Search results

This study aims to investigate the environmental effects of climate financial fragmentation in the form of emerging multilateral institutions.

Among the countries that have economic relations with China, those involved in climate finance cooperation are taken as the experimental group, and those not involved in other areas are taken as a control group. Using system generalized method of moments regression, the difference-in-differences method is used to test the environmental effects of climate finance cooperation of emerging multilateral institutions. In this way, this study explores the financial and trade mechanisms of cooperation among emerging multilateral institutions.

The results of this empirical study show that the cooperation of emerging multilateral institutions has a positive impact on the environment. Research results further reveal the financial and trade mechanisms of climate finance cooperation projects. When the invested countries are more likely to obtain international capital, environmental effects will be greater. However, trade intimacy could inhibit the improved environmental effects.

This research is one of the few studies to test the environmental effects of climate financial fragmentation empirically. This study provides a better understanding of the multilateral cooperation of emerging economic entities and China’s climate finance policy, thus providing evidence for the collaborative governance of global climate finance.

Economic diplomacy refers to methods and processes by which states take advantage of cross-border economic activities to achieve their national interests. It makes connections between the sphere of corporate players, who export or invest abroad, and the sphere of diplomats, who represent the state on the international scene and implement geopolitical decisions. The main purpose of this paper is to provide an overall and coherent framework for asking, classifying and discussing the main issues raised by economic diplomacy. It investigates concepts such as national interest, power and influence. It surveys the relevant literature and deals with various expressions of economic diplomacy such as export promotion agencies, economic role of embassies and consulates, or international economic sanctions. It analyzes the two-way relationship between international economics and international politics, which is at the core of economic diplomacy, and tries to answer the following questions: on the global scene, is diplomacy just accompanying the economy? Is diplomacy driving the economy?

The purpose of this paper is to outline how the EU figures out the importance of strengthening its relations with Egypt as one of the most strategic countries in the region to keep the union secured and stable. The paper also assesses to what extent the EU succeeds to promote democracy in Egypt.

The EU pursues its policy through a series of both bilateral and multilateral agreements with Egypt aiming at positioning their relations in a strategic context. The research adopted different approaches as descriptive and analytical ones.

Following the Arab uprisings, the EU was caught by surprise and announced a paradigm shift in its relations and introduced a set of policies to foster democracy promotion that witnessed some successes but with extremely modest results in some areas compared to the costs of the process. The EU succeeded in important reforms in trade liberalization while it did not bring clear changes in the political arena in Egypt.

The findings of this paper convey that the Arab uprisings were a wake-up call for the EU. It was the right time for the EU to conduct such a strategic and sincere reflection based on the role it wants to play in the changing region. In addition, findings prove that the EU’s response to revolutionary events has been weak and hesitant, and the EU has not an effective role in promoting democracy in Egypt.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the impact of corruption on trade.

The authors estimate gravity equations with the last econometric advances on a wide sample of countries and years using three different measures of corruption. Two of them belong to the so-called perception-based indexes and the third is derived from a structural model that takes into account the causes and indicators of corruption across countries.

A negative effect of corruption on trade appears with perceptions, but it is not widespread. However, the authors find sensible evidence of the “grease the wheels” view with the structural index if low and middle income countries are implicated. Additionally, when using this measure, differences in corruption levels negatively impact trade. Both results are in line with expectations.

Moreover, membership in regional trade agreements does not seem to significantly alter these results.

According to the conventional wisdom, trade is not a zero-sum game, but a positive-sum game. By allowing countries to focus on producing the goods that they can produce relatively efficiently, free trade is largely beneficial for everyone involved. Then, why are the world’s two largest economies (i.e. the USA and China) currently engaged in a trade war, which is likely to hurt their own economies? What is the driving force for the trade war between the two economic giants? The purpose of this paper is to offer an explanation of the underlying cause of the US–China trade war.

In an effort to make sense of the trade war between the USA and China, the paper draws the insights from the two international relations theories – i.e. hegemonic stability theory and power transition theory.

As China continues to threaten US hegemony in the world in general and East Asia in particular, the Sino–US competition for hegemony will intensify over time. As a result, the trade war between the two countries may persist longer than many anticipate. Further, even if the trade war between the two superpowers ends soon, a similar type of conflict is likely to occur later as long as the Sino–US hegemonic rivalry continues.

The central thesis of this paper is that “US fear” about its declining hegemony and China’s rapid rise as a challenger of US hegemony is driving a US-launched trade war with China. Since the underlying cause of the trade war between the world’s two largest economies is political (i.e. the Sino–US hegemonic rivalry) rather than economic (e.g. US attempts to improve the trade balance with China by imposing tariffs on Chinese goods), the paper contends that the full understanding of the trade war requires close attention to the importance of power competition between the two superpowers.

The purpose of this paper is to build a conceptual framework helping to understand the relationship between the principle of multilateralism in global policy relations and the role of international governmental organizations (IGOs). The paper develops conceptual building blocks to design adequate for international organizations for result-oriented effective multilateralism.

Literature review and in-depth theoretical analysis served to construct a framework that helps to see the variety of IGOs against global policy problems they serve to solve.

The analysis highlighted several lessons that can be learned, including the need for an efficient match between the nature of the global policy problem and the mandate and the size of IGO. The paper indicated the importance of efficient mechanisms to make international organizations accountable to member states while allowing for effective leadership.

The heterogeneity of IGOs makes a generalization difficult, hence, the proposed framework necessarily remains relatively generic. Still, this paper provides a first analytical basis for the comparison of IGO with regard to global policy problems they have been set to solve.

The author pointed to the way how to improve the fit between global policy problems and IGOs to make multilateralism more effective. The framework can be used to learn what can be expected from a given IGO and to see IGOs in their proper roles.

The paper might of interest to decision-makers and international public opinion eager to either criticize or praise international organizations based on a simplistic, if not ideological approaches. The paper develops arguments that help influence the evolution of international organizations.

IGO are increasing in number and forms leading to confusion to their role and impact. This framework can be used to realistically assess the role of IGOs in global public policies.

This paper aims to examine the multiplicity of corporate social responsibility (CSR) standards, explaining its nature, dynamics and implications for multinational enterprises (MNEs) and international business (IB), especially in the context of CSR and global value chain (GVC) governance.

This paper leverages insights from the literature in political science, policy, regulation, governance and IB; from the own earlier work; and from an inventory of CSR standards across a range of sectors and products.

This analysis’ more nuanced approach to CSR standard multiplicity helps distinguish the different categories of standards; uncovers the existence of different types of standard multiplicity; and highlights complex trends in their evolution over time, discussing implications for the various firms targeted by, or involved in, these initiatives, and for CSR and GVC governance research.

This paper opens many avenues for future research on CSR multiplicity and its consequences; on lead firms governing GVCs from an IB perspective; and on institutional and market complexity.

By providing overviews and classifications, this paper helps clarify CSR standards as “new regulators” and “instruments” for actors in business, society and government.

This paper contributes by filling gaps in different existing literatures concerning standard multiplicity. It also specifically adds a new perspective to the IB literature, which thus far has not fully incorporated the complexity and dynamics of CSR standard multiplicity in examining GVCs and MNE strategy and policy.

Globally, climate change governance continues to be a significant challenge to policymakers, environmentalists and politicians despite international summits, conferences and programmes designed to find sustainable solutions to the climate change crises. Climate change continues to be viewed primarily as a challenge for the future, whereas many leaders and administrators globally regard it as an environmental issue rather than a challenge that encompasses all aspects of life. In South Africa, these misleading perceptions of climate change continue to prevail both at national and local levels. The government and private organisations do not attach the required levels of urgency needed to address the climate change crisis. While numerous policies and institutions have been established to address these challenges, they lack financial backing, coordination and synergy that cut across the broad objectives of environmental, social and economic agendas. Additionally, weak, eroding trust and manipulating of institutions continue to hinder effective policy implementation and focus-driven governance. This paper aims to explore the structural and governance weaknesses of climate change administration in the KwaZulu-Natal province and South Africa in general.

This paper used extensive literature reviews and a triangulated approach to investigate the weaknesses of the current governance structure in the context of institutional and capacity constraints.

The findings uncovered that most institutions and organisations mandated to address climate change challenges operate in silos, lack required investment and capacity and have weak accountability mechanisms with a shallow understanding of climate change governance.

This paper recommends better coordination between national, provincial and local governments as well as the private sector towards climate change activities and capacity to ensure that climate change actions are effectively implemented.

In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, supply chains have become important policy tools to ensure the security and resilience of regional trading blocs of major economies. The US government’s focus on supply chains for selected strategic industries and the EU Commission’s renewed efforts to strengthen its supply chains using ‘sustainability standards’ coincides with the global trend in the shift towards digital and low-carbon economies. Furthermore, the rising tensions between the US and China, with no signs of reconciliation over key issues of contention, have emphasized the need for more credibility and trust in global supply chains. However, such policies also have the potential to serve as new barriers to participation in supply chains by less-developed economies which are not yet prepared to meet the high-level sustainability criteria which aim for higher protection of the environment and labor rights. There also seems to be an apparent shift in paradigm supporting the interventionist role of government that emphasize the need for more discretion for policy objectives that pursue societal and democratic values, not to mention national security interests. The current rules of international trade, however, do not sufficiently address these new issues and need to be realigned in order to meet the new demands. The current ‘rules of the game’ need to be reinforced in order to accommodate the rising need of countries for increased consideration of issues of sustainability and competitiveness.

The spread of COVID-19 is not just a health crisis. The pandemic has taken a geopolitical dimension. The health crisis amplified the competitive dynamics between the USA and China, affected the provision of global public goods and injected instability into the global order. In line with the geopolitical zero-sum thinking, both the USA and China have sought to capitalize on the crisis to boost their international profile. Instead of working together to mitigate the health and economic impacts of COVID-19, the two powers fear that the other will exploit the current situation to accrue political, economic or military gains that will give it an edge after the pandemic subsides. The spread of COVID-19 has set off a “battle of narratives,” in which China and the USA are accusing each other of failing to rise to the challenge. The world seems to be falling into a “Kindleberger Trap,” in which the established power is unable to lead while the rising power is unwilling to assume responsibility. The COVID-19 crisis is occurring amid the collapse of global cooperation. The USA, the traditional leader of international collective efforts in times of crisis, has abandoned its role entirely. The lack of leadership at the global level during an international crisis may cause the breakdown of the international order.

This paper examines the US-China competitive dynamics through the lens of the work of Charles Kindleberger, which both liberals and realists regard as foundational when examining the dynamics of global crisis management. This paper also uses the meta-geopolitics framework to determine the ability of both China and the USA to respond to the current COVID-19 crisis and its implications for their power and standing in the international system.

This paper concludes that the only way to escape the Kindleberger trap is “to embed Sino-American relations in multilateralism.”

As rivals, both the USA and China are seeking to capitalize on the crisis to boost their international profile. This paper probes how China and the USA navigated the ongoing COVID-19 crisis to determine whether or not they are currently in a “Kindleberger Trap,” using elements of the meta-geopolitics framework of analysis, namely, health issues, domestic politics, economics, science and international diplomacy. Using the meta-geopolitics framework will help us determine the ability of both China and the USA to respond to the current COVID-19 crisis and the implications of that on their power and standing in the international system.