Pub Date : 2022-12-21DOI: 10.1163/19426720-02804004
Luma Ramos, K. Gallagher
Promoting stability is a core component of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) surveillance’s mandate. The Covid-19 pandemic hit almost every country worldwide. This article evaluates whether and how the IMF surveillance documents in the aftermath of the health and economic crisis have identified risks and mitigation measures to improve health outcomes, protect vulnerable people and firms, and address climate change. Through the IMF COVID-19 Surveillance Monitor, a textual analysis index, the authors found that these issues received relatively little attention in Article IV consultations in 2019, with fiscal issues dominating the discussion. However, the consultations conducted in 2020 show some timely incremental shifts and more attention toward health systems and protecting vulnerable matters. While climate change has become a key part of senior IMF official narratives, it has not had a significant presence in surveillance activities. The techniques and indices developed here can help the IMF improve its surveillance policy.
{"title":"The IMF COVID-19 Surveillance Monitor","authors":"Luma Ramos, K. Gallagher","doi":"10.1163/19426720-02804004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/19426720-02804004","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Promoting stability is a core component of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) surveillance’s mandate. The Covid-19 pandemic hit almost every country worldwide. This article evaluates whether and how the IMF surveillance documents in the aftermath of the health and economic crisis have identified risks and mitigation measures to improve health outcomes, protect vulnerable people and firms, and address climate change. Through the IMF COVID-19 Surveillance Monitor, a textual analysis index, the authors found that these issues received relatively little attention in Article IV consultations in 2019, with fiscal issues dominating the discussion. However, the consultations conducted in 2020 show some timely incremental shifts and more attention toward health systems and protecting vulnerable matters. While climate change has become a key part of senior IMF official narratives, it has not had a significant presence in surveillance activities. The techniques and indices developed here can help the IMF improve its surveillance policy.","PeriodicalId":47262,"journal":{"name":"Global Governance","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43295472","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-21DOI: 10.1163/19426720-02804006
Bo Kyung Kim
The study reported in this article aimed to find the extent to which the mutual accountability mechanism is applicable in fragile states where state capacity and legitimacy are insufficient. Donors provide foreign aid to fragile states even when there is no firm-standing counterpart to be held accountable. This is done to meet short-term development needs that are heavily focused on humanitarian relief. Based on an examination of the discursive evolution of fragility and donors’ categorization of fragile states based on the capacity-legitimacy configuration, this found that development needs in fragile states can be met through mutual accountability relations with partnership platforms. Represented by the g7+, partnership platforms channel the development needs in a collective form and enable their Member States to gain a certain level of legitimacy. Individual approaches to these countries may be challenging, but seeking strategic responses to development needs through such partnership platforms can create new opportunities for development effectiveness.
{"title":"Mutual Accountability in Fragile States","authors":"Bo Kyung Kim","doi":"10.1163/19426720-02804006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/19426720-02804006","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The study reported in this article aimed to find the extent to which the mutual accountability mechanism is applicable in fragile states where state capacity and legitimacy are insufficient. Donors provide foreign aid to fragile states even when there is no firm-standing counterpart to be held accountable. This is done to meet short-term development needs that are heavily focused on humanitarian relief. Based on an examination of the discursive evolution of fragility and donors’ categorization of fragile states based on the capacity-legitimacy configuration, this found that development needs in fragile states can be met through mutual accountability relations with partnership platforms. Represented by the g7+, partnership platforms channel the development needs in a collective form and enable their Member States to gain a certain level of legitimacy. Individual approaches to these countries may be challenging, but seeking strategic responses to development needs through such partnership platforms can create new opportunities for development effectiveness.","PeriodicalId":47262,"journal":{"name":"Global Governance","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42679271","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-19DOI: 10.1163/19426720-02803001
A. Balcı, Talha İsmail Duman
In international politics, governments may tend to favor countries with which they share some degree of cultural affinity. Moreover, international organizations can strengthen solidarity among their members. Not surprisingly, Muslim countries, which came together under the umbrella of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), frequently state that they pursue Muslim solidarity in international politics. By looking at voting preferences of OIC member Muslim countries in the UN General Assembly about the selection of nonpermanent UN Security Council members, this article aims to understand Muslim solidarity in international politics. For this, the article uses newspaper reports, political statements, secret intelligence reports, and interviews regarding the votes of Muslim countries in contested elections in which a Muslim country competed with its non-Muslim rival for the same Security Council seat.
{"title":"Muslim Solidarity in the UN General Assembly","authors":"A. Balcı, Talha İsmail Duman","doi":"10.1163/19426720-02803001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/19426720-02803001","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In international politics, governments may tend to favor countries with which they share some degree of cultural affinity. Moreover, international organizations can strengthen solidarity among their members. Not surprisingly, Muslim countries, which came together under the umbrella of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), frequently state that they pursue Muslim solidarity in international politics. By looking at voting preferences of OIC member Muslim countries in the UN General Assembly about the selection of nonpermanent UN Security Council members, this article aims to understand Muslim solidarity in international politics. For this, the article uses newspaper reports, political statements, secret intelligence reports, and interviews regarding the votes of Muslim countries in contested elections in which a Muslim country competed with its non-Muslim rival for the same Security Council seat.","PeriodicalId":47262,"journal":{"name":"Global Governance","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44110644","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-19DOI: 10.1163/19426720-02803002
Brooke Coe, Kilian Spandler
Why do Southeast Asian states use regional mechanisms for disaster relief? From a conventional functionalist perspective, inadequate domestic-level responses to emergencies create a demand for scaled-up governance. This article offers an alternative interpretation of disaster cooperation in Southeast Asia. Drawing on theoretical insights from comparative regionalism and critical disaster studies, it argues that the raison d’être of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Coordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance on Disaster Management (AHA Centre) is to empower ASEAN states vis-à-vis extraregional humanitarian actors. The AHA Centre works to enable Member States to gatekeep intrusive extraregional aid and, ultimately, to transform authority relations in the international humanitarian system in favor of state actors that have traditionally found themselves in a peripheral and passive role.
{"title":"Beyond Effectiveness","authors":"Brooke Coe, Kilian Spandler","doi":"10.1163/19426720-02803002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/19426720-02803002","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Why do Southeast Asian states use regional mechanisms for disaster relief? From a conventional functionalist perspective, inadequate domestic-level responses to emergencies create a demand for scaled-up governance. This article offers an alternative interpretation of disaster cooperation in Southeast Asia. Drawing on theoretical insights from comparative regionalism and critical disaster studies, it argues that the raison d’être of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Coordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance on Disaster Management (AHA Centre) is to empower ASEAN states vis-à-vis extraregional humanitarian actors. The AHA Centre works to enable Member States to gatekeep intrusive extraregional aid and, ultimately, to transform authority relations in the international humanitarian system in favor of state actors that have traditionally found themselves in a peripheral and passive role.","PeriodicalId":47262,"journal":{"name":"Global Governance","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48440987","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-19DOI: 10.1163/19426720-02803003
Vanessa F. Newby
Credibility has been used to explain theories of deterrence and cooperation in international relations. In the peacekeeping environment, for what purposes should credibility be built and how can it be signaled? Despite being listed by the UN as a success factor in peace operations, our understanding of credibility in peacekeeping remains limited and focused on deterrence. This article argues that credibility in peace operations must be built for both deterrence and cooperation purposes. Drawing on the international relations, civil war, and peacekeeping literatures, it conceptualizes credibility in peacekeeping by identifying the purposes for which credibility must be built and signaled: deterrence and cooperativeness. It contends that while a peace operation’s ability to deter is limited, signaling cooperativeness - credibility in cooperation—enables a force to cultivate cooperation with national and subnational audiences. This helps to create a more predictable security environment by enabling the force to function on a daily basis.
{"title":"Offering the Carrot and Hiding the Stick?","authors":"Vanessa F. Newby","doi":"10.1163/19426720-02803003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/19426720-02803003","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Credibility has been used to explain theories of deterrence and cooperation in international relations. In the peacekeeping environment, for what purposes should credibility be built and how can it be signaled? Despite being listed by the UN as a success factor in peace operations, our understanding of credibility in peacekeeping remains limited and focused on deterrence. This article argues that credibility in peace operations must be built for both deterrence and cooperation purposes. Drawing on the international relations, civil war, and peacekeeping literatures, it conceptualizes credibility in peacekeeping by identifying the purposes for which credibility must be built and signaled: deterrence and cooperativeness. It contends that while a peace operation’s ability to deter is limited, signaling cooperativeness - credibility in cooperation—enables a force to cultivate cooperation with national and subnational audiences. This helps to create a more predictable security environment by enabling the force to function on a daily basis.","PeriodicalId":47262,"journal":{"name":"Global Governance","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44794167","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-19DOI: 10.1163/19426720-02803005
M. Baumann
Providing high-level policy advice to developing countries with the purpose to shape national policies is a key function of the UN. Yet no official UN definition of policy advice exists and little is known on how much weight the UN gives to this support modality in contrast to capacity-building and implementation work. To address this gap, this article first articulates the case for the UN’s role in policy change. It then presents an empirical analysis of the policy advice landscape of the UN, providing a numerical estimate of the share of resources dedicated to policy advice and identifying five practical constraints on the UN’s policy advice function. Results suggest that, despite high expectations, the UN’s fieldwork is not strategically focused on policy advice. This article contributes to the underresearched field of UN development work and how it is, or should be, shaped by the UN’s multilateralism.
{"title":"Policy Advice in UN Development Work","authors":"M. Baumann","doi":"10.1163/19426720-02803005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/19426720-02803005","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Providing high-level policy advice to developing countries with the purpose to shape national policies is a key function of the UN. Yet no official UN definition of policy advice exists and little is known on how much weight the UN gives to this support modality in contrast to capacity-building and implementation work. To address this gap, this article first articulates the case for the UN’s role in policy change. It then presents an empirical analysis of the policy advice landscape of the UN, providing a numerical estimate of the share of resources dedicated to policy advice and identifying five practical constraints on the UN’s policy advice function. Results suggest that, despite high expectations, the UN’s fieldwork is not strategically focused on policy advice. This article contributes to the underresearched field of UN development work and how it is, or should be, shaped by the UN’s multilateralism.","PeriodicalId":47262,"journal":{"name":"Global Governance","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45919707","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-19DOI: 10.1163/19426720-02803004
Hai Yang
This article examines the politicization of the World Health Organization (WHO) over the course of the coronavirus pandemic (January–December 2020), a paradigmatic case of politicization of global governance institutions. During the pandemic, the WHO was subjected to considerable scrutiny and contestation. This research focuses on politicization at the level of behavior and discourse. Conceptually, it leverages the analytic purchase of politicization and framing. Empirically, it is based on a corpus comprising 505 texts gathered from key actors involved. The analysis not only lays bare the varying demands and arguments vis-à-vis the WHO, but foregrounds the broad consensus among the actors examined (barring the Donald Trump administration) on the imperative to support the organization. Additionally, seven distinct frames on the WHO are identified: Puppet, Handcuffed, Scapegoat, Irreplaceable, Botched, Comme il faut, and Battleground. Together, they offer a holistic overview of the diverse perspectives on the WHO and its pandemic response.
本文探讨了世界卫生组织（世界卫生组织）在冠状病毒大流行期间（2020年1月至12月）的政治化，这是全球治理机构政治化的典型案例。在大流行期间，世界卫生组织受到了相当大的审查和质疑。本研究的重点是行为和话语层面的政治化。从概念上讲，它利用了对政治化和框架化的分析购买。从经验上讲，它是基于一个语料库，该语料库包括从主要参与者那里收集的505篇文本。该分析不仅揭示了对世界卫生组织的不同要求和论点，还突出了所审查的行为者（除了唐纳德·特朗普政府）对支持世卫组织的必要性的广泛共识。此外，世界卫生组织还确定了七个不同的框架：Puppet、Handcuffed、Scapegoat、Unreplicable、Botched、Comme il faut和Battleground。它们共同提供了对世界卫生组织及其应对疫情的不同观点的全面概述。
{"title":"Politicizing Global Governance Institutions in Times of Crisis","authors":"Hai Yang","doi":"10.1163/19426720-02803004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/19426720-02803004","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article examines the politicization of the World Health Organization (WHO) over the course of the coronavirus pandemic (January–December 2020), a paradigmatic case of politicization of global governance institutions. During the pandemic, the WHO was subjected to considerable scrutiny and contestation. This research focuses on politicization at the level of behavior and discourse. Conceptually, it leverages the analytic purchase of politicization and framing. Empirically, it is based on a corpus comprising 505 texts gathered from key actors involved. The analysis not only lays bare the varying demands and arguments vis-à-vis the WHO, but foregrounds the broad consensus among the actors examined (barring the Donald Trump administration) on the imperative to support the organization. Additionally, seven distinct frames on the WHO are identified: Puppet, Handcuffed, Scapegoat, Irreplaceable, Botched, Comme il faut, and Battleground. Together, they offer a holistic overview of the diverse perspectives on the WHO and its pandemic response.","PeriodicalId":47262,"journal":{"name":"Global Governance","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49083014","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-19DOI: 10.1163/19426720-02803006
Bernabé Malacalza, Debora Fagaburu
Vaccination geopolitics is an effort by the producer countries characterized by a struggle for access and influence that accompanies the export agreements, setting up of manufacturing plants, and donations. The Covid-19 pandemic has exacerbated vaccine nationalism, United States–China clashes, and inequality of access in Latin America. This article offers an in-depth analysis of the geopolitical strategies emerging around vaccine transactions in the region. Focusing on the precedence of geopolitical concerns over health ones, the article uses a study of transaction distribution to analyze the political preferences of the United States and the European countries, China, India, and Russia. This points to two kinds of influence: the Chinese and Russian strategies are dominated by offensive and defensive political preferences combined with a ground-up economic diplomacy, while those of the United States, Europe, and India are also offensive-defensive, but the economic diplomacy is top down.
{"title":"Empathy or Calculation?","authors":"Bernabé Malacalza, Debora Fagaburu","doi":"10.1163/19426720-02803006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/19426720-02803006","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Vaccination geopolitics is an effort by the producer countries characterized by a struggle for access and influence that accompanies the export agreements, setting up of manufacturing plants, and donations. The Covid-19 pandemic has exacerbated vaccine nationalism, United States–China clashes, and inequality of access in Latin America. This article offers an in-depth analysis of the geopolitical strategies emerging around vaccine transactions in the region. Focusing on the precedence of geopolitical concerns over health ones, the article uses a study of transaction distribution to analyze the political preferences of the United States and the European countries, China, India, and Russia. This points to two kinds of influence: the Chinese and Russian strategies are dominated by offensive and defensive political preferences combined with a ground-up economic diplomacy, while those of the United States, Europe, and India are also offensive-defensive, but the economic diplomacy is top down.","PeriodicalId":47262,"journal":{"name":"Global Governance","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43381311","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-04DOI: 10.1163/19426720-02802001
Joana Amaral
The UN-imposed sanctions on Sierra Leone began in 1997 after the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) led a coup that forced newly elected president Ahmad Tejan Kabbah into exile. Alongside its peacemaking efforts, the UN Security Council explicitly supported the reinstatement of Kabbah, and its sanctions targeted the RUF by limiting travel and banning the trade of arms, petroleum, and diamonds. This article analyzes whether and how UN sanctions pushed the RUF to negotiate, accept, and implement agreements mediated by the Economic Community of West African States and the UN. Its findings are drawn from the qualitative analysis of official documents, memoirs, and interviews with key negotiators. It adds to the inclusion debate in peace mediation literature by discussing whether the coordinated use of sanctions and mediation can resolve the difficulties inherent in including veto players in peace negotiations.
{"title":"UN Sanctions and Mediation in Sierra Leone","authors":"Joana Amaral","doi":"10.1163/19426720-02802001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/19426720-02802001","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The UN-imposed sanctions on Sierra Leone began in 1997 after the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) led a coup that forced newly elected president Ahmad Tejan Kabbah into exile. Alongside its peacemaking efforts, the UN Security Council explicitly supported the reinstatement of Kabbah, and its sanctions targeted the RUF by limiting travel and banning the trade of arms, petroleum, and diamonds. This article analyzes whether and how UN sanctions pushed the RUF to negotiate, accept, and implement agreements mediated by the Economic Community of West African States and the UN. Its findings are drawn from the qualitative analysis of official documents, memoirs, and interviews with key negotiators. It adds to the inclusion debate in peace mediation literature by discussing whether the coordinated use of sanctions and mediation can resolve the difficulties inherent in including veto players in peace negotiations.","PeriodicalId":47262,"journal":{"name":"Global Governance","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45502033","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：