The article traces the development of the epistemic infrastructure of the education sustainable development goal (SDG) in order to examine the ways that the incremental buildup of the discourse, technical expertise, and necessary—although always fragile—alliances facilitated a paradigmatic policy shift in the field of education: This is the move from the measurement of schooling to the measurement of learning. Through an analytical lens that examines the entanglement of the material, semiotic, and political and temporal/spatial elements of the infrastructure, the article shows how the sustainable development goal 4 (SDG4) as an epistemic infrastructure enabled a fundamental reorientation in the field of global education governance. The article discusses the ways that quantification, despite—and often thanks to—its failings, folded contested discourses, decision-making, politics, and ideas into its processes. Thus, the paper argues that the making of the SDG4 represents a paradigmatic policy shift; one that is not only to be traced in the move from schooling to the policy prioritization of learning outcomes but also in the very production of global public policy through the work of the SDGs as epistemic infrastructures.
{"title":"The education sustainable development goal and the generative power of failing metrics","authors":"Sotiria Grek","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puac020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puac020","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The article traces the development of the epistemic infrastructure of the education sustainable development goal (SDG) in order to examine the ways that the incremental buildup of the discourse, technical expertise, and necessary—although always fragile—alliances facilitated a paradigmatic policy shift in the field of education: This is the move from the measurement of schooling to the measurement of learning. Through an analytical lens that examines the entanglement of the material, semiotic, and political and temporal/spatial elements of the infrastructure, the article shows how the sustainable development goal 4 (SDG4) as an epistemic infrastructure enabled a fundamental reorientation in the field of global education governance. The article discusses the ways that quantification, despite—and often thanks to—its failings, folded contested discourses, decision-making, politics, and ideas into its processes. Thus, the paper argues that the making of the SDG4 represents a paradigmatic policy shift; one that is not only to be traced in the move from schooling to the policy prioritization of learning outcomes but also in the very production of global public policy through the work of the SDGs as epistemic infrastructures.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"142 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2022-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73952525","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The article investigates the production of decent work indicators within the ILO, to demonstrate that developing measurement infrastructures in global policymaking requires political work. The concept of decent work responds to the perceived marginalization of the ILO in social and labor policy and was supposed to provide a new unifying normative framework for the organization. The article shows that creating decent work indicators encountered challenges due to its highly politicized production process. Proponents of quantification (mostly workers’ representatives) and opponents (mostly employers’ representatives) disagreed about the function of indicators: should they be country-specific or allow for universal assessment of progress from above. In effect, although indicators of decent work have been integrated into the Sustainable Development Goals—mostly as part of goal no. 8, many are still incomplete. As a result, the indicators did not establish a “framework of assessment,” which would have been guided by universal standards of progress allowing the ILO to “govern at a distance,” and could not initiate a paradigmatic policy shift, impeding the infrastructuralization of measurement. Theoretically, the article advances our understanding of policy formulation and design on the transnational level by showing the political foundation of knowledge-based instruments. Empirically, it rests on a Grounded Theory-based analysis of key ILO documents, including Governing Body minutes, conference and expert meeting reports, and official publications, mainly from the period from 1998 to 2015.
{"title":"Producing decent work indicators: contested numbers at the ILO","authors":"J. Berten","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puac017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puac017","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The article investigates the production of decent work indicators within the ILO, to demonstrate that developing measurement infrastructures in global policymaking requires political work. The concept of decent work responds to the perceived marginalization of the ILO in social and labor policy and was supposed to provide a new unifying normative framework for the organization. The article shows that creating decent work indicators encountered challenges due to its highly politicized production process. Proponents of quantification (mostly workers’ representatives) and opponents (mostly employers’ representatives) disagreed about the function of indicators: should they be country-specific or allow for universal assessment of progress from above. In effect, although indicators of decent work have been integrated into the Sustainable Development Goals—mostly as part of goal no. 8, many are still incomplete. As a result, the indicators did not establish a “framework of assessment,” which would have been guided by universal standards of progress allowing the ILO to “govern at a distance,” and could not initiate a paradigmatic policy shift, impeding the infrastructuralization of measurement. Theoretically, the article advances our understanding of policy formulation and design on the transnational level by showing the political foundation of knowledge-based instruments. Empirically, it rests on a Grounded Theory-based analysis of key ILO documents, including Governing Body minutes, conference and expert meeting reports, and official publications, mainly from the period from 1998 to 2015.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"51 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2022-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77807060","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Marlee Tichenor, Sally E Merry, Sotiria Grek, Justyna Bandola-Gill
Despite the multiplicity of actors, crises, and fields of action, global public policy has known one constant, that is, the ubiquity of indicators in the production of governing knowledge. This article theoretically engages with the phenomenon of hyper-quantification of global governance in the context of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), debated and introduced in 2015. Increasingly metrics—such as indicators and quantified data to monitor targets and goals—are no longer just tools of governance but rather are emblematic of the new types of political cultures, enabling an interplay of material, techno-political, and organizational structures within which (statistical) knowledge is produced, disseminated, and translated into global public policy. The paper unpacks this complexity by proposing a new theoretical approach to quantification as an “epistemic infrastructure,” which emerges across three levels: materialities (such as data and indicators), interlinkages (such as networks and communities), and paradigms (such as new ways of doing policy work). Using the lens of the “epistemic infrastructure” on the SDGs, this article and the others in this special issue analyze the ways that quantified knowledge practices—in widely varying policy arenas, scales, and geographic regions—are at the heart of the production of its global public policy.
{"title":"Global public policy in a quantified world: Sustainable Development Goals as epistemic infrastructures","authors":"Marlee Tichenor, Sally E Merry, Sotiria Grek, Justyna Bandola-Gill","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puac015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puac015","url":null,"abstract":"Despite the multiplicity of actors, crises, and fields of action, global public policy has known one constant, that is, the ubiquity of indicators in the production of governing knowledge. This article theoretically engages with the phenomenon of hyper-quantification of global governance in the context of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), debated and introduced in 2015. Increasingly metrics—such as indicators and quantified data to monitor targets and goals—are no longer just tools of governance but rather are emblematic of the new types of political cultures, enabling an interplay of material, techno-political, and organizational structures within which (statistical) knowledge is produced, disseminated, and translated into global public policy. The paper unpacks this complexity by proposing a new theoretical approach to quantification as an “epistemic infrastructure,” which emerges across three levels: materialities (such as data and indicators), interlinkages (such as networks and communities), and paradigms (such as new ways of doing policy work). Using the lens of the “epistemic infrastructure” on the SDGs, this article and the others in this special issue analyze the ways that quantified knowledge practices—in widely varying policy arenas, scales, and geographic regions—are at the heart of the production of its global public policy.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2022-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138518833","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Calling for a “data revolution,” the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) seek to promote progress in matters related to planet, people, prosperity, peace, and partnerships (the “5Ps”) by mobilizing an all-encompassing datafying system that heavily relies on quantification. As such, the SDGs serve as a unique window that showcases the most up-to-date materials, methods, and forms of expertise in datafying practices, while also incentivizing local and national appropriation, with all the difficulties this entails. The article looks at the policy dynamics around SDG localization and the role of participatory methodologies, especially citizen-generated data, in Brazil’s engagement with the agenda. We depart from interviews conducted with various actors involved with SDG implementation, including civil society and public servants, and from engagement with the work conducted by one NGO specialized in citizen-generated data in the peripheries of Rio de Janeiro. Two important findings are highlighted: Localizing strategies, i.e., those that aim to take subnational contexts into account in the achievement of the SDGs, have been used to promote an agenda on rights and, in addition, there has been a strong focus on local narratives as central aspects of communicating scientific data, where progress on the SDGs is but one vehicle in the struggle against statistical invisibility and political exclusion. These findings lead us to argue for a politics of care that can change how we do global public policy.
{"title":"Participatory methodologies and caring about numbers in the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals Agenda","authors":"Isabel Rocha de Siqueira, Laís Ramalho","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puac016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puac016","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Calling for a “data revolution,” the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) seek to promote progress in matters related to planet, people, prosperity, peace, and partnerships (the “5Ps”) by mobilizing an all-encompassing datafying system that heavily relies on quantification. As such, the SDGs serve as a unique window that showcases the most up-to-date materials, methods, and forms of expertise in datafying practices, while also incentivizing local and national appropriation, with all the difficulties this entails. The article looks at the policy dynamics around SDG localization and the role of participatory methodologies, especially citizen-generated data, in Brazil’s engagement with the agenda. We depart from interviews conducted with various actors involved with SDG implementation, including civil society and public servants, and from engagement with the work conducted by one NGO specialized in citizen-generated data in the peripheries of Rio de Janeiro. Two important findings are highlighted: Localizing strategies, i.e., those that aim to take subnational contexts into account in the achievement of the SDGs, have been used to promote an agenda on rights and, in addition, there has been a strong focus on local narratives as central aspects of communicating scientific data, where progress on the SDGs is but one vehicle in the struggle against statistical invisibility and political exclusion. These findings lead us to argue for a politics of care that can change how we do global public policy.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"159 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2022-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76629452","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Blockchain technology enables new kinds of decentralized systems. Thus, it has often been advocated as a “disruptive” technology that could have the potentiality of reshaping political, economic, and social relations, “solving” problems like corruption, power centralization, and distrust toward political institutions. Blockchain has been gradually gaining attention beyond finance and is thus applied by a range of different actors. This includes local, regional, and national governments interested in the potentiality of experimenting with blockchain-supported governance. This article contributes to identifying blockchain as a contested socio-political object prone to contradictory political imaginaries regarding its potentialities, particularly when applied to policy. The article explores some of the most praised of blockchain’s affordances (e.g., decentralization and transparency) in the context of Estonia, one of the most cited examples of blockchain governmental applications. Estonia has received international attention as the alleged first national infrastructure integrating blockchain. However, so far, few have asked: what kind of blockchain-based tools have been built by the Estonian government in practice and why? And to what extent do blockchain-based governmental applications reflect the original promises of disruption of the crypto-community? This article draws on a qualitative approach to explore several blockchain-based socio-technical objects to identify the narratives that have emerged in Estonia. The research shows clear contrasting views between stakeholders and technical experts from inside and outside the institutional sphere. The conflict revolves around two different social imaginaries associated with permissioned vs. public blockchains. The paper concludes with an analysis of the profound political implications of each vision.
{"title":"Blockchain-based application at a governmental level: disruption or illusion? The case of Estonia","authors":"Silvia Semenzin, David Rozas, Samer Hassan","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puac014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puac014","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Blockchain technology enables new kinds of decentralized systems. Thus, it has often been advocated as a “disruptive” technology that could have the potentiality of reshaping political, economic, and social relations, “solving” problems like corruption, power centralization, and distrust toward political institutions. Blockchain has been gradually gaining attention beyond finance and is thus applied by a range of different actors. This includes local, regional, and national governments interested in the potentiality of experimenting with blockchain-supported governance. This article contributes to identifying blockchain as a contested socio-political object prone to contradictory political imaginaries regarding its potentialities, particularly when applied to policy. The article explores some of the most praised of blockchain’s affordances (e.g., decentralization and transparency) in the context of Estonia, one of the most cited examples of blockchain governmental applications. Estonia has received international attention as the alleged first national infrastructure integrating blockchain. However, so far, few have asked: what kind of blockchain-based tools have been built by the Estonian government in practice and why? And to what extent do blockchain-based governmental applications reflect the original promises of disruption of the crypto-community? This article draws on a qualitative approach to explore several blockchain-based socio-technical objects to identify the narratives that have emerged in Estonia. The research shows clear contrasting views between stakeholders and technical experts from inside and outside the institutional sphere. The conflict revolves around two different social imaginaries associated with permissioned vs. public blockchains. The paper concludes with an analysis of the profound political implications of each vision.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"49 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2022-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84853625","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Governing by indicators has emerged as the predominant mode of global public policy. Consequently, global governance has become a field in which different indicators compete for policymakers’ and public attention. This begs a question—what makes some indicators successful when others become irrelevant? This paper explores this problem through the inquiry into the measurement of multidimensional poverty in Sustainable Development Goal 1 (“End poverty in all its forms everywhere”). In the field historically dominated by the World Bank’s dollar-per-day metric (currently 1.9$), multidimensional poverty measurement gained prominence, becoming one of the key measures of global poverty. By tracking the pathways to success of multidimensional poverty measurement—through qualitative interviews with actors in International Organisations this paper argues that the key quality of successful indicators is their ability to become parts of the broader epistemic infrastructure, linking political institutions, actors (including experts and policymakers), and data and statistics. The paper brings the focus on a specific set of actors—statistical entrepreneurs—who advocate for innovations in measurement and work toward creating such infrastructures, thus indirectly promoting new policy ideas reflected in the metrics.
{"title":"Statistical entrepreneurs: the political work of infrastructuring the SDG indicators","authors":"J. Bandola-Gill","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puac013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puac013","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Governing by indicators has emerged as the predominant mode of global public policy. Consequently, global governance has become a field in which different indicators compete for policymakers’ and public attention. This begs a question—what makes some indicators successful when others become irrelevant? This paper explores this problem through the inquiry into the measurement of multidimensional poverty in Sustainable Development Goal 1 (“End poverty in all its forms everywhere”). In the field historically dominated by the World Bank’s dollar-per-day metric (currently 1.9$), multidimensional poverty measurement gained prominence, becoming one of the key measures of global poverty. By tracking the pathways to success of multidimensional poverty measurement—through qualitative interviews with actors in International Organisations this paper argues that the key quality of successful indicators is their ability to become parts of the broader epistemic infrastructure, linking political institutions, actors (including experts and policymakers), and data and statistics. The paper brings the focus on a specific set of actors—statistical entrepreneurs—who advocate for innovations in measurement and work toward creating such infrastructures, thus indirectly promoting new policy ideas reflected in the metrics.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"43 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2022-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87867383","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In the United States, striking racial disparities in COVID-19 infection and mortality rates were one of the core patterns of the virus. These racial disproportionalities were a result of structural factors—laws, rules, and practices embedded in economic, social, and political systems. Public policy is central among such structural features. Policies distribute advantages, disadvantages, benefits, and burdens in ways that generate, reinforce, or redress racial inequities. Crucially, public policy is a function of power relations, so understanding policy decisions requires attentiveness to power. This paper asseses statistical associations between racial power and state anti-eviction policies. Charting the timing of state policy responses between March 2020 and June 2021, I examine correlations between response times and racial power as reflected in state populations, voting constituencies, legislatures, and social movement activities. Ultimately, I do not find any significant associations. The null results underscore the complexities and difficulties of studying race, power, and public policy with theoretical nuance and empirical care. While the findings leave us with much to learn about how racial power operates, the conceptualization and theorizing offered in the paper, instructively underscore the value of centering racial power in analyses of public policy.
{"title":"Race, power, and policy: understanding state anti-eviction policies during COVID-19","authors":"Jamila Michener","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puac012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puac012","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In the United States, striking racial disparities in COVID-19 infection and mortality rates were one of the core patterns of the virus. These racial disproportionalities were a result of structural factors—laws, rules, and practices embedded in economic, social, and political systems. Public policy is central among such structural features. Policies distribute advantages, disadvantages, benefits, and burdens in ways that generate, reinforce, or redress racial inequities. Crucially, public policy is a function of power relations, so understanding policy decisions requires attentiveness to power. This paper asseses statistical associations between racial power and state anti-eviction policies. Charting the timing of state policy responses between March 2020 and June 2021, I examine correlations between response times and racial power as reflected in state populations, voting constituencies, legislatures, and social movement activities. Ultimately, I do not find any significant associations. The null results underscore the complexities and difficulties of studying race, power, and public policy with theoretical nuance and empirical care. While the findings leave us with much to learn about how racial power operates, the conceptualization and theorizing offered in the paper, instructively underscore the value of centering racial power in analyses of public policy.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"25 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2022-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77975921","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The effects of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic cuts across every facet of a nation’s life. The near collapse of economies with the attendant job losses has brought forth the need for effective social policies, particularly in developing countries, that can serve citizens in dire need. Consequently, many of these countries have had to craft emergency social policies to help their citizens. Ghana is no exception. While measures to control the spread of the pandemic, such as lockdowns and restrictions on movement and gathering, were timely, they negatively impacted the poor, most of whom work in the informal sector and depend on daily survival activities such as buying and selling basic goods. As a result, some of the measures were ignored as people feared they would die from hunger rather than from the pandemic. Thus, governmental response to the pandemic was highlighted by policy layering and exposed the fragile social support systems in existence. The challenges of responding adequately to the pandemic underscore the importance of a transformative social welfare regime in ensuring the protection of citizens. This paper, based on desk research, explores the limitations of the existing social policy framework, which became manifest during the implementation of Ghana’s pandemic policies. Policy layering by government continues to weaken Ghana’s social welfare system, and this affected the official response with respect to the social issues that have emerged due to the pandemic.
{"title":"“Provide our basic needs or we go out”: the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown, inequality, and social policy in Ghana","authors":"Rosina Foli, F. Ohemeng","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puac008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puac008","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The effects of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic cuts across every facet of a nation’s life. The near collapse of economies with the attendant job losses has brought forth the need for effective social policies, particularly in developing countries, that can serve citizens in dire need. Consequently, many of these countries have had to craft emergency social policies to help their citizens. Ghana is no exception. While measures to control the spread of the pandemic, such as lockdowns and restrictions on movement and gathering, were timely, they negatively impacted the poor, most of whom work in the informal sector and depend on daily survival activities such as buying and selling basic goods. As a result, some of the measures were ignored as people feared they would die from hunger rather than from the pandemic. Thus, governmental response to the pandemic was highlighted by policy layering and exposed the fragile social support systems in existence. The challenges of responding adequately to the pandemic underscore the importance of a transformative social welfare regime in ensuring the protection of citizens. This paper, based on desk research, explores the limitations of the existing social policy framework, which became manifest during the implementation of Ghana’s pandemic policies. Policy layering by government continues to weaken Ghana’s social welfare system, and this affected the official response with respect to the social issues that have emerged due to the pandemic.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"19 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2022-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72460829","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Blockchain is a new general-purpose technology that poses significant challenges to policymaking, law, and society. Blockchain is even more distinctive than other transformative technologies, as it is by nature a global technology; moreover, it operates based on a set of rules and principles that have a law-like quality—the lex cryptographia. The global nature of blockchain has led to its adoption by international organizations such as the United Nations and the World Bank. However, the law-like nature of the technology makes some of its uses by international organizations questionable from an international law and foreign affairs perspective. In this light, the article examines the effectiveness and legitimacy of the use of blockchain for international policymaking.
{"title":"The use of blockchain by international organizations: effectiveness and legitimacy","authors":"G. Dimitropoulos","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puab021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puab021","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Blockchain is a new general-purpose technology that poses significant challenges to policymaking, law, and society. Blockchain is even more distinctive than other transformative technologies, as it is by nature a global technology; moreover, it operates based on a set of rules and principles that have a law-like quality—the lex cryptographia. The global nature of blockchain has led to its adoption by international organizations such as the United Nations and the World Bank. However, the law-like nature of the technology makes some of its uses by international organizations questionable from an international law and foreign affairs perspective. In this light, the article examines the effectiveness and legitimacy of the use of blockchain for international policymaking.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2022-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86608163","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Before problems can be solved, they must be defined. In global public policy, problems are defined in large part by institutions like the World Bank, whose research shapes our collective understanding of social and economic issues. This article examines how research is produced at the World Bank and deemed to be worthwhile and legitimate. Creating and capturing research on global policy problems requires organizational configurations that operate at the intersection of multiple fields. Drawing on an in-depth study of the World Bank research department, this article outlines the structures and technologies of evaluation (i.e., the measurements and procedures used in performance reviews and promotions) and the social and cultural processes (i.e., the spoken and unspoken things that matter) in producing valuable policy research. It develops a theoretically informed account of how the conditions of measurement and evaluation shape the production of knowledge at a dominant multilateral agency. In turn, it unpacks how the internal workings of organizations can shape broader epistemic infrastructures around global policy problems.
{"title":"Hybrid knowledge production and evaluation at the World Bank","authors":"K. Williams","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puac009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puac009","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Before problems can be solved, they must be defined. In global public policy, problems are defined in large part by institutions like the World Bank, whose research shapes our collective understanding of social and economic issues. This article examines how research is produced at the World Bank and deemed to be worthwhile and legitimate. Creating and capturing research on global policy problems requires organizational configurations that operate at the intersection of multiple fields. Drawing on an in-depth study of the World Bank research department, this article outlines the structures and technologies of evaluation (i.e., the measurements and procedures used in performance reviews and promotions) and the social and cultural processes (i.e., the spoken and unspoken things that matter) in producing valuable policy research. It develops a theoretically informed account of how the conditions of measurement and evaluation shape the production of knowledge at a dominant multilateral agency. In turn, it unpacks how the internal workings of organizations can shape broader epistemic infrastructures around global policy problems.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"366 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2022-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80363363","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"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：