Suchergebnisse

For some time now, there has been a push for the World Bank to shift its focus toward global public goods (GPGs). These are goods that, once delivered, can be unrestrictedly consumed by most—if not all—countries on the planet. Nor are their benefits rivalrous. Moreover, the production of GPGs cannot be left to markets or individual countries, as these have suboptimal incentives to act. In the wake of the COVID‐19 outbreak, the concept of GPGs has seen a revival of sorts, with the pandemic not only striking just as multilateralism was at its lowest ebb, but also serving as irrefutable proof that the world needs international collaboration now more than ever. Multilateral institutions, and in particular the World Bank—a leading global institution with global membership—can rightfully be regarded as a possible solution to many global challenges. Based on interviews conducted with World Bank senior staff, as well as numerous experts, this article discusses arguments in favor of such a strategic shift. While there are legitimate claims for the Bank becoming a full‐fledged provider of GPGs, the institution's historical roots and operational constraints make this an unlikely prospect.

The Poverty of the Concept of Global Public Goods
The concept of global public goods (GPG) reflects an attempt to replicate a microeconomic theory of public goods to the domain of international relations (IR). According to economic definition of public goods, which have two properties – non-rivalry and non-exclusivity, pure GPG can be consumed universally and simultaneously by (ideally) all global citizens; at the same time, no society can be excluded from its consumption. Classic examples of GPG include earth atmosphere, knowledge or financial stability. Notwithstanding the fact that pure public goods are incredibly rare, the very definition of GPG is highly problematic. This article is intended as an intervention in a critical debate about the true meaning of the GPGs. Its authors argue that to date the academic community has failed to agree on an intersubjective understanding of GPG. They also claim that the current functioning of the concept in the discourse within IR is "poor", i.e. it is insufficiently rigorous, blurred and methodologically inconsistent. On the flip side, the way GPG has found its way to IR reflects some of the main problems that the field has been recently immersed in.

Chapter 1. Introduction and overview -- Chapter 2. Spillovers and the effects of FDI: The overview -- Chapter 3. China–Africa spillovers: The literature review -- Chapter 4. Eurocentrism, FDI and spillovers: Conceptual and methodological challenges -- Chapter 5. Institutional and cultural obstacles of Chinese spillover effects in Angola -- Chapter 6. The institutional and political dimensions of FDI spillovers in Zambia -- Chapter 7. Chinese investors in Zambia and Angola: Motives, Profile, Strategies -- Chapter 8. Chinese manufacturing companies in Zambia: Linkages vs. enclaves -- Chapter 9. Image of Chinese Investments and long-term projects in African and Chinese Media.