The Choice between Intergovernmentalism and Nongovernmentalism: Projecting Domestic Preferences to Global Governance

2018 ◽  
Vol 71 (1) ◽  
pp. 88-125 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandru Grigorescu ◽  
Çağlayan Başer
Keyword(s):  
Global Governance ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Statistical Analyses ◽  
Intergovernmental Organizations ◽  
Domestic Institutions

AbstractThis article seeks to explain when governments are more likely to take an intergovernmental approach to resolving global collective problems rather than step back and encourage (or simply allow) nongovernmental actors to become the main global governors. The authors suggest that an important factor driving this choice is the domestic ideological leanings of powerful states toward greater or lesser government activism. Such ideologies connect domestic preferences to international ones. They also lead to the establishment of domestic institutions that, in turn, facilitate the emergence of international organizations. Using these arguments, the authors develop a set of inferences regarding the likelihood that governments will establish and join intergovernmental organizations. The authors test their hypotheses through a study of global governance in the education realm, and also apply a series of statistical analyses covering developments in all issue-areas over the last century and a half.

Mechanisms of Global Governance: Economic Analysis

2013 ◽  
pp. 4-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Grigoryev ◽  
A. Kurdin
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Economic Analysis ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Economic Activity ◽  
Global Level ◽  
Narrow Sense ◽  
Key Characteristics ◽  
Global Problems

The coordination of economic activity at the global level is carried out through different mechanisms, which regulate activities of companies, states, international organizations. In spite of wide diversity of entrenched mechanisms of governance in different areas, they can be classified on the basis of key characteristics, including distribution of property rights, mechanisms of governance (in the narrow sense according to O. Williamson), mechanisms of expansion. This approach can contribute not only to classifying existing institutions but also to designing new ones. The modern aggravation of global problems may require rethinking mechanisms of global governance. The authors offer the universal framework for considering this problem and its possible solutions.

Accountability in Global Governance

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gisela Hirschmann
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Economic Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
Austerity Policy ◽  
Comprehensive Study

How can international organizations (IOs) like the United Nations (UN) and their implementing partners be held accountable if their actions and policies violate fundamental human rights? Political scientists and legal scholars have shed a much-needed light on the limits of traditional accountability when it comes to complex global governance. However, conventional studies on IO accountability fail to systematically analyze a related, puzzling empirical trend: human rights violations that occur in the context of global governance do not go unnoticed altogether; they are investigated and sanctioned by independent third parties. This book puts forward the concept of pluralist accountability, whereby third parties hold IOs and their implementing partners accountable for human rights violations. We can expect pluralist accountability to evolve if a competitive environment stimulates third parties to enact accountability and if the implementing actors are vulnerable to human rights demands. Based on a comprehensive study of UN-mandated operations in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Kosovo, the European Union Troika’s austerity policy, and global public–private health partnerships in India, this book demonstrates how competition and human rights vulnerability shape the evolution of pluralist accountability in response to diverse human rights violations, such as human trafficking, the violation of the rights of detainees, economic rights, and the right to consent in clinical trials. While highlighting the importance of studying alternative accountability mechanisms, this book also argues that pluralist accountability should not be regarded as a panacea for IOs’ legitimacy problems, as it is often less legalized and might cause multiple accountability disorder.

Angling for Influence: Institutional Proliferation in Development Banking

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tyler Pratt
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
World Bank ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Market Failures ◽  
Multilateral Development Banks ◽  
Institutional Control ◽  
Bretton Woods ◽  
Global Power ◽  
Identification Strategy

Abstract Why do states build new international organizations (IOs) in issue areas where many institutions already exist? Prevailing theories of institutional creation emphasize their ability to resolve market failures, but adding new IOs can increase uncertainty and rule inconsistency. I argue that institutional proliferation occurs when existing IOs fail to adapt to shifts in state power. Member states expect decision-making rules to reflect their underlying power; when it does not, they demand greater influence in the organization. Subsequent bargaining over the redistribution of IO influence often fails due to credibility and information problems. As a result, under-represented states construct new organizations that provide them with greater institutional control. To test this argument, I examine the proliferation of multilateral development banks since 1944. I leverage a novel identification strategy rooted in the allocation of World Bank votes at Bretton Woods to show that the probability of institutional proliferation is higher when power is misaligned in existing institutions. My results suggest that conflict over shifts in global power contribute to the fragmentation of global governance.

scholarly journals Fixing Technology with Society: The Coproduction of Democratic Deficits and Responsible Innovation at the OECD and the European Commission

2021 ◽  
pp. 016224392199910
Author(s):  
Nina Frahm ◽  
Tess Doezema ◽  
Sebastian Pfotenhauer
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Responsible Innovation ◽  
Democratic Deficit ◽  
Major Barrier ◽  
Societal Participation ◽  
New Vision ◽  
Governance Institutions

Long presented as a universal policy-recipe for social prosperity and economic growth, the promise of innovation seems to be increasingly in question, giving way to a new vision of progress in which society is advanced as a central enabler of technoeconomic development. Frameworks such as “Responsible” or “Mission-oriented” Innovation, for example, have become commonplace parlance and practice in the governance of the innovation–society nexus. In this paper, we study the dynamics by which this “social fix” to technoscience has gained legitimacy in institutions of global governance by investigating recent projects at two international organizations, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the European Commission, to mainstream “Responsible Innovation” frameworks and instruments across countries. Our analysis shows how the turn to societal participation in both organizations relies on a new deficit logic—a democratic deficit of innovation—that frames a lack of societal engagement in innovation governance as a major barrier to the uptake and dissemination of new technologies. These deficit politics enable global governance institutions to present “Responsible Innovation” frameworks as the solution and to claim authority over the coproduction of particular forms of democracy and innovation as intertwined pillars of a market-liberal international order.

Competition, cooperation, and adaptation: The organizational ecology of international organizations in global energy governance

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Christian Downie
Keyword(s):  
Global Governance ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Empirical Data ◽  
Shared Governance ◽  
International Energy Agency ◽  
Organizational Ecology ◽  
Energy Agency ◽  
Global Energy ◽  
Material Resources ◽  
Energy Governance

Abstract In policy domains characterised by complexity, international organizations (IOs) with overlapping mandates and governance functions regularly interact in ways that have important implications for global governance. Yet the dynamics of IO interactions remain understudied. This article breaks new ground by building on the theoretical insights of organizational ecology to examine IO competition, cooperation, and adaptation in the domain of energy. Drawing on original empirical data, I consider three related hypotheses: (1) competition between IOs in the same population is likely to centre on material resources; (2) IOs are more likely to cooperate when they have a shared governance goal; and (3) individual IOs can adapt by changing their goals and boundaries. In considering these hypotheses, this article highlights the limits of the organizational ecology approach and the need to broaden it to account for the possibility that IOs do cooperate, and that individual IOs, such as the International Energy Agency, have the capacity to adapt to changes in their environment.

scholarly journals Hybrid institutional complexes in global governance

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth W. Abbott ◽  
Benjamin Faude
Keyword(s):  
Global Governance ◽  
Research Agenda ◽  
Structural Difference ◽  
Functional Differentiation ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Intergovernmental Organizations ◽  
The Core ◽  
Institutional Strategies

AbstractMost issue areas in world politics today are governed neither by individual institutions nor by regime complexes composed of formal interstate institutions. Rather, they are governed by “hybrid institutional complexes” (HICs) comprising heterogeneous interstate, infra-state, public–private and private transnational institutions, formal and informal. We develop the concept of the HIC as a novel descriptive and analytical lens for the study of contemporary global governance. The core structural difference between HICs and regime complexes is the greater diversity of institutional forms within HICs. Because of that diversity, HICs operate differently than regime complexes in two significant ways: (1) HICs exhibit relatively greater functional differentiation among their component institutions, and hence suffer from relatively fewer overlapping claims to authority; and (2) HICs exhibit greater informal hierarchy among their component institutions, and hence benefit from greater ordering. Both are systemic features. HICs have characteristic governance benefits: they offer good “substantive fit” for multi-faceted governance problems and good “political fit” for the preferences of diverse constituents; constrain conflictive cross-institutional strategies; and are conducive to mechanisms of coordination, which enhance substantive coherence. Yet HICs also pose characteristic governance risks: individual institutions may take on aspects of problems for which they are ill-suited; multiple institutions may create confusion; HICs can amplify conflict and contestation rather than constraining them; and the “soft” institutions within HICs can reduce the focality of incumbent treaties and intergovernmental organizations and forestall the establishment of new ones. We outline a continuing research agenda for exploring the structures, operations and governance implications of HICs.

Change in or of global governance?

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Barnett
Keyword(s):  
Global Governance ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
International Order ◽  
Multiple Modes ◽  
Compelling Argument ◽  
Relative Neglect ◽  
Modes Of Governance ◽  
Core Features

Abstract Michael Zürn's Theory of Global Governance is an original, bold, and compelling argument regarding the causes of change in global governance. A core argument is that legitimation problems trigger changes in global governance. This contribution addresses two core features of the argument. Although I am persuaded that legitimacy matters, there are times when: legitimacy appears to be given too much credit to the relative neglect of other factors; other times when the lack of legitimacy has little discernible impact on the working of global governance; and unanswered questions about how the legitimacy of global governance relates to the legitimacy of the international order of which it is a part. The second feature is what counts as change in global governance. Zürn reduces change to either deepening or decline, overlooking the possible how of global governance. In contrast to Zürn's map of global governance that is dominated by hierarchies in the form of international organizations, an alternative map locates multiple modes of governance: hierarchies, markets, and networks. The kinds of legitimation problems that Zürn identifies, I argue, can help explain some of the movement from hierarchical to other modes of global governance.

scholarly journals Problematizing Scientization in International Organizations

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 6-22
Author(s):  
Teklu Abate Bekele
Keyword(s):  
International Development ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Scientific Knowledge ◽  
Comparative Education ◽  
Organizational Legitimacy ◽  
Policy And Practice ◽  
Non Governmental Organizations ◽  
Recent Emergence ◽  
Education And Development

Comparative education studies examined the roles multilateral organizations and non-governmental organizations play in global governance and international development. Emphasis has been given to their engagements both at policy and practice levels as well as their impacts. Generally, the mechanisms international organizations use to govern education and development seem qualitatively to change over time. The most recent emerging research trajectory explains how international organizations primarily use the power of scientific knowledge for organizational legitimacy, credibility, and impact. This is referred to in the literature as soft governance, epistemic governance, scientization, or scientific multilateralism, as it significantly relies on the authority of scientific knowledge as opposed to hard, financial preconditions, for global governance and development. Our understanding of scientization is still in its ‘infancy’, partly due to its relatively recent emergence and partly due to the use of varied indicators to assess it across organizational types. To contribute toward further theorization, this study problematizes scientization in international organizations, with a focus on multilateral, intergovernmental organizations. The study is organized around answering this overarching question: What are the conceptual and methodological attributes or features of scientization in international organizations? Using sociological theories and conceptions of policymaking and transfer, it discusses core substantive, methodological, and theoretical issues of scientization having relevance for further research.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document