The Politics of Explanatory Nationalism and the Evolution of the United Nations Agenda on Multinational Enterprises

T. Eskelinen, Matti Ylönen
{"title":"The Politics of Explanatory Nationalism and the Evolution of the United Nations Agenda on Multinational Enterprises","authors":"T. Eskelinen, Matti Ylönen","doi":"10.17323/1996-7845-2020-03-07","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The contemporary world continues to suffer from a number of social problems that are global in scope but impact the Global South disproportionately. While broad and coordinated policy responses to overcome these problems exist, such policies are not shaped solely by the political will to address the problems. On the contrary, their content largely depends on how societies in general and the social problems in particular are routinely explained and conceptualized. We refer to these as explanatory tendencies or paradigms of explanation. As complex problems always have multiple root causes with long causal chains, explanations of these causes necessarily involve some assumptions about relevant causalities. Typically, the main choice in explaining international politics relates to the extent to which social phenomena should be explained by domestic institutions, decisions and events.Social science in general has been noted to have a bias toward a “nationalist” approach to explanation [Beck, 2007; Brenner, 1999; Gore, 1993; Pogge, 2002]. This means treating the state as the primary and even sufficient object of analysis, so that problems are explained by the malfunctioning institutions and misinformed policies of states. Such explanatory biases become naturalized in everyday politics and social analysis [Amin, 2004]. While this has been widely discussed as an epistemological issue, the interplay between international organizations and explanatory tendencies has received less attention. The present article addresses this gap. We argue that explanatory tendencies and biases should not be treated exclusively as an epistemological matter. They need to be accompanied by an analysis of the role of international organizations as both influenced by an explanatory tendency and upholding it. Paradigms of explanation are reflected in the priorities and relative powers of international organizations, as their very structure can reflect particular explanatory tendencies. As an example, we will use the ascent and descent of the United Nations work on the power of multinational enterprises.","PeriodicalId":42976,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik Mezhdunarodnykh Organizatsii-International Organisations Research Journal","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vestnik Mezhdunarodnykh Organizatsii-International Organisations Research Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17323/1996-7845-2020-03-07","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The contemporary world continues to suffer from a number of social problems that are global in scope but impact the Global South disproportionately. While broad and coordinated policy responses to overcome these problems exist, such policies are not shaped solely by the political will to address the problems. On the contrary, their content largely depends on how societies in general and the social problems in particular are routinely explained and conceptualized. We refer to these as explanatory tendencies or paradigms of explanation. As complex problems always have multiple root causes with long causal chains, explanations of these causes necessarily involve some assumptions about relevant causalities. Typically, the main choice in explaining international politics relates to the extent to which social phenomena should be explained by domestic institutions, decisions and events.Social science in general has been noted to have a bias toward a “nationalist” approach to explanation [Beck, 2007; Brenner, 1999; Gore, 1993; Pogge, 2002]. This means treating the state as the primary and even sufficient object of analysis, so that problems are explained by the malfunctioning institutions and misinformed policies of states. Such explanatory biases become naturalized in everyday politics and social analysis [Amin, 2004]. While this has been widely discussed as an epistemological issue, the interplay between international organizations and explanatory tendencies has received less attention. The present article addresses this gap. We argue that explanatory tendencies and biases should not be treated exclusively as an epistemological matter. They need to be accompanied by an analysis of the role of international organizations as both influenced by an explanatory tendency and upholding it. Paradigms of explanation are reflected in the priorities and relative powers of international organizations, as their very structure can reflect particular explanatory tendencies. As an example, we will use the ascent and descent of the United Nations work on the power of multinational enterprises.
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
解释性民族主义的政治与联合国跨国企业议程的演变
当代世界继续遭受一些社会问题的困扰,这些问题的范围是全球性的,但对全球南方的影响却不成比例。虽然存在克服这些问题的广泛和协调的政策反应,但这些政策并不完全取决于解决这些问题的政治意愿。相反,它们的内容在很大程度上取决于一般社会,特别是社会问题如何被常规地解释和概念化。我们把这些称为解释倾向或解释范式。由于复杂的问题总是有多个根源和很长的因果链,对这些原因的解释必然涉及对相关因果关系的一些假设。通常,解释国际政治的主要选择涉及国内机构、决定和事件应在多大程度上解释社会现象。一般来说,人们注意到社会科学倾向于“民族主义”的解释方法[Beck, 2007;布伦纳,1999;戈尔,1993;Pogge, 2002]。这意味着把国家作为主要的、甚至是充分的分析对象,这样问题就可以用失灵的制度和错误的国家政策来解释。这种解释性偏见在日常政治和社会分析中变得自然化[Amin, 2004]。虽然这已经作为一个认识论问题被广泛讨论,但国际组织与解释倾向之间的相互作用却很少受到关注。本文解决了这一差距。我们认为,解释倾向和偏见不应该被视为一个认识论问题。在进行这些工作的同时,还需要分析国际组织受解释趋势影响和维护这种趋势的作用。解释范式反映在国际组织的优先级和相对权力上,因为它们的结构可以反映特定的解释倾向。作为一个例子,我们将以联合国关于跨国企业力量的工作的起起落落为例。
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
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
33.30%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: The journal mission is to disseminate Russian and international research in global governance, international cooperation on a wide range of social and economic policies; as well as to create a professional framework for discussion of trends and prognoses in these areas. International Organisations Research Journal publishes academic and analytical papers of Russian and international authors on activities of international multilateral institutions: G8, G20, BRICS, OECD, the World Bank, IMF, WTO, UN, and alliances: European Union, Eurasian Economic Union, Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and others. Analytical and research papers on international cooperation in higher education, trends in higher education developments at the national, regional and global levels are welcomed for reviewing and publication. The journal is aimed at researchers, analysts, practitioners in international affairs and world economics and at a wide audience interested in political issues of international affairs and global development. IORJ supports publications of graduate and postgraduate students, young researchers in Russia and abroad. All IORJ publications are peer-reviewed.
期刊最新文献
G20 at the Critical Juncture. Indonesia’s 2022 Presidency: Internal and External Shocks, Risks of Power Rebalancing and Eventual Demise, Causes of Resilience and Re-Equilibrium Transformation of the “Climate Club” Concept: From Theory to Practice (Review) Why multilateralism is losing ground in audiovisual services in the WTO Shanghai Cooperation Organisation: Reassessment of the Priorities Against the Background of Old Problems and New Challenges. Book Review: «The Shanghai Cooperation Organization: Exploring New Horizons» Climate Risks and Financial Stability: The Role of Central Banks and Implications for Russia
×
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