2189 The persistence of Brazil outside the main LAC grouping across all observed years highlights differentiated integration pathways within the region. Meanwhile, the convergence of Chile, Peru, and Mexico after 2020 suggests increasing structural alignment driven by shared exposure to dominant global demand centers rather than by intra-regional trade intensification. The visual comparison between Figure 1 (2010) and Figure 2 (2024) reinforces this interpretation. In 2010, LAC exporters appear more structurally dispersed within the network visualization. By 2024, Chile and Peru are clearly embedded within the same dominant trade axis, characterized by thick outbound flows toward major demand hubs. Mexico is structurally aligned within the same community, although with lower intensity. Brazil, however, remains positioned within a distinct trade configuration. Importantly, this consolidation does not imply the formation of a LAC-centered trade bloc. Instead, community membership reflects integration into globally structured value chains. The dominant community in 2020 and 2024 is not defined by regional interdependence among LAC exporters but by shared participation in concentrated global trade flows. Therefore, the evidence suggests a dual pattern: increasing structural convergence among major LAC exporters within the same global community, alongside persistent differentiation represented by Brazil’s independent trajectory. 4. DISCUSSION The network evidence indicates that LAC’s structural positioning within the global copper concentrate trade system has evolved over time, but not toward full regional consolidation. Between 2010 and 2015, LAC exporters were distributed across multiple trade communities, reflecting fragmented structural embedding. By contrast, in 2020 and 2024, a greater concentration is observed: Chile, Peru, and Mexico converge within the same dominant community, while Brazil follows a differentiated trajectory. Table 2 shows that in 2010 LAC exporters were spread across three separate communities. By 2020, Chile, Peru, and Mexico belonged to a single dominant community accounting for 87% of global weighted degree, and in 2024 this consolidated community still represented 71% of global weighted degree. Within this dominant cluster, 8 of the 12 active LAC nodes in 2024 were co-located, indicating a high degree of structural concentration. However, Brazil did not integrate into this bloc. In 2024, Brazil shares community membership with Panama, forming the main alternative LAC grouping within the network. This configuration demonstrates differentiation rather than full regional integration. Importantly, this structural pattern does not contradict improvements in co-membership among certain LAC exporters. Rather, it reveals that convergence occurs within globally defined communities, not within a LAC-defined trade architecture. The observed clustering reflects shared exposure to dominant demand hubs rather than autonomous regional coordination. This is consistent with historical trade patterns in which Latin America has functioned primarily as a supplier of primary commodities integrated into global value chains rather than intra-regional production systems (Infante-Amate et al., 2022). The differentiated trajectory of Brazil deserves particular attention. Brazil’s persistent separation from the dominant Chile–Peru–Mexico cluster aligns with its broader trade strategy emphasizing diversification and strategic autonomy (Wainer, 2023). Brazil’s engagement within the BRICS framework and its policy emphasis on mineral sovereignty and institutional strengthening further reinforce this differentiated orientation (Saggioro & Curty, 2023; de Tomi et al., 2023). The 2024 configuration, where Brazil and Panama form a distinct community, illustrates how geopolitical alignment and diversified partnerships may translate into structurally separate network embedding. These findings must be interpreted within the broader institutional context of LAC regional integration. Despite more than six decades of integration initiatives, LAC remains characterized by fragmented institutional coordination and overlapping trade arrangements (de la Mora, 2023; Gázquez, 2023). Recent systematic assessments of Latin American integration processes emphasize persistent institutional fragmentation, limited policy harmonization, and structural asymmetries that constrain the
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2