Non-State Actors: Disaggregated Transgovernmental Networking And IOs

Topic: Non-State Actors.

Choose any 4 of the following:

1. How does disaggregated transgovernmental networking produce socialization effects and why is this desirable for international cooperation according to Slaughter?

2. I low do international organizations (I0s) obtain "authority" and `autonomy" and why might this conflict with states' interests?

3. When and how did neoliberalism become the dominant discourse of globalization? Do you think it is an emerging "social episteme," why or why not?

4. How does "institutional bricolage" and "neopluralism" favor greater nonstate actor influence in world politics (and what are some examples from Cerny)?

5. Using details and examples from Barnett and Finnemore, analyze how 10 impartiality can actually promote a particular social purpose or set of values.

6. What are the economic, political, and social dimensions of globalization that create the potential for "transfbrmation" according to Cerny, and what happens to states in his model?

7. Analyze the increasing influence of think tanks as nonstate actors, what they do, and why they have seen such high growth rates since the 1990s.

How does disaggregated transgovernmental networking produce socialization effects and why is this desirable for international cooperation according to Slaughter?

How does disaggregated transgovernmental networking produce socialization effects and why is this desirable for international cooperation according to Slaughter?

Transgovernmental networks are known to be institutions that are informal connecting legislators, regulators, judges and actors across the boundaries of a nation carrying out various functions of the global governance. Transgovernmental networks demonstrate “patterns of regular and purposive relations among like government units working across the borders that divide countries from one another and demarcate the ‘domestic’ form the ‘international’ sphere” (Slaughter 2009, pp 128-368). The transgovernmental networks provide way for the interaction of the domestic officials with foreign officials in a direct and independent manner without any interference of the foreign offices or the senior officials of the executive branch. They are characterized by ties between peers that are structured loosely and developed by interactions instead of negotiations that are formal (Jordana 2017, pp.245-262). Transgovernmental networks engage a middle position between the international organizations that are traditional and the commercial communication (Daphne and Wallace 2001, pp 64-113). They have grown as a response to the rising complex and transnational aspects of the present day problems with which they are associated suitably while challenging the demarcation between the foreign and the domestic policies. Transgovernmental networks are most often seen related to the regulatory policies that involve financial and commercial regulation as well as environmental protection (Jordana 2017, pp.245-262). However, they are not just limited to the regulatory realm but are also expanded to the judiciary and the legislative fields of the governmental functions.

Transgovernmental networks have helped significantly in producing effects of socialization, which is extremely important for the purpose of international cooperation. Trangovernmental networks have contributed towards the formation of socialization networks among the officials of nations helping to deal with crisis. Slaughter (2009, pp 128-368) argues that in the context of the global economy, networks among the finance ministers and the central banks have been important in providing assistance and response to the financial crisis of the nations and their regions. For example, the G8 network is one that is collectively presided over by the finance ministers as well as the state heads. However, the finance ministers are responsible mostly to take decisions on the manner of responding to the debt relief calls for the nations that are under high amounts of debt. The G20 network can be stated as another example of a transgovernmental financial network that was formed for the prevention of any future financial crisis (Kirton 2016, pp 53-66). To state more instances, can be mentioned the emergence of the International Organization of Securities Commissioners (IOSC) and the development of the International Association of Insurance Supervisors as well as the Financial Stability Forum (Papadopoulos 2015, pp 5-7). Moreover, apart from the global economy and the national security the transgovernmental networks perform towards the improvement of the policies of environmental governance across the national borders. It must also be mentioned that the transgovernmental networks are not just dominated by the regulatory realm. In fact, national judges are often found to be communicating decisions among themselves through various judicial organizations, conferences and even the internet. In addition, legislators who are generally the provincial officials of a government are reaching a global scale across the national borders (Scholte 2014, pp.3-28). Every aforementioned transgovernmental network aim for specific activities related to the area of its subject. However, if all the transgovernmental networks are seen from a collective perspective it could be realized that they all serve common purposes. They work successfully towards producing socializing effects such as expansion of the regulatory reach providing allowance to national governments in order to maintain pace with civic organizations, corporations and criminals (Freyburg 2015, pp.59-72). Moreover, the transgovernmental networks helps in the establishment of trustful relationships with participating nations creating incentives for foregrounding good reputation (Freyburg 2015, pp.59-72). They also help in the development of different outlooks common legal issues in the judiciary sector by the exchange valuable judicial insights (Scholte 2014, pp.3-28). Hence, it can be said that the transgovernmental networks help in offering technical cooperation as well as professional socialization to the participating member nations especially from the developing and the underdeveloped nations irrespective of whether they are legislators, judges or regulators.

How do international organizations (IO) obtain 'authority' and 'autonomy' and why might this conflict with state's interests?

Slaughter (2009, pp 128-368) argues that transgovernmental networks are undergoing rapid expansion more precisely in the field of the regulatory cooperation, which is itself a rising sector of the international law.  According to Slaughter (2009, pp 128-368), transgovernmental networks facilitate international cooperation largely. Slaughter (2009, pp 128-368) states that transgovernmental networks provides for a new ideal for the order of the world that is more persuasive than both new medievalism and liberal internationalism. They help in connecting the power of the state for finding and incorporating the solutions to the problems of the global scale (Avant and Westerwinter 2016, pp-43-78). Transgovernmental networks facilitate the government to access benefits from the decentralization and resilience of the non-state actors. Disaggregation of the state into the its respective functional apparatuses makes way for the development of institutions that are involved in a common endeavor while they demonstrate distinct and specific interests of the nation (Avant and Westerwinter 2016, pp-43-78). Furthermore, the have the capability of working with their counterparts that are supranational and subnational, forming a new order of world that is genuine where the networks of the transgovernemental institutions perform the operations of a global government –administration, legislation as well as adjudication –devoid of the form (Daphne and Wallace 2001, pp 64-113). Hence, Slaughter (2009, pp 128-368) claims that the transgovernmental networks firms the state as the fundamental player in the system of international cooperation. In fact, transgovernmental networks have emerged to provide for a crucial anchor for the organizations that are internationally based as well as for the non-state actors likewise. Slaughter (2009, pp 128-368) argues, “government networks are government for the information age. They offer the world a blueprint for the international architecture of the 21st century.”

How do international organizations (IO) obtain “authority” and “autonomy” and why might this conflict with state’s interests?

The regime theory in following the logic of economics and the wide range of scholars who function within it considers the IOs to have been developed to take the interests of the states further (Barkin 2015, pp-85-108). The IOs are often treated as machinery for interpersonal policy upon which other actors bear influence (Archer 2014, pp 36-78). Political negotiations provide form to this machinery for the purpose of the attainment of the goals of the policies (Barkin 2015, pp-85-108). However, the IOs are not intentional and rightful political actors having no independence that is ontological (Bauer and Ege 2016, pp.1019-1037).  However, IOs can turn into autonomous positions for authority that does not depend on the principals of the state that have contributed to their creation. This is possible because of the power flow from two sources: i) the justification of the legal-rational authority that is embodies by the IOs, and ii) the control over information and expertise in the technical field (Archer 2014). These two factor contribute considerably in forming the theoretical groundwork for the treatment of international organizations as actors that are autonomous in the politics of the world (Archer 2014, pp 36-78). This is evidently done through the recognition of the sources that provide support to the international organizations –independent states –in the huge social environment.

In order to realize how international organizations obtain autonomous authority, it is important to understand the concept of bureaucracy. Bureaucracies are beneficial in providing a framework for interactions on the social level that can offer response to the growing technical desires and demands of the mode world in way that is predictable, stable and non-violent (Cerny 2010, pp 52-78). The bureaucracies demonstrate rationality and are evidently superior in technical aspects of the earlier rules and ruling forms for the precision, continuity and knowledge that they are able to provide to the social tasks that are highly complex (Bauer and Ege 2016, pp.1019-1037). Bureaucracies encompass an authoritative form, authority that is legal and rational that is particularly regarded by the modern world as good and legitimate. The authority is claimed to be rational because it arranges relevant knowledge that is socially acknowledged for the development of rules that determine the manner in which any particular goal should be pursued.  As argued by Bauer and Ege (2016, pp.1019-1037), norms that are fixed by rationality and the decrees and enactments establish the authenticity of the authority in such a manner that it becomes the generalized rule that is legal and intentionally thought over, executed and announced with formal rights. These rules form great sources of power that is recognized in the modern world (Barkin 2015, pp-85-108). Hence, the IOs are considered as occupying autonomous positions of authority pertaining to the bureaucrats who perform within the international organizations incorporating the norms that have been rationally established about their authoritative power (Cerny 2010, pp 52-78). Moreover, autonomy and authority is further facilitated by the control of the bureau over technical expertise as well as information. The autonomy of a bureaucracy is driven from expert knowledge that is specifically technical, and experience as well as training that is unavailable to other actors (Bauer and Ege 2016, pp.1019-1037). Such knowledge provides the bureaucracies efficiency to carry out political directives with precision and power. It also provides the bureaucracies with significant power and authority over the political officials. In fact, there are several instances when the bureaucracies are called upon to shape and form policies and not just incorporate and execute them (Barkin 2015, pp-85-108). Hence, the power of the international organizations emerge from a fact that they demonstrate themselves as neutral, impersonal and technocratic –providing notions that they do not exercise powers rather commit themselves to the service of others that is crucial in determining the legitimacy of their authority (Barkin 2015, pp-85-108). The bureaucratic view when applied to international organizations indicates that the IOs possess authority that is essentially independent from the interests and the policies of the states in their contribution for their creation –a possibility that has been made vague by the apolitical and technical nature of treatment of the international organizations by the neoliberals as well as the realists (Bauer and Ege 2016, pp.1019-1037).

Owing to globalization and the rise of international organizations, the power balance has altered from the state-centered perspective to governance that is multi-actor, multilayered and multidimensional (Diehl and Frederking 2015, pp 93-102). The IOs have altered the state’s power to over its own decision-making process and have reduced its autonomy and sovereignty. This is because the IO gains its autonomous authority from the nation states. Hence, the nation states lose their control over their own policy-making (Caspersen 2013, pp 87-96). Over the years, critics have been concerned about the manner in which international law violates the domestic and the sovereign authority of the nation states. Therefore, it can be said that the international organizations takes the power of the local policymakers out of the nation states and distributes the power among people far removed from the those who are governed by the law undermining the state government and the citizenship value operating in the state (Diehl and Frederking 2015, pp 93-102). In this context the international organizations act as non-state actors that overshadow the state actors involved in the formation and implementation of public policies (Caspersen 2013, pp 87-96). In fact, states no longer possess the liberty of deciding their domestic and internal policies. Moreover, it is now and again emphasized that a state has to keep up with the standards of the international law or otherwise will be marked responsible for the breach of the international relations (Diehl and Frederking 2015, pp 93-102). Furthermore, in the economic sphere, the nation states remain in conflict with the international organizations given to the economic sovereignty, where both the states and the IOs struggle to gain in their own personal agendas (Caspersen 2013, pp 87-96). Hence, it can be stated that the rapid expansion of the international organizations and their operations has posed effective constraints and conflicts on the interests of the state’s sovereignty.

When and how did neoliberalism become a dominant discourse of globalization? Do you think it is an emerging “social episteme”, why or why not?

The modern day scholars argue that in the modern world there has been an evident turn towards neoliberalism in the ideologies and practices related to the political and the economic fields (Amin 2014, pp-66-98). They believe that neoliberalism has posed a dominating and controlling discourse of the modern world in such a manner that it has been successful in occupying the common minds of the people and in their perceptions of the world (Benería, Berik and Floro 2015, pp 104-143). In a similar manner, these scholars are of the opinion that neoliberalism has emerged to be one of the major drivers of globalization (Amin 2014, pp-66-98). In fact, they believe that globalization is a response of as well as is directed at global neoliberalism. Neoliberalism in the economic context is referred to as an ideology that stands for the maximization of the economic independence of the people leading to the reduction of the extent of interference of the state to lowest minimum. In this context it can be said that neoliberalism promotes the elimination of the restrictions and the constraints that are imposed by the governments on the transnational movements of capital, merchandise and people world (Benería, Berik and Floro 2015, pp 104-143). The general idea of globalization is encompassed within a notion that it describes the continuous assimilation of the world within a political economy that is essentially capitalist (Amin 2014, pp-66-98). Thus, it must be noted that the conservative comprehension of globalization is based on an idea that borders on the growing and boundless extension of the global market which is apparently a condition that is all-encompassing and in which competitive logics and the rules of the market predominate (Lechner and Boli 2014, pp 86-102). Therefore, to state facts, neoliberalism and globalization are mingled and incorporated within the concept of each other.

Neoliberalism is much more than being just a theory in that it had influenced economics on a global scale. It places the supremacy of the market over everything else and opposes any interference or regulation of the state (Friedman and Friedman 2013, pp.244-257). Hence, economic rationality can be identified as calculation of the cost-benefits and the maximization of profits while market competition is realized as a key factor for the economic rise and the complete progression of the humanity (Martell 2016, pp 76-92). In addition, specialization through parallel foreign trade that is profit oriented and competitive advantage is understood as the substitution for an economy that is self-supplied. Hence, neoliberalism advocates the global outlook that is specifically economic that considers globalization as an detailed economic process.  Neoliberal policies stands upon economic analysis before any other understanding of the concept of globalization (Hall, Massey and Rustin 2013, pp.8-22). In fact, the ecological, cultural, psychological and political agendas of globalization are generally comprehended to be operations of the field of economics (Chandler 2014, pp.47-63). Looking from this perspective then, neoliberalism is the specifically only economic discourse pertaining to globalization that places the primary importance of free markets with independent flow of finance, merchandise, people and services along with other neoliberal policies over the other globalization discourses. Most scholars relate neoliberalism and globalization in that neoliberalism has been successful in transforming itself to a political and economic system that encompasses a wide array of societies all over the world (Cerny 2010, pp 52-78). Internationally based financial institutions like the World Trade Organization (WTO), International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World bank are active in their promotion and recommendation of neoliberal policies  thereby contributing to a major portion of the worldwide expansion and propagation of neoliberalism (Hall, Massey and Rustin 2013, pp.8-22). Developing countries and underdeveloped nations get the necessary loans and aids for development from the neoliberal organizations if they agree to comply with the neoliberal reforms. Moreover, the media acts as an influential tool in the formation of the globalization image that often relates neoliberalism and globalization as similar entities.

Neoliberalism is indeed an emerging social episteme. Neoliberalism is known to be the connective tissue of the contemporary state of capitalism that shapes the significant historical links between ideas, processes and practices of the various sub-social systems (Friedman and Friedman 2013, pp.244-257). This ontological perspective contributes to the notion of neoliberalism as relevant of forming the social episteme that stands on the ability of the concept that is neoliberalism for revealing the interrelations between various phenomena and a more generalized network within the contemporary society (Chandler 2014, pp.47-63). Neoliberalism does not just advocate a society that is dominated by exchange values. The commercial society of the highly globalized world that depends on social bonds developed by the peripheral nature of the exchange values, promotes the opposition of human relations with the interrelations among the supremacy of goods –in other words, commodity fetishism (Cerny 2010, pp 52-78). Hence, the society that has emerged as a result of colonialism and globalization has been pioneered by the concept of enterprise failing to equate the modern society with the old liberal society.

Analyze the increasing influence of think tanks as non-state actors, what they do, and why they have seen such high growth rates since the 1990s.

The 1990s witnessed a growth in the number of think tanks all over the world. The international organizations like the United Nations and the World Bank collaborated various aid agencies and foundation advocating new think tanks while solidifying the ones that were already existing and by supporting the transgovernmental networks (Ronit and Schneider 2013, pp 78-93). In this context, it must e mentioned that a major part of the think tanks either attempt at influencing the atmosphere of conditions of opinion or at the development of relations between civil servants, politicians, opinion leaders and the media with respect to the nation (Savage 2016, pp.35-53). The interrelationships of the think tanks as well as the official agencies vary from minimalist roles of service to formal communication for the purpose of co-optioning into policy negotiations (Daphne and Wallace 2001, pp 64-113). Think tanks usually tend to influence three kinds of agendas –media, public and policy (Abelson 2014, pp.125-142). They heave matters concerning the public interest into competition with other entities that likewise seek to take forward the issues (Daphne and Wallace 2001, pp 64-113). This is done by the facilities of public services like public lectures and forums, providing educational resources to educational institutions as well as through the internet (McDonald 2014, pp.845-880). Think tanks are known to target national, international and the local media. However, think tanks usually focus on particular issues policy or attempts to operate on policy themes that are common ignoring other relevant issues that lead to non-decisions (Arin 2014, pp. 9-13). The formation of strong think tank networks can increase this tendency further. Nevertheless, the think tanks function as entrepreneurs of policy interacting and communicating with politicians, international civil workers and business interests for forming coalitions of political assistance and expand particular ideals of policy (Daphne and Wallace 2001, pp 64-113). Moreover, think tanks acting as non-state-actors can promote the values that are preferred and the human rights through their roles of advocacy and educational paradigm in the situation of the absence of the functional and operational compacts, institutional arrangements and funding required for moving at incorporation (Daphne and Wallace 2001, pp 64-113).

Moreover, the think tanks are required to monitor and evaluate the implementation of policies and agreements in the regional and global contexts (Ronit and Schneider 2013, pp 78-93). Many institutions of policy undertake the mission for organizing such evaluations and studies in matters that range from environmental regulation to labor standards to intellectual rights on property to chemical and nuclear non-creation agreements (Ness and Gándara 2014, pp.258-280). Hence, the critical investigations and policy works of the think tanks pose positive exteriority for the international organizations and the nation states providing them with independent and additional resource for evaluation and oversight (Savage 2016, pp.35-53). Again, think tanks are frequently considered as ideal institutions that conduct in-depth analysis of programs of policy determining their success and failure (Daphne and Wallace 2001, pp 64-113). Furthermore, as autonomous and independent organizations they are considered to be adequately detached from the policy programs providing way for better and objective evaluations while making efficient recommendations for the reformation and modification of policy goals as well as for the elimination of a policy program.

Think tanks and institutes of policy are seen as vehicles for the encouragement of the development of the civil society in collaboration with the third-sector organizations like the non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the corporate sector (Vromen and Hurley 2015, pp.167-183). The think tanks are responsible for the attraction of support and funding from the help agencies and foundations as institutions for the building of a social capital, generating human capital and strengthening the political framework of the independent societies (Daphne and Wallace 2001, pp 64-113). More generically speaking, think tanks assume two different civic roles. They may function as the foundation of alternative advice of policy, expressing varying perspectives and contributing to the political thought and its plurality thereby acting as authoritative democratic instruments (Vromen and Hurley 2015, pp.167-183). On the other hand, thin tanks can perform as machinery for quasi-liberal and authoritarian regimes (Daphne and Wallace 2001, pp 64-113). That is to say, think tanks can function as machines posing sophisticated propaganda for legitimizing the dominating ideas and the policy dimensions of serving governments.

The influence of the think tanks can be assessed in three possible ways. First, thin tanks are considered influential such that they gain access to the decisions and policy makers (Vromen and Hurley 2015, pp.167-183). The transnational feature of major policy issues proposes a dimension for collaborative research through the information sharing and through cooperation regarding other activities that grant think tanks a global dimension (Daphne and Wallace 2001, pp 64-113). They do not just meet the governmental and international demands for information and knowledge services but also work at producing public good. Second, the think tank networks enhance their power by the formation of a decisive mass for shared ideas of policy emerged through conferences and meetings, common advocacy and collaborative research (Daphne and Wallace 2001, pp 64-113). Third, think tanks are a demonstration of the power-knowledge dynamic and can be described as invasive in helping to classify the political struggles and the social practices (Ness and Gándara 2014, pp.258-280).

References

Abelson, D.E., 2014. Old world, new world: the evolution and influence of foreign affairs think-tanks. International Affairs, 90(1), pp.125-142.

Amin, S., 2014. Capitalism in the age of globalization: The management of contemporary society. Zed Books Ltd..

Archer, C., 2014. International organizations. Routledge.

Arin, K.Y., 2014. Think Tanks, the Brain Trusts of US Foreign Policy. In Think Tanks (pp. 9-13). Springer VS, Wiesbaden.

Avant, D. and Westerwinter, O. eds., 2016. The new power politics: networks and transnational security governance. Oxford University Press.

Barkin, J., 2015. International organization: theories and institutions. Springer.

Bauer, M.W. and Ege, J., 2016. Bureaucratic autonomy of international organizations’ secretariats. Journal of European Public Policy, 23(7), pp.1019-1037.

Benería, L., Berik, G. and Floro, M., 2015. Gender, development and globalization: economics as if all people mattered. Routledge.

Caspersen, N., 2013. Unrecognized states: The struggle for sovereignty in the modern international system. John Wiley & Sons.

Cerny, P.G., 2010. Rethinking world politics: A theory of transnational neopluralism. OUP USA.

Chandler, D., 2014. Beyond neoliberalism: resilience, the new art of governing complexity. Resilience, 2(1), pp.47-63.

Daphne, J. and Wallace, W., 2001. Non-State Actors in World Politics. Homrdmills: Palgrave.

Diehl, P.F. and Frederking, B. eds., 2015. The politics of global governance: international organizations in an interdependent world. Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Freyburg, T., 2015. Transgovernmental networks as an apprenticeship in democracy? Socialization into democratic governance through cross-national activities. International Studies Quarterly, 59(1), pp.59-72.

Friedman, J. and Friedman, K.E., 2013. Globalization as a discourse of hegemonic crisis: A global systemic analysis. American Ethnologist, 40(2), pp.244-257.

Hall, S., Massey, D. and Rustin, M., 2013. After neoliberalism: analysing the present. Soundings, 53(53), pp.8-22.

Jordana, J., 2017. Transgovernmental networks as regulatory intermediaries: horizontal collaboration and the realities of soft power. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 670(1), pp.245-262.

Kirton, J.J., 2016. G20 governance for a globalized world. Routledge.

Lechner, F.J. and Boli, J. eds., 2014. The globalization reader. John Wiley & Sons.

Martell, L., 2016. The sociology of globalization. John Wiley & Sons.

McDonald, L., 2014. Think tanks and the media: How the conservative movement gained entry into the education policy arena. Educational Policy, 28(6), pp.845-880.

Ness, E.C. and Gándara, D., 2014. Ideological think tanks in the states: An inventory of their prevalence, networks, and higher education policy activity. Educational Policy, 28(2), pp.258-280.

Papadopoulos, T., 2015. International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO).

Ronit, K. and Schneider, V. eds., 2013. Private organisations in global politics. Routledge.

Savage, G.C., 2016. Think tanks, education and elite policy actors. The Australian Educational Researcher, 43(1), pp.35-53.

Scholte, J.A., 2014. Reinventing global democracy. European Journal of International Relations, 20(1), pp.3-28.

Slaughter, A.M., 2009. A new world order. Princeton University Press.

Vromen, A. and Hurley, P., 2015. Consultants, think tanks and public policy. Policy analysis in Australia, pp.167-183.