contreras Capella et al. (2020)	1	1.89%
	Corredor Castellanos (2020)	1	1.89%
	Gallegos-Zúñiga (2024)	1	1.89%
	Valdivia Caballero and Villalobos Cruz (2023)	1	1.89%
	Gómez-Parada et al. (2021)	1	1.89%
	Morales-Fajardo (2024)	1	1.89%
	Morales Sánchez et al. (2024)	1	1.89%
	Reyes Ortiz et al. (2021)	1	1.89%
	Quiguanas Chila and Rojas Velasquez (2024)	1	1.89%
	Rodríguez Cairo et al. (2023)	1	1.89%
	Ericeira (2021)	1	1.89%
	Fairlie and Collantes (2022)	1	1.89%
	Vargas-Alzate (2022)	1	1.89%
	Vergara Garavito and Chión (2021)	1	1.89%
	Naeher and Narayanan (2020)	1	1.89%
	Gallegos-Zúñiga (2021)	1	1.89%
Subtotal		17	32.08%
International cooperation and regional geopolitics	Valencia González and Pinzón Muñoz (2024)	1	1.89%
	Jeifets and Konovalova (2022)	1	1.89%
	Ramírez Bullón et al. (2021)	1	1.89%
	Gasca Torres and Delgado López (2023)	1	1.89%
Subtotal		4	7.55%
Social inclusion and sustainable development (SDGs)	Aguilar Barceló et al. (2023)	1	1.89%
	Castro-Silva (2022)	1	1.89%
	García Alonso et al. (2020)	1	1.89%
	Herrera-Calderon et al. (2021)	1	1.89%
	Leon Quillas et al. (2020)	1	1.89%
	Vargas-Alzate and Amaya Alviar (2021)	1	1.89%
Subtotal		6	11.32%
Financial impact and capital movements	Aparicio Ramírez et al. (2020)	1	1.89%
	Pardo López and Pico Bonilla (2020)	1	1.89%
	Maya et al. (2024)	1	1.89%
Subtotal		3	5.66%
SMEs and productive internationalisation	Cardona-Arenas and Sierra-Suárez (2020)	1	1.89%
	Cardona Montoya (2024)	1	1.89%
	Cardona-Arenas et al. (2023)	1	1.89%
	Delgado-Martínez (2024)	1	1.89%
	Gallardo-Salazar and Tijmes-IHL (2021)	1	1.89%
	Guevara and Rodríguez (2020)	1	1.89%
	Abril Ortiz et al. (2020)	1	1.89%
	Valencia González and Pinzón Muñoz (2024)	1	1.89%
Subtotal		8	15.09%
Legal and labour aspects	Zapata-Flórez (2023)	1	1.89%
	Rojas-de-Galarreta (2022)	1	1.89%
	Julio-Rospigliosi Porretti et al. (2024)	1	1.89%
Subtotal		3	5.66%
Criticisms of the integration model	Granja (2022)	1	1.89%
Subtotal		1	1.89%
Environmental sustainability and regional development	García-Salirrosas et al. (2023)	1	1.89%
Subtotal		1	1.89%
Innovation, technology and regional digitalisation	Antón-Sancho et al. (2023)	1	1.89%
	Baena Rojas et al. (2022)	1	1.89%
	Guerra-Barón (2024)	1	1.89%
	Oviedo Facundo and Bocanegra Gastelum (2023)	1	1.89%
Subtotal		4	7.55%
TOTAL: 53 (100%)

shows the distribution of the 53 academic studies analysed, which were classified according to thematic pillars and include their respective citations in APA format. In first place, the Economic and Trade Integration pillar stands out, with 17 studies, representing 32.08% of the total, followed by SMEs and Productive Internationalisation, with 8 studies (15.09%), and Regional Governance and Institutionality, with 6 studies (11.32%). These data show a predominant focus on the economic, institutional and productive aspects of regional integration. Studies related to Social Inclusion, Human Development and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) also stand out (11.32%), as well as those dealing with International Cooperation and Geopolitics (7.55%) and Regional Innovation and Digitalisation (7.55%). To a lesser extent, topics such as Financial Impact and Capital Movements were addressed, along with Legal and Labour Aspects (5.66%). In contrast, critical approaches to the integration model and studies on Environmental Sustainability were the least addressed, with only one study each (1.89%). Overall, this thematic distribution makes it possible to clearly visualise the most recurrent trends and the approaches preferred by authors in the analysis of the regional integration process.

Firstly,

Table 7. Predominant challenges associated with each pillar.

Thematic Pillar	Predominant Challenges	Description
Legal and labour aspects	Legal and labour issues	Challenges in the harmonisation of legal frameworks and labour standards to guarantee rights and fair working conditions in the region.
International Cooperation and Geopolitics	Geopolitical and strategic	Implies coordination between countries in the face of changing international scenarios and the projection of the regional bloc in the global order.
Criticisms of the integration model	Theoretical and political	Includes questions about the effectiveness, legitimacy and objectives of current integration processes, and their effects on sovereignty.
Regional Governance and Institutionality	Political and institutional	Challenges in creating and strengthening effective, democratic and transparent regional bodies.
Financial Impact and Capital Movements	Financial and regulatory	Challenges in regulating capital flows, avoiding regional financial crises and promoting monetary or financial integration mechanisms.
Social Inclusion, Human Development and SDGs	Social and equity	Refers to efforts to integrate inclusion, gender equity, education and health policies into the regional integration agenda.
Regional Innovation, Technology and Digitalisation	Technological and infrastructural	Involves reducing technological gaps and fostering digital integration as a driver of regional development.
Economic and Trade Integration	Economic and Regulatory	Related to the harmonisation of trade policies, reduction of tariff barriers and macroeconomic coordination between countries.
SMEs and Productive Internationalisation	Productive and Structural	Addresses the challenge of integrating small and medium-sized enterprises into regional value chains and improving their international competitiveness.
Environmental Sustainability and Regional Development	Environmental and territorial	Requires the integration of environmental criteria in regional development and climate change adaptation policies.

presents a summary of the main thematic pillars identified in the systematic review, which are accompanied by their respective most representative challenges and a brief description of each one. From this analysis, the most recurrent challenges are mainly of an economic, regulatory and political nature, which accounts for approximately 58% of the references analysed, especially regarding trade integration, regional governance and the productive internationalisation of the bloc. On the other hand, other pillars address structural issues, such as Legal and Labour Aspects (5.66%), International Cooperation and Geopolitics (7.55%), Criticisms of the integration model (1.89%), Financial Impact and Capital Movement (5.66%), Social Inclusion, Human Development and SDGs (11.32%), Regional Innovation, Technology and Digitalisation (7.55%) and Environmental Sustainability and Regional Development (1.89%). Consequently, this thematic organisation not only allows for a clear identification of the predominant approaches in the academic literature but also highlights the gaps that persist in the comprehensive analysis of the Pacific Alliance.

Firstly, of the 53 publications analysed, 27 are directly related to the Pacific Alliance integration process, which represents approximately 51%. In general terms, these works address key aspects such as regional trade, investment, governance, international relations and economic integration mechanisms. In contrast, the remaining 49% focus on complementary or indirect issues, including entrepreneurship, labour policies, sustainability, the impact of COVID-19, education and finance, without explicitly focusing on the integration process. Thus,

Table 8. List of the 53 PA articles on the integration process: 2020–2025.

Nº	Títle	Año
1	¿Estados Unidos regresa a Asia Pacífico? Los acuerdos comerciales regionales en la política exterior de la administración Biden	2023
2	Do Pacto Andino à Aliança do Pacífico: reflexões sobre mecanismos da (des)integração da sub-região andina	2021
3	The pacific alliance towards a strategy on digital economy?	2020
4	From Open Regionalism to Strategic Regionalism: Investment and Enterprises in The Pacific Alliance	2022
5	El Emprendimiento Social en el marco de la Alianza del Pacífico	2020
6	Reflexiones sobre el proceso de integración de la Alianza del Pacífico desde la perspectiva de la competitividad e inversión en ciencia y tecnología: retos para la integración comercial futura	2020
7	Untapped regional integration potential: A global frontier analysis	2020
8	Modelo de integración de la alianza del pacífico y mecanismos de difusión de los programas de transferencia condicionada en la región caribe colombiana	2020
9	Latin American Integration against the Backdrop of a Conservative Wave: Between Irrelevance and the Search for New Meanings	2022
10	Pacific Alliance: Trade implications on member countries and other regional trade agreements	2022
11	A regional response to a global problem: Single use plastics regulation in the countries of the pacific alliance	2020
12	Competitiveness, labour market and protection of the right to work in the member countries of the Pacific Alliance	2024
13	A bibliometric analysis of the scientific production related to “zero hunger” as a sustainable development goal: trends of the pacific alliance towards 2030	2021
14	Financialization and pension fund investments in the Pacific Alliance; [Financiarización e inversiones de los fondos de pensiones en la Alianza del Pacífico]	2020
15	La gobernanza regional compleja del comercio electrónico latinoamericano: una perspectiva comparada de la Alianza del Pacífico, la Comunidad Andina y el Mercosur	2025
16	Strategic Regionalism of the Pacific Alliance: An Outlook throughout the Investment	2024
17	Foreign Direct Investment and Economic Growth in the Pacific Alliance Countries	2024
18	La integración del mercado bursátil latinoamericano: Una revisión sistemática de la literatura	2024
19	The Latin American Integrated Market, pending challenges; [El Mercado Integrado Latinoamericano, desafíos pendientes]	2024
20	Desafíos en la relación comercial de la Alianza del Pacífico y China en el siglo XXI	2024
21	The Impact of the Pacific Alliance on Trade Creation and Trade Diversion in the COVID-19 Period: A Robust Econometric Analysis	2024
22	Higher Education in the Pacific Alliance: Descriptive and Exploratory Analysis of the Didactic Potential of Virtual Reality	2023
23	Colombia’s Entry into the Pacific Alliance; A Reading From The Perspective of Neoclassical Realism	2024
24	Intra-regional trade flow dynamics in the Pacific Alliance; [Dinámica del flujo comercial intrarregional en la Alianza del Pacífico]	2020
25	ICT and the Trading Negotiation for International Sale Contracts in the Pacific Alliance Firms	2022
26	Environmentally Responsible Purchase Intention in Pacific Alliance Countries: Geographic and Gender Evidence in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic	2023
27	COVID-19 and its short-term informational impact on the stock markets of the Pacific Alliance countries	2023
28	Pacific Alliance: retail e-commerce and final consumers; [Alianza del Pacífico: comercio electrónico minorista y consumidores finales]	2023
29	The role of credit supply shocks in pacific alliance countries: A TVP-VAR-SV approach	2020
30	Growing up as the new kid on the block: The Pacific Alliance turns 10	2021
31	Levantamiento del velo corporativo en los países de la Alianza del Pacífico	2023
32	Los capítulos de inversiones en la Alianza del Pacífico, el CPTPP y el T-MEC: convergencia sustantiva, divergencia procesal	2021
33	Estabilidad financiera y gestión del riesgo sistémico en economías avanzadas y Alianza del Pacífico	2023
34	Impacto de la política monetaria en el equilibrio del mercado de trabajo: países de la Alianza del Pacífico	2020
35	Exploring the correlation between ESG, environmental performance scores and financial variables in Pacific alliance companies	2024
36	Relationship between cash holdings and expected equity returns: evidence from Pacific Alliance countries	2021
37	La Alianza del Pacífico y el CPTPP: ¿alternativas para la solución de diferencias ante la OMC?	2021
38	Interacción y narrativas del orden regional: Colombia, Chile y Perú en la Alianza del Pacífico	2024
39	La Alianza del Pacífico y su rol en los gobiernos locales en su primera década de acción	2024
40	Open Regionalism and the Pacific Alliance: The Case of the SURA Group as a Private Sector Actor	2021
41	La Alianza del Pacífico como acuerdo comercial regional: análisis desde un enfoque ius internacionalista	2022
42	Difusión y redes en la cooperación regional: la institucionalidad comercial de la Alianza del Pacífico	2022
43	La Alianza del Pacífico y su relacionamiento con la Comunidad Andina y Centroamérica	2021
44	Pacific alliance countries, 2000–2021: Effects of COVID-19 on growth and economic reactivation	2021
45	Un diálogo entre discursos y hechos: el acercamiento del Mercado Común del Sur (Mercosur) y la Alianza del Pacífico (AP)	2021
46	Dinamismo intrarregional de santander con los países de la Alianza del Pacífico en el periodo 2020–2021	2023
47	El alineamiento en seguridad internacional de los países de la Alianza del Pacífico con Estados Unidos: una aproximación desde el realismo constructivista	2021
48	Un análisis de las actitudes, percepciones e intenciones que llevan a emprender en los países de la Alianza del Pacífico	2023
49	Análisis del factor decisional en la política exterior colombiana: el ingreso de Colombia a la Alianza del Pacífico	2022
50	Comunidades epistémicas en Política Exterior. Estudios Internacionales	2022
51	Empresas colombianas dinamizadoras del comercio internacional en la Alianzadel Pacífico	2021
52	Instituciones formales, desarrollo humano y emprendimiento: un estudio comparativo entre países con alto nivel de desarrollo y los países de la Alianza del Pacífico	2020
53	MERCOSUR and Pacific Alliance Responses to the Pandemic	2022

shows, on the one hand, a significant academic interest in regional integration; and, on the other hand, a remarkable diversity in the approaches addressed by the literature linked to the Pacific Alliance member countries. In short, a dynamic field of study is evident, with an emphasis on both institutional processes and their social, economic and cross-cutting dimensions.

The analysis by quartile of the 53 publications reviewed in

Table 9. Publications by year and quartile.

Quartile	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024	2025	Grand Total
Q1	1		1			1	3
Q2	1				2		3
Q3		1	2		1		4
Q4	10	11	5	9	8		43
Total	12	12	8	9	11	1	53

reveals a clear predominance of articles published in journals located in the fourth quartile (Q4), with a total of 43 publications, equivalent to 81% of the total. In contrast, the higher quartiles have a considerably lower share: three publications in Q1, three in Q2 and four in Q3. This distribution, therefore, suggests that most of the work linked to the Pacific Alliance has been disseminated in lower impact journals, which could be reflecting certain limitations in terms of the scope and international visibility of this research. In addition, there is a constant trend in annual academic production, with no significant increases over time. Particularly worrying is the low representation of studies in more recent years, especially in 2025, which could indicate a decrease in interest or opportunities for publication on this topic in the current context.

The analysis of the 53 articles reviewed in

Table 10. Ratio of publications by journal and number of citations received (Top 10).

Journal	Number of Articles	Number of Citations
Journal Finanzas y Politica Economica	5	23
Revista de Contabilidad-Spanish Accounting Review	1	20
An International and Comparative Review	1	11
World Economic Review	1	11
Vestnik RUDN. International Relations	1	10
Colombia International	3	8
Multimodal Technologies and Interaction	1	8
AD-minister	1	7
Latin American Policy	3	6
Development Issues	1	5
Other	35	39
Total	53	148

shows a wide dispersion in terms of the academic journals in which they have been published, with a low concentration by title. In first place, the Revista Finanzas y Política Económica stands out, with five articles and 23 citations, making it the most influential within the corpus analysed. It is followed by Revista de Contabilidad—Spanish Accounting Review, with only one publication, but with 20 citations, and the journals An International and Comparative Review and Revista de Economía Mundial, also with one publication each, which have received 11 citations, respectively. These cases show that, despite the low frequency, some higher impact journals have managed to host papers of significant academic relevance. In contrast, several journals present articles that have not received any citations, suggesting reduced academic visibility or still limited impact. Overall, the 53 articles have received a total of 148 citations, indicating a moderate academic reception. All in all, this distribution leads to the conclusion that while Pacific Alliance research is dispersed across a wide variety of journals, its overall academic influence remains limited and fragmented. For the purposes of this study, the classification and verification of each journal were carried out using the Journal Citation Reports (JCR), the SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) and the SciELO quartile system, in order to ensure the reliability and comparability of their academic impact.

The study of the method and design of the 53 studies analysed in

Table 11. Publications by approach and design.

Design	Qualitative	Quantitative	Mixed	Total
Documentary analysis	1			1
Narrative analysis	1			1
Comparative bibliographic	2			2
Cross-sectional Bibliometric		1		1
Comparative	2			2
Comparative and documentary	1			1
Explanatory correlational			1	1
Descriptive	1			1
Comparative descriptive	1			1
Descriptive correlational		1		1
Exploratory descriptive		1	1	2
Documentary	2			2
Legal analytical documentary	1			1
Comparative documentary	1			1
Legal documentary	1			1
Documentary and comparative analytical	1			1
Documentary and theoretical	1			1
Case study	7			7
Explanatory		1		1
Exploratory descriptive	3	1		4
Longitudinal panel data analysis		1		1
Non-experimental descriptive analytical	1	1		1
Non-experimental descriptive descriptive explanatory	1			1
Non-experimental exploratory descriptive		1		1
Longitudinal non-experimental	1	7		8
Non-experimental Cross-sectional		4		4
Documentary trace	1			1
Documentary review	1			1
Systematic review	1			1
Cross-cutting	1			1
Total	33	19	2	53

shows a clear preponderance of the qualitative approach, present in 32 studies, which constitute 60% of the total. This is followed by quantitative studies, with 19 studies (35.84%), while the mixed approach is present in only 2 cases (3.77%), which shows its limited representation. With regard to the most commonly used methods, the case study (7 cases), the descriptive exploratory design (3 cases) and a variety of documentary approaches in different combinations, such as documentary and comparative analytical or legal documentary, which shows an inclination towards theoretical and exploratory analysis techniques, stand out. Similarly, in the quantitative approach, longitudinal (7 cases) and cross-sectional (4 cases) non-experimental designs were detected, which increases the variety of strategies used. In sum, these data indicate that the study of the Pacific Alliance and its related issues favours descriptive, exploratory and qualitative methods, with a strong analytical, documentary and comparative inclination, and a scarce presence of empirical, mixed or experimental research.

Table 12. Publications by number of authors.

N° Authors	No. of Publications	of Total
1	14	26.42%
2	17	32.08%
3	13	24.53%
4	7	13.21%
6	2	3.77%
Total	53	100.00%

presents the distribution of publications on the Pacific Alliance according to the number of authors. Of the 53 studies reviewed, 26.42% were produced by a single author, while the majority were collaborative works. Articles with two authors accounted for the largest share (32.08%), followed by those with three authors (24.53%) and four authors (13.21%). In contrast, studies with five or six authors were far less frequent, each representing only 3.77%. This pattern highlights a tendency towards co-authorship, particularly in small teams of two or three researchers, suggesting the existence of established but relatively limited networks of academic collaboration.

Table 13. Publications by research approach related to the Pacific Alliance: 2020–2025.

Focus:	Number:	Percentage:
Qualitative	32	60.38%
Quantitative	19	35.85%
Mixed	2	3.77%
Total	53	100%

sets out the methodological approaches adopted in studies on the Pacific Alliance between 2020 and 2025. The analysis shows a clear predominance of qualitative research, which represents 60.38% of the total, underlining the importance of interpretative and descriptive perspectives in examining integration processes. Quantitative approaches make up 35.85%, reflecting an increasing reliance on empirical and statistical techniques to explore the economic and commercial dimensions of the bloc. Mixed-methods studies remain scarce at just 3.77%, indicating a significant gap in the use of integrative designs that combine both perspectives. Taken together, these results confirm the centrality of qualitative approaches in the recent literature, whilst also revealing the need to diversify methodologies to strengthen the analytical robustness of future research.

Table 14. Publications related to the Pacific Alliance by journal.

Academic Repository	Count of Academic Repository	Percentage
Scielo	15	28.30%
SCOPUS	37	69.81%
WOS	1	1.89%
Grand Total	53	100.00%

distributes the 53 studies analysed presented according to the academic repository where they were published. Firstly, the majority of the works, 69.81% (37 studies), are indexed in SCOPUS. On the other hand, the SciELO repository hosts 28.30% of the studies (15 papers). In contrast, only one study (1.89%) is in the Web of Science (WOS) repository. It should be noted that no cases were recorded without specifying a repository. Therefore, it is concluded that SCOPUS is the predominant repository for the publication of these papers.

Figure 2 presents the annual distribution of the 53 studies analysed. First, the years 2020 and 2021 stood out as the years with the highest number of publications, with a total of 12 studies. Subsequently, in 2024, 11 studies were reported in the year, showing a very similar figure. However, during the years 2022 and 2023 a slight decrease was observed, with 8 and 9 publications in each year, respectively. Finally, to date, only one study has been reported in 2025, which represents a significant decrease. Overall, these data indicate a relatively stable trend in academic output over the period 2020–2024, albeit with a notable decrease in 2025.

The Figure 3 presents the annual distribution of the 53 studies analysed. Firstly, the years 2020 and 2021 stand out with the highest number of publications, with a total of 12 studies. Next, in 2024, 11 studies were reported in the year, reflecting a fairly similar figure. However, the years 2022 and 2023 saw a slight decrease, with 8 and 9 publications in each of those years, respectively. Finally, only one study has been counted so far in 2025, which represents a significant decrease. Therefore, overall, these data indicate a relatively stable trend in academic output over the period 2020–2024, albeit with a notable decrease in 2025.

4. Discussion

4.1. Regional Governance and Institutionality

The governance of the Pacific Alliance (PA) is based on a markedly intergovernmental structure, which implies the absence of supranational bodies or permanent technical mechanisms to ensure sustained articulation among member countries. This configuration limits the development of a robust institutional framework and restricts the strategic scope of the integration process. Morales-Fajardo (2022) warns that this lack of structural cohesion prevents the consolidation of sustainable decisions over time, leaving the bloc vulnerable to short-term political changes. In line with this view, Briceño-Ruiz et al. (2021) stress that the PA is at a crucial moment in which it must decide whether to maintain its light institutional architecture or move towards a more formal and permanent institutionalisation, such as the creation of a technical secretariat, emphasising that the current minilateral and flexible structure has been key to its dynamism, but also limits the construction of a collective identity and cohesive governance to face the challenges of its growth and changing context.

In a similar vein, Licona Miche et al. (2019) argue that the decisions adopted within the PA have lacked an institutional vision aimed at strengthening regional capacities, especially in areas such as science, technology and innovation. In his opinion, this is evidence of a structural weakness that compromises the long-term impact of the bloc. For their part, Cuestas Zamora and Thoene (2020) stress that the lack of a common legal framework represents an obstacle to the construction of shared, stable and predictable regulations among member countries.

In addition, difficulties are identified in aligning PA regulatory frameworks with existing international treaties. As highlighted by Toro-Fernandez and Tijmes-IHL (2021), the regulatory discrepancies between the investment chapters of the PA and other agreements such as the CPTPP (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) or the USMCA (United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement) demonstrate a lack of institutional harmonisation that weakens the bloc’s coherence. Finally, Ramírez Montañez et al. (2023) show that this weak governance also affects the sub-national level: their study of regions such as Santander reveals that there are no regional structures that allow for the capitalisation of local economic dynamism within the integration framework.

Overall, these studies agree that PA governance is fragile, fragmented and poorly articulated at multiple levels. Although its importance is recognised in the specialised literature, it remains a category without strong transformative capacity. The lack of comparative frameworks with more developed institutional models, such as the European Union or ASEAN, as well as the scant application of theories such as multilevel or institutional governance, reinforce this structural weakness and explain its limited impact on the consolidation of the integration process.

The graph exposes four major weaknesses of governance in the Pacific Alliance. First, a limited intergovernmental model, without supranational bodies or permanent structures, and dependent on political will (Morales-Fajardo, 2022). Second, a weak regulatory institutionality, with an absence of common guidelines in science and technology (Licona Miche et al., 2019) and without a harmonised legal framework (Cuestas Zamora & Thoene, 2020). Third, there is a lack of regulatory coherence with other treaties such as the CPTPP or the USMCA, which hinders regulatory convergence (Toro-Fernandez & Tijmes-IHL, 2021). Finally, there is evidence of internal and external disarticulation, reflected in the disconnection between subnational and regional dynamics, which prevents the capitalisation of local development processes (Ramírez Montañez et al., 2023). For further details, see Figure 4.

4.2. Economic and Trade Integration

Recent studies recognise that the economic and trade dimension represents one of the most consolidated pillars within the Pacific Alliance (PA) integration process. Within this framework, there is evidence of a transition from open regionalism towards a more strategic approach focused on attracting investment, regional competitiveness (Licona Miche et al., 2019) and productive articulation (Morales-Fajardo, 2024).

From a comparative analysis, Castro-Silva (2025) suggests that, although there has been progress in the institutionalisation of e-commerce in the PA, asymmetries persist compared to other schemes such as MERCOSUR (Southern Common Market) or the Andean Community (CAN), which shows limitations in regional trade governance. Along the same lines, Gallegos-Zúñiga (2024) warns of the pending challenges of the Latin American Integrated Market (MILA), particularly in terms of regulatory and operational convergence.

In relation to intra-regional dynamics, studies such as those by Gómez-Parada et al. (2021) have shown that, despite the progressive growth of trade between member countries, structural gaps persist in the participation of small and medium-sized enterprises, as well as in the development of value-added production chains.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has also been widely documented. Reyes Ortiz et al. (2021), Rodríguez Cairo et al. (2023) and Morales Sánchez et al. (2024) agree that the health crisis generated a significant disruption in regional trade flows and weakened joint response mechanisms, revealing a fragile economic resilience and an excessive dependence on extra-regional markets.

From a sub-national perspective, case studies such as Ericeira (2021) highlight the tensions between national and regional logics of integration, especially in areas with low connectivity and logistical articulation. Likewise, Contreras Capella et al. (2020) highlight the importance of conditional transfer programmes as mechanisms for social cohesion, although they warn that their diffusion has been uneven across regions.

Corredor Castellanos (2020), Valdivia Caballero and Villalobos Cruz (2023) and Castro-Silva (2022) stress that advances in the digital economy and institutional cooperation networks have been incipient and require greater articulation to consolidate them as axes of resilient integration. Furthermore, Quiguanas Chila and Rojas Velasquez (2024) highlight the importance of foreign direct investment as an engine of regional economic growth, although they warn of the need to establish strategies to ensure its sustainability and articulation with local value chains. Valdivia Caballero and Villalobos Cruz (2023) examine how the Biden administration seeks to reassert United States economic and trade leadership in the Asia-Pacific and regain the confidence of regional allies, following the withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership under Donald Trump, within the broader context of Sino-American rivalry and China’s growing influence through new trade agreements.

Regarding relations with extra-regional actors such as China, Morales Sánchez et al. (2024) point out that a coordinated trade policy is required to mitigate economic asymmetries and strengthen regional autonomy. For their part, Vergara Garavito and Chión (2021) propose broadening the analytical approach through comparative studies to assess the Alliance’s performance vis-à-vis other regional processes.

From a foreign policy perspective, Vargas-Alzate (2022) has analysed how decision-making factors influenced Colombia’s entry into the PA, revealing the influence of national agendas on the integration process. Likewise, Briceño-Ruiz et al. (2021) note that a decade after its launch, the Pacific Alliance stands as a free-market oriented integration experiment that breaks with the heavier Latin American frameworks. The bloc proclaimed goals of connecting regional supply chains, merging its stock markets and boosting digital trade, earning it a reputation as an agile and cutting-edge project. However, trade within the group remains limited, productive articulation is progressing slowly, and the commitment to a minimal institutional framework could become a burden in forging a robust regional identity. In a turbulent international context, questions arise as to its capacity to deepen integration and not repeat the history of initiatives that start with great expectations and then stagnate.

In this sense, Naeher and Narayanan (2020) propose an approach based on measuring the untapped potential of regional integration, highlighting that the efficiency and results of trade integration depend not only on the existence of agreements, but also on conditioning variables such as infrastructure, governance, security and productive networks. Along the same lines, Fairlie and Collantes (2022) argue that the Pacific Alliance has not significantly affected trade flows among its members or with other regional trade agreements in South America, which reinforces concerns about the low trade impact of the bloc more than a decade after its founding.

To overcome this fate, Briceño-Ruiz et al. (2021) note that the PA will need to strengthen its governance scaffolding and translate its openness discourse into tangible and diversified achievements.

On the other hand, the literature mostly identifies a trade strategy centred on strategic regionalism, focused on attracting investment and external competitiveness (Morales-Fajardo, 2024), but with weak productive articulation, especially in the integration of value chains and the participation of SMEs. Secondly, there is evidence of high structural vulnerability, expressed in the bloc’s fragility in the face of crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic (Reyes Ortiz et al., 2021; Rodríguez Cairo et al., 2023), and in the tensions between national and regional agendas that limit cohesive governance (Ericeira, 2021). Likewise, the challenges in terms of attracting foreign direct investment stand out: although its importance for economic growth is recognised, there is still a lack of a strategy that guarantees its articulation with local development and the generation of regional added value (Quiguanas Chila & Rojas Velasquez, 2024). Finally, important challenges persist in innovation and cooperation, such as the low progress in digitalisation and institutional networks (Castro-Silva, 2022; Corredor Castellanos, 2020), as well as the absence of a coordinated trade policy vis-à-vis global actors such as China (Morales-Fajardo, 2024).

Finally, due to the institutional weaknesses that characterise the region’s various integration projects, these blocs are not effectively achieving their goals at this critical moment. Moreover, they are still far from being able to coordinate a joint response to potential major disasters, something that is observed in other areas of cooperation, such as that of the European Union (Gallegos-Zúñiga, 2021). For further details, see Figure 5.

4.3. International Cooperation and Regional Geopolitics

The dimension of international cooperation and regional geopolitics in the Pacific Alliance (PA) remains incipient and fragmented, both in analytical and operational terms. Although the bloc promotes a narrative of openness and global insertion, its actions have lacked a coherent regional strategy, which has limited its projection as an integrated geopolitical actor (Jeifets & Konovalova, 2022). Gasca Torres and Delgado López (2023) argue that this weakness is manifested in the absence of a joint foreign policy and the prevalence of bilateral actions that detract from coordinated regional diplomacy.

From a structural perspective, Colombia’s entry into the bloc has been interpreted under neoclassical realism, prioritising trade and national security interests over a cohesive regional vision (González Parias et al., 2024). In the same vein, Ramírez Bullón et al. (2021) analyse the alignment of member countries with the United States in terms of international security from a constructivist realism approach, showing that the bloc’s external links respond more to bilateral logics with global powers than to a shared strategy.

These dynamics show that the PA’s external relations continue to be anchored in disparate national agendas, without a robust institutional framework that would allow it to confront common challenges from a regional perspective. The lack of operational articulation between the discourse of cooperation and the capacity to implement joint foreign policies limits the bloc’s possibility of consolidating itself as a strategic actor on the Latin American and international stage. Integrating this dimension effectively with other pillars will be fundamental for to strengthen its global positioning and advance towards more cohesive regional governance.

The figure presents the main geopolitical and governance constraints of the Pacific Alliance. First, a fragmented international projection is observed, marked by the absence of a joint foreign policy and a coherent regional geopolitical alignment (Jeifets & Konovalova, 2022), the predominance of bilateral actions as opposed to collective strategies (Gasca Torres & Delgado López, 2023), and the lack of solid institutional mechanisms to articulate a common diplomacy (González Parias et al., 2024). Secondly, structural restrictions are identified, such as the incorporation of Colombia under a logic of national security rather than integration, the persistence of disjointed national agendas (Jeifets & Konovalova, 2022) and the subordination of foreign policy to bilateral ties with powers such as the United States, as shown by the alignment in international security analysed from a constructivist realism approach (Ramírez Bullón et al., 2021). For further details, see Figure 6.

4.4. Social Inclusion and Sustainable Development

Social inclusion and sustainable development continue to be underdeveloped dimensions within the Pacific Alliance (PA) integration process, both in terms of its institutionality and its thematic prioritisation. Although the bloc has incorporated discourses linked to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), these lack real and systematic implementation mechanisms, especially with regard to poverty reduction, social equity and equitable access to well-being (Castro-Silva, 2022). Herrera-Calderon et al. (2021) confirm this trend by showing, through a bibliometric analysis of the “zero hunger” goal, that PA countries still show a low degree of articulation in policies linked to this goal.

The literature shows that PA efforts have focused mainly on trade dynamics, while social aspects have been relegated to the background. Vargas-Alzate and Amaya Alviar (2021) point out that private sector actors have promoted open regionalism agendas with little articulation with social cohesion strategies, which reinforces unequal integration. Similarly, Aguilar Barceló et al. (2023) indicate that, although entrepreneurship is promoted as a development mechanism, there are marked disparities in opportunities according to gender, educational level and socio-economic origin. In the same vein, Leon Quillas et al. (2020) underline that, despite the existence of formal institutional frameworks, these have failed to translate into significant improvements in human development or a level playing field for entrepreneurship in the Alliance countries.

Castro-Silva (2022) highlights that institutional networks within the PA have not been able to consolidate themselves as effective platforms for the dissemination of inclusive social policies or for the creation of equitable environments for entrepreneurship and social mobility. In addition, García Alonso et al. (2020) analyse the role of social entrepreneurship within the bloc and conclude that, although there are positive experiences, these are not linked to a common regional strategy or supported by inclusive public policies.

Consequently, the social dimension of integration remains weak, lacking intersectional approaches and concrete redistributive mechanisms. Evidence suggests that integration focused solely on economic growth limits the impact of the process on the most vulnerable sectors. It is therefore essential to rethink the integration model from a more humane logic, incorporating environmental sustainability, accessible digital transformation and articulated social policies, to build a truly inclusive and sustainable Pacific Alliance.

The graph exposes the social limitations of the Pacific Alliance, showing a weak institutional framework in terms of cohesion and social justice. Firstly, it highlights the lack of effective mechanisms to implement the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), due to a prioritisation of the economic approach over social components (Castro-Silva, 2022), as well as a weak link between the discourse on sustainability and its actual application in public policies (Castro-Silva, 2022). Secondly, structural exclusion persists in access to opportunities, reflected in a model of entrepreneurship that does not incorporate gender or class equitable approaches (Aguilar Barceló et al., 2023), and in social inequalities that the bloc has not adequately addressed (Vargas-Alzate & Amaya Alviar, 2021). Finally, there is an urgent need to reorient integration towards a more human perspective, through redistributive and intersectional policies that rethink the model beyond economic growth (Castro-Silva, 2022), integrating environmental sustainability and fair digital access (Castro-Silva, 2022). For further details, see Figure 7.

4.5. Financial Impact and Capital Movements

The financial component of the Pacific Alliance (PA) has been mainly oriented towards encouraging foreign direct investment and consolidating the Latin American Integrated Market (MILA); however, integration has been more discursive than operational. Recent studies point out that fiscal, regulatory and structural obstacles persist that limit effective integration of financial markets (Aparicio Ramírez et al., 2020), and that the Pacific Alliance mechanism has not led to significant changes in intra-bloc trade or in exchanges with other South American regional pacts.

One of the main challenges identified is the concentration of investment in traditional sectors, with little focus on innovation or value added, which reduces the bloc’s capacity to diversify economically. Maya et al. (2024) warn that there is no clear correlation between ESG criteria (environmental, social and governance) and the financial performance of PA companies, reflecting weaknesses in sustainable capital allocation mechanisms.

From a structural approach, Pardo López and Pico Bonilla (2020) analyse the growing role of financialisation and pension funds in the economic dynamics of the bloc. They point out that these funds operate according to the logic of individual profitability rather than regional development objectives, which may accentuate economic fragmentation and undermine the possibilities of establishing an integrated financial system with a redistributive sense.

Despite technical advances in financial connectivity and the discourse in favour of regulatory harmonisation, the PA financial system continues to operate more as a channel for the liberalisation of capital than as an effective tool for regional cohesion. The absence of a regional development bank, of redistributive criteria and of mechanisms that articulate finance with innovation, inclusion and sustainability, limits its strategic impact. Rethinking the role of the regional financial system is essential to build a more equitable and resilient economic integration aligned with contemporary challenges.

The chart summarises the main challenges facing the Pacific Alliance in terms of financial integration. First, important technical and regulatory obstacles are identified that prevent the consolidation of a truly integrated financial market, as pointed out by Aparicio Ramírez et al. (2020), highlighting the limited operability of the MILA Secondly, the analysis of Pardo López and Pico Bonilla (2020) reveals how financialisation, through pension funds, reinforces accumulation dynamics without regional development criteria, while Maya et al. (2024) warns about the concentration of capital in traditional sectors and the lack of investment strategies based on sustainability and innovation. Finally, the graph underlines the weak articulation of the financial system with the bloc’s social and productive objectives. There are no inclusive mechanisms that favour access to credit for small economic actors, nor is there a regional bank that acts as an engine of cohesion. This disconnection shows that the financial component, far from operating as a development tool, continues to respond to the logic of non-redistributive liberalisation. For further details, see Figure 8.

4.6. SMEs and Productive Internationalisation

The participation of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the Pacific Alliance (PA) integration process continues to be limited, despite their potential to boost regional economic development. Although certain support mechanisms have been promoted, their effective insertion in intra-regional trade flows continues to be marginal and unequal.

Cardona Montoya (2024) warns that the current design of the regional stock market does not consider the structural characteristics of SMEs, making it difficult for them to access formal financing. This limitation affects their ability to scale and actively participate in international markets. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, Cardona-Arenas et al. (2023) noted that the levels of volatility in the financial systems of member countries disproportionately affected small productive units, while Delgado-Martínez (2024) found that, although some trade creation effect was observed within the bloc, this mainly benefited large companies, leaving SMEs out of the dynamic core of the exchange.

Guevara and Rodríguez (2020) identified severe restrictions in the supply of credit to SMEs, generated by negative shocks that restricted their expansion. Likewise, Cardona-Arenas and Sierra-Suárez (2020) highlighted that monetary policies implemented during critical contexts did not consider the impact on employment or on smaller productive chains. This weakened the counter-cyclical role that SMEs could have played in the post-crisis economic recovery.

In terms of sustainability, Abril Ortiz et al. (2020) show that regulatory frameworks on environmental issues, such as single-use plastics, have been developed without including SMEs in their formulation, limiting their capacity to adapt to sustainable standards and their access to new markets. For their part, Gallardo-Salazar and Tijmes-IHL (2021) highlight that international dispute settlement mechanisms, such as those provided for in the CPTPP, have not been designed considering the operational structure of SMEs, which perpetuates their disadvantage vis-à-vis larger economic actors.

Along these lines, Valencia González and Pinzón Muñoz (2024) provide a sectoral view from the Colombian case, showing that, although some companies in this segment have managed to boost foreign trade, this is due more to individual efforts than to an articulated regional policy. The lack of integration of these experiences into a common strategy reflects a lack of a coordinated vision to enhance the role of SMEs as true engines of productive internationalisation.

The institutional approach of the Pacific Alliance towards SMEs continues to be insufficient. Financial, regulatory, environmental and legal gaps, together with the lack of a differentiated regional strategy, keep this business segment in a secondary position. Their effective inclusion will require articulated policies, specialised financing and regulatory mechanisms that consider their particularities, to turn them into protagonists of a more resilient, inclusive and territorially balanced integration.

The graph reveals the main barriers faced by SMEs in the context of the Pacific Alliance (PA). First, the participation of these productive units is limited, due to restricted access to regional markets Cardona Montoya (2024), their marginal insertion in intra-PA trade flows (Delgado-Martínez, 2024) and limited integration in foreign trade strategies. Second, there are structural and contextual constraints that affect their performance, such as credit shocks and low financial inclusion (Guevara & Rodríguez, 2020), monetary policies not adapted to their needs (Cardona-Arenas & Sierra-Suárez, 2020) and the uncertainty generated by stock market volatility in times of crisis such as COVID-19 (Cardona-Arenas et al., 2023). Finally, the regulatory environment presents relevant challenges, such as environmental regulations poorly adapted to the reality of SMEs (Abril Ortiz et al., 2020) and limited international legal support in terms of arbitration and dispute resolution (Gallardo-Salazar & Tijmes-IHL, 2021), which restricts their competitiveness and regional projection. For further details, see Figure 9.

4.7. Legal and Labour Aspects

The legal and labour dimension in the Pacific Alliance (PA) continues to show incipient and fragmented development, which seriously limits the possibility of advancing towards regional integration with institutional cohesion. Despite the formal recognition of this area in the bloc’s discursive frameworks, significant regulatory gaps and weak implementation of common policies persist (Julio-Rospigliosi Porretti et al., 2024).

Rojas-de-Galarreta (2022) argues that, although there are epistemic communities that promote proposals for regulatory convergence on labour issues, these have been relegated to technical spaces without achieving an effective translation into binding regional commitments. This disconnects between technical contributions and political will hinders progress towards shared labour governance.

From a critical perspective, Zapata-Flórez (2023) points out that member countries have serious limitations in their legal frameworks to ensure corporate transparency, particularly in terms of lifting the corporate veil. This weakness directly affects the oversight and regulation of transnational corporations operating within the bloc, which has consequences for the protection of labour rights and corporate accountability.

Complementarily, Julio-Rospigliosi Porretti et al. (2024) analyse the conditions of competitiveness and the protection of the right to work in PA countries, showing that trade liberalisation has advanced faster than labour guarantees. This regulatory gap has generated tensions between market flexibility and employment stability, exacerbating precariousness in vulnerable labour segments.

The studies reviewed agree that this legal and labour dimension continues to be one of the most neglected within the integration process. Its poor institutional articulation not only hinders the construction of a regional labour market but also has a negative impact on other strategic areas such as social inclusion, governance and productive mobility. Strengthening this pillar from a rights-based perspective and with common regulatory mechanisms is essential to move towards a fairer, more balanced and sustainable Pacific Alliance.

The graph shows the structural weaknesses of the legal-labour component in the Pacific Alliance (PA), grouped into three main areas. First, there is a marked regulatory fragmentation, with the absence of a harmonised legal framework on labour issues, as well as the lack of binding social clauses and effective regional mechanisms to resolve disputes (Rojas-de-Galarreta, 2022). Secondly, a subordination of labour to economic interests is detected, with weak protection of labour rights, lack of coordination in cross-border labour mobility, and the primacy of trade and security agendas over social ones. From a legal perspective, Zapata-Flórez (2023) highlights the difficulty of lifting the corporate veil in the countries of the bloc, which hinders business oversight and weakens transparency in the labour relationship. Finally, gaps are identified between the dynamics of international trade and labour regulation: while trade has expanded, labour regulations have not evolved at the same pace. Julio-Rospigliosi Porretti et al. (2024) warn that this dissonance has generated tensions in the protection of the right to work, with disparate standards among member countries and little inclusion of labour criteria in productive integration processes. For further details, see Figure 10.

4.8. Criticisms of the Integration Model

Criticisms of the Pacific Alliance (PA) integration model form a cross-cutting category that questions its structural foundations, its strategic rationality and its functional orientation. From a comparative perspective, Granja (2022) notes that the PA’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic was markedly limited in terms of health coordination, social protection and regional resilience, in contrast to more articulated mechanisms observed in blocs such as MERCOSUR. This deficit exposes the limitations of the open regionalism model adopted by the PA, which focuses almost exclusively on trade liberalisation, without equipping itself with institutional capacities to ensure comprehensive responses to systemic crises.

The persistent tensions between the PA and other blocs such as MERCOSUR are also evidence of the lack of a shared Latin American vision, which undermines the possibilities for inter-bloc articulation and joint regional projection.

Taken together, these observations reinforce the criticisms of the insufficiency of a multidimensional approach in PA-driven integration. The pre-eminence of economic criteria over social cohesion, environmental sustainability and regional sovereignty has generated a fragile, unbalanced architecture with little public legitimacy. This raises the need to rethink the integration model towards more inclusive, resilient and strategically sustainable schemes.

The graph presents a critical view of the Pacific Alliance (PA) integration model, structured along three central axes. First, it identifies structural deficits of the model, such as its dominant focus on trade liberalisation, the absence of redistributive mechanisms and social institutionality, and a weak capacity to respond to systemic crises, as evidenced by the pandemic (Granja, 2022). Secondly, the limitations in financial and regional articulation are highlighted, pointing to the low impact of the Latin American Integrated Market (MILA) on effective integration, the lack of coordination with other blocs such as MERCOSUR, and the lack of a common Latin American vision. Finally, the graph underlines the need for a reformulation of the PA model, proposing the incorporation of social justice and environmental sustainability as cross-cutting themes, the strengthening of regional sovereignty and collective resilience, and progress towards a multidimensional approach that goes beyond the bloc’s merely commercial logic. For further details, see Figure 11.

4.9. Environmental Sustainability and Regional Development

Environmental sustainability within the Pacific Alliance (PA) continues to be a secondary and underdeveloped dimension of the integration process, with weak institutional articulation and limited normative capacity. Although the PA has made formal commitments on environmental issues, the absence of binding mechanisms and regulatory dispersion among member countries reflect a lack of effective regional environmental governance.

Furthermore, there is little integration of ecological criteria into human development, innovation and entrepreneurship strategies, which restricts progress towards resilient production models. In this sense, García-Salirrosas et al. (2023) show that the intentions of environmentally responsible consumption present significant gaps by gender and territory, which reveals structural inequalities and a low environmental institutional framework that fails to promote sustainable habits in a homogeneous manner in the region.

The environmental component in PA remains subordinated to commercial objectives, with no effective link to strategic dimensions such as social inclusion or productive transformation. To reverse this situation, it is necessary to move towards a robust regulatory architecture capable of articulating environmental justice, sustainable human development and territorial cohesion. This implies strengthening joint environmental planning, as well as consolidating formal institutions that promote green entrepreneurship and ecological resilience in the bloc.

The graph describes the main limitations and opportunities of the environmental component in Pacific Alliance (PA) integration, structured in three dimensions. First, there is evidence of weak formal institutions, characterised by limited environmental regulatory capacity, the absence of binding mechanisms at the regional level and limited articulation between member countries. Secondly, important gaps are identified with respect to countries with a high level of development, such as the lack of integrated sustainable policies, the low incorporation of environmental criteria in entrepreneurship and the lack of institutions with an eco-social approach. However, the graph also highlights opportunities for integration with an eco-social orientation, pointing to the need for territorial cohesion, the harnessing of the potential of green entrepreneurship and the articulation between environmental justice and human development as pillars for rethinking a more inclusive, sustainable and equitable regional integration. For further details, see Figure 12.

4.10. Innovation, Technology and Regional Digitalisation

The technological dimension of the Pacific Alliance (PA) integration process remains incipient, with fragmented progress and weak institutions. Guerra-Barón (2024) stresses that regional narratives around innovation lack clear strategic coordination between Chile, Colombia and Peru, reflecting the lack of a shared digital vision. The construction of a regional technological order is hampered by divergent national priorities and a still instrumental approach to technology in the integration discourse.

Reyes Ortiz et al. (2021) note that although the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated some digitisation initiatives in the economic and education sectors, these advances were mostly reactive and did not translate into the creation of a sustainable regional digital infrastructure. The lack of articulation between technological innovation and public policies of integration reduced the possibility of consolidating a cohesive digital ecosystem.

From a governance perspective, Baena Rojas et al. (2022) point out that Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) have not been used effectively in the bloc’s trade negotiation processes, which limits its capacity to establish interoperable regional platforms. Along the same lines, Oviedo Facundo and Bocanegra Gastelum (2023) identify that retail e-commerce has advanced unevenly, with dissimilar regulatory frameworks that impede effective digital integration.

Antón-Sancho et al. (2023) note that even in areas such as higher education, where virtual reality has emerged as an innovative tool, efforts remain isolated and lack a regional strategy for technological incorporation.

Overall, the studies reviewed agree that digitisation within the PA lacks technical institutionality, multi-level governance and sustained funding mechanisms. The absence of a joint strategy limits the development of integrated platforms, digital interoperability and the strengthening of digital rights. Consolidating this dimension is essential for the PA to move towards a more modern, inclusive and resilient integration.

The graph summarises the main challenges of the Pacific Alliance (PA) in terms of innovation, technology and regional digitalisation, organised into three critical dimensions. First, there is evidence of strategic fragmentation in innovation, with divergent narratives among member countries (Guerra-Barón, 2024), the absence of a shared digital vision and scarce coordinated technical institutions. Secondly, it analyses post-COVID-19 digitisation, characterised by a disjointed reactivation (Reyes Ortiz et al., 2021), technological advances without regional planning and a still insufficient technological infrastructure. Finally, the weak digital governance of the bloc is exposed, reflected in the absence of integrated regulatory frameworks, the lack of common digital platforms and rights, as well as limited investment in joint innovation, which significantly reduces the transformative potential of digitalisation in the integration process. For further details, see Figure 13.

In sum, a critical review of the main dimensions of the Pacific Alliance integration process reveals a fragmented institutional architecture, with some progress in economic and trade matters, but profound limitations in key areas such as governance, social inclusion, environmental sustainability, digitisation, labour justice and international cooperation. Although the bloc has managed to consolidate certain technical mechanisms aimed at competitiveness and attracting investment, there is still an absence of a comprehensive strategic vision that links economic development with social justice, sustainability and regional sovereignty. The lack of a robust institutional framework, multi-level coordination and binding regulatory frameworks weakens the resilience of the integration process in the face of systemic crises and limits its geopolitical projection. In this context, rethinking the integration model under more inclusive, ecological and technological approaches is not only desirable, but urgent to move towards a more coherent, equitable and sustainable Pacific Alliance.

4.11. Comparative Perspectives: Latin American and Extra-Regional Blocs

The comparative analysis of the PA alongside other regional integration projects provides important insights into its strengths and weaknesses. Within Latin America, MERCOSUR has historically advanced with a more institutionalised structure, incorporating formal mechanisms such as dispute-settlement systems and a parliamentary body. This stands in contrast to the PA’s deliberately light and intergovernmental architecture (Aparicio Ramírez et al., 2020). While MERCOSUR has often favoured protectionist logics and inward-looking dynamics, the PA has been conceived as an outward-oriented bloc prioritising trade liberalisation and connections with Asia-Pacific economies (Argüelles Arredondo, 2023; Trejo Picazo, 2016). This divergence illustrates two different models of regionalism that coexist in Latin America but rarely converge in practice, thus limiting the possibility of broader regional articulation (Vidarte Arévalo, 2024).

UNASUR, on the other hand, represents a different trajectory: it sought to build a political and security forum with broad agendas, but ultimately declined due to institutional fragility and excessive politicisation. Ericeira (2021) highlights that the shift from the Andean Pact to the PA reflects how overambitious political schemes, such as UNASUR, contrast with more technical and market-oriented frameworks like the PA. In this regard, the PA has maintained greater stability, though at the cost of deeper political integration and social cohesion (Quiliconi & Espinoza, 2017).

Extra-regional comparisons also shed light on the PA’s performance. ASEAN offers an instructive case, as it shares with the PA a commitment to flexibility, consensus-based decision-making and gradualism. However, ASEAN has progressively consolidated a stronger regional identity through the development of common institutions, including a permanent secretariat and functional cooperation agendas (Landa-Arroyo, 2020). By contrast, the PA continues to lack permanent institutional bodies and long-term strategies, which restricts its ability to transform political commitments into effective regional public policies (Tremolada Álvarez, 2023).

The EU provides an additional benchmark, even if its historical trajectory is not directly replicable in Latin America. Its supranational institutions and redistributive mechanisms demonstrate the potential of integration when institutionalisation advances beyond purely intergovernmental logics (Gallardo-Salazar & Tijmes-IHL, 2021). For the PA, the lesson is not to imitate the EU model but rather to strengthen institutional scaffolding and incorporate mechanisms of social cohesion if it aspires to consolidate itself as more than a trade alliance (Hurtado Briceño et al., 2021).

In summary, MERCOSUR demonstrates the costs of rigidity and political paralysis; UNASUR, the risks of politicisation without economic grounding; ASEAN, the advantages of gradual yet consistent institution-building; and the EU, the transformative power of deeper institutionalisation. The Pacific Alliance, as a form of “light regionalism”, remains attractive for its pragmatism and flexibility, but vulnerable to fragmentation due to its limited institutional consolidation. The central challenge lies in striking a balance between maintaining flexibility and constructing the institutional solidity required to respond to systemic crises, strengthen the social dimension and project itself as a credible regional and international actor.

5. Conclusions

Based on the analysis of 53 scientific studies published between 2020 and 2025, it is concluded that the Pacific Alliance presents a regional integration model that, although it has achieved technical progress in trade liberalisation and attracting foreign investment, it remains limited by a superficial economic integration. The low density of intra-regional trade, the scant consolidation of regional value chains and the weak participation of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) reflect the fact that the bloc maintains a declaratory orientation, without achieving a structural articulation that would boost joint productive development. This trend is evidence of the persistence of structural asymmetries between member countries, as well as a regulatory design that prioritises individual competitiveness over regional complementarity.

Secondly, the findings reveal that Pacific Alliance governance is structured on a fragmented intergovernmental model, without supranational bodies or permanent technical instances that guarantee effective policy coordination. The high dependence on the political will of national governments, coupled with the limited participation of subnational and social actors, weakens the democratic legitimacy of the process and compromises its sustainability in the medium and long term. This institutional weakness also affects the bloc’s capacity to articulate common responses to systemic crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, and limits its projection as a regional actor with geopolitical weight.

A third conclusion points to the notable absence of common policies in key dimensions such as social inclusion, environmental sustainability and labour justice. Despite their discursive presence in official documents, these areas continue to be marginal in the bloc’s institutional architecture and are under-represented in the academic literature reviewed. The lack of redistributive mechanisms, harmonised labour legal frameworks and integrated environmental strategies prevents the Pacific Alliance from moving towards integration with territorial cohesion, social equity and ecological resilience. This omission also reproduces historical gaps that particularly affect vulnerable populations such as women, youth, indigenous peoples and informal workers.

Finally, the systematic review leads to the conclusion that the current Pacific Alliance integration model needs to be rethought under a more inclusive, strategic and multidimensional approach. Overcoming the dominant economicist bias requires the incorporation of more inclusive analytical frameworks that consider the interrelations between economy, politics, society, environment and technology. It also requires greater articulation between supranational, state and territorial levels, as well as the active inclusion of non-state actors (such as SMEs, epistemic networks and civil society) in the design and implementation of regional policies. Only a profound reconfiguration of its institutional architecture will allow the Pacific Alliance to move from declarative integration to effective integration, capable of responding to the complex challenges of the 21st century with a situated, democratic and sustainable perspective.

5.1. Future Research

The findings suggest the need to move towards more integrative, critical and methodologically sound lines of research that will allow for a more in-depth assessment of the evolution of the Pacific Alliance in the 2020–2025 period. As Tremolada Álvarez (2023) argue, incorporating mixed and longitudinal approaches, as well as counterfactual analysis tools and synthetic control models, would allow for a more accurate estimation of the real effects of the integration process on strategic variables such as trade, investment and human development.

Along these lines, Quiliconi and Espinoza (2017) and Morales-Fajardo (2022) propose strengthening comparative studies between blocs such as MERCOSUR, CAN or ASEAN, to enrich the understanding of institutional governance and trade articulation from diverse trajectories. Furthermore, it is essential to broaden the focus towards non-state actors—such as SMEs, social collectives or epistemic networks—which are increasingly involved in regional cooperation processes from a logic of multilevel governance. Finally, future lines could address the unequal impact of digitalisation on the region’s informal or peripheral sectors, who highlights the urgency of analysing the technological divide from a territorial and socio-labour perspective.

5.2. Limitations

The limitations of this study manifest at various levels. First, there is a restriction in access to academic information. The corpus was limited to open-access articles published between 2020 and 2025. This decision sought to ensure transparency and replicability yet simultaneously entailed the exclusion of literature published in subscription-based journals or by restricted-access publishers. As a result, the panorama presented may be biased towards certain editorial currents and may overlook relevant contributions not publicly available.

Second, a limitation arises in terms of thematic specificity. A considerable proportion of the selected articles addresses regional integration in general, without positioning the Pacific Alliance as the central object of analysis. Consequently, the findings often reflect insights extrapolated from other integration processes, which restricts the depth of the conclusions regarding this specific case. The results must therefore be interpreted with caution, as not all approaches were designed to directly explain the dynamics of the Pacific Alliance.

Third, the methodological and theoretical heterogeneity of the reviewed studies constitutes another limitation. The corpus includes qualitative descriptive research, studies employing econometric models, as well as historical and normative approaches. While this diversity enriches the understanding of the phenomenon, it also complicates systematic comparison, producing a fragmented mosaic that may lead to partial interpretations. Variations in theoretical frameworks—such as institutionalism, intergovernmentalism, or open regionalism—directly shape the findings and hinder the construction of homogeneous conclusions.

Furthermore, the deliberate omission of the grey literature (working papers, technical reports, documents from international organisations, or think tanks) must be acknowledged. The methodological choice to privilege indexed academic sources ensured compliance with scientific quality standards, yet excluded applied evidence that often reflects recent dynamics, political negotiations, or institutional developments not always captured in academic publications. Consequently, this study may not fully represent ongoing debates or the practical tensions surrounding the integration process.

In addition, research on the Pacific Alliance remains incipient when compared with older and more consolidated blocs, such as the European Union or MERCOSUR. The limited bibliographic density constrains the possibility of identifying robust and sustained trends over time. Accordingly, the findings should be regarded as a point of departure to guide broader and more systematic future research, rather than as definitive conclusions. It should also be clarified that this article does not address the phenomenon of regionalism in its full scope and diversity but rather focuses specifically on the Pacific Alliance integration process—a field where academic output in Scopus, WoS and SciELO remains relatively limited. Moreover, it must be emphasised that this is a systematic review conducted under the PRISMA model, rather than a descriptive qualitative study or an exercise in theoretical modelling.

Taken together, these limitations urge readers to interpret the findings prudently and to complement them with further studies incorporating more diverse sources, comparative perspectives and consistent analytical frameworks. Nevertheless, the systematisation achieved in this work represents a distinctive contribution, as it organises existing knowledge into ten thematic pillars, thereby offering a valuable resource for researchers and practitioners interested in the evolution of the Pacific Alliance.

In addition, as the current year 2025 has not yet concluded, there remains the possibility that additional articles on the Pacific Alliance will be published during this year and the next. Future updates of this study may therefore alter the observed trend patterns. It is thus essential to approach the interpretation of peaks and declines with caution, to minimise potential biases and ensure a more balanced assessment of the findings.

Finally, it is important to acknowledge the broader limitations inherent to both systematic literature reviews and bibliometric studies, which converge in several methodological aspects. Both approaches rely on the selection and combination of academic databases, the application of standardised protocols such as PRISMA, and the quality of metadata provided by publishers. As highlighted in recent bibliometric research (Taques, 2025), differences in search fields, export formats and database coverage may generate inconsistencies, duplications, or even the omission of relevant studies. Likewise, the deliberate exclusion of the grey literature, although justified on grounds of scientific quality, narrows the scope of the evidence and may overlook ongoing debates or emerging perspectives not yet consolidated in peer-reviewed journals. These constraints, common to both bibliometric designs and systematic reviews, reinforce the need to interpret findings with caution and to encourage complementary studies that broaden the range of sources, methodological approaches and theoretical frameworks considered.

5.3. Theoretical and Practical Implications

The findings of this research yield relevant implications at both conceptual and applied levels. At the theoretical level, they underscore the need to move beyond the prevailing economistic approach by adopting integrative analytical frameworks that encompass economic, institutional, environmental, technological and geopolitical dimensions in a cross-cutting manner. Such a broadened perspective would enable a more precise articulation of concepts such as multilevel governance, sustainability, strategic regionalism and South–South cooperation, grounded in a critical and context-sensitive Latin American outlook.

At a practical level, the results point to the need to reformulate the institutional architecture of the Pacific Alliance to foster greater intergovernmental coordination, subnational participation and engagement with civil society. A regional digital strategy underpinned by an inclusive approach could not only enhance productivity but also promote social cohesion by narrowing gaps in access and capabilities. Moreover, the integration of transparency and mechanisms for citizen participation emerges as essential to strengthening democratic legitimacy.

Finally, this study advocates for the reinforcement of technical cooperation in science, technology and innovation; the promotion of tailored policies to support the integration of SMEs into regional value chains; and the consolidation of a shared economic diplomacy guided by principles of social justice. These pillars should contribute to a resilient, inclusive and sustainable model of integration—one capable of addressing the structural challenges of the twenty-first century through innovative and deeply human-centred solutions.