A note on financial regulation and the brazilian response to the 2008‐09 financial crisis

Brazil was frequently criticized for its interventionist and heavy financial regulation up until the 2008‐09 world financial crisis.  According to the neo‐liberal or pro‐market view that predominated in academic and financial circles during the early 2000s, economic development came together with financial deepening, which in its turn could only be achieved through financial liberalization and deregulation. The currency crises of the 1990s notwithstanding, by the mid‐2000s Brazil’s segmented financial market and its restrictive reserve and capital requirements were seen as a symbol of inefficiency and backwardness by most financial specialists.  To the luck of the Brazilian population, most of the advices of such specialists were ignored by the Brazilian authorities, so that, when the 2008 financial crisis hit the world economy, Brazil still had powerful and efficient instruments to deal with the problem.  The objective of this note is to present the mains aspects of the Brazilian financial regulation and how they helped the economy to deal with the consequences of 2008‐09 financial meltdown.

The Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (NETmundial)

This case study examines NETmundial, the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance, which was held in Sao Paulo, Brazil on April 23 and 24 of 2014. The meeting was convened by 1net, a coalition of This case study examines NETmundial, the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance, which was held in Sao Paulo, Brazil on April 23 and 24 of 2014. The meeting was convened by 1net, a coalition of stakeholder groups involved in Internet governance discussions, in partnership with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br), in response to revelations of mass surveillance of communications by the United States. It sought to develop a set of universally acceptable Internet governance principles as well as a way forward for the evolution of the Internet governance system, which together could serve as a framework for the governance and use of the Internet. It convened 930 participants from 110 different countries, representing civil society, the private sector, academia, the technical community, governments and intergovernmental organizations, as well as over 1000 remote participants from 23 countries around the globe. It also employed a content contribution platform that sought to crowd source inputs from stakeholders for the production of the outcome document. The meeting served as a demonstration of the multistakeholder process in action: in the production of the outcome document, stakeholders with a diverse range of backgrounds and interests collectively negotiated the inclusion or exclusion of highly sensitive and complex issues. While the process of achieving rough consensus involved sometimes messy debates and there were procedural imperfections, the case is informative for its structured production of bottom-up multistakeholder outcomes.groups involved in Internet governance discussions, in partnership with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br), in response to revelations of mass surveillance of communications by the United States. It sought to develop a set of universally acceptable Internet governance principles as well as a way forward for the evolution of the Internet governance system, which together could serve as a framework for the governance and use of the Internet. It convened 930 participants from 110 different countries, representing civil society, the private sector, academia, the technical community, governments and intergovernmental organizations, as well as over 1000 remote participants from 23 countries around the globe. It also employed a content contribution platform that sought to crowd source inputs from stakeholders for the production of the outcome document. The meeting served as a demonstration of the multistakeholder process in action: in the production of the outcome document, stakeholders with a diverse range of backgrounds and interests collectively negotiated the inclusion or exclusion of highly sensitive and complex issues. While the process of achieving rough consensus involved sometimes messy debates and there were procedural imperfections, the case is informative for its structured production of bottom-up multistakeholder outcomes.