Search results

Published online: November 2019 ; Global policy making is taking shape in a wide range of public sector activities managed by transnational policy communities. Public policy scholars have long recognised the impact of globalisation on the industrialised knowledge economies of OECD states, as well as on social and economic policy challenges faced by developing and transition states. But the focus has been on domestic politics and policy. Today, policy studies literature is building new concepts of 'transnational public-private partnership', 'trans-governmentalism' and 'science diplomacy' to account for rapid growth of global policy networks and informal international organisations delivering public goods and services. This Element goes beyond traditional texts which focus on public policy as an activity of states to outline how global policy making has driven many global and regional transformations over the past quarter-century. ; -- 1 Public policy for global problems -- 2 Creating global policy : public and private constructions -- 3 Transnational networks : policy in partnership -- 4 Global policy persuasion : from evidence-based policy to science diplomacy -- 5 Navigating global policy processes

The global imbalances of the 2000s and the recent global financial crisis are intimately connected. Both originate in the combination of economic policies adopted by the two key economies, the US and China. Global financial markets served as a transmission belt, both during the boom as during the bust. In the US, the interaction among the Fed's monetary stance, global real interest rates, distorted incentives in credit markets, and financial innovation created the mix of conditions which first drove growth, but then made the US the epicenter of the global financial crisis. Exchange rate and other economic policies followed by emerging markets such as China and the oil-exporting countries contributed to the US ability to borrow cheaply abroad and thereby finance its unsustainable housing bubble during the upswing. But we find that the key drivers of asset prices are global liquidity conditions. Central banks flooded the markets with ample liquidity. Mopping up this excess liquidity will be one major task for central banks worldwide, which needs to be done in a coordinated fashion. Moreover, our analysis has shown that liquidity will first show up in asset price inflation and only later in consumer goods inflation. This renders it difficult for central bank to exit from their current very expansive monetary policy stance if they continue to focus only on price stability.

At a time when changing world orders, new actors, and new technologies transform global policy regimes, this DIIS Working Paper argues that a methodology for studying such regimes ethnographically seem to be emerging across various disciplines. The purpose of the paper is twofold: firstly, we seek to contribute to the dialogue on ethnographic and practice-oriented approaches that is growing across disciplines, from anthropology to political science and International Relations, and provide some common ground for this dialogue. Secondly, by reviewing an extensive literature, we focus on methodological discussions concerning how to approach the highly complex global policy processes that are currently developing. What are the appropriate empirical scale(s) and units of analysis of a global political ethnography? How do we identify sites, encounters, situations and materials where ethnographic approaches can generate different and maybe more critical insights than more conventional approaches? And how are the voices and practices of actors operating at different scales and in different sites balanced and connected in the policy analysis?

First published online: 3 October 2021 ; As the state has become more susceptible to global pathologies, public policy scholars have found increasingly common ground with their IPE cousins. The development of these relatively young fields of study – increasingly they are sub-disciplines – has been commensurate but rarely intersecting. Yet contemporary maelstroms of global politics, economics, health, and security, span borders with ease, and increasingly force us to recognise, reconsider, and reconceptualise the overlapping realms of the national and international. In so doing, we must overcome the disciplinary distinctions. In this article, we traverse the prominent in-built disciplinary imperatives and methodologies that have kept these two disciplines from concerted inter-operability or, at least, interchange of theories and concepts. To do so, we begin by presenting a brief overview of the conceptual pedigrees and trajectories of these disciplines, before drawing attention to the prominent prevailing overlaps, 'trespasses' and tensions as they specifically relate to policy convergence and diffusion, and policy transfer. We proceed to specify a reconciliation of these tensions through, in the third section, a brief study of the growth of global administrations, administrators, and administrative spaces. This, we contend, stands as a paradigm case of how reconciled IPE/public policy concepts can produce enhanced theoretical and substantive insights into the transnationalising political world.

A distinctive feature of the contemporary period of globalization is a powerful trend towards marketization in many regions of the world. The term "marketization" refers both to market ideologies and market-oriented reforms. A market ideology reflects the belief that markets are of superior efficiency for the allocation of goods and resources. In its most extreme form, this belief is associated with the commodification of nearly all spheres of human life. Market-oriented reforms are those policies fostering the emergence and development of markets and weakening, in parallel, alternative institutional arrangements. During the last decades of the twentieth century, the dominant market-oriented reform mix has included macroeconomic stabilization, privatization, deregulation, liberalization of foreign trade and liberalization of international capital flows (Simmons et al. 2003).Since the early 1980s, market ideology and market-oriented policies have spread fast and wide around the globe. Markets, the argument goes, are better at allocating resources and producing wealth than bureaucracies, cartels or governments. Furthermore, the global diffusion of marketization has had an impact well beyond the traditional boundaries of the economy. Marketization implies a redefinition of economic rules of the game but also a transformed perspective on states, regulation and their role. Marketization is questioning all forms of protective boundaries and barriers and having an impact, as a consequence, on social and also cultural and legal policies (Collectif Dalloz 2004; Thornton 2004). [First lines]

A distinctive feature of the contemporary period of globalization is a powerful trend towards marketization in many regions of the world. The term "marketization" refers both to market ideologies and market-oriented reforms. A market ideology reflects the belief that markets are of superior efficiency for the allocation of goods and resources. In its most extreme form, this belief is associated with the commodification of nearly all spheres of human life. Market-oriented reforms are those policies fostering the emergence and development of markets and weakening, in parallel, alternative institutional arrangements. During the last decades of the twentieth century, the dominant market-oriented reform mix has included macroeconomic stabilization, privatization, deregulation, liberalization of foreign trade and liberalization of international capital flows (Simmons et al. 2003).Since the early 1980s, market ideology and market-oriented policies have spread fast and wide around the globe. Markets, the argument goes, are better at allocating resources and producing wealth than bureaucracies, cartels or governments. Furthermore, the global diffusion of marketization has had an impact well beyond the traditional boundaries of the economy. Marketization implies a redefinition of economic rules of the game but also a transformed perspective on states, regulation and their role. Marketization is questioning all forms of protective boundaries and barriers and having an impact, as a consequence, on social and also cultural and legal policies (Collectif Dalloz 2004; Thornton 2004). [First lines]

This article develops a theoretical framework to analyze the rise and spread of global public policy. After an introduction to the background of sociological institutionalism, it first elaborates on the role and functions of international organizations, identifying instruments by which these can disseminate policies and influence domestic policy processes. Second, conditions of global agenda setting and policy diffusion are presented; building up a model of global policy development, a frame in which the worldwide spread of global public policy can be analyzed. Third, I present a case study of global policy development, namely the rise of lifelong learning as part of current education policy. In the concluding part I briefly summarize central findings and elaborate on the potential and the shortcoming of the idea. The article mainly has a conceptual aim, but strictly relies on empirical material. ; In diesem Arbeitspapier präsentiere ich einen theoretischen Rahmen zur Analyse politischer Internationalisierungsprozesse. Nach einer Einleitung in theoretische Annahmen des soziologischen Institutionalismus und der Idee einer Weltkultur werden zentrale Funktionen internationaler Organisationen dargestellt, mit denen politischen Ziele verbreiten und nationalstaatliche Politikprozesse beeinflussen. In einem weiteren Schritt werden Bedingungen globalen Agenda-Settings' und globaler Politikdiffusion präsentiert. Diese werden dann in einem Model eines globalen Politikzyklus zusammengeführt. Eine Anwendung erfolgt im Anschluss anhand des Beispiels von Lebenslanges Lernen', ein zentrales Ziel weltweiter bildungspolitischer Konzepte. In den Schlussbemerkungen fasse ich zentrale Ergebnisse zusammen und prüfe die Übertragbarkeit auf andere Fälle. Das Papier hat vorrangig ein theoretisches und konzeptionelles Ziel, basierend auf empirischen Ergebnissen

The pace of economic engagement between China and Africa has increased exponentially in recent years, fueled mostly by burgeoning trade and investment ties. This impressive transformation of Sino-African relations has been complimented significantly by China's "Going Global" policy, resulting in a huge number and diversity of Chinese multinational companies on the African continent. This proliferation of Chinese companies in Africa has generated new opportunities and prospects for all stakeholders, but has also engendered a host of challenges. This has no doubt had a significant impact on both the making and shaping of China's foreign policy in Africa, and subsequently China Africa relations as a whole. This study relies on an extensive review of available qualitative and quantitative data to gain insights into the complex institutional and operational framework behind Chinese government support for the international ambitions of Chinese companies in Africa. What are the motives behind Beijing's "Going Global" Policy? Which key institutions are involved, and what policy tools are employed to encourage the overseas investments of Chinese companies? What are the key drivers behind Chinese companies' foray into the African market and what are the implications for China Africa relations, both in the short-term and long-term? These and other essential questions are addressed in this paper.

With the objective of promoting trade and investment and implement common projects in various domains between China and Portuguese-Speaking Countries (PSCs), the Forum for Economic and Trade Cooperation was created by the Chinese government in 2003. This Forum based in Macao, follow the theoretical rational that internationalization is largely driven by networks of relationships, very often based in a share culture and language and that the network relationships of a firm is capable of providing the context for its international activities. Being part of the soft power diplomatic approach to the Portuguese Speaking Countries - considering that some of these markets are very important for Chinese economic development, due to the need to expand its foreign markets and, most importantly, to guarantee the supply of critical raw-materials and sources of energy - this charm offensive utilizes as persuasive tools the cooperation for development, humanitarian aid, cultural ties, bilateral and multilateral diplomacy, and the OFDI. In order to be effective, this model of global cooperation requires that every participant perceives it as being mutually beneficial, i.e., a "win-win" situation for all. Therefore to be a positive contributor to the Chinese "Go Global" policy this Portuguese kinship network should have the perception that Macao Forum activities contribute to the development of its business objectives - increase exports, investment growth, and other business with positive economic results - with China, Macao and between themselves. Our research was aimed at Portuguese companies (exporting and/or investing in China, Macao and HK) in order to get a clearer idea of their opinion about their perception of the Forum and its potential. Within this set of conclusions, we can consider that Macao Forum can do better for the perception of positive benefits for the Portuguese companies participating in its activities thus creating the perception of a "win-win" situation, reinforcing its utility in the increase of exports to China, growth of FDI in China, Macao and PSCs, the increase of business networks between companies of these economic spaces and the increase of business economic results in other kind of business rather than exports or investment. In the future we intend to conduct similar research on the perceptions of companies of other PSCs.