T09P17 - Fragmentation in Global Policy-making: Mapping the Problem and Exploring Coordination Mechanisms

Topic : Governance, Policy networks and Multi-level Governance

Panel Chair : Maarja Beerkens - m.beerkens@fgga.leidenuniv.nl

Objectives and Scientific Relevance of the panel

Call for papers

Session 1 Fragmentation in global policy-making 1


Carmen Huckel Schneider - carmen.huckelschneider@sydney.edu.au - Menzies Centre Health Policy, University of Sydney - Australia

Tim Legrand - tim.legrand@anu.edu.au - National Security College, Crawford School of Public Policy - Australia

The New Anarchy: Globalisation and Fragmentation in World Politics

Philip G Cerny - pgcerny@rutgers.edu - University of Manchester - United Kingdom

Modern IR theory has consistently underestimated the depth of the problem of anarchy in world politics. Contemporary theories of globalisation bring this into bold relief. From this perspective, the complexity of transboundary networks and hierarchies, economic sectors, ethnic and religious ties, civil and cross-border wars, and internally disaggregated and transnationally connected state actors, leads to a complex and multidimensional restructuring of the global, the local, and the uneven connections in between. We ought to abandon the idea of ‘high’ and ‘low’ politics, ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ once and for all. This does not remove the problem of anarchy, but rather deepens it, involving multidimensional tensions and contradictions variously described as “functional differentiation”, “multiscalarity”, “fragmegration”, disparate “landscapes”, the “new security dilemma” and “neomedievalism”. Outcomes are increasingly unpredictable and depend on how strategically situated actors shape formal and informal public/private linkages, networks and hierarchies from the local to the transnational, crosscutting economic processes, transboundary social bonds and, finally, a “disaggregated state”—a dialectic of globalisation and fragmentation. Approaching anarchy from the perspective of plural competing claims to authority and power, forces us to think again about the nature of global order and the virtues of anarchy therein. Will the long term outcome be the emergence of a more decentralised, pluralistic world order, or a quagmire of endemic conflict and Durkheimian anomie?

Multi-Layered Migration Governance in Asia: Lessons from Nepal and the Philippines

Richa Shivakoti - rshivakoti@gmail.com - National University of Singapore - United States

This presentation will be based on my doctoral research which I will defend this summer. My research starts with a look at the global governance mechanisms in place for migration then focuses on Asian migration governance. I conclude that Asian migration governance is also a regime complex instead of a regime with many layers visible but no one institution with the authority on rules and regulations. I then focus on two labor sending countries: Nepal and the Philippines, as they are at very different stages of migration governance. I study their domestic migration policy sub-sector and map the policy network using Social Network Analysis based on primary data, in addition to qualitative analysis of extensive interviews of policy makers in both countries.


Mobility within and outside of Asia has grown dramatically over several decades and new systems of migration and regional governance is emerging. Currently Asia hosts 71 million international migrants. In 2015, intra-regional migration in Asia accounted for 60% of its international migration stock. At the international level, Asia as a region may have one of the lowest ratifications on all UN covenants and conventions related to migration. By refusing to become parties to such conventions, they are not parties to established international norms and principles. At the regional level, it is also a region that does not have an established regional human rights body as other regions such as Africa, the European Union and the Americas have. It has made some progress in that regard with the formation of two sub-regional human rights bodies, for ASEAN states and for Arab states. There are also several sub-regional and intra-regional regional consultative processes (RCPs) on migration such as the Bali Process, the Colombo Process and the Abu Dhabi Process.


This scenario makes Asian migration governance of interest as on the one hand, Asian countries have refused to be a part of international migration conventions or to create a regional legal body, but on the other hand, they have made several efforts towards cooperation at a regional or sub-regional level in trying to create new norms and principles that are more applicable to their situation, but that can also be agreed on given the current differences. So we can say that Asia does not have a single migration regime but the Asian migration system can be seen as a regime complex instead.


To understand this phenomenon better I focus on two labor sending countries: Nepal and the Philippines with extensive interviews and survey data from the migration policy subsector in both countries. I interviewed all governmental and non-governmental actors in the sector and asked them to rank different relationships through a survey. I used Social Network Analysis to then map the migration policy network at the domestic level to understand the most important actors in both countries. I will present this along with the migration governance regime complex in the panel.

Fragmentation: Bane or Blessing? Global Energy Policy in Multiple Arenas

Aynsley Kellow - akellow@utas.edu.au - University of Tasmania - Australia

Hannah Murphy-Gregory - Hannah.Murphy@utas.edu.au - University of Tasmania - Australia

Our knowledge of forum shopping in global governance shows that strategic inconsistencies between the arenas in which global policy is made provides opportunities for both state and non-state actors to influence outcomes. This paper will examine the fate of an agenda of the US to limit financing of coal-based electricity generation construction in the World Bank and the OECD – through the adoption of a Directions Statement in the Bank and a Sector Understanding on Export Credits for Coal-Fired Electricity Generation Projects agreed to by the Participants to the Arrangement on Officially Supported Export Credits in the OECD.

The OECD decision to restrict the use of finance for coal stations using Export Credit Agencies (ECAs) was perhaps the more significant, as greater amounts of financing have been provided for coal-fired power stations by ECAs than by the Bank. The US prevailed in the Bank but in the OECD, after opposition from Japan, Korea, Australia and others, the decision allowed the continued use of Export Credits to fund coal stations if they were High Efficiency Low Emissions (HELE) — with further exemptions for Least Developed Countries.

As HELE stations represent the dominant type planned or under construction in the Asia-Pacific, the OECD outcome was a significant win for interests in the region and a defeat for the US and the environmental and natural gas interests that had persuaded the US to adopt this position. And as ultrasupercritical coal plant (at 45% efficiency) offers substantial mitigation opportunities when it replaces conventional plant (global average 33% efficiency, with approximately 2% emissions reduction for every 1% efficiency gain), the provision for HELE plant in the OECD decision promises to progress the joint goals of greenhouse gas mitigation and economic development.

This paper will show that the two outcomes reflect the different characteristics of the two arenas, especially voting rules. It suggests that fragmentation of global policy making into different arenas provides opportunities for actors at a disadvantage in one arena to counter the quasi-hegemonic influence of others in different arenas.

Public-private interactions between EU legislators and voluntary sustainability standards. Challenges and opportunities from dialogic interplay

Enrico Partiti - e.d.partiti@uva.nl - Netherlands

Voluntary sustainability standards (VSS) proliferated in the past decade in a host of issues areas ranging from forestry to fishery, from biofuels to clothing, and from labour practices to jewellery. The main drivers behind the emergence and proliferation of private standards are private actors such as companies, retailers consortia and, especially, non-governmental organisations. Private regulatory regimes such as VSS do not operate in a vacuum devoid of public influence, or legal constrains. This paper discusses a host of different regulatory instruments by means of which EU authorities are already capable of influencing, directing and orchestrating private regulation in the domain of sustainability. 


A number of EU legal instruments provide for different modalities of employment of VSS as implementing instruments in a manner which enhances their regulatory effects of externality abatement and provision of information. By establishing legally structured interactions with private authority, these EU legal instruments are mechanisms though which public authority claims back a central role in the regulation of transnational phenomena - albeit a different one than traditionally understood - by means of the employment of private standards. Such measures include the Renewable Energy directive, the Public Procurement Directive, the Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade scheme, the Directive on the Annual Financial Statement, Consolidated Financial Statements and Related Reports of Certain Types of Undertakings, the Organic Food Regulation, the ‘Single Market for Green Products’ initiative, and the Unfair Commercial Practice Directive.  


Some of these instruments identify different means for the incorporation of private authority in public measures for the pursuit of sustainability. The article argues that structured forms of public-private authority interaction by means of legal instruments have potentially a deep influence on VSS under the incentive offered from entering into a legal relation with a public measure. At the same time, certain interactions are capable of lessening problematic issues raised by private standards, such as their trade-barrier effect, especially among developing countries’ producers, or consumer distrust. This article shows that interactions, however, are not always beneficial for VSS and for private regulation. While interactions bring benefits to recognised schemes by enhancing their legitimacy, they may have negative effects on the uptake of some standards, possibly the more stringent ones. Interactions may exacerbate competition dynamics and generate proliferation of standards which are just in line with the public requirements for recognition. The article shows that public instrument design is crucial for the successful allocation of regulatory effects between public and private authority, and for the selection of schemes which are suitable for the pursuit of public interest. This process of selection should always take place by means of procedural requirements, but not always such requirements are sufficiently strict, nor the control exercised by public authority is appropriate. Effective and thorough control over stringent procedural requirements should be exercised over schemes which are recognised or otherwise endorsed by public authority in order to maximise the contribution to sustainability from private actors, and to protect the more ambitious VSS from forum shopping of business operators.

Session 2 Fragmentation in global policy-making 2


Aynsley Kellow - akellow@utas.edu.au - University of Tasmania - Australia

Enrico Partiti - e.d.partiti@uva.nl - Netherlands

Trusting Transgovernmentalism: Ideas, interests and values in global public policy-making.

Tim Legrand - tim.legrand@anu.edu.au - National Security College, Crawford School of Public Policy - Australia

Though the concept of ‘global public policy’ is increasingly attracting interest from public administration scholars (e.g. Stone & Ladi, 2015), the processes and patterns of state and non-state actor interaction remain opaque - especially in the murky non-sovereign arenas in which global policy-making occurs. One form of cross-border policy-making to have become apparent is transgovernmental policy networking. The study of these networks has a pedigree in the IR discipline — notably associated with R.Keohane & J. Nye (1974) and A.M. Slaughter (2004) -- in which the prevailing theoretical view asserts that state actors forge transgovernmental networks with peers elsewhere solely to address common cross-border challenges that cannot be addressed unilaterally. This paper seeks to challenge and extend this functionalist perspective of cross-border policy-making by emphasising the importance of ideas, identity and values in the coalescence of transgovernmental networks. The paper considers three prominent transgovernmental groupings: the Anglosphere, the Nordic Region and the European Union. These cases are used, first, to depict the regional contours of global policy debates and, second, to draw out the dynamics of identity propinquity which underpins their respective informal and formal trust-based cooperation. Doing so, the paper argues, deepens our understanding of the political faultlines, politicking and preferences apparent in global public policy-making venues.

Why do global health organisations take on the governance structures that they do?

Carmen Huckel Schneider - carmen.huckelschneider@sydney.edu.au - Menzies Centre Health Policy, University of Sydney - Australia

There have been various attempts over the past 20 years to establish and maintain novel governance mechanisms to sustain political priority of particular health issues. These include the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation, established in 2000, the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria established in 2002 and the International Health Partnership established in 2007.  More recently, coordination models have emerged, some of which appear to put a renewed emphasis on multilateral institutions, such as Global Coordination Mechanism on NCDs, while others attempt bind together existing networks and knowledge communities into formal decision making structures that include governance boards, technical committees and executives. In each case, governance is built around the need to reach agreements and take decisions in dynamic political environments where health and medical knowledge is advancing, resources are scarce, interests are dispersed among various actors and priorities are contested.

The paper addresses the second theme of this ICPP panel - How does interaction between different types of actors take place; how actors influence each other; and  what organizational and other mechanisms are in place or experimented with to overcome fragmentation issues?  The paper takes examples of global health organisations in the areas of communicable and non-communicable diseases and poses the research question – Why do global health organisations take on the governance structures that they do? First the significance of formal governance structures for global policy making is addressed.   Second, similarities, contrasts and trends in the organisational governance structures of global health organisations are presented. The potential and limitations of current global governance scholarship to answer the research question are then discussed.  In particular, the paper argues for greater attention to be paid to insights from economics and business management - in terms of their influence on, and explanation of, governance trends.

Global governance scholarship still rarely explores the influence of business management scholarship on organisational structures in global policy making. This is surprising as recent work on transnational networks, epistemic communities and public-private partnerships have demonstrated that global governance structures today need not follow precedents of international relations. Indeed, the governance structures of several major health policy organisations embody key features of corporations. The research question will be explored by adding a corporate governance lens to explanations from historical and liberal institutionalism.

International regulatory cooperation: comparing contractual and organizational models

Fabrizio Cafaggi - Fabrizio.Cafaggi@EUI.eu - European University Institute - Italy

International regulatory cooperation among public, private and hybrid entities is shaping the global regulatory environments. The drivers are manyfold and a single causal explanation is hard to identify. The paper focuses on forms of cooperation among private schemes' owners and it investigates the main forms of regulatory cooperation. It focuses on the alternative between agreements and organizations, in particular multistakeholder organizations. Private regimes engage in cooperative agreements by drafting memorandum of understanding, defining mutual recognition regimes, private/private partnerships or creating multistalkeholder organizations that encompass divergent or conflicting interests. Drawing on the classical dicothomy contract/organization the paper identifies the factors that might determine the choice of cooperation and the challenges that each form presents. It further analyzes the increasing role of international organizations like OECD in fostering cooperation among private actors and the orchestration approach. The paper concludes with some predictions on patterns of international regulatory cooperation among private schemes' owners and the role of intergovernmental organizations.

Formal coordination mechanisms in global governance: The case of intellectual property

Maarja Beerkens - m.beerkens@fgga.leidenuniv.nl - Leiden University - Netherlands

Global policy issues tend to be highly complex, involving numerous public and private actors but also crossing sectors and organizational authorities. Coordination of activities is therefore highly important, particularly in the case of new issues that find themselves at an overlapping ‘periphery’ of several well-established fields. While literature on networks is accumulating, research on formal inter-organizational coordination mechanisms is still scarce. This paper will review existing research on coordination mechanisms, attempting to identify factors that tend to explain their emergence and their ability to contribute to problem solving. While most of the literature has emerged out of the environmental sector, this paper will apply the framework on a ‘man-made’ resource, on the ‘essential medicines’ initiative. This is a case where many key issues intersect: intellectual property rights, free trade and health, but also poverty relief. Over the last decades, the sector has seen the emergence and formalization of coordination.

Export PDF