NSAs in Global Governance Flashcards
What are epistemic communities in global governance? (Haas)
- Transnational networks of professionals (often scientists) with shared knowledge and methods that contribute to global governance by:
– Diagnosing and understanding problems.
– Building knowledge through research.
– Raising awareness of problems.
– Proposing solutions.
– Pressuring governments and IGOs to change policies.
How do epistemic communities influence policy change?
- Depend on social movements to convert scientific consensus into political pressure.
- Social movements create domestic incentives for governments to cooperate.
- Collaboration between scientists and activists ensures mass public awareness.
What is an example of an epistemic community’s success in global governance?
- Issue: 1970s chemical pollution of the Mediterranean Sea.
- Challenge: 17 coastal states had varying levels of understanding and commitment.
- Action: Marine biologists formed an epistemic community, reached consensus, and convinced governments to adopt rules.
- Outcome: The successful Mediterranean Action Plan reduced chemical pollution.
What question arises from the role of epistemic communities today?
- Do governments still listen to scientific experts, as seen with climate change where scientific consensus exists, but many governments do not align their views or policies with it?
Multistakeholderism definition
Mark Raymond and Laura DeNardis (2015)
- A decentralized, non hierarchical model of governance involving multiple types of stakeholders in rule-making and rule-implementation to address global problems
- Stakeholders: actors with relevant expertise and interests
– States/governmnets
– Formal IGOs
– Firms/corporations
– Civil society actors: NGOs, social movements, civil society networks, individuals
2 examples of multistakeholderism
- Governance of the diamond trade (KCPS)
- Governance of the internet (ICANN)
Governance of the diamond trade
Not very successful
- Goal
– Stop the trade of “blood diamonds” from conflict zones
- Process
– States, diamond businesses, and NGOs agreed the Kimberly Process Certification Scheme (KPCS) in 2002
- Problem
– Monitoring depends on government officials, so is often corrupt
- Result
– KPCS continues but major NGOs have withdrawn
Governance of the internet
Very successful
- A nonprofit organization based in LA, California
- Ensures “single and interoperable internet supported by stable, secure, and resilient unique identifier systems” (protocol numbers, domain names)
- 1998-2016: worked under contract to US government
- Since 2016: fully independent, bottom-up, community based, consensus-driven, multistakeholden governance
ICANN’s governance process
- 3 meetings per year
- Community forum
– Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees (SO/ACs), cross-community interaction, and plenary sessions on topics of community-wide interst - Policy forum
– Policy development and regional outreach (ICANN-74, The Hague, 13-16 June 2022) - General meeting
– Global outreach, capacity building, leadership training
Contestation of internet governance
Flonk (2021)
Mark Raymond and Justin Sherman (2023)
- Liberal vs authoritarian states disagree on internet governance
– US, EU, others support liberal “multistakeholder” model
– Russia and China are pushing for more state control, less multistakeholderism (an “authoritarian multilateralism” model)
Global performance indicators (rule-making without governments (new forms of global governance))
Private firms, NGOs, and IGOs shape global governance by setting standards, assessing performance by states, and publicizing the results
- Goals
– To make credibly and neutral information on governance available to all
– To shape the behavior of investors, consumers, voters, governments by simplifying, quantifying, and standardizing social phenomena
(GPIs are controversial)
Ratings by private business, global performance indicators (rule-making without governments (new forms of global governance))
- Government bonds (risk of default)
– Fitch, Moody’s, Standard and Poor, CTRISKS - Government’s accounting behavior (risk of inaccuracy)
– International Financial Reporting Standards, by the International Accounting Standards Board - Political stability (risk of conflict, loss of investment)
– Economist Intelligence Unit, Euromoney Country Risk, Oxford Analytica
Ratings by NGOs, global performance indicators (rule-making without governments (new forms of global governance))
- Labor and environment
– Fairtrade International (labor), Forest Stewardship Council (environmental sustainability) - Democracy and governance
– Freedom House’s Global Freedom Index - Economic freedom and competitiveness
– Heritage Foundation’s Economic Freedom Index - Happiness
– Sustainable Development Solutions Network’s World Happiness Report
Ratings by IGOs, global performance indicators (rule-making without governments (new forms of global governance))
World Bank
- Doing Business Index
– Ranking of national business regulations from most to least business-friendly (discontinued in 2021)
- Business Ready
– New ranking of countries by conditions enabling private business and investment (coming in spring 2024)
- Human Capital Index
– Indicators of child health and education
European Banking Authority
- Indicators on national frameworks for loan enforcement
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
– Indicators on national insolvency frameworks
The working of GPIs (rule-making without governments (new forms of global governance))
Judith G. Kelley and Beth A. Simmons (2020)
- How they work
– Define targets and assessment criteria
– Publicize governance outcomes
– Promote competition among states
– Active transnational pressure by IGOs and NGOs
- Why they work
– Improve understanding of the implications of policy choices
– Raise fear of material consequences via official sanctions or private disinvestment
– Raise fear of reputational damage via “naming and shaming”
