Law–Space Nexus, Global Governance, and Global Administrative Law

This chapter sheds light on the multinational research project approach to global governance, which is known as global administrative law (GAL), with a focus on the unease GAL has expressed with its own constitutional implications. The argument proceeds as follows. First, it is explained why GAL’s approach to global governance echoes the history of responding to the emergence of modern administrative agencies with administrative law in the United States. It is also noted that GAL reframes the world of national legal orders as a ‘global administrative space’. Second, it is shown that GAL turns to the idea of ‘publicness’ to address the dual challenge of legality and legitimacy and the question of legal pluralism arising from the heterogeneity of global governance. Finally, the chapter concludes with a discussion of the unsettled relationship between GAL and global constitutionalism.

International Policy Entrepreneurship

The concept of the policy entrepreneur lends itself to analysing how actors at the international level draw attention to problems, advance workable proposals, and link outcomes to symbolic values. The international space is a challenging arena for policy advocacy, as it lacks the oversight and well-established systems of policy development commonly found at the national or sub-national level. Policy entrepreneurs acting in the international space face obstacles and opportunities different from their domestic counterparts, particularly in the realms of policy initiation, mediation, and compromise. Here, we distinguish the actions of international policy entrepreneurs from the international engagements of state-based, government actors, the actions of international organizations, and those of civil society advocacy groups. Two examples of international policy entrepreneurship are given. We complete the chapter with an analytical framework to guide future research on international policy entrepreneurship.

Filling the Gap

The gap between the demand and supply in global public administration and policy higher education is the focus of this chapter. The number of Masters of Public Administration or Masters of Public Policy (MPA/MPP) programme accreditation entities, professional networks of schools in public administration and policy, and curricula of Global MPA/MPP programmes has significantly increased. Global MPA/MPP programmes are evaluated as having synergy effects with existing MPA/MPP programmes because a comprehensive and individually tailored curriculum can be provided in a more effective manner (that is, economies of scope). Given the tasks of adapting to globalization and coping with budget constraints, a more innovative approach to the study of policy and administrative practices will be needed in the changing landscape of public and international affairs education.

The Rise of Global Policy and Transnational Administration

The sovereign domain of policy making and administration of the last century is increasingly supplanted by multiple public spheres and policy communities carving out new transnational spaces of policy making and public administration. The old methodological nationalism or ‘Westphalian grammar’ no longer exclusively describes a proliferation of delegated and decentralized policy and administration. This new global policy and transnational administration includes a diverse set of institutions, actors, and individuals interacting with non-state actors and other networks to help states and the global community respond to its most pressing problems. Global policy problems require scholars and practitioners to move past their sector-specific foci and narrow disciplinary (and nation-focused) endeavours to create space for new disciplinary, theoretical, and methodological emphases in which the boundaries between domestic and global are neither finite nor clearly defined.

Global Summitry as Sites of Transnational Technocratic Management and Policy Contestation

Global summits are commonly viewed as concert mechanisms dominated by political leaders. Although leaders are at the apex of the shifting dynamics of summitry—imparting symbolic importance to these meetings especially in time of crisis—the instrumental component is driven by a unique form of transnational management as seen in the evolution of the G20. At the core of this process is the work of the sherpas or permanent representatives of leaders. The role of the these politically well-connected actors is complemented by the activity undertaken by networks of technocratic finance ministry officials and central bankers either via the operations of the G20 (in working groups) or through interconnected—and often delegative—institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, the Financial Stability Board, the Bank of International Settlements, and the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development. The onus is on policy competence in the context of an intense degree of complex interdependence in the global economy. Although the G20 lacks legal authority, the summit process both in its highly visible leader-centric components and its below-the-surface technocratic components form a mode of transnational management which uses an innovative repertoire to animate policy coordination.

Transnational Policy Communities and Regulatory Networks as Global Administration

In recent decades, the development of public policies has shifted significantly from the national level to a transnational one. On many issues, from finance to computer security, transnational policy communities and regulatory networks now coordinate a myriad of stakeholders from different sectors, set agendas, create policies and standards, and support their global diffusion. While the existence of these new forms of governance is well established in the literature, our knowledge of the formation, the governance structures and the instruments for managing transnational policy communities and regulatory networks are limited. This contributes to equally limited attention to the challenges of managing such communities and networks. New avenues of research include questions about the power within and exerted by transnational communities and networks, as well as their organizational quality and relative effectiveness.

European Union Studies as a Tributary of Global Policy and Transnational Administration

The study of European Union (EU) governance and policy making processes, as well as its impact upon member states and beyond, can be inspiring for the development of theoretical propositions on global policy and transnational administration, and vice versa. For a long time, the EU has been perceived as a unique governance structure because it is neither a federal state nor an intergovernmental international organization and thus new models and concepts have been developed in order to analyse it. The aim of this chapter is to outline some of the most influential conceptual frameworks (e.g. multi-level governance, EU networks analysis, and Europeanization) in EU studies and to show how they can be translated into useful analytical frameworks for the analysis of global policy and transnational administration. The literature on the role of the EU as a global actor is also reviewed since it directly connects the European and global levels of analysis.

The Transnationalization of Public Spheres and Global Policy

The globalized spheres of digital communication require a substantial revision of conventional conceptions of ‘the public sphere’. This article lays out the core strands of such a new debate by identifying the limitations of traditional public sphere approaches which are caused by the boundedness of the foci on the national ‘container’ model associated with the European nation state. Instead of limiting publicness to national boundaries, new approaches are required to understand the new discursive spheres of connectivity of citizens across all society types, today enabled by digital communication. Such an approach is necessary to map out the new dimension of public discourse. The article concludes with the suggestion of a model of publicness understood as ‘reflective interdependence’ connecting citizens across societies.

The International Civil Service

The international civil service (ICS) offers—in theory at least—an ideal model of administration within international organizations. This chapter explores the origins and evolution of the ICS from the classical model following WWI to the twenty-first century era. For its early supporters, the ICS was the international community’s hope for the peaceful coexistence of states and functional cooperation. Yet tensions between these normative ideals and the reality facing international secretariats have never been resolved. The ICS operates under tremendous pressure from states, and in the twenty-first century, increasingly from the global public too. How does an ICS ethos that was developed in the early twentieth century travel to the twenty-first century? Is the concept still relevant today?

Evolving Funding Patterns of Global Programmes and Their Impacts on Governance and Operations

Macro trends in funding international aid programmes are the focus of this chapter which explains how emerging innovative financing mechanisms are contributing to shape the approach to development themes. The chapter then presents the important issue of donor-led performance accountability, in the context of a significant increase in voluntary and earmarked funding, coupled with significant competition for visibility and resources among international organizations. There are implications related to the shift in role of international organizations and the transition to an ‘indirect’ programme implementation modality, based on capacity building of developmental counterparts and cash-based humanitarian assistance. This identity change requires time and the adaptation of skills and business models. Ways forward and areas for further research are identified in relation to the drivers of collaboration and competition among international aid players. This includes increasing funding and programmatic integration between ‘development’ and ‘humanitarian’ aid and for exploiting the potential of public–private collaboration for innovative and sustainable funding for development.