Search results

Looks partially toward a conceptual clarification of globalization interrelated to corporate power. The global economy has experienced structural transformation over time. An integrated network of world trade has evolved in the context of two separate stages. Stage one appeared during the period of the 1870s. The second stage appeared during the post Second World War era. To distinguish this period from stage one, the process of structural transformation now taking place is conceptualized and demarcated as corporate globalization. Given the growing increase in size, power and dominance of the MNCs, the locus of sovereignty is currently being questioned. An issue currently being raised relates to whether or not nation states or MNCs will be in control of the globalization process. Interjects and analyses the theory and policy of free trade, all of which is contained in a paradigm of culture evolution fed by the dynamics of technological change and economic development.

This chapter examines public versus private sector roles in addressing CSR/Sustainability issues in the United States. It provides an historical perspective on the primacy of market-driven corporate practice in the United States and recent moves by the state to “balance” private and public interests through both regulatory and non-regulatory means. A typology of government and business roles, based on “who leads” and “who makes the rules,” illustrates shared governance of CSR/Sustainability in a variety of multisector and public–private partnerships.

Case studies examine how the U.S. government interacts with business and NGOs and its varied roles in the shared governance of sustainability. Examples from field interviews with business leaders in global operator General Electric (Global Business Initiative on Human Rights), apparel maker-and-seller Patagonia (Aquatic “Hitchhikers”), electronics retailer Best Buy (product recycling), IBM (global corporate volunteering), and others illustrate varieties of shared governance between business and the state in operation today.

Depending on “who leads” and “who makes the rules,” there are variations in whether responsible actions by the private sector are regulatory versus voluntary and whether government’s role involves mandating, partnering, facilitating, or endorsing private sector efforts. Successful shared governance depends on business’s “license to cooperate” and the multiple parties’s sharing responsibility for their goals, operations, and results.

There is a substantial literature on multi-business CSR-related networks and on business–NGO partnerships. Less attention has been given to the role of governments in this space, particularly in the United States where, partly for historical reasons, a company’s relationship with and obligations to society have been regarded as discretionary more so than regulatory activity and where government intervention in markets and in the affairs of companies has been sharply resisted, particularly by business interests, and is suspect among the citizenry.

We examine the links between trade and food security, the processes that shape countries’ trade-related interventions in pursuit of food security objectives, and the prospects for better situating trade and food security in debates related to the use of trade policy.

Building on the previous and ongoing work of Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and others, this chapter revisits the interaction between trade and food security, with the objective of contributing to a more informed discussion of policy choices and improved incorporation of food security concerns into trade-related decision-making processes.

The linkages between trade and food security have been subject to intense debate both at the national and international level. Furthermore, these linkages have become central to many trade-related discussions, including the ongoing multilateral trade negotiations at the World Trade Organization. However, the specific context of the relationship between trade and food security, and of the role of trade in securing improvements in food security, have made it difficult to craft a global framework that ensures that the pursuit of national objectives is compatible with reducing food insecurity at the global level.

As the global governance system undergoes a transition, the roles and responsibilities for food security are being redefined within a more complex and interconnected global landscape whose contours are still to be fleshed out. This calls for a reflection on the multilateral trading system and on the need to strengthen the synergies with nontrade processes to enhance the role of trade in contributing to food security.

This paper aims to assess the role of foreign aid in reducing the hypothetically negative impact of terrorism on trade using a panel of 78 developing countries with data for the period 1984-2008.

The empirical evidence is based on interactive generalised method of moment estimations with forward orthogonal deviations. Bilateral, multilateral and total aid dynamics are used, whereas terrorism entails domestic, transnational, unclear and total terrorism dynamics.

The following findings have been established. First, while bilateral aid has no significant effect on trade, multilateral aid and total aid have positive impacts. Second total terrorism, domestic terrorism and transnational terrorism increase trade with increasing order of magnitude. Third, corresponding negative marginal effects on the interaction between foreign aid (bilateral and total) and terrorism display thresholds that are within range. Fourth, there is scant evidence of positive net effects. Overall, the findings broadly indicate that foreign aid is a necessary but not a sufficient policy tool for completely dampening the effects of terrorism on trade.

There is a growing policy interest in the relationship between terrorism and international development outcomes.

This chapter highlights the characteristics of Asia through the analysis of policy-related documents by five donor countries, namely Japan, South Korea, China, India and Thailand. It will also examine the roles played by regional bodies such as the Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization (SEAMEO) and ASPBAE (the Asia South Pacific Association for Basic and Adult Education) as the horizontal channels influencing aid policies in respective countries. Together with the analysis of the national and organizational policies, the regional process of building consensus on the post-2015 agenda is examined, with a particular focus on the Asia-Pacific Regional Education Conference (APREC) held in August 2014.

The analysis reveals that the region has two faces: one is imaginary and the other is functional. There is a common trend across Asian donors to refer to their historical ties with regions and countries to which they provide assistance and their traditional notions of education and development. They highlight Asian features in contrast to conventional aid principles and approaches based on the Western value system, either apparently or in a muted manner. In this sense, the imagined community of Asia with common cultural roots is perceived by the policymakers across the board.

At the same time, administratively, the importance of the region as a stage between the national and global levels is recognized increasingly in the multilateral global governance structure. With this broadened participatory structure, as discussed in the chapter ‘Post-EFA Global Discourse: The Process of Shaping the Shared View of the ‘Education Community’’, the expected function of the region to transmit the norms and requests from the global level and to collect and summarize national voices has increased.

The regional comprehensive economic partnership (RCEP) is promising as per the claims and can be revolutionary for the Asia–Pacific Region. The member countries will get a boost in the post-pandemic world due to the RCEP. According to Brookings, the RCEP is going to be an agreement reshaping the global economics. This study aims to clarify the aspects related to the RCEP and how it can boost global economics.

The study employs qualitative descriptive analysis to address the status of RCEP in the region and the consequences of such main transnational partnership. The study is based on economic reports, official documents and data directly related to the subject of the study.

Findings show that the RCEP will be a significant driver of regional trade despite its faults. The RCEP's tariff benefits and rules of origin, notwithstanding their relatively restricted scope, will encourage enterprises to source products and services from RCEP members, and in combination, RCEP and Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) are anticipated to replace at least some competing US commodities, services and farm exports. For items that integrate parts and components from inside the area, such as from China, the RCEP is projected to reduce tax and trade facilitation costs, allowing enterprises to avoid US Section 301 tariffs.

By examining how the RCEP operates within the framework of domestic and international trade, this study contributes to a deeper understanding of RCEP and analyses its nature based on data and official reports.

There is no single undertaking regulating food assistance at the international level. International food assistance is regulated by a patchwork of rules emanating from different institutions and normative arrangements. This study aims to explore how international law shapes international food assistance. How is international law regulating food assistance, considering this patchwork of institutions and norms? What dominant narratives enshrined in legal agreements shape the evolution of international food assistance?

The author uses the concept of “regime complex”, which allows analyzing partially overlapping and nonhierarchical regimes governing a particular issue, shedding light on the narratives and institutional arrangements that lead to the consolidation of international rules. The author identifies two main regimes that govern international food assistance: the food assistance regime and the food trade regime.

The author shows that using the “regime complex” concept clarifies the evolution of international food assistance, highlighting that international law is a crucial element in shaping international food assistance and showing that the two main institutional regimes governing it interact and shape rules along three main themes: the centrality of donor States’ self-interests, the relationship between international food assistance and trade liberalization and the goal of achieving food security for the beneficiaries.

Using the regime complex concept, the author brings new light on the broader institutional and legal framework influencing the governance of international food assistance, showing that different regimes take part in its shaping.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a critical and informative exploration of the emerging roles and rising influence of the Global South in shaping the future of global governance. Specifically, it inquires into the following questions: How is the Global South impacting the way we govern globally? What are the pushers, pulls and weights to the futures of global governance? Using Jim Dator’s alternative futures archetype, what is the future of global governance? What are the emerging issues and trends?

It uses Sohail Inayatullah’s futures triangle to map the drivers – the pushes, pulls and weights of global governance and Jim Dator’s archetypes – continued economic growth, collapse, conserver and transformation – to imagine and construct alternative futures of global governance.

The futures triangle analysis maps and reveals three diverse but causally linked Global South narratives of global governance. The pulls of the future include the Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa leading the way, and emerging economies reinforcing the pluralization of global governance discourses and systems. New governance regimes create new global governance dynamics and North – South relations. Their increasing social, political and economic clout leads to new governance structures. The Global South’s rising human development index, economic growth, decreasing financial reliance, the rise of minilateralism and South – South cooperation is a push of the present. Weights are recurring financial constraints, their lack of technical capacity, existing international laws, stagnating bureaucracy, poverty, domestic issues and state centrism (among others). Four alternative global governance scenarios emerge: a harmonious world is everybody’s business – a state-centric and economic growth global governance future. Here, the dynamics of global governance remain the same as zero-sum thinking informs the rules of the game. In dangerous transitions and the rise of the rest, however, the status quo is disrupted as power shifts rapidly and detrimentally. Then, in mosaic of the old structure, the South embraces protectionism, and the old vanguards return. Finally, in all boats rise substantially, power is redistributed as emerging states gain larger, formal (and informal) leadership roles in global governance. The global world order is re-designed for the Global South. A world parliament is created and stronger regional confederation or unions emerge.

This paper extensively utilizes existing and emerging literature, official reports, blogs, interviews, books and other digital texts on global governance. The sources relevance is analyzed using the futures triangle tool and dissected to present four detailed scenarios using Dator’s alternative futures archetype. This study seeks to initially explore alternative futures of global governance from the perspective of the Global South. While some studies have approached the topic, only a few authors have addressed global governance using futures tools and methods. The goal of this research is to map and explore some alternative futures of global governance. The paper is less useful in predicting what lies ahead. Its intention is to highlight the “rise of the different” and to create a space for more meaningful conversations on global governance.

This research could provide futurists, policy-makers, international relations scholars and global governance advocates some alternative narratives, frameworks and images of global governance. While it does not offer any specific structures and solutions, it offers a number of emerging issues and perspectives from the Global South that decision-makers and institutions might want to consider as they rethink global governance.

This paper highlights the emerging roles and perspectives of the Global South in global governance. It identifies some “trading zones” and “emerging issues” that may inspire actors to create new global governance spaces, innovate alternative narratives and design new frameworks of global governance.

It maps and constructs some plausible scenarios of global governance that emphasize Global South perspectives while using futures tools and methods.

Declining growth rates and rising unemployment as well as socio-economic inequalities signalled the crisis of globalisation. Dissent around socio-economic inequalities and austerity measures was articulated by far-right political parties and populist leaders coupled with the rise of anti-immigrant and xenophobic political parties. Within this historical context, this chapter has two concerns. First, how do mainstream and critical approaches within the discipline of International Political Economy explicate double crises of liberalism (economic liberalism and political liberalism) and rise of populism and far-right politics. It then aims to uncover what these approaches anticipate for future prospects of globalisation and which kind of strategies they put forward to overcome the crises. Second, the chapter then aspires to study to what extent there is retreat from globalisation and a rising trend of isolationism through debating continuity and change in terms of foreign direct investment and international trade after 2007–2008 crisis. Is it possible to observe change in the flow of foreign direct investment and internationalisation/transnationalisation of production? Are economies moving towards protectionism? What happens to multilateral and bilateral trade agreements after the failure of Doha talks? In a nutshell, is there a retreat from globalisation or is it simply populism and/or post-truth society that the world is going through under the current context?