Globalization and Governance
National governments, under the forces of globalization, are shifting political
authority to higher, lower and corporate affiliates. The project addresses
high-profile issues such as assuring that international and regional institutions
are accountable to the publics affected by their actions; integrating demands
for local self-determination and political devolution-whether ethnically
based or not-with the benefits of wider markets, sources of technology, and
investment flows; and tailoring government intervention and regulation to
accomplish necessary public ends in the most efficient manner.
Summary
Many believe that governments are now being pressed by the forces of
globalization to transfer policy functions and political authority
"upwards" to supranational entities, "downwards" to
provincial and local governments, and "sidewards" to private corporate
and NGO actors.
This project will study the changing distribution of governance across levels
of political institutions; the evolving division of governance between public
and private sectors; and new requirements for accountability and democratic
governance.
It will create an interdisciplinary study group and commission approximately
12 papers to investigate these issues.
The problem
The debate over globalization--narrowly defined as economic integration, more
broadly as a process transforming information flows and cultural identities as
well--often casts the political effects of these changes as both revolutionary
and contradictory.
On the one hand, many functions that formerly resided in national governments
are now believed to be moving inexorably toward regional and global
institutions. The process of Economic and Monetary Union in the European Union
is only one apparent confirmation of this tendency; expansion of the powers of
the World Trade Organization and recent proposals for a world central bank are
others. On the other hand, analysts have also posited countervailing
tendency--based in part on democratization in the late twentieth century--that
tugs toward greater accountability and political dis-integration: the growth of
movements for local autonomy or separatism that challenge the unitary national
state. And undermining the traditional view of government from another quarter,
the bargaining power of private corporations, mobile and global, has grown,
producing a retrenchment of government and an era of deregulation. Globalization
in these popular views has meant a pulling apart of traditional roles of
national governments in favor of international organizations on the one hand and
more local forms of government on the other, and a rolling back of traditional
government in favor of the private sector.
This popular view of the impact of globalization has been challenged on each
point. National governments have jealously guarded many traditional roles, even
in the highly integrated context of Europe: defense, police, immigration have
not been part of this unraveling of government. If government by nation-states
is a beleaguered and eroding form of government, then its popularity at the end
of this century is baffling: groups demand not new forms of political
organization but self-determination and their own nation-states. Finally, the
supposed trend toward deregulation can also be seen as re-regulation: old forms
of regulation may disappear, but government intervention in new areas
(environment or consumer protection) and in new forms appear at the same time.
The project
Sorting through these contradictory claims requires
- Identification of the effects of globalization on governance traditionally
defined: gaining a better grasp of what the trends in governance are, based
on research that separates the effects of global economic integration from
other effects
- Developing guides for policymakers on the best forms and sites of
governance in the new circumstances, making clear the tradeoffs that are
faced between competing goals, such as democratic accountability and
economic efficiency
The project, which engages an interdisciplinary team of social scientists,
will accomplish these goals through an investigation of three dimensions on
which governance functions and governance forms may be distributed in the face
of growing economic integration:
1) The distribution of governance functions across the levels of institutions
from international and regional to national to sub-national (regional and
local). The current era of growing international economic integration has
witnessed a strengthening of some global institutions (the WTO) but relatively
little new institution-building in other areas (monetary and financial
collaboration). Regional institutions have proliferated as new free trade areas
and customs unions have emerged. Yet few of these institutions display the
elaborate institutions and the wide array of functions of those in the European
Union. At the same time, sub-national units within federal and non-federal
systems have enjoyed a widening of powers, in some cases related to ethnic
assertion (the United Kingdom, Spain). The powers that are devolved (just like
those delegated "upward" to regional and international institutions)
vary greatly from case to case.
Existing research gives us few clues as to why certain functions arrive at
one level or another. Nor does existing theory offer many clear guidelines for
designing institutions that can assume different functions over time as economic
integration changes in character.
2) The division of functions between private and public sectors cuts across
the distribution of functions among international, regional, national, and
sub-national levels. Although the international movement toward privatization
and a retrenchment of certain government functions may be associated with global
economic integration, it clearly has other sources as well. International
investors and traders have demonstrated their ability to deal with a wide array
of systems that have both large and small public sectors.
The project will explore whether new forms of private governance and
government intervention are emerging from the process of integration. The
Internet and other information networks have been presented as a new and
alternative form of governance that is based on private actors acting in a
non-hierarchical system. Regulation becomes self-regulation; government's role
is decidedly different than in older models of state intervention. At the same
time, governments may learn to intervene in order to accomplish their ends in
novel and more efficient ways. Certainly the demands for regulation of the
private sector have not declined, but the content of that regulation has shifted
to the politically popular protection of the environment, labor rights, and
consumer welfare.
3) Finally, a third dimension intersects with the preceding two and often
produces conflict with them: the demand for accountability or democratic
governance. Democratization has been accompanied by a parallel tendency to
delegate key economic functions to institutions or rules-some international or
regional, some national--that are insulated from short-term political pressures.
The growing popularity of independent central banks and currency boards are a
puzzling counterpoint in an era of democratic institutions.
Delegation of governance functions to international and regional
organizations is attacked by its critics as a subversion of democratic
accountability, the democratic deficit of the EU writ large. Whether the
tradeoff between accountability and delegation to these institutions is so steep
has not been confirmed, however. And those making these claims, particularly in
the NGO movement, have their own difficulties with democratic legitimacy.
Devolution of governance to sub-national levels is often pressed as more
democratic and accountable, although that claim is highly dependent on the form
of government at those levels.
Both public and private governance under conditions of growing integration
are subject to scrutiny on grounds of accountability. Private governance is
commonly assumed to be less accountable by its nature, but corporate governance
issues are high on the international agenda. The relative role of shareholders
and stakeholders, to cite only one example, reflects on this larger issue of
accountability (and accountability to whom).
Once again, demands for a particular form of governance--in this case, more
democratic--are more than a response to growing globalization. Globalization
does influence those demands and shape their implementation, however.
The product
This project will produce two types of product:
- A series of scholarly research products in book and article form that deal
with both the empirical and normative assessments described above
- A set of policy reports that will use project-generated research to
address a series of high-profile issues, among them:
How best to square increasing delegation to international and regional
institutions with insurance that those institutions are accountable to the
publics who are affected by their actions.
How to accommodate demands for local self-determination and political
devolution-whether ethnically based or not--with the benefits of wider
markets, sources of technology, and investment flows.
How to tailor government intervention and regulation to accomplish
necessary public ends in the most efficient manner.
The process
With the support of IGCC, IR/PS, and UCSD’s Political Science dept., one
organizational meeting in April 1999 that discussed the themes of the project
has already been held. Paper proposals from a broad, interdisciplinary group of
scholars during the summer and fall of 1999 have been solicited. With funding
from IGCC, a series of "mini- conferences" in the winter and spring of
2000 will take place to discuss first drafts of the papers. A full conference
will be held in late 2000, with the project to be completed by summer 2001.
Adapted from original project proposal by Kahler and Lake.
Globalization and Governance
The Sea Lodge
La Jolla, California
June 22-25, 2000
Hosted and Sponsored by
The Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation, University of California
List of Participants
James CAPORASO
Dept. of Political Science
University of Washington
Benjamin COHEN
Dept. of Political Science
University of California, Santa Barbara
Barry EICHENGREEN
Dept. of Economics
University of California, Berkeley
Zachery ELKINS
Dept. of Political Science
University of California, Berkeley
Daniel GITTERMAN
Dept. of Public Policy
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Judith GOLDSTEIN
Dept. of Political Science
Stanford University
Peter GOUREVITCH
Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies
University of California, San Diego
Stephan HAGGARD
Institute on Global Conflict & Cooperation
University of California
Virginia HAUFLER
Dept. of Government and Politics
University of Maryland
Michael HISCOX
Dept. of Political Science
University of California, San Diego
Miles KAHLER
Graduate School of International Relations
and Pacific Studies
University of California, San Diego
Scott KASTNER
Dept. of Political Science
University of California, San Diego
Mikhail KLIMENKO
Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies
University of California, San Diego
Barbara KOREMENOS
Dept. of Political Science
University of California, Los Angeles
Stephen KRASNER
Dept. of Political Science
Stanford University
David LAKE
Dept. of Political Science
University of California, San Diego
Arthur LUPIA
Dept. of Political Science
University of California, San Diego
David MARES
Dept. of Political Science
University of California, San Diego
Lisa MARTIN
Weatherhead Center for
International Affairs
Harvard University
Walter MATTLI
Dept. of Political Science
Columbia University
Kathleen MCNAMARA
Center of International Studies
Princeton University
Stephanie MCWHORTER
Dept. of Political Science
University of California, San Diego
Angela O’MAHONY
Dept. of Political Science
University of California, San Diego
Robert POWELL
Dept. of Political Science
University of California, Berkeley
Chad RECTOR
Dept. of Political Science
University of California, San Diego
Jonathan RODDEN
Dept. of Political Science
MIT
Ronald ROGOWSKI
Dept. of Political Science
University of California, Los Angeles
Lawrence SAEZ
Center for South Asia Studies
University of California, Berkeley
Maissa SANDERS
Conference Coordinator
Institute on Global Conflict & Cooperation
James SHINN
Woodrow Wilson School of Public
and International Affairs
Princeton University
Beth SIMMONS
Dept. of Political Science
University of California, Berkeley
Richard STEINBERG
School of Law
University of California, Los Angeles
Pieter VAN HOUTEN
Dept. of Political Science
University of Chicago
Globalization and Governance
Revised Conference Agenda
22 June – 25 June 2000
University of California, San Diego
THURSDAY, JUNE 22
Morning Arrival of participants
12:00PM-1:00PM Lunch
1:00PM–2:30PM Introduction
Globalization and Governance
Miles Kahler and David A. Lake (UCSD)
2:30PM-5:30PM The Shifting Public-Private Divide
The Politics of International Institutional Standardization
Walter Mattli (Columbia)
Risk, Reputation and Rule-Making: Industry Self-Regulation and Global Governance
Virginia Haufler (University of Maryland)
Globalization and Governance: Corporate Governance and Global Governance
Peter Gourevitch (UCSD)
Discussants: Judith Goldstein (Stanford)
Beth Simons (UC Berkeley)
5:30PM-6:30 PM Break
6:30PM Dinner: Ristorante Piatti
FRIDAY, JUNE 23
8:30AM-10:30AM Toward a Positive Theory of Subsidiarity (I)
Supranationalism and Decentralization in the Global Economy
Michael Hiscox and Arthur Lupia (UCSD)
Globalization and Decentralization
Geoffrey Garrett (Yale) and Jonathan Rodden (MIT)
Discussant: Robert Powell (UC Berkeley)
10:30AM –10:45AM Break
10:45AM-12:30PM Toward a Positive Theory of Subsidiarity (II)
A Federalist Dilemma: Subnational Governments and the World Economy
Stephan Haggard (UCSD)
Globalization and Federalism in Developing Countries
Lawrence Saez (UC Berkeley)
Discussant: Ronald Rogowski (UCLA)
12:30PM -1:30PM Lunch
1:30PM-3:30PM Convergence in National Governance Structures (I)
Policy Setting and Factor Mobility
Ronald Rogowski (UCLA)
Globalization, Fiscal Adjustment and EMU: Race to the Bottom or Room for Maneuver?
Kathleen R. McNamara (Princeton)
Discussant: Stephen D. Krasner (Stanford)
3:30PM-5:30PM Convergence in National Governance Structures (II)
Globalization and Policy Diffusion: Explaining Three Decades of Liberalization
Beth Simmons and Zachery Elkins (UC Berkeley)
Governing Global Financial Markets: Insights from the Hedge-Fund Debate
Barry Eichengreen (UC Berkeley)
Discussant: Benjamin J. Cohen (UCSB)
5:30PM Break
8:00PM Dinner: Sea Lodge
SATURDAY, JUNE 24
8:30AM-10:30AM Toward a Positive Theory of Subsidiarity (III)
Regional Assertiveness in Western Europe – Political Constraints and the Role of Party Competition
Pieter van Houten (University of Chicago)
Social and Economic Pressures at Odds: Governance in Tourism and Foreign Direct Investment
Lisa L. Martin (Harvard)
Discussant: Peter Gourevitch (UCSD)
10:30AM-12:30PM Toward a Positive Theory of Subsidiarity (IV)
Monetary Governance in a World of Regional Currencies
Benjamin J. Cohen (UCSB)
Discretion, the Ally; Commitment, the Enemy- Global Governance and Labor Markets
Daniel P. Gitterman (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill)
Discussant: Barbara Koremenos (UCLA)
12:30PM-1:30PM Lunch
1:30PM-2:30PM Discussion of “subsidiarity” issues and linkages
2:30PM-6:30PM FREE TIME
6:30PM Assemble for vans to David Lake’s home
7:00PM Dinner at David Lake’s home
SUNDAY, JUNE 25
9:30AM–11:30AM Democratic Deficits and the Problem of Accountability
Governance in a Globalizing World
Robert O. Keohane (Duke) and Joseph S. Nye, Jr. (Harvard)
Transnational Markets, Second-Order Institutionalization, and the Uncertain Extension of Rights in the European Union
James Caporaso (Washington)
Discussant: Lisa Martin (Harvard)
11:30AM-12:30PM Conclusion
Miles Kahler and David A. Lake
12:30PM-1:30PM Lunch
Afternoon Departure of participants
Return to top. |