Challenging role of the international institutions and production of knowledge in globalization era / Перспективная роль международных институтов и производства знаний в эпоху глобализации

Брамбила Мартинес Франсиско Хавьер аспирант, Институт государственной службы и управления, Российская академия народного хозяйства и государственной службы 119571, Россия, г. Москва, Проспект Вернадского, 82 Brambila Martinez Francisco Javier Postgraduate student, Institute of Civil Service and Administration, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration 119571, Russia, Moscow, Prospekt Vernadskogo, 82 francisco.brambila@mail.ru Другие публикации этого автора

Demand for knowledge production prospects

According to Dolowitz and Marsh (2000), policy-makers appear to be increasingly relying on policy transfer, therefore requiring larger amounts of information in the form of literature within political science and international studies. Although policy transfer is not considered as exclusively a new phenomenon, we may note the importance of information under three key concepts: first, Parsons (1996) proposes the current global scenario as a conceptual space where new models of production and trade have led to transnational corporations and institutions to acquire more influence and power, effectively diminishing the role of national policy-makers to set their own agendas comprehensively. Second, technological advances have made easier and faster for policy-makers to communicate with each other; Hadjiisky, Pal & Walker (2017) note the resultant “increased sense of the interdependence and permeability of domestic policy regimes, (…), making it clear that policy responses increasingly have to be global in nature and localized through transfer, implementation, and reporting.” Third, the environment in which this dialogue takes place, as in the aftermath of the bipolar distribution of powers between communism vs. capitalism, contemporary policy transfer “assumes the absence of overt coercion” (Hadjiisky, Pal & Walker) under the concepts of national sovereignty, thereafter the lack of coercive imposition.

Taking into account that by subjecting countries to similar pressures and expanding the amount of information available, policy-makers increasingly “look to other political systems for knowledge and ideas about institutions, programs and policies, and about how they work in other jurisdictions.” (Dolowitz & Marsh, 2000). In addition to the demand of information, it is worth mentioning the nature and objectives of these studies themselves, as although they terminology may differ, Dolowitz and Marsh (2000) there is an emphasison the processes by which knowledge about policies, administrative arrangements, institutions and ideas in one political system are actively used in the development of policies, administrative arrangements, institutions and ideas from other political systems. A practical example of this could be Peck’s (2011) exemplification of “Global Policy Models” where he refers to a contemporary scenario in which the United Nations and other multilateral agencies reached a “global consensus” on the philosophy and policy of poverty alleviation; and concludes thatmodels may represent more than carriers of best practices or conveyors of multilateral policy accords, but they “epitomize a form of ‘fast policy’ integration in which policy problemsthemselves are effectively redefined (or ‘reformatted’) through pre-constituted strategies with outcomes that nevertheless remain geographically uneven and deeply contradictory” (Peck, 2011).

Prospects for the supply of knowledge

As the demand for information on a globalized era intensifies, it seems suitable to understand the sources of knowledge in order to assess the qualitative implicationsin a global policy scenario.

As noted by Woods (2006) when the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund were created, there were no precedents as to the economic theory to whom they should lend or under what conditions, furthermore the mechanisms to deliver practical results to the objectives set to them:on the one hand, the IMF had to safeguard the institution’s resources from borrowers; on the other hand, the World Bank should decide the type of proposals to foster development through loans appropriately. Woods refers to the essence of their operational success as the evolutive combination of economic theories and policies that underwent a binary scrutiny through dialogue, as noted especially when “bureaucratic and political incentives were aligned” (Woods 2006)

The paper follows on how the IMF evolved into an organization that was commonly reached by foreign nations for assistance in order to diagnose problems through available information and define or recommend a solution within the jurisdiction of the institution, involving a process of internal balances between its capacity and limits established by an array of stakeholders. Nevertheless, difficulties to implement systematic transformation in former socialist countries in Eastern Europe or dealing with collapsing African countries shaped new levels of cooperation the World Bank in deifying and promulgating policy conditionality.

It is thereafter noted how similar changes influenced the World Bank’s mission to boost development, as at first it was defined as the promotion of economic growth and the need for industrialization, effectively transforming how developing countries’ resources had to be transformed “out of the traditional sector, into an advanced sector whose growth would be driven by the investment of profits generated in that sector (Lewis, 1993) by allowing to the Governments to retain full autonomy and responsibility over the development of their economies, and limiting the World Bank initiatives to invest in infrastructure. Nevertheless, after the World Bank’s involvement in a wider array of regions and subsequent investment in other industries, such as agriculture and education, to ultimately the overall policy framework and institutions within bordering countries.

In the paper entitled “Goodbye Washington Consensus, Hello Washington Confusion?” Rodrick (2006) refers to the transformation of global policy development as a lengthy process of constant experimentation and corrections. It starts by reviewing the policies that advised countries to overtake sizable reforms in favour of stabilization, privatization and liberalization, and concludes thatthe lack of a general consensus in the aftermath of the Washington Consensus due to unfavourable results provided hints for institutions to propose more inclusive, policy diversity, experimentation and selective and modest reforms (in reference to the World Bank’s Economic Growth in the 1990’s: Learning from a Decade of Reform (2005) paper).

The OECD as the backbone for an inclusive-standardized analysis:

The OECD was established in 1961 as the successor to the Organisation of European Economic Co-operation, founded in 1948 to administer the Marshall Plan and help rebuild the European economies (Barbezat & Griffiths, 1997). According to Pal (2017) as an International Governmental Organization, it relies extensively on its intellectual and reputational capital, networks and convening power through lesson-drawing and monitoring on three levels: quality research and information, agreed norms and standards and credibility monitored. Thereafter performing “as a venue for government officials o cooperatively manage key policy fields through agreements and standards, (furthermore) a site for discussion and coordination for NGOs and other non-state actors to contribute and build regime complexes” (Pal 2017). If we were to assess the impact of the OECD in the global public policy arena, we could note that it is not only the largest producer of policy data that relies on a “system of peer review to spread “good practices” and often to monitor implementation of its standards and norms” (Pal 2017) but as key component of overlapping systems of global governance, but one that enhances the traditional model of “sovereign states contracting among themselves through various treaties and agreements that have binding force in international law” (Rosenau & Czempiel, 1992) through the following main pillars as noted by Pal (2017):

1. Cooperation: by contrast to the traditional models, the IGOs (OECD) are “directed to a specific field or focus through the coordination and combination of efforts and resources on horizontal policy issues” (Cohn, et al. 2000)

2. Trans-governmental: through “networks of government agencies or other state organizations that operate with substantial autonomy within focused policy areas, marshalling expertise, exchanging information, managing policy issues, implementing state-level agreements, and often generating operational agreements” (Slaughter, et al. 2004)

3. Transnational: non-estate / governmental organizations, private sector firms and associations, epistemic communities, foundations and others (Stone, et al. 2008) are increasingly involved in “both policy development and administration, often engaged directly with states as partners or in distinct realms of non-state regulation” (Büthe, et al. 2011).

4. Regime complexes: as used in “the field of international regulation, regime complexes lie somewhere between “comprehensive international regulatory institutions” with single, integrated legal instruments on one end, and highly fragmented and disjointed arrangements on the other. They embrace sets of nested, semi-hierarchical sub-regimes that are loosely coupled but not themselves arranged hierarchically” (Keohane and Victor, et al. 2011)

The role of NGO’s in a global governance framework:

Boström & Hallström (2010) refer to Beck as to witness in a contemporary setting, a dramatic change of power between global business and the states that concedes an advantage for business as a consequence of an asymmetrical struggle. The aftermath of this power-shift dynamics can be observed in the form of global counter-power performed by NGOs to influence through new roles, global strategies and objectives. Consequently Boström & Hallström (2010) note an increasing tendency for the rise, influence and role of NGOs in global politics, setting the path for unexplored paradigms, coveringfrom networking and organizing transnational social movement organizations to the mechanisms of accountability and legitimacy.

Although a relatively new phenomenon, the access of NGO’s to perform as vocals of certain public or private interests, are able to deliver a comprehensive approach to the multinational dialogue, as an invaluable direct source of knowledge to the global policy arena.

Knowledge actors and the trasnational governance

It is worth mentioning that although the role of knowledge-production actors has increasingly being modified through time, it stills divide experts on two main categories:

On the one hand, sceptics claim that concerning the synergy between the World Bank and the OECD to perform as the only knowledge hubs, (Nay2013) followthat although there was an initial trend against the emergence and circulation of the notion of the “Fragile State” in the post-Cold War era scenario as afrom of western aid donors to justify international assistance to poor and conflict-ridden countries; the character of the policy recommendations from the World Bank and the OECD not only takes form through an initial normative process, but takes form by a “small group of government agenciesrepresenting powerful states, before being disseminated among international organisations and gradually extended to wider audiences, including developing countries and non-state actors.” Thereafter, the OECD and the World Bank overtaking an active role in the “consolidation and perpetuation of the aid donors’ policy doctrine, ultimately protecting it from major normative dissent” (Nay 2013).

On the other hand, according to Stone (2004) knowledge policy actors act through a dynamic trans-nationalization of policy results, thereafter being able to combine “the objects of transfer (in the form of) policies, institutions, ideologies or justifications, attitudes and ideas and negative lessons” (Dolowitz 1997) as “soft” forms of transfer that may complement from “straight forward copying of policy (to a more complex) synthesis and hybridization” (Dolowitz and Marsh 1996); by contrast to Nay, Stone refers to the tendency towards methodological nationalism “in much of the early policy transfer (…) by bringing to the fore the role of international organizations and non-state actors in transnational transfer networks” (Stone 2004) as a measure to avoid bias through an analytical approach on performance.

General conclusions

As a general conclusion we might agree with Stone’s nationalization of policy results, much of what the work of the above mentioned policy knowledge producers are based on, as to deliver a comprehensive recommendation involves a carefully domestic analysis, backed by international standards, effectively depriving the proposal from political interference if the results were based on performance. It is worth mentioning that the role and character of global policy knowledge producers seem to show tendencies not only prevail over the intergovernmental contact, but also as an inclusive mechanism to coordinate bureaucrats, civil societies, business and other non-governmental actors across the world; thereafter with potential implications for governments to achieve common consensus and boost not only trade but an authentic attempt to settle bilateral cooperation on new levels.