PART V: LEARNING TO DEAL WITH DEMANDS FOR PARTICIPATION
X. CONCLUSION
To understand how states respond to and shape the forces of globalization, politics must be bought back into the equation. One way of doing this is to examine how policy transfer interacts with the forces of globalization to influence the ability of the state (or states) to govern effectively and efficiently.
It is important to understand these processes because decisions to transfer or not to transfer a policy,or to transfer a policy from one setting to another, reflect,among other things,the restrictions actors face when engaging in transfer; the attitudes and beliefs of nationally and internationally placed decision makers; the dominant ideologies of the political and social structure;
institutional constraints; and,perhaps most importantly,the interrelation- ships between policy development and the wider political system. Linking a policy transfer framework to the globalization literature should help those interested in governance to develop a more accurate model of how indigenous factors shape,restrict,develop,and are integral to the process of globaliza- tion. This approach will not only elucidate how indigenous policies,institu- tions,cultures,political and societal structures,and ideologies lead to the extension of the globalization processes within and between nations,but also how they act to mediate (or even block) the impact of global forces on any given policy area and state. For clearly,the decision to transfer (or not to transfer),when examined in light of the factors and processes leading to the globalization of governance,helps policy makers and academics better understand the shape and final outcome of these decisions,which can only lead to a more informed debate emerging.
REFERENCES
Axford,B.,Browning,K.,Huggins,R.,Rosamond,B. (2002). Politics. London:
Routledge.
Bennett,C. (1991a). What is policy convergence and what causes it?Br. J. Polit. Sci.
21(2):215–233.
Bennett,C. (1991b). How states utilize foreign evidence.J. Public Policy33(4):31–54.
Berger,S.,Dore,R.,eds. (1996).National Diversity and Global Capitalism. Ithaca,NY:
Cornell University Press.
Boyer,R.,Drache,D.,eds. (1996).States Against Markets. London: Routledge.
Buckler,S.,Dolowitz,D. (2004). Can fair be efficient?New Polit. Econ. 9(1):23–38.
Clark,I.,ed. (1999).Globalization and International Relations Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dolowitz,D. (2004). Prosperity for fairness? Can new labour bring fairness to the 21st century by following the dictates of endogenous growth?Br. J. Polit. Int. Relat.
6(2):213–230.
Dolowitz,D.,Marsh,D. (1996). Who learns what from whom.Polit. Stud.44(2):343–
357.
Dunning,J.,ed. (1997). Governments, Globalization, and International Business.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Giddens,A. (1991).Modernity and Self-Identity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gilardi,F. (April 25–26,2003). Spurious and Symbolic Diffusion of Independent Regulatory Agencies in Western Europe. The Internationalization of Regulatory Reforms The Interaction of Policy Learning and Policy Emulation in the Diffusion of the Reforms. Berkley: University of California.
Gilpin,R. (2001).Global Political Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Heywood,A. (2002).Politics. Basingstoke: Pelgrave.
Hirst,P.,Thompson,G. (1996).Globalisation in Question. Cambridge: Polity.
Hobson,J. (1997).The Wealth of States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Horsman,M.,Marshall,A. (1994).After the Nation State. London: Harper Collins.
Keohane,R.,Milner,H. (1996).Internationalization and Domestic Politics. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Levi-Faur,D. (April 25–26,2003). Herding Towards a New Convention. The Internationalization of Regulatory Reforms. The Interaction of Policy Learning and Policy Emulation in the Diffusion of the Reforms. Berkley: University of California.
Lipsey,R. (1997). Globalization and National Government Politics. In: Dunning,J., ed. Governments, Globalization, and International Business. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Marsh,D.,Rhodes,R. (1998). Comparing Policy Networks. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Nelson,D.,Morrissey,O. (April 11–12,2003).Characterizing International Learning.
Political Economy of Policy Transfer, Learning and Convergence. New Orleans:
University of Tulane.
Ohmae,K. (1994).The Borderless World. London: Collins.
Ohame,K. (1995).The End of the Nation State. London: Collins.
Pierre,J.,ed. (2000).Debating Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Robertson,R. (1992).Globalization. London: Sage.
Rodrik,D. (1997).Has Globalization Gone Too Far?Washington,DC: Institute for International Economics.
Rose,R. (1993).Lesson Drawing in Public Policy. New Jersey: Chatham House.
Rugman,A. (2000).The End of Globalisation. New York: AMACOM.
Sabatier,P. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy oriented learning therein.Polit. Stud.24:147–168.
Sabatier,P.,Jenkins-Smith,H.,eds. (1993).Policy Change and Learning. Boulder:
West View.
Sassen,S. (1996).Losing Control?New York: Columbia University Press.
Strange,S. (1996).Retreat of the State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Way,C. (April 25–26,2003). Fear Factor. The Internationalization of Regulatory Reforms. The Interaction of Policy Learning and Policy Emulation in the Diffusion of the Reforms. Berkley: University of California.
3
International Nongovernmental Organizations: Globalization, Policy Learning, and the Nation-State
Robert K. Christensen
School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, U.S.A.
[Through the world campaign of nongovernmental organizations]
ordinary people from around the world articulated their concerns about a global economic injustice. . .thereby altering. . .policy towards poor countries. Where these people led, politicians began to follow.
—Bono, U2 (Human Development Report, 2002)
I. INTRODUCTION
I focus in this chapter on two concepts—globalization and policy learning—
and how international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs) as non-state actors influence and relate to both of these concepts. Nye and colleagues define globalization as‘‘the thickening of the networks of interdependence spanning international boundaries that accompanies increasing rapid and inexpensive movement of information, ideas, money, goods, and people across boundaries’’(Brown et al., 2000, p. 272). Following Heclo’s (1974) work, Dolowitz and Marsh (1996, p. 344) inform that ‘‘policy transfer, emulation, and lesson drawing all refer to a process in which knowledge about polices, administrative arrangements, institutions etc. in one time and/
or place is used in the development of policies, administrative arrangements and institutions in another time and/or place.’’
45
The studies of globalization and policy learning are linked in many ways, but few are more notable than the debate that spans and shapes each of these fields. The debate most conspicuously revolves around the role and prominence of the nation-state (see, e.g., Dolowitz’s chapter ‘‘Where’s the State’’). The literature on globalization falls across a spectrum with two extremes: those arguing that the forces of globalization increasingly render the nation-state less powerful and less meaningful, and those arguing that the model for ‘‘power remains the Rechtsstaat, [where] national states are its primary embodiment’’ (Hirst and Thomson, 1999, p. 278; for a recent example of empirical work, see Coleman and Chiasson, 2002).
The literature on policy learning similarly suffers and enjoys the same vitality of this debate. Dolowitz and Marsh (1996) describe the history of the policy transfer literature as highly state-centered prior to the 1940s, with more emphasis on the interaction between states and civil society up to the 1960s.
Despite the work of some authors (e.g., Brown et al., 2000; Radaelli, 2000;
Dolowitz and Marsh, 1996, 2000) drawing attention to the influence of non- nation-states in the policy process, the policy learning literature’s lexicon still denotes that policy learning is a‘‘cross-national’’phenomenon (e.g., Moss- berger and Wolman, 2003).
If we are to make progress in resolving this debate, we need to carefully assess the role and influence of non-state actors. In this chapter I look at the role of INGOs as non-state actors and their relation to nation-states. I draw attention to the impacts of INGOs on the process of globalization, including the role INGOs play in competing global governance models. I focus here on the influences of INGOs with potential impact on international, national, and local policy. This discussion is centered in a description of the impacts of INGOs through soft law, or norms that can develop into binding, interna- tional law.
Because the debate common to globalization and policy learning will not likely settle at one or the other extreme, I offer a map to conceptually bridge whether non-state actors, INGOs being the case in point here, are most appropriately placed within (O’Toole and Hanf, 2002; Hirst and Thomson, 1999) or without (Ronit, 2001; Welch and Wong, 2001) Westphalia, the traditional worldview paradigm recognizing sovereign nation-states as the primary and legitimate institutions of global policy creation, enactment, and enforcement. Indeed, Keohane and Nye (2000, p. 12) suggest that the globalization debate is settling into something much more nuanced where the‘‘nation-state is being supplemented by other actors—private and third sector—in a more complex geography.’’ This chapter is a step toward mapping that geography. Before turning my focus to INGOs, I begin with a more careful look at the source and terminology of the globalization debate.
A. Two World Paradigms
Traditional assumptions about governing structures and processes are now suspect (Kettl, 2000; Wise, 1997). The language once used without discrim- ination to describe global dynamics has been distinctly refined. Illustratively, internationalization and globalization have come to connote two distinct concepts.
While the former is a form of institutionalized cooperation between States with the aim to complement their national efforts to promote national power and welfare, ‘‘globalization’’ denotes a process of
‘‘denationalization’’of the production or provision of‘‘public goods’’
(e.g., security and global climate protection), i.e., the fulfillment of public tasks—sometimes by a transfer of powers to supranational authorities—that by their very nature and dimension transcend national capabilities (Delbruck, 1997, footnote 3)
Represented in the distinction of these terms, two metaconcepts or worldviews have emerged to describe modern society. Discussed in greater detail below, these concepts can be thought of, at least simplistically, as covering two ends of a spectrum, with international society on one end and global society on the other. The international society worldview denotes a policy process populated primarily by state actors. On the other hand, a global society worldview introduces a competing understanding: the encour- agement and inclusion of non-state actors in the policy process.
1. International Society: Westphalian Paradigm
The model traditionally associated with an international society is the West- phalian model based on the still-predominant idea that sovereign nation- states comprise the global arena’s central, if not exclusive, actors (Benvenisti, 1999). Significantly, the name and the birth of the concept stem from the Westphalian Peace Treaty, which, in 1648, officially recognized the principle of a sovereign nation-state (Delbruck, 1997).‘‘The present-day international system, national policies, and the policies of international organizations appear to be determined by factors deeply rooted in and informed by the historical and cultural experiences and the political socialization of the nation-state era. . .distinguished by its fixation on sovereign, national inter- est’’ (1997, p. 279). The process of globalization, however, suggests the necessity of considering a different concept of society.
2. Global Paradigm
This paradigm has various names but, like Delbruck’s discussion of the word globalization, it suggests the presence of other, non-national actors. Global
society (Nowrot, 1999; Teubner, 1997), open constitutional state (Hobe, 1997), transnational society (Slaughter, 1995), and world community (Seita, 1997) all describe the concept of‘‘a society of State actors and non-State ac- tors like NGOs, multinational corporations, and individuals on a global scale, which is characterized by a multitude of decentralized lawmaking processes in various sectors, independent of nation-states’’(Nowrot, 1999, p. 641).
Some suggest that Westphalian model is inadequate (Benvenisti, 1999;
Delbruck, 1997), missing arenas where economic, political, and social oper- ations are energized by actors other than sovereign nation-states (Delbruck, 1997). Nowrot (1999) suggests that we have not yet fully transformed from an international into a global society, but that such a change is inevitable.
However, ‘‘from a more critical angle. . .internationalization is a more
. . .appropriate concept to describe the variety of economic, cultural, and
political processes unfolding beyond the state level, [as such] we are seeing a continuation of. . .internationalization rather than a radical change’’(Ronit, 2001, p. 555).
Rather than couching the INGO analysis in the categorical terms of a mutually exclusive debate that seems to be centered on the affirmation or rejection of the Westphalian model, I argue that the question is largely impact-dependant. In other words, certain categories of INGO influence would appear to demand a world paradigm accommodating non-sovereign actors, while other INGO influences are better accommodated by the West- phalian paradigm.
B. Scope of Focus: INGOs
Definitional work is especially critical in the analysis of INGO issues because failure to do so can contribute to the already existing political confusion concerning the roles of INGOs (Bendan˜a, 2000). This chapter focuses on those nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that operate beyond state boundaries, usually with participation from several countries, and have an international mission. Those organizations operating beyond state bound- aries do not necessarily distinguish a subclass of NGOs, but do emphasize the context of this paper: state vs. non-state actors involved in international policy making.
Salamon (1999, p. xvii) iterates that NGOs are ‘‘organizations that operate outside the state apparatus.’’Indeed, this is one of the requirements articulated in the international legal arena, reinforced by the definitions of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (U.N. ECOSOC) and Union of International Associations. NGOs‘‘must be founded by private individuals;
be independent of states; be oriented toward the rule of law; pursue public rather than private interests as an objective; demonstrate a transnational
scope of activities; and possess [at least] a minimal organizational structure’’
(Hobe, 1997, p. 194).
As indicated in Hobe’s summary of INGO definitions, all NGOs are not necessarily involved in international activities. A subclass of NGOs, com- monly referred to as INGOs, are adopting the ECOSOC definition,‘‘[a]ny international organization which is not established by intergovernmental agreement’’(U.N. ECOSOC Resolution 288[X], 1950). It is important to note that from a legal perspective, and by definition, NGOs‘‘are capable of playing a role in international affairs by virtue of their activities’’(Rechenberg, 1986, p. 276). Notwithstanding the requirement of international orientation, INGOs can be significant actors in local and national as well as international arenas (Brown and Moore, 2001; Hobe, 1997).
Although not sovereign entities, INGOs possess a vast potential to influence international, national, and local policy and have demonstrated that potential in many instances. In an effort to bring coherence to current and future research on this topic, I categorize the various impacts of INGOs and conclude that among these, some are more responsible than others in motivating the need for a global model accommodating a broader host of primary global actors. As INGO impacts are demonstrated to be complicated and diffuse, ultimately this inquiry is impact-specific.
Relevant to policy learning, describing the mechanisms by which INGOs influence world paradigms is prerequisite to an understanding of the development of institutional arrangements affecting world, national, and local policy.‘‘To an increasing degree, a government’s success in pursuing domestically defined national objectives depends on how effectively it can act within changing institutional contexts, including new transnational institu- tions’’(O’Toole and Hanf, 2002, p. 160). The mechanisms by which INGOs might affirm a paradigm of globalization are important inasmuch as global- ization ‘‘is relevant to any framework used to analyze the evolution of different policy fields and emerging forms of institution building’’ (Ronit, 2001, p. 556).
C. Context of INGO Growth
Several considerations demand the supply of predominantly lacking analysis (Gamble and Ku, 2000) of the impacts and roles of INGOs in international law and, more generally, on worldview paradigms. First, scholars suggest that at least for the foreseeable future the wave of NGO influence and involve- ment, even if cyclical as some have suggested (Charnovitz, 1997), is still cresting (Nowrot, 1999;). Second, because of the ‘‘increasing tendency to enact and enforce individual responsibilities under international law’’(Now- rot, 1999, p. 645), parties previously considered ancillary in the international
policy-making process, namely INGOs, are of increasing importance and should be analyzed.
Since the first INGO was formed in 1839 (Human Development Report, 2002), the most recent decades have witnessed remarkable growth in numbers of these organizations, with nearly one-sixth of today’s approximately 37,000 INGOs being formed in the 1990s (Figure 1). The substantive foci of these organizations range from economic development and policy advocacy to research and education (Figure 2).
Possibly more significant than the expanding number of these organ- izations, Lindenberg and Bryant (2001) observe that where NGOs handled
$1.0 billion in world development funds in 1970, by 1997 these organizations handled more than $7.0 billion.
Accordingly, our understanding the circumstances encouraging INGO growth and variety is as important as defining what an INGO is. Many believe that the growth of INGOs, both in number and impact, is spurred by the following factors:
Most significantly, the decline of the state [Lindenberg and Dobel 1999 (eroding trust in government, decline in public sector resources, privatization, failed states); Salamon, 1999],
Articulation of global problems, where, for example, transnational environmental problems require transnational action (Nowrot, 1999, p. 587),
Figure 1 INGO growth: number of registered organizations. (Adapted from:
Anheier et al., 2001; Held and McGrew, 2000.)
Denationalization of multinational corporations (Grossman and Bradlow, 1993; Nowrot, 1999), and
Developments in communications/information technologies(Gamble and Ku, 2000; Salamon, et al., 1999; Grossman and Bradlow, 1993).
INGOs are not a new phenomenon, some dating back as early as 500 A.D. (Nowrot, 1999). Notwithstanding, the recent proliferation of INGOs and increasing attention on the potential impacts of NGO involvement in national and world policy (Held and McGrew, 2000) suggest the need for analysis focusing on these organizations in relation to policy making and administration and, more generally, world paradigms.