Global Dissipation of Neoliberal Models and the Sovereign State Doctrine

封面

如何引用文章

全文:

详细

The article examines the mechanisms of quasi-voluntary and coercive dissemination of neoliberal models of development at the global level through the targeted activities and agendas of international organizations. At present, the legitimacy of both the process of promoting global neoliberalism itself and its results appear contradictory and widely challenged. This process has been accompanied by a decades-long erosion of state sovereignty, mandates and powers of nation-states. The result has been a “vacuum” in their ability to fully implement the sovereign state doctrine. However, today, with a multipolar world order transit states are again claiming the need to implement sovereign approaches to their own development, actively forming strategies and operational development plans alternative to neoliberalism. The author extensively analyzes neoliberal models of intervention, as well as those spheres in which there has been the greatest weakening of state powers. The article puts forward the thesis of the necessity for states to formulate national independent models of development alternative to the neoliberal programs globally imposed. This involves providing a broad ideological and philosophical framework and understanding of sovereign development for restoring the nation-sates ability to formulate sovereign state doctrine, vision, and strategy. In order to design and implement operational plans to revitalize the functional capacities of nation-states, it is important to restore relevant knowledge and practical skills, platforms and tools. It seems that this is what will allow nation-states to formulate their own development strategies in the context of dynamically emerging multipolarity. The article puts special emphasis on the doctrine of a sovereign state in the sphere of the economy. However, a similar approach can and should be applied in related spheres of social and political development.

作者简介

Goran Sumkoski

编辑信件的主要联系方式.
Email: goran.sumkoski@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-2912-7449

Independent Researcher

Skopje, Macedonia

参考

  1. Abelson, D. E. (2002). Do think tanks matter? Assessing the impact of public policy institutes. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
  2. Barrientos, A., & Powell, M. (2004). The route map of the Third Way. In S. Hale, W. Leggett & L. Martell (Eds.), The Third Way and beyond: Criticisms, futures, alternatives (pp. 9-27). Manchester: Manchester University Press.
  3. Berkowitz, D., Pistor, K., & Richard, J.-F. (2003). Economic development, legality, and the transplant effect. European Economic Review, 47(1), 165-195. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0014-2921(01)00196-9
  4. Bernstein, S., & Cashore, B. (2000). Globalization, four paths of internationalization and domestic policy change: The case of ecoforestry in British Columbia, Canada. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 3(1), 67-99. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423900000044
  5. Blagescu, M., & Young, J. (2006). Capacity development for policy advocacy: Current thinking and approaches among agencies supporting civil society organisations. Overseas Development Institute Working Paper, (260), 1-50. Retrieved from https://www.gichd.org/fileadmin/GICHD-resources/rec-documents/Capacity-Development-for-Policy-Advocacy.pdf
  6. Boas, M., & McNeill, D. (Eds.). (2004). Global institutions and development: Framing the world? London: Routledge.
  7. Boettke, P. J., Coyne, C. J., & Leeson, P. T. (2008). Institutional stickiness and the New Development Economics. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 67(2), 331-358. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1536-7150.2008.00573.x
  8. Buchanan, A., & Keohane, O. R. (2005). The legitimacy of global governance institutions. Ethics & International Affairs, 20(4), 405-437. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7093.2006.00043.x
  9. Busch, P. O., & Jörgens, H. (2004). The international sources of policy convergence: Explaining the spread of environmental policy innovations. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(5), 860-884. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760500161514
  10. Cisse, O. (2008). Mineral policy in developing countries: Copy and paste? CEPMLP Annual Review, (12), 1-15. Retrieved from https://www.dundee.ac.uk/download/17271/media
  11. Clark, I. (2003). Legitimacy in a global order. Review of International Studies, 29(S1), 75-95. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210503005904
  12. Court, J., Hovland, I., & Young, J. (2005). Bridging research and policy: Evidence and the change process. Rugby: ITDG Publishing.
  13. D’Aspremont, E., & de Brabandere, A. (2011). The complementary faces of legitimacy in international law: The legitimacy of origin and the legitimacy of exercise. Fordham International Law Journal, 34(2), 190-235.
  14. Deacon, B. (2007). Global social policy & governance. London: Sage. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446212219
  15. Degterev, D. A. (2011). International development assistance: Evolution of international legal regimes and effectiveness of foreign aid. Moscow: Lenand publ. (In Russian).
  16. Degterev, D., & Kurylev, K. (Eds.). (2019). Foreign policies of the CIS states: A comprehensive reference. Boulder: Lynne Rienner. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781626378087
  17. Dementiev, V. E., & Ustyuzhanina, E. V. (2016). The problem of power: Institutional approach. Journal of Institutional Studies, 8(3), 91-101. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.17835/2076-6297.2016.8.3.091-101
  18. Dolowitz, D., & Marsh, D. (1996). Who learns what from whom? A review of the policy transfer literature. Political Studies, 44(2), 343-357. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb00334.x
  19. Domjahn, T. (2013). What (if anything) can developing countries learn from South Korea? Asian Culture and History, 5(2), 16-24. https://doi.org/10.5539/ach.v5n2p16
  20. Drezner, D. W. (2001). Globalization and policy convergence. International Studies Review, 3(1), 53-78. https://doi.org/10.1111/1521-9488.00225
  21. Duan, Y., Nie, W., & Coakes, E. (2010). Identifying key factors affecting transnational knowledge transfer. Information & Management, 47(7-8), 356-363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2010.08.003
  22. Dunning, T., & Pop-Eleches, G. (2004). From transplants to hybrids: Exploring institutional pathways to growth. Studies in Comparative International Development, 38(4), 3-29. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02686326
  23. Evans, P. (2004). Development as institutional change: The pitfalls of monocropping and potentials of deliberation. Studies in Comparative International Development, 38(4), 30-53. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02686327
  24. Gilardi, F., & Wasserfallen, F. (2019). The politics of policy diffusion. European Journal of Political Research, 58(4), 1245-1256. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12326
  25. Goderis, B., & Versteeg, M. (2013). Transnational constitutionalism: A conceptual framework. In D. J. Galligan & M. Versteeg (Eds.), Social and political foundations of constitutions (pp. 103-133). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139507509.007
  26. Hausmann, R., Pritchett, L., & Rodrik, D. (2005). Growth accelerations. Journal of Economic Growth, 10(4), 303-329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10887-005-4712-0
  27. Hennink, M., & Stephenson, R. (2005). Using research to inform health policy: Barriers and strategies in developing countries. Journal of Health Communication, 10(2), 163-180. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730590915128
  28. Holzinger, K., Knill, C., & Sommerer, T. (2008). Environmental policy convergence: The impact of international harmonization, transnational communication, and regulatory competition. International Organization, 62(4), 553-587. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002081830808020X
  29. Jacoby, W. (2008). Minority traditions and post-communist politics: How do IGOs matter? In M. A. Orenstein, S. Bloom & N. Lindstrom (Eds.), Transnational actors in Central and East European transitions (pp. 56-76). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt7zwb44
  30. Jones, N., & Young, J. (2007). Setting the scene: Situating DFID’s research funding policy and practice in an international comparative perspective. London: Overseas Development Institute.
  31. Jones, N., Jones, H., Steer, L., & Datta, A. (2008). Improving impact evaluation production and use. Overseas Development Institute Working Paper, (300), 1-78. Retrieved from https://cdn.odi.org/media/documents/4158.pdf
  32. Jörgens, H. (2004). Governance by diffusion: Implementing global norms through cross-national imitation and learning. In W. M. Lafferty (Ed.), Governance for sustainable development: The challenge of adapting form to function (pp. 246-283). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781845421700.00017
  33. Kahler, M. (2009). Global governance redefined. In A. Sobel (Ed.), Challenges of globalization: Immigration, social welfare, global governance (pp. 174-198). London: Routledge.
  34. Kelley, J. (2004). Ethnic politics in Europe: The power of norms and incentives. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  35. Knill, C. (2005). Introduction: Cross-national policy convergence: Concepts, approaches and explanatory factors. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(5), 764-774. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760500161332
  36. Kramer, A., & Pahl-Wostl, C. (2014). The global policy network behind integrated water resources management: Is it an effective norm diffusor? Ecology and Society Research, 19(4), 11.
  37. Kurylev, K., Degterev, D., Smolik, N., & Stanis, D. (2018). A quantitative analysis of geopolitical pluralism in the post-Soviet space. International Organisations Research Journal, 13(1), 134-156. https://doi.org/10.17323/1996-7845-2018-01-08
  38. Lazer, D. (2001). Regulatory interdependence and international governance. Journal of European Public Policy, 8(3), 474-492. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760110056077
  39. Leimgruber, M. (2012). The historical roots of a diffusion process: The three-pillar doctrine and European pension debates (1972-1994). Global Social Policy, 12(1), 24-44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468018111431668
  40. Levi, M., Sacks, A., & Tyler, T. (2009). Conceptualizing legitimacy, measuring legitimating beliefs. American Behavioral Scientist, 53(3), 354-375. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764209338797
  41. Lin, J. Y. (2012). New structural economics: A framework for rethinking development policy. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
  42. Maggetti, M. (2009). The role of independent regulatory agencies in policy-making: A comparative analysis. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(3), 450-470. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760802662854
  43. Maggetti, M. (2010). Legitimacy and accountability of independent regulatory agencies: A critical review. Living Reviews in Democracy, 2, 1-10.
  44. Manshin, R. V., & Ghafari, A. L. (2021). Investment cooperation between Russia and India. RUDN Journal of Economics, 29(3), 490-501. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2329-2021-29-3-490-501
  45. Margulis, M. E. (2021). Intervention by international organizations in regime complexes. The Review of International Organizations, 16(4), 871-902 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-020-09403-z
  46. Merrien, F. X. (2001). The World Bank’s new social policies: Pensions. International Social Science Journal, 53(170), 537-550. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2451.00343
  47. Minogue, M. (2002). Governance-based analysis of regulation. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 73(4), 649-666. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8292.00209
  48. Moran, T. H. (2011). Foreign direct investment and development: Launching a second generation of policy research: Avoiding the mistakes of the first, re-evaluating policies for developed and developing countries. Washington, D.C.: Peterson Institute for International Economics.
  49. Potoski, M., & Prakash, A. (2005). Green clubs and voluntary governance: ISO 14001 and firms’ regulatory compliance. American Journal of Political Science, 49(2), 235-248. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0092-5853.2005.00120.x
  50. Reinicke, W. H., Deng, F., Witte, J. M., et al. (2000). Critical choices: The United Nations, networks, and the future of global governance. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.
  51. Risse, T. (2006). Transnational governance and legitimacy. In A. Benz & Y. Papadopoulos (Eds.), Governance and democracy: Comparing national, European and international experiences (pp. 179-199). London: Routledge.
  52. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. 5th edition. New York: Free Press.
  53. Rosenau, J. (1995). Governance in the twenty-first century. Global Governance, 1(1), 13-43.
  54. Scott, C. (2010). Regulatory governance and the challenge of constitutionalism. In D. Oliver, T. Prosser & R. Rawlings (Eds.), The regulatory state: Constitutional implications (pp. 15-33). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199593170.003.0002
  55. Stallings, B. (2007). The globalization of capital flows: Who benefits? The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 610(1), 201-216. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716206297918
  56. Stiglitz, J. (2001). Redefining the role of the state: Joseph Stiglitz on building a “post-Washington consensus”. An Interview with introduction by Brian Snowdon. World Economics, 2(3), 45-86.
  57. Stiglitz, J. (2002). Globalization and its discontents. New York: Norton & Company.
  58. Stone, D. (2004). Transfer agents and global networks in the ‘transnationalization’ of policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(3), 545-566. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760410001694291
  59. Sumkoski, G. (2016). Towards socio-economic theory and practice of regulation. Evidence from OECD countries and Bangladesh. Cogent Social Sciences, 2(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2016.1254840
  60. Sumkoski, G. (2017). Building reform capacity. In A. Farazmand (Ed.), Global encyclopedia of public administration, public policy, and governance (pp. 1-6). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_3306-2
  61. Sutinen, J. G., & Kuperan, L. (1999). A socio-economic theory of regulatory compliance. International Journal of Social Economics, 26(1/2/3), 174-193. https://doi.org/10.1108/03068299910229569
  62. Trein, P. (2015). Literature report: A review of policy learning in five strands of political science research. INSPIRES Working Paper Series, (26), 1-22. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2707344
  63. True, J., & Mintrom, M. (2001). Transnational networks and policy diffusion: The case of gender mainstreaming. International Studies Quarterly, 45(1), 27-57. https://doi.org/10.1111/0020-8833.00181
  64. Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  65. Uhlin, A. (2010). Democratic legitimacy of transnational actors: Mapping out the conceptual terrain. In E. Erman & A. Uhlin (Eds.), Legitimacy beyond the state? (pp. 16-37). London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230283251_2
  66. Vachudova, M. A. (2005). Europe undivided: Democracy, leverage, & integration after Communism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/0199241198.001.0001
  67. Verger, A., Novelli, M., & Kosar Altinyelken, H. (2012). Global education policy and international development: An introductory framework. In A. Verger, M. Novelli & H. Kosar Altinyelken (Eds.), Global education policy and international development: New agendas, issues and policies (pp. 3-32). London: Bloomsbury.
  68. Weaver, R. (Ed.). (2000). Think tanks and civil societies: Catalysts for ideas and action. London: Sage.
  69. Weyland, K. (2005). Theories of policy diffusion lessons from Latin American pension reform. World Politics, 57(2), 262-295. https://doi.org/10.1353/wp.2005.0019
  70. Young, O. R. (1979). Compliance and public authority. New York: RFF Press.

版权所有 © Sumkoski G., 2022

Creative Commons License
此作品已接受知识共享署名-非商业性使用 4.0国际许可协议的许可。

##common.cookie##