Good governance in autocratic international organizations

Emilie Hafner-Burton, Jon C. W. Pevehouse, Christina J. Schneider
{"title":"Good governance in autocratic international organizations","authors":"Emilie Hafner-Burton, Jon C. W. Pevehouse, Christina J. Schneider","doi":"10.1007/s11558-024-09550-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>A large and growing number of international organizations (IOs) are made up and governed by illiberal or outright authoritarian regimes. Many of these authoritarian IOs (AIOs) formally adopt good governance mandates, linking goals like democracy promotion, anti-corruption policies and human rights to their broader mission. Why do some AIOs adopt good governance mandates that appear to conflict with the norms and standards these regimes apply at home? We argue that AIOs adopt good governance mandates when they face substantial pressure from inside or outside the IO to adopt them. Central to our argument is that not all aspects of good governance are inherently or equally threatening to autocratic regimes. They pursue strategies that minimize the threat by externalizing policy outside the membership and strategically defining the goals to avoid or enact. This allows autocratic governments to uptake good governance talk but lessen any deep commitment to the norms and sometimes even to use them strategically to project their own power outside of the organization. Using data on 48 regional IOs with primarily autocratic membership between 1945 and 2015, we demonstrate that AIOs facing pressure from external good governance promoters will adopt good governance mandates but strategically shape those mandates in their favor if they can form bargaining coalitions with like-minded governments. The findings have sobering implications for the future of good governance promotion through IOs.</p>","PeriodicalId":75182,"journal":{"name":"The review of international organizations","volume":"31 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The review of international organizations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-024-09550-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A large and growing number of international organizations (IOs) are made up and governed by illiberal or outright authoritarian regimes. Many of these authoritarian IOs (AIOs) formally adopt good governance mandates, linking goals like democracy promotion, anti-corruption policies and human rights to their broader mission. Why do some AIOs adopt good governance mandates that appear to conflict with the norms and standards these regimes apply at home? We argue that AIOs adopt good governance mandates when they face substantial pressure from inside or outside the IO to adopt them. Central to our argument is that not all aspects of good governance are inherently or equally threatening to autocratic regimes. They pursue strategies that minimize the threat by externalizing policy outside the membership and strategically defining the goals to avoid or enact. This allows autocratic governments to uptake good governance talk but lessen any deep commitment to the norms and sometimes even to use them strategically to project their own power outside of the organization. Using data on 48 regional IOs with primarily autocratic membership between 1945 and 2015, we demonstrate that AIOs facing pressure from external good governance promoters will adopt good governance mandates but strategically shape those mandates in their favor if they can form bargaining coalitions with like-minded governments. The findings have sobering implications for the future of good governance promotion through IOs.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
专制国际组织的善治
越来越多的国际组织(IOs)是由不自由或完全专制的政权组成和管理的。其中许多专制国际组织(AIOs)正式通过了善治任务,将促进民主、反腐败政策和人权等目标与其更广泛的使命联系起来。为什么一些 AIOs 采取的善治任务似乎与这些政权在国内适用的规范和标准相冲突?我们认为,当国际组织面临来自内部或外部的巨大压力时,它们会采取善治任务。我们论证的核心是,并非善治的所有方面对专制政权都具有内在或同等的威胁。专制政权通过将政策外部化,将威胁降至最低,并从战略上确定要避免或颁布的目标。这就使专制政府能够接受善治的言论,但减少对准则的深刻承诺,有时甚至战略性地利用这些准则在组织外推行自己的权力。利用 1945 年至 2015 年间 48 个主要由专制成员组成的地区性国际组织的数据,我们证明,面临外部善治推动者压力的地区性国际组织会采纳善治任务,但如果它们能与志同道合的政府形成讨价还价的联盟,则会战略性地塑造这些任务,使其对自己有利。这些发现对未来通过国际组织促进善治具有警示意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The brothers Karamazov go abroad: A dataset of Russian leaders’ foreign visits Global value chains and the design of trade agreements Locking in democracy? Transitions, returning autocratic elites, and human rights treaty commitment Power by Proxy: Participation as a Resource in Global Governance Less is more: Property rights and dictators’ demand for foreign direct investment
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1