The review of international organizations最新文献

How does quantifying and ranking national performance influence state behavior? Cross-national assessments in education, such as the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) promoted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), have become increasingly prominent in recent years. However, cross-national assessments are politically contentious, and their impact remains underexplored. We argue that assessment participation has a meaningful, positive impact on education outcomes and evaluate three hypotheses related to elite, domestic, and transnational mechanisms. Our mixed-method approach draws on a panel dataset covering all cross-national assessments and all countries as well as an original survey of education officials directly responsible for planning and implementation in 46 countries. We find that assessment participation increases net secondary enrollment rates even after accounting for potential self-selection. The magnitude of this increase is large: on a global basis, it is equivalent to improved access to higher education for 27–32 million students annually. The empirical evidence suggests elite-level mechanisms are primarily responsible for these findings.

There is a growing recognition that international organizations (IOs) formulate and adopt policy in a wide range of areas. IOs have emerged as key venues for states seeking joint solutions to contemporary challenges such as climate change or COVID-19, and to establish frameworks to bolster trade, development, security, and more. In this capacity, IOs produce both extraordinary and routine policy output with a multitude of purposes, ranging from policies of historic significance like admitting new members to the more mundane tasks of administering IO staff. This article introduces the Intergovernmental Policy Output Dataset (IPOD), which covers close to 37,000 individual policy acts of 13 multi-issue IOs in the 1980-2015 period. The dataset fills a gap in the growing body of literature on the comparative study of IOs, providing researchers with a fine-grained perspective on the structure of IO policy output and data for comparisons across time, policy areas, and organizations. This article describes the construction and coverage of the dataset and identifies key temporal and cross-sectional patterns revealed by the data. In a concise illustration of the dataset's utility, we apply models of punctuated equilibria in a comparative study of the relationship between institutional features and broad policy agenda dynamics. Overall, the Intergovernmental Policy Output Dataset offers a unique resource for researchers to analyze IO policy output in a granular manner and to explore questions of responsiveness, performance, and legitimacy of IOs.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11558-023-09492-6.

This article introduces a novel database that measures governments’ compliance with national constitutions. It combines information on de jure constitutional rules with data on their de facto implementation. The individual compliance indicators can be grouped into four categories that we aggregate into an overall indicator of constitutional compliance: property rights and the rule of law, political rights, civil rights, and basic human rights. The database covers 175 countries over the period 1900 to 2020 and can be used by researchers interested in studying the determinants or the effects of (non)compliance with constitutions. Our investigation of the stylized facts of constitutional compliance reveals a long-term increase in compliance, which occurred primarily around the year 1990. The Americas experienced the steepest increase in compliance, but also Africa and Europe improved particularly at the end of the Cold War. Democracies – particularly those with parliamentary and mixed systems – show more constitutional compliance than nondemocracies, among which military dictatorships perform the worst. Constitutional design also matters: Constitutions that allow for the dismissal of the head of state or government for violating constitutional rules are being complied with more.

Despite significant debate about the ability of international law to constrain state behavior, recent research points to domestic mechanisms that deter non-compliance, most notably public disapproval of governments that violate treaty agreements. However, existing studies have not explicitly differentiated two distinct, theoretically important motivations that underlie this disapproval: respect for legal obligations versus the desire to follow common global practices. We design an innovative survey experiment in Japan that manipulates information about these two potential channels directly. We examine attitudes towards four controversial practices that fall afoul of international law—same-surname marriage, whaling, hate speech regulation, and capital punishment—and find that the legal obligation cue has a stronger effect on respondent attitudes than the common practices cue. We also show subgroup differences based on partisanship and identification with global civil society. These results demonstrate that the legal nature of international law is crucial to domestic compliance pull.

International organizations (IOs) of the United Nations (UN) system publish around 750 evaluation reports per year, offering insights on their performance across project, program, institutional, and thematic activities. So far, it was not feasible to extract quantitative performance measures from these text-based reports. Using deep learning, this article presents a novel text-based performance metric: We classify individual sentences as containing a negative, positive, or neutral assessment of the evaluated IO activity and then compute the share of positive sentences per report. Content validation yields that the measure adequately reflects the underlying concept of performance; convergent validation finds high correlation with human-provided performance scores by the World Bank; and construct validation shows that our measure has theoretically expected results. Based on this, we present a novel dataset with performance measures for 1,082 evaluated activities implemented by nine UN system IOs and discuss avenues for further research.

Can international organizations (IOs) influence attitudes about regulating "Big Tech?" Recent tech sector activity engenders multiple concerns, including the appropriate use of user data and monopolistic business practices. IOs have entered the debate, advocating for increased regulations to protect digital privacy and often framing the issue as a threat to fundamental human rights. Does this advocacy matter? We hypothesize individuals that score high on measures of internationalism will respond positively to calls for increased regulation that come from IOs and INGOs. We further predict Liberals and Democrats will be more receptive to IO and NGO messaging, especially when it emphasizes human rights, while Conservatives and Republicans will be more receptive to messaging from domestic institutions that emphasize antitrust actions. To assess these arguments, we fielded a nationally-representative survey experiment in the U.S. in July 2021 that varied the source and framing of a message about the dangers posed by tech firms, then asked respondents about support for increased regulation. The average treatment effect of international sources is largest for respondents who score high on an index of internationalism and for respondents on the left of the political spectrum. Contrary to expectations, we found few significant differences across human rights and anti-trust framings. Our results suggest the ability of IOs to influence attitudes about tech regulation may be limited in an era of polarization, but that individuals who value multilateralism may still be influenced by IO campaigns.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11558-023-09490-8.

America's recent turn towards protectionism has raised concerns over the future viability of the liberal international trading system. This study examines how and why public attitudes towards international trade change when one's country is targeted by protectionist measures from abroad. To address this question, we fielded three original survey experiments in the country most affected by US protectionism: China. First, we find consistent evidence that US protectionism reduces support for trade among Chinese citizens. We replicate this finding in parallel experiments on technology cooperation, and provide further external validation with a survey experiment in Argentina. Second, we show that responses to US protectionism reflect both a "direct reciprocity" logic, whereby citizens want to retaliate against the US specifically, as well as a "generalized reciprocity" logic that reduces support for trade on a broader, systemic, basis.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11558-022-09468-y.