The architecture and content of today’s global governance are showing interesting dynamics. The conference will analyse these developments, and try to assess whether they constitute the beginning of structural trends that will consolidate during the coming decades. We would like to point at four particular sets of interlinked developments in high-level international policy-making.
R E G IM E N
Réseau d’Etudes sur la Globalisation et la Gouvernance Internationale et les Mutations de l’Etat et des Nations
CONFERENCE TOWARDS A NEW GENERATION IN GLOBAL GLOVERNANCE?
University of Ghent (Belgium) Department of political sciences Global Governance Research
Group 14 - 15 November
2005 CALL FOR PAPERS
RESEARCH AGENDA
The architecture and content of today’s global governance are showing interesting dynamics. The conference will analyse these developments, and try to assess whether they constitute the beginning of structural trends that will consolidate during the coming decades. We would like to point at four particular sets of interlinked developments in high-level international policy-making.
1) A movement to enhance inclusiveness in international decision-making.
The legitimacy of global governance is threatened by the dominance of northern countries in international institutions (political, economic, or security). This aspect is one of the major complaints of the influential ‘alter-globalisation movement’ that emerged in the 1990s. At the same time, the South is getting better organised than 20 years ago. Moreover, as the world has become more multi-polar in the economic, political, cultural, environmental, security and other spheres, the G7/G8 countries might have understood that more inclusiveness will be a condition to the effectiveness of policy-making.
Possible indications:
- Participation of other countries to G7/G8-meetings
- The debate about new permanent members to UNO security council
- China’s WTO membership
- The notion of ‘country ownership’ in IMF and World Bank programs.
- The financial bodies G22 and Financial Stability Forum, which include ‘systemically important countries’ from the South
- The diplomatic strength of the G20 of southern countries formed at the WTO ministerial in Cancún (2003)
- Paul Martin’s (Canada) new approach of a L20 group; inclusiveness is explicitly mentioned as a goal.
Critical remarks:
- Do the southern countries have a real say, whether in political, economic, security or other sphere?
- The G20 are mostly efficient exporters of agricultural products, and pursue other interests than the least developed countries. Doesn’t this confirm recurring specific political, economic, cultural and security agendas?
- How to analyse States from different continents showing specific attitudes toward global energy, environment or security issues?
- How does this movement affect the debate on State sovereignty? - …
2) A movement to re-embed the globalising economy within broader societal purpose.
There are signs that a growing number of policy-makers become aware that globalisation has gone too far in several respects. One the one hand, the deepening of the neo-liberal globalisation process meets more resistance, while on the other hand initiatives are taken to complement the process with a market-correcting counter-weight. The ‘Washington Consensus’ seems to be over the top. The “Monterrey consensus” is already advocated by some as its follower. This process could be seen as a reiteration of Karl Polanyi’s double movement, by which an unleashing of global market forces (i.e. ‘laisser-faire’) in the nineteenth century was followed by a reassertion of public control in the first half of the twentieth century, which lasted until about 1980 (see also J.G. Ruggie on ‘embedded liberalism’ (1982)). In the same vein, it is plausible that the recent neo-liberal phase (1980-2000) is being followed by a new phase of re-embedding.
Possible indications:
- The difficulties to continue liberalisation of trade and investment in the WTO regime.
- The renewed interest in financing for development.
- The new international financial architecture.
- The struggle against ‘harmful tax competition’ by EU and OECD.
- The struggle against money laundering and financing of terrorism.
- Recent South American and East Asian regional integration initiatives, partly conceived as alternatives to US-style capitalism and as a buffer against globalisation.
- The difficulties to liberalise services in the EU. - …
Critical remarks:
- The ‘new’ financial architecture is not fundamentally new, and the new regulation is Western-oriented.
- The initiatives against tax competition are very modest and serve a northern agenda.
- Very slow progress as regards financing for development, labour and environmental protection, energy management, ...
- Imbalances between North and South seem to be ‘remedied’ by more liberalisation and more market (f.i. the prospect of dismantling northern agricultural protectionism; the EU ‘Everything but arms initiative’ to remove import barriers against exports from least development countries), instead of market correction by public intervention (f.i. commodity agreements, performance requirements for multinational corporations). A modern remake of the interventionist ‘New International Economic Order’ would possibly do more for development. - …
3) A movement to increase policy coherence in global governance.
The functional architecture of global governance has not always reflected the structural interrelatedness between several global issues (security, energy, economic …) . As a result, institutions have worked along each other and often against each other. Several institutions worked on one particular issue without the necessary coordination, while at other occasions institutions did not aptly establish the obvious links between issues. Since a few years there seems to be an intensified effort to enhance policy coherence at the multilateral level.
Possible indications:
- Increasing cooperation among international organisations and creation of functional networks (f.i. UNAIDS, Financial Stability Forum, Global Compact).
- The Millennium Development Goals on poverty, health, education, environment, water supply, gender equality, trade, debt relief and other issues as a seemingly historically unique, multifaceted and influential action plan. - …
Critical remarks:
- What about the influence of prevailing security issues and the pursuit of national interest on states behaviour in the international system?
- What about the preponderance of market-enhancing organisations over market-correcting ones within the current architecture of global governance?
- Do the Millennium Development Goals sufficiently address the structural aspects of underdevelopment related with globalisation? - …
4) A movement to strengthen multilateral cooperation following from renewed conceptions of national interest and national security.
This trend concerns the level of discourses, and as such, can underscore the above trends. In a world of globalisation and complex interdependence multilateral cooperation and serious engagement in the provision of global public goods are no longer a sheer matter of idealism or altruism. According to the official discourses of a growing number of developed country governments, assuming global responsibility is instrumental to national interests and national security (see also J. Nye, ‘The paradox of American power’, 2002).
Possible indications:
- The rise of new concepts such as human security, comprehensive security, and global public goods in international diplomacy and within institutions as the UN and the EU, establishing a link between the national interest and national security of states on the one hand, and multilateral cooperation concerning economy, poverty, ecology, health, etc. on the other.
Critical remarks:
- To the extent that this discourse implies a multitude of commitments in supranational frameworks, it is not embraced by the Bush administration and several other important governments.
- As far as the EU is concerned, there is still a difference between discourse and policy.
We are fully aware that these four assumptions are tentative and contestable. Some people would term them ‘wishful thinking’, others will consider them as real and important, but stress that their further development depends on the choices political actors will make. The purpose of the conference is to make informed assessments of these trends. We hope that the papers of the conference can be published as an interesting reader. Therefore, it is essential that papers stick to the basic hypotheses of this common research project.
In a more operational manner, the two days of the international conference are organised in four sessions, each of them dedicated to one of the four movements previously mentioned.
Languages of the conferences : English and French
Deadline for paper proposals (abstract): 15 October 2005
Information, registration, paper proposal: Dries.Lesage@UGent.be
University of Ghent Global Governance Research Group – Department of Political Science (Registration form at the end of the present document)
Practical information (hotel accommodation, …) shall be provided after registration.
Regimen web site : http://www.univ-paris12.fr/fae/regimen/
Convenors for REGIMEN: Rik Coolsaet and Dries Lesage, University of Ghent, Global Governance Research Group
REGIMEN Scientific Committee: Miguel Ayuso, Universidad Pontificia Comillas de Madrid – Spain, Maté Botos, Pazmany Peter University Budapest – Hungary, Vincent de Briant, Université de Paris XII-Val-de-Marne – France, Danilo Castellano, University of Udine – Italy, Pierre Chalvidan, Université de Paris XII-Val-de-Marne – France, Juan Manuel de Faraminan Gilbert, Universidad de Jaén – Spain, Barbara Delcourt, Université Libre de Bruxelles – Belgium, Chantal Delsol, Université de Marne-la-Vallée – France, Jacobus Delwaide, Katholieke Universiteit Brussel – Belgium, Jaap H. de Wilde, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam - Universiteit Twente – Netherlands, Guiseppe Gangemi, University of Padua – Italy, Gustaaf Geeraerts, Vrije Universiteit van Brussel – Belgium, Stephen Launay, Université de Lille 2 – France, Dries Lesage, Ghent University – Belgium, Yves Palau, Université de Paris XII-Val-de-Marne – France, Olivier Paye, Facultés Universitaires Saint-Louis – Brussels – Belgium, Brigitte Piquard, Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium, Beatriz Salgado, Université Paris XII – France, Pierre Vercauteren, Catholic University of Mons (FUCaM) – Belgium, Pierre Verjans, Université de Liège – Belgium, Peter Wagner, American University in Bulgaria, Kirsten Westphal, Justius Liebig Universität Giessen – Federal Republic of Germany
CONFERENCE PROGRAMME MONDAY 14 NOVEMBER 9.30-12.30:
Enhancing inclusiveness in global governance
- Inclusiveness and international organisations - Consequences of growing multi-polarity for global governance
- Power relations between UN bodies and between the UN and other multilateral institutions
- Prospects for enlargement of the UN Security Council
- Prospects for a Social and Economic Security Council or similar institutions - …
14.30-17.30: Re-embedding the globalising economy
- The world trade regime
- Regulation of multinational enterprises
- Financial and taxation architecture
- Political-economic and ideological aspects of regional economic integration
- Environmental and energy policy
- Prospects for a successful ‘New International Economic Order II’ - …
TUESDAY 15 NOVEMBER 9.30-12.30:
Enhancing policy coherence in global governance
- Institutional networking - A critical assessment of the Millennium Development Goals project
- Global governance: inter State cooperation or growing role for international institutions? - …
14.30-17.30:
Global public goods: a matter of national interest and national security?
- New discourses on global governance that make the bridge between realism and idealism, between national interest/national security and multilateral engagement concerning a broad range of transnational issues
- New security concepts
- External policy of the EU and the US -
Réseau d’Etudes sur la Globalisation et la Gouvernance Internationale et les Mutations de l’Etat et des Nations
CONFERENCE TOWARDS A NEW GENERATION IN GLOBAL GLOVERNANCE?
University of Ghent (Belgium) Department of political sciences Global Governance Research
Group 14 - 15 November
2005 CALL FOR PAPERS
RESEARCH AGENDA
The architecture and content of today’s global governance are showing interesting dynamics. The conference will analyse these developments, and try to assess whether they constitute the beginning of structural trends that will consolidate during the coming decades. We would like to point at four particular sets of interlinked developments in high-level international policy-making.
1) A movement to enhance inclusiveness in international decision-making.
The legitimacy of global governance is threatened by the dominance of northern countries in international institutions (political, economic, or security). This aspect is one of the major complaints of the influential ‘alter-globalisation movement’ that emerged in the 1990s. At the same time, the South is getting better organised than 20 years ago. Moreover, as the world has become more multi-polar in the economic, political, cultural, environmental, security and other spheres, the G7/G8 countries might have understood that more inclusiveness will be a condition to the effectiveness of policy-making.
Possible indications:
- Participation of other countries to G7/G8-meetings
- The debate about new permanent members to UNO security council
- China’s WTO membership
- The notion of ‘country ownership’ in IMF and World Bank programs.
- The financial bodies G22 and Financial Stability Forum, which include ‘systemically important countries’ from the South
- The diplomatic strength of the G20 of southern countries formed at the WTO ministerial in Cancún (2003)
- Paul Martin’s (Canada) new approach of a L20 group; inclusiveness is explicitly mentioned as a goal.
Critical remarks:
- Do the southern countries have a real say, whether in political, economic, security or other sphere?
- The G20 are mostly efficient exporters of agricultural products, and pursue other interests than the least developed countries. Doesn’t this confirm recurring specific political, economic, cultural and security agendas?
- How to analyse States from different continents showing specific attitudes toward global energy, environment or security issues?
- How does this movement affect the debate on State sovereignty? - …
2) A movement to re-embed the globalising economy within broader societal purpose.
There are signs that a growing number of policy-makers become aware that globalisation has gone too far in several respects. One the one hand, the deepening of the neo-liberal globalisation process meets more resistance, while on the other hand initiatives are taken to complement the process with a market-correcting counter-weight. The ‘Washington Consensus’ seems to be over the top. The “Monterrey consensus” is already advocated by some as its follower. This process could be seen as a reiteration of Karl Polanyi’s double movement, by which an unleashing of global market forces (i.e. ‘laisser-faire’) in the nineteenth century was followed by a reassertion of public control in the first half of the twentieth century, which lasted until about 1980 (see also J.G. Ruggie on ‘embedded liberalism’ (1982)). In the same vein, it is plausible that the recent neo-liberal phase (1980-2000) is being followed by a new phase of re-embedding.
Possible indications:
- The difficulties to continue liberalisation of trade and investment in the WTO regime.
- The renewed interest in financing for development.
- The new international financial architecture.
- The struggle against ‘harmful tax competition’ by EU and OECD.
- The struggle against money laundering and financing of terrorism.
- Recent South American and East Asian regional integration initiatives, partly conceived as alternatives to US-style capitalism and as a buffer against globalisation.
- The difficulties to liberalise services in the EU. - …
Critical remarks:
- The ‘new’ financial architecture is not fundamentally new, and the new regulation is Western-oriented.
- The initiatives against tax competition are very modest and serve a northern agenda.
- Very slow progress as regards financing for development, labour and environmental protection, energy management, ...
- Imbalances between North and South seem to be ‘remedied’ by more liberalisation and more market (f.i. the prospect of dismantling northern agricultural protectionism; the EU ‘Everything but arms initiative’ to remove import barriers against exports from least development countries), instead of market correction by public intervention (f.i. commodity agreements, performance requirements for multinational corporations). A modern remake of the interventionist ‘New International Economic Order’ would possibly do more for development. - …
3) A movement to increase policy coherence in global governance.
The functional architecture of global governance has not always reflected the structural interrelatedness between several global issues (security, energy, economic …) . As a result, institutions have worked along each other and often against each other. Several institutions worked on one particular issue without the necessary coordination, while at other occasions institutions did not aptly establish the obvious links between issues. Since a few years there seems to be an intensified effort to enhance policy coherence at the multilateral level.
Possible indications:
- Increasing cooperation among international organisations and creation of functional networks (f.i. UNAIDS, Financial Stability Forum, Global Compact).
- The Millennium Development Goals on poverty, health, education, environment, water supply, gender equality, trade, debt relief and other issues as a seemingly historically unique, multifaceted and influential action plan. - …
Critical remarks:
- What about the influence of prevailing security issues and the pursuit of national interest on states behaviour in the international system?
- What about the preponderance of market-enhancing organisations over market-correcting ones within the current architecture of global governance?
- Do the Millennium Development Goals sufficiently address the structural aspects of underdevelopment related with globalisation? - …
4) A movement to strengthen multilateral cooperation following from renewed conceptions of national interest and national security.
This trend concerns the level of discourses, and as such, can underscore the above trends. In a world of globalisation and complex interdependence multilateral cooperation and serious engagement in the provision of global public goods are no longer a sheer matter of idealism or altruism. According to the official discourses of a growing number of developed country governments, assuming global responsibility is instrumental to national interests and national security (see also J. Nye, ‘The paradox of American power’, 2002).
Possible indications:
- The rise of new concepts such as human security, comprehensive security, and global public goods in international diplomacy and within institutions as the UN and the EU, establishing a link between the national interest and national security of states on the one hand, and multilateral cooperation concerning economy, poverty, ecology, health, etc. on the other.
Critical remarks:
- To the extent that this discourse implies a multitude of commitments in supranational frameworks, it is not embraced by the Bush administration and several other important governments.
- As far as the EU is concerned, there is still a difference between discourse and policy.
We are fully aware that these four assumptions are tentative and contestable. Some people would term them ‘wishful thinking’, others will consider them as real and important, but stress that their further development depends on the choices political actors will make. The purpose of the conference is to make informed assessments of these trends. We hope that the papers of the conference can be published as an interesting reader. Therefore, it is essential that papers stick to the basic hypotheses of this common research project.
In a more operational manner, the two days of the international conference are organised in four sessions, each of them dedicated to one of the four movements previously mentioned.
Languages of the conferences : English and French
Deadline for paper proposals (abstract): 15 October 2005
Information, registration, paper proposal: Dries.Lesage@UGent.be
University of Ghent Global Governance Research Group – Department of Political Science (Registration form at the end of the present document)
Practical information (hotel accommodation, …) shall be provided after registration.
Regimen web site : http://www.univ-paris12.fr/fae/regimen/
Convenors for REGIMEN: Rik Coolsaet and Dries Lesage, University of Ghent, Global Governance Research Group
REGIMEN Scientific Committee: Miguel Ayuso, Universidad Pontificia Comillas de Madrid – Spain, Maté Botos, Pazmany Peter University Budapest – Hungary, Vincent de Briant, Université de Paris XII-Val-de-Marne – France, Danilo Castellano, University of Udine – Italy, Pierre Chalvidan, Université de Paris XII-Val-de-Marne – France, Juan Manuel de Faraminan Gilbert, Universidad de Jaén – Spain, Barbara Delcourt, Université Libre de Bruxelles – Belgium, Chantal Delsol, Université de Marne-la-Vallée – France, Jacobus Delwaide, Katholieke Universiteit Brussel – Belgium, Jaap H. de Wilde, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam - Universiteit Twente – Netherlands, Guiseppe Gangemi, University of Padua – Italy, Gustaaf Geeraerts, Vrije Universiteit van Brussel – Belgium, Stephen Launay, Université de Lille 2 – France, Dries Lesage, Ghent University – Belgium, Yves Palau, Université de Paris XII-Val-de-Marne – France, Olivier Paye, Facultés Universitaires Saint-Louis – Brussels – Belgium, Brigitte Piquard, Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium, Beatriz Salgado, Université Paris XII – France, Pierre Vercauteren, Catholic University of Mons (FUCaM) – Belgium, Pierre Verjans, Université de Liège – Belgium, Peter Wagner, American University in Bulgaria, Kirsten Westphal, Justius Liebig Universität Giessen – Federal Republic of Germany
CONFERENCE PROGRAMME MONDAY 14 NOVEMBER 9.30-12.30:
Enhancing inclusiveness in global governance
- Inclusiveness and international organisations - Consequences of growing multi-polarity for global governance
- Power relations between UN bodies and between the UN and other multilateral institutions
- Prospects for enlargement of the UN Security Council
- Prospects for a Social and Economic Security Council or similar institutions - …
14.30-17.30: Re-embedding the globalising economy
- The world trade regime
- Regulation of multinational enterprises
- Financial and taxation architecture
- Political-economic and ideological aspects of regional economic integration
- Environmental and energy policy
- Prospects for a successful ‘New International Economic Order II’ - …
TUESDAY 15 NOVEMBER 9.30-12.30:
Enhancing policy coherence in global governance
- Institutional networking - A critical assessment of the Millennium Development Goals project
- Global governance: inter State cooperation or growing role for international institutions? - …
14.30-17.30:
Global public goods: a matter of national interest and national security?
- New discourses on global governance that make the bridge between realism and idealism, between national interest/national security and multilateral engagement concerning a broad range of transnational issues
- New security concepts
- External policy of the EU and the US -
0 Comments
Would you like to comment?
You must be a member. Sign In if you are already a member.