scholarly journals Global Fields, Institutional Emergence, and the Regulation of Transnational Corporations

Social Forces ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alwyn Lim

Abstract World society theory has developed to become a major sociological perspective on globalization, focusing on the diffusion of global institutions and increasingly on the domestic impact of those institutions. Nevertheless, the emergence of global institutions has received less attention, raising questions about whether core elements of world society—institutional structures, actorhood, legitimacy—are sufficient to also explain how global institutions arise. This article proposes a “global fields” approach in which institutional emergence is conditional on the interaction between state and non-state actors around the exercise of international authority. Using archival United Nations (UN) data, I demonstrate this field approach through an historical review of global efforts in the UN to build a framework for the regulation of transnational corporations. In the 1970s, developing countries mobilized around a New International Economic Order, arguing that regulating foreign investment would contribute to economic justice. These efforts failed to establish a new globalization because state actors mobilized around national interests, state power, and centralized hierarchical regulation. Subsequently, in the 1990s, non-state actors were more successful in establishing the Global Compact, a global framework for corporate social responsibility, as they emphasized transcendent purposes, voluntarism, and collaboration. This case demonstrates the utility of a global fields approach to institutional emergence by highlighting the importance of how global fields structure interests, participation, strategies, and outcomes in global processes. The article concludes by discussing the theoretical implications of a global fields approach for the world society perspective and studies of the origins of global processes.

1983 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 335-367 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harold K. Jacobson ◽  
Dusan Sidjanski ◽  
Jeffrey Rodamar ◽  
Alice Hougassian Rudovich

This interview-based study analyzes the attitudes and negotiating behavior of 80 individuals, principally from less developed countries (LDCs), who were participants in international economic negotiations in 1976. Some of the more important findings are: (1) negotiators' views are more diverse than analyses of roll-call votes would indicate; (2) the positions that countries take appear to be firmly grounded in national political processes and in pragmatic conceptions of their national interests; (3) negotiators from LDCs with higher per capita GNP are more likely than those from LDCs with lower per capita GNP to perceive the negotiations as being polarized, to regard social issues as important elements of development strategies, and to take advantage of regional cooperation in negotiating; they are less likely to have negative views toward transnational corporations.


2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 145-173 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heidi E. Rademacher

Promoting the ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) was a key objective of the transnational women's movement of the 1980s and 1990s. Yet, few studies examine what factors contribute to ratification. The small body of literature on this topic comes from a world-society perspective, which suggests that CEDAW represented a global shift toward women's rights and that ratification increased as international NGOs proliferated. However, this framing fails to consider whether diffusion varies in a stratified world-system. I combine world-society and world-systems approaches, adding to the literature by examining the impact of women's and human rights transnational social movement organizations on CEDAW ratification at varied world-system positions. The findings illustrate the complex strengths and limitations of a global movement, with such organizations having a negative effect on ratification among core nations, a positive effect in the semiperiphery, and no effect among periphery nations. This suggests that the impact of mobilization was neither a universal application of global scripts nor simply representative of the broad domination of core nations, but a complex and diverse result of civil society actors embedded in a politically stratified world.


2018 ◽  
Vol 72 (1) ◽  
pp. 147-161 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emir Yazici

Do nationalist political parties violate human rights more than others or are they the protectors of their people’s rights when they are in power? I argue that nationalist political actors have the duty of protecting national unity at any cost and prioritizing national interests over any other concerns. These goals jeopardize certain types of human rights. In contrast to the view that civic nationalism can be more benign compared with ethnic nationalism, I argue that they both have similar effects on human rights. However, democratic institutions can tame nationalism and limit its effects on human rights. I test my theory by using a large- N sample including forty-nine countries between 1981 and 2011, and supplement my findings with a short case study. The findings show that nationalism has negative effects on certain types of human rights only in partial democracies. This article contributes to the literature by presenting a causal mechanism relating the core elements of nationalism to human rights practices and providing the first large- N empirical test of this relationship. The findings of this article can help scholars, politicians, and citizens better understand a potentially dangerous consequence of the rise of nationalism around the world.


The money transfer internationally has generated a metamorphosis of the world economy under the supremacy of transnational corporations. The inflows of foreign capital into the host countries' economies is considered a solution to the multiple problems faced, especially by developing countries – unemployment, lack of monetary funds, or high-performance technology. The presence of transnational corporations in the economies of the host countries has proved to be not always beneficial for them, as there are significant discrepancies between their interests as economic agents and national interests. For this reason, the attitude of the public authorities towards foreign direct investments has been nuanced, and differentiated financial and fiscal incentives have been established to maximize their positive impact. Over time, specialists have drawn attention to the negative externalities generated by transnational corporations. International organizations like the UN or the OECD are involved in improving the global corporation's workings to promote corporate social responsibility.


2007 ◽  
Vol 101 (4) ◽  
pp. 819-840 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Gerard Ruggie

The state-based system of global governance has struggled for more than a generation to adjust to the expanding reach and growing influence of transnational corporations. The United Nations first attempted to establish binding international rules to govern the activities of transnationals in the 1970s. That endeavor was initiated by developing countries as part of a broader regulatory program with redistributive aims known as the New International Economic Order. Human rights did not feature in this initiative. The Soviet bloc supported it while most industrialized countries were opposed. Negotiations ground to a halt after more than a decade, though they were not formally abandoned until 1992.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document