The role of international organizations, transnational governance, metrics and indicators of the quality of government activity within the framework of global governance

Brambila Martinez Francisco Javier Postgraduate student, Institute of Civil Service and Administration, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration 119571, Russia, Moscow, Prospekt Vernadskogo, 82 francisco.brambila@mail.ru Other publications by this author

Prospects of Global Governance

Governance

The Fukuyama-Rotberg dilemma has divided experts on how to measure governance or “state quality” in order to propose alternatives to the current systems of domestic governments; in one hand Rotberg and Boardman (2014) argue that government performance should be measured by what the state produces by both, its inputs and outputs. On the other hand, Fukuyama (2013) assess that state capacity can be measured only by how governments operate, with special attention to bureaucratic procedures, capacity and autonomy from political management.

Holt and Manning (2014) go further on Fukuyama’s notion and expand it by proposing how upstream bodies at the centre of government operate in contrast with downstream delivery mechanisms, which may provide, administrate and fund services under the policy direction of the government, while retaining a degree of autonomy from political control and boosting the performance of the state.

Nevertheless, in order to understand the “state quality” comprehensively, it is necessary to note the role of the state within a global order, as in a system of multidimensional actors, constraints may arise, ultimately set the rules for the state to act accordingly; Coleman (2012) notes that Reinicke, was the first to emphasise the interdependence of states through the role of economic globalization and movement of capital across nations, moreover, by stating that in order for states to protect their internal sovereignty, as a part of their «territorial foundation», they were to step their policy-making to a global level: so to interact within a complex network of stakeholders.

Concerning the current Public Policy scheme, Stone & Ladi (2015) appear to stress the need for Coleman’s Reinicke claims for Global Public Policy through Stephen Krasner, claiming that the ‘interdependence sovereignty:’ the capacity and willingness of public authorities to control or regulate flows of people, goods and capital in and out of acountry, has yet to face constant constraints and challenges from Globalization.

Globalization

As a first note to Reinicke & Krasner approaches, we may be able to understand Globalization under two spectrums: first, as an economic dimension that encompass from cross-border trade to international regulations; second, as a political system that requires high-levels of cooperation between one state and a number of international stakeholders through multilateral agreements and other international organizations.

Notwithstanding, how does this general conception of globalization relates to a global governance scheme?According to Coleman (2012) if we were to assess the term “Globalization,” we would have to combine the geographical term global with the process that involves states and non-state actors, leading to a “transformative growth of connections.” However, questions arise as to which framework to asses, propose and deliver is enough to fulfil this apparent enormous liability. In an effort to define the mechanisms within a Globalized scheme, Stone and Ladi (2015) propose the term “Trasnational administration,” defining it as “the regulation, management and implementation of global policies of a public nature by both private and public actors operating beyond the boundaries and jurisdictions of the state, but often in areas beneath the global level,”

Furthermore, Stone & Ladi (2015) propose the combination of “Globalization” with Governance in the form of Public Policy, as the “set of overlapping but disjointed processes of public-private deliberation and cooperation among both official state-based and international organizations and non-state actors” in order to achieve a consensus for norms to boost trade and tackling transitional problems. Yet, considering an increasingly changing environment ridden with unpredictability, how are nations able to perform proportionately? Peck (2015) proposes the first systematic analysis of “Global Policy Mobility” through ten tendencies of “Fast Policy,” starting on a comparative context of prominent models (best practices), the trans-nationalization of policy dialogsthrough information and advice on policy innovations, the “cosmopolitanization” of policy actors through the privatization of policy expertise and delivery systems; the assessment of compatibility and implementation, and last, the export of results through dispersed policymaking sites.

From this compilation of approaches, we may be able to understand the Global Public Policy arena as an “Agora” (Stone & Ladi, 2015), where a multidimensional level of stakeholders interact on different levels; thereafter (Peck, 2015) in order to coordinate them, as well as to channel and deliver policy expertise, some actors may perform as International Policy Brokers.

It is worth asking whether the role of International Policy Brokers in the Globalized Arena is sufficient to cover all multidisciplinary paradigms, as well as to potentially substitute the role of state and other traditional supranational organizations, such as the United Nations. In this regard, Bernstein & Cashore (2007), note that if indeed there are areas uncovered by intergovernmental regulation, subject to non-state actors,(Abbot 2014) states that “a significant amount of international regulatory co-operation is (still) carried out through formal international organisations (…) that consist of national regulatory agencies or other governmental units operating autonomously, rather than states or national governments as such” (Abbot 2014)Thereafter, the extent of the influence of the International Policy Brokers in relation to States remain diminished, under the argument that States hold the monopoly of law, thereafter retaining the exclusive rights to implement “transferred” policies within its borders, swell as to lobby for their national interests in their national community with particular power.

Last, it is worth mentioning the actual precedence,nature and objectives of the International stakeholders; as for those who don’tproceed from a trans-governmental configuration, but actually evolve from the civil society, it is expected for them to have a wide array of agendas cemented on different socio-cultural settings and views. Special scrutiny should take place from states with interests in Peck’s “best practices” – based models, as history has proven that for a transferred policy to perform successfully, it requires a series of adaptations throughout its stages, nonetheless is up to the criteria, information and bias of the International Policy Brokers, to select the policy closest to their ideological framework.

Outcomes of Global Governance

Measurement and Metrics of Government

Measuring the nature of governance is vital not only to assess the quality of governance, but to allocate and invest decision where the State may require suitable. According to Arndt & Oman (2008), the role of International Organizations –most prominently the World Bank-, in the form of International Policy Brokers, play a leading role, both in the supply of and use of cross-country governance ratings; furthermore, they note a correlation between a demand for the quality of governance –particularly in the developing World- and the production and use of quality of governance indicators.

The initial explanation for this phenomenon is the actual outcome of the International Policy Brokers themselves, as according to Arndt & Oman (2008), first, reforms in policies that attracted International Investors, need to assess the quality of governance in the State they are investing in as a measure to assess the risks their assets are subject to. Second, as a consequence in the ideological shift of many nations following the culmination of the Cold War, effectively unifying the world on a single spectrum; not only incentivizing states to assess the quality of their governance for competitive issues, but by finally having access to international organizations such as to the OECD due to the lack of negative ideological limitations and predispositions.

In order to incentivize countries to improve governance, cross-country comparable governance indicators aim for decision-making processes; often compiled in the form of a large amount of information which is after reduced in a single number per country every year. Among the most requested indicators on quality of governance, are the World Governance Indicators by the World Bank Institute, the Corruption Perceptions Index by Transparency International, and the Doing Business Indicators from the World Bank.Nevertheless, althoughArndt & Oman (2008) note that while there may not be a definitive governance indicator, theyencourage their use, as they remain the only subjective and tangible tools in the quality of governance assessment.

General conclusions

As a conclusion we might be able to understand on how the role of Governance, Globalization, Public Policy and Transnational administration seem to constitute a synergy of elements to achieve Global Governance through an equal comparative basis; meanwhile we are able to note how the Measurement and Metrics of Government seem to constantly nourish the Global Governance framework.