Search

Begin New Search Topic Governance Political Geography Global Focus Content Type Working Paper Publication Year within 25 Years Publication Year within 10 Years

1. Disentangling Government Responses: How Do We Know When Accountability Work Is Gaining Traction?

Author:
Jonathan Fox, Brendan Halloran, Alta Fölscher, and Rosie McGee
Publication Date:
01-2024
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Accountability Research Center (ARC), American University
Abstract:
Advocacy for public accountability aims to produce certain reactions from government officials or service providers. However, the reactions can be many and diverse, and it is not always clear to advocates how to interpret them and decide on next steps—whether to intensify efforts or back off; continue the same strategy or make adjustments. This paper presents a framework to help accountability advocates and practitioners interpret government reactions to their efforts and move forward appropriately. The framework arises from learning and reflection in the context of the International Budget Partnership (IBP)’s Strengthening Public Accountability with Results and Knowledge (SPARK) program. SPARK seeks to bolster the collective agency of marginalized communities and coalitions to advance democratic and equitable fiscal governance systems that channel public resources to services that address the priority needs of these historically excluded groups.
Topic:
Government, Governance, Accountability, and Financial Management
Political Geography:
Global Focus

2. Mitigating Global Fragmentation in Digital Trade Governance: A Case Study

Author:
Douglas Lippoldt
Publication Date:
01-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for International Governance Innovation
Abstract:
Digital trade is growing rapidly, and regulators are trying to keep up. Concerns about privacy, consumer protection and national security demand regulatory attention, but too much regulation risks stifling digital trade. Current-generation trade agreements need to find the right balance between regulatory and liberal approaches to e-commerce. This paper looks at how five leading digital economies (Canada, the European Union, Japan, Singapore and the United States) are using regional trade agreements to address concerns while enhancing trade.
Topic:
Economics, International Cooperation, International Trade and Finance, Governance, and Digitalization
Political Geography:
Global Focus

3. Could a Global “Wicked Problems Agency” Incentivize Data Sharing?

Author:
Susan Ariel Aaronson
Publication Date:
03-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for International Governance Innovation
Abstract:
Global data sharing could help solve “wicked” problems (problems such as climate change, terrorism and global poverty that no one knows how to solve without creating further problems). There is no one or best way to address wicked problems because they have many different causes and manifest in different contexts. By mixing vast troves of data, policy makers and researchers may find new insights and strategies to address these complex problems. National and international government agencies and large corporations generally control the use of such data, and the world has made little progress in encouraging cross-sectoral and international data sharing. This paper proposes a new international cloud-based organization, the "Wicked Problems Agency," to catalyze both data sharing and data analysis in the interest of mitigating wicked problems. This organization would work to prod societal entities — firms, individuals, civil society groups and governments — to share and analyze various types of data. The Wicked Problems Agency could provide a practical example of how data sharing can yield both economic and public good benefits.
Topic:
International Cooperation, Governance, Data, and Public-Private Partnership
Political Geography:
Global Focus

4. Section 232 reloaded: the false promise of the transatlantic ‘climate club’ for steel and aluminium

Author:
David Kleimann
Publication Date:
07-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Bruegel
Abstract:
In using the removal of Section 232 ‘national security’ tariffs on steel and aluminium imports as a bargaining chip, the United States demands that the European Union engage in negotiations on “global steel and aluminium arrangements to restore market-oriented conditions and address carbon intensity”. The US demand has reportedly been inspired by a blueprint that would establish an international institutional arrangement – labelled a ‘climate club’ – which would externalise market-access restrictions afforded by US Section 232 tariffs to the customs borders of club members. While the declared objective is to incentivise non-members to adopt low-carbon steel (and aluminium) production methods the US blueprint suffers from various design flaws including inefficient incentives, WTO inconsistency and incompatibility with the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism. The effectiveness of the proposed US scheme is severely compromised by the plethora of policy objectives it pursues, which go far beyond the goal of incentivising industrial decarbonisation in third countries, including secondary (ie protectionism) and tertiary (ie global power competition with China) objectives. The initial negotiation proposal submitted by the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to European Commission trade negotiators incorporates many if not all the problematic elements of this blueprint, setting the US on a collision course with the negotiation proposal put forward by the European Commission. This paper concludes that the adoption of the scheme proposed by USTR would result in a step backwards for international climate and trade cooperation, whereas not adopting the EU proposal would make for a missed opportunity. Given the sharply diverging negotiation positions and associated respective domestic constraints on both sides, however, policymakers should start to engage stakeholders now to manage expectations towards a low-ambition negotiation result, if any.
Topic:
Security, Climate Change, Industrial Policy, Governance, European Union, Economy, Trade Policy, and Transatlantic Relations
Political Geography:
Global Focus

5. Emergent Agency in a Time of COVID-19: Research report

Author:
Flippo Artuso, Katrina Barnes, Duncan Green, and Irene Guijt
Publication Date:
02-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Oxfam Publishing
Abstract:
The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic was an unprecedented event in the modern era. Earlier studies demonstrated how ‘critical junctures’, which comprise major historical events and emergencies, often play an essential role in social change. This paper seeks to explore whether the COVID-19 pandemic would prove to be a similar pivotal moment, and what lessons and insights we could gather for positive social change. The research set out to find key insights on how individuals, communities, and organizations in civil society were responding to the pandemic in low-income populations at the intersection of multiple inequalities. These lessons could inform how donors, governments and NGOs might reshape their efforts to reduce emerging or deepening inequalities, and how civil society organisations and community-based organisations could amplify their positive impacts. Over 18 months, from September 2020 to March 2022, the ‘Emergent Agency’ research convened a global conversation between activists, development practitioners, researchers, and academics to better understand the phenomena that were taking place in response to the pandemic. The research collected more than 200 case studies and held a series of webinars and conversations in thematic clusters to uncover what these responses could teach us. The research project was enabled with funding from The Atlantic Fellows for Social and Economic Equity programme (AFSEE) of the London School of Economics.
Topic:
Civil Society, Governance, Pandemic, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Global Focus

6. The Technology of Terror: from Dynamite to the Metaverse

Author:
Christina Schori Liang
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Geneva Centre for Security Policy
Abstract:
Non-state actors have always been interested in obtaining and mastering innovative weapons. According to “lethal empowerment theory”, new technologies will be rapidly adopted and adapted by violent non-state actors when they are accessible, cheap, simple to use, transportable, concealable, and effective. Terrorists are interested in weapons that are useful in a wide range of contexts – “that magnify effects, are symbolically resonant and can be given to unexpected uses.” It is thus important to be vigilant in analysing how actors will leverage and innovate new technologies for malicious purposes, in order to confront the “unknown unknowns” and not repeat the mistakes based on a “failure of imagination”, as highlighted in the 9/11 Commission Report.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Terrorism, Governance, Social Media, and Innovation
Political Geography:
Global Focus

7. A Future Built on Data: Data Strategies, Competitive Advantage and Trust

Author:
Susal Ariel Aarsonson
Publication Date:
06-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for International Governance Innovation
Abstract:
In the twenty-first century, data became the subject of national strategy. This paper examines these visions and strategies to better understand what policy makers hope to achieve. Data is different from other inputs: it is plentiful, easy to use and can be utilized and shared by many different people without being used up. Moreover, data can be simultaneously a commercial asset and a public good. Various types of data can be analyzed to create new products and services or to mitigate complex “wicked” problems that transcend generations and nations (a public good function). However, an economy built on data analysis also brings problems — firms and governments can manipulate or misuse personal data, and in so doing undermine human autonomy and human rights. Given the complicated nature of data and its various types (for example, personal, proprietary, public, and so on), a growing number of governments have decided to outline how they see data’s role in the economy and polity. While it is too early to evaluate the effectiveness of these strategies, policy makers increasingly recognize that if they want to build their country’s future on data, they must also focus on trust.
Topic:
Economics, Governance, Data, and Competition
Political Geography:
Global Focus

8. Governance for Resilience: How Can States Prepare for the Next Crisis?

Author:
Frances Brown
Publication Date:
05-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
The pandemic has presented policymakers with daunting, interlinked, and often unprecedented challenges. From health emergencies that also upend economies to trade disruptions that also pose new multilateral diplomatic dilemmas, the pandemic has generated challenges that seem exceptional in both scale and degree of interconnection. Although the coronavirus pandemic has generated a dizzying series of harsh social, political, and economic firsts, such dilemmas will not be the last. Trend lines around a series of domestic and multinational governance issues, including climate change, migration, rising geopolitical tensions, and citizen alienation from governing institutions, suggest that complex, interlinked crises will be features of the future. While national and multilateral policymakers should work to alleviate the drivers of such crises, they must also strive to prepare their countries to adapt and recover from complex shocks. In short, they must try to build resilience. The need for resilience will be especially acute in developing and fragile states. These countries will need to respond to compounding shocks across multiple domains, without the head start that their developed-world counterparts enjoy. Equally, donors and policymakers from the Global North must also elevate resilience and adaptation as key components of their approaches to supporting fragile states. This call to bolster countries’ resilience is hardly new. Even before the pandemic, the policy arena featured increasing calls for resilience; now, the chorus has become almost deafening. Recent seminal policy and analytic documents—including the U.S. National Intelligence Council’s flagship report,1 the UK’s Integrated Review,2 and the U.S. Interim National Security Strategy3—have underscored that states’ resilience and capacity for adaptation will be key to their future success in the geopolitical arena. In donors’ peacebuilding and development policies, high-level emphasis on resilience has also swelled over the past few years, including in official communications from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,4 the United States government,5 and the European Union.6 In some development practitioner and civil society circles, the need for resilience is so frequently invoked that it sometimes borders on cliché.7 The increasingly ubiquitous recommendation to “bolster resilience” is valuable for at least two related reasons. First, it offers a more specific strategic objective than conversations around “state fragility” writ large, which have often been too broad to generate concrete policy responses. Second, recent, failed international statebuilding projects have underscored that state fragility is not to be “fixed”—instead, it is to be managed and mitigated.8 The emphasis on resilience thus marks a helpful shift away from maximalist policy framing and toward a more attainable one. But concrete insights on how developing or fragile countries actually achieve resilience are less clear and less common. Given the broad consensus that state fragility is deeply linked to governance, for many policymakers, good governance is central. To be sure, many other factors beyond governance—including demographic, geographic, military, and economic ones—affect a state’s resilience. But a country’s governance and political institutions generally undergird all other dynamics in determining how effectively that state can bounce back from setbacks. What exactly does the concept of “good governance for resilience” entail in practice? This paper surveys the evidence. Below, it reviews the governance-related characteristics and capabilities that affect a country’s resilience. For the purposes of this paper, resilience at the national level can be understood as a country’s capacity to respond to, adapt to, and grow from stresses and shocks.9 Resilience focuses on bolstering the overall performance of a system in the face of unpredictable and often interconnected hazards, making it different from risk management, which relates to specific hazards.10 A country’s resilience depends on the internal characteristics that allow for states and their institutions to navigate a variety of disruptions.11 An overarching insight from the evidence is that governance for resilience is complex and often multidirectional. Several characteristics, such as decentralization, have an ambiguous effect on resilience: they enable a country to withstand some setbacks but leave it more vulnerable in other ways. Still other characteristics—including whether a country is a democracy or an authoritarian political system—do not appear have a clear-cut effect on resilience. In contrast, a few governance “super-factors”—such as control of corruption, societal trust, and high quality political leadership—are exceptionally powerful in enabling a country to augment its resilience through multiple pathways. Finally, this paper considers the broader implications of governance for resilience as a policy agenda. The framing of bolstering countries’ resilience is a valuable one, but it also raises several vexing trade-offs and dilemmas. In particular, it prompts the question of whose resilience, in specific, it refers to, since resilience of state institutions does not always mean resilience of all parts of the population. Looking ahead, the policy refrain of “building resilience” in fragile and developing states, appealing though it is, should be refined to encompass these thorny realities.
Topic:
Governance, Crisis Management, Resilience, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Global Focus

9. Government Deficits and Interest Rates: A Keynesian View

Author:
Brett Palatiello and Philip Pilkington
Publication Date:
04-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET)
Abstract:
We test the neoclassical loanable funds model which postulates that, ceteris paribus, government borrowing increases the long-term rate of interest. The empirical literature exploring such a connection remains largely mixed. We clarify the conflicting results by deploying an ARDL model to decompose the relationship in the United States into long and short-run effects across multiple measures of the government deficit and long-term interest rate. We find a tendency for changes in the deficit to increase long-term interest rates in the short run but the effect is reversed in the long run. We argue that these results are consistent with John Maynard Keynes’ view of the long-term rate as being heavily influenced by monetary policy, central bank credibility and market convention.
Topic:
Economics, Governance, Economic Theory, Keynes, and Deficit
Political Geography:
Global Focus

10. Public policy actors view success differently, and it matters

Author:
Matt Andrews
Publication Date:
10-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University
Abstract:
Literature tells us there are many dimensions of public policy success, and different actors in the policy process will likely focus on different dimensions. This paper asks how different actors in the policy process view policy success, and how much their views differ. It finds evidence that actors devising policy plans— designers—view success narrowly, as achieving near-term, programmed goals; whereas other actors involved in advocating for, authorizing, and implementing policies have a broader success perspective, paying more attention to non-program criteria like long-term impact, distributional and endurance success, and intertemporal gains that manifest in the way policies grow capability, political support, stakeholder satisfaction, and process legitimacy. Such finding raises a question about how policy objectives are determined when actors disagree, given that literature also tells us that policies are more likely to succeed when actors agree on what success is and how to achieve it.
Topic:
Government, Governance, and Public Policy
Political Geography:
Global Focus