This course is part of the SDG initiative <http://www.sdginitiative.org/> addressing the UN Sustainable Development Goals, specifically for the following SDGs [1, 8, 10 and 16]. We hope you will join in our efforts to reach the SDG’s in small but measurable and actionable ways, cooperating with Development Done Differently. Expand your impact. You can create a better world. In today’s world, politics and economics are interconnected, but what is the nature of this connectivity? What are the power relationships that shape the world economy today and create new challenges for international institutions facing globalization? What makes some countries wealthier than others? Do we face cultural diversity or fragmentation? Does the type of governance effect economic development and social change or is it the other way around? How do we measure it and how trustworthy is the data? These issues and many more will be examined in this course along with a wide library of sources and a biting criticism.
Reflection
Loading...
En provenance du cours de Universiteit Leiden
Political Economy of Institutions and Development
127 notes
Explore Related Videos
At Coursera, you will find the best lectures in the world. Here are some of our personalized recommendations for you
À partir de la leçon
International organizations
International organization. What role do they play in the world economy?
Rencontrer les enseignants
Richard Thomas GriffithsProf. dr.
Faculty of Humanities
Hello again. So far this week we've examine
the origins of the United Nations system of international organizations.
We pay particular attention to the creation and operation of
those directed for trade and finance respectively.
We started the week by referring to the triangle Fragmentation, Governance, and Trust.
Are the international community is more
fragmented than any national society could ever be.
Its membership differs vastly in economic size and population size and in
military might that communication is conducted in a myriad of foreign tongues,
that cultures have been shaped by thousands of years of history,
their citizens pray to different gods and their day to day
existence ranges from obscene luxury to dire abject poverty.
This fragmentation experience far
outweighs that that is found within the borders of any single nation state.
So, in this video we're going to ask what role if any does international governance has?
Why do international organizations survive at all?
Can they make a difference?
And if so, for whom?
Now standing in the aftermath of the death and destruction of the Second World War,
it was difficult to be optimistic on the future of the myriad of
organizations created under the United Nations umbrella.
The dominant paradigm of political scientists at the time was a belief termed realism.
The world it was argued was in a state of almost permanent anarchy and
the only guiding principle for nation states
must be the promotion of its own national interest.
International organizations would exist only for as long as they did not interfere with
the pursuit of national interests and as
long as they provided some service towards that goal.
The expectation was that that would not be for long.
And yet, they still survive today.
Now at this stage the realist modify
their position and became Neorealists or new realists.
International organizations had survived,
it was argued because they did convey some real benefits.
One tangible benefit was information.
At least they provided a regular check on what
other parties were thinking or saying they were thinking.
The second belief was they provided a regular forum for interaction.
The organization existed with rules, procedures, agendas,
and meeting places and all of this was
much easier than having to start afresh every time.
That third benefit was that international organizations were
predictable and for the larger parties, controllable.
In the Security Council of the U.N.
the larger powers made sure that they were represented and that they had a veto.
The United States and Europe happily made sure that they
control the top positions in the World Bank the IMF.
And if that wasn't enough,
the voting rules were fixed to ensure that they would always have a sympathetic majority.
Take one example, in the IMF the United States controls 16.75 % of the votes.
The EU collectively, represents almost another 30 %.
Other friendly powers control slightly under 12 %.
The chances of being outvoted are remote.
The BRICS, for example,
collectively control 11.03 %.
A final benefit worth mention is
the international organization provide
a system for monitoring whether agreements are kept.
If one party in an agreement reneges on its obligation,
it often undermines the commitment of others.
This monitoring is best done by a neutral third party and by one of the parties involved.
Now this pretty minimalist view of international organizations whose challenge
right from the start and from several angles.
There were those who argue that
collaborative behavior could actually operate for the benefit of all,
creating a win win situation.
Benefits did not have to be obtained at each step in a series of one off games.
Depending on the range of issues,
it was possible to benefit from what was called diffuse
reciprocity: gains and benefits further down the line.
And this in turn would help create compliant behavior.
Another argument was that statesmen have actually
grown to like international organization.
At a basic level,
it allows them to strut on the world stage and to
raise their profile against domestic contenders for power.
But it also provides the possibility for agenda setting.
They can raise the stakes in what is essentially
a domestic matter that might otherwise face difficulties in
passing through parliament by making it part of a larger international set of decisions.
Others have argued that
continuous participation of organizations could socialize its members.
The benefits of this process ran in two directions.
Some emphasized how officials working together to solve problems would
extend their experience to other problems that they face and advocate similar solutions.
This line of thinking was known as neo-functionalism.
On the other hand, working together also facilitated the production
of a coherent shared framework of discourse and observed behavior.
This could even help contribute towards policy change within
an organization independent of the direction of participating countries.
Of course, the state could always block this at a later stage.
Now this picture of shared rituals experience and discourse is one that we
recognize when we were looking at issues of trust and governance on
a national scale and it is an attractive one.
A community of high minded diplomats working together to solve common problems.
But are they?
Or is this all simply a veneer over a system whose dynamics lie elsewhere?
Is the system empowered by movements of
money and controlled by those who hold access to most of it?
Or is it not controlled by anyone at all?
Well, these are issues we'll touch upon in the next lecture. I'll see you next week.
Explorer notre catalogue
Rejoignez-nous gratuitement et obtenez des recommendations, des mises à jour et des offres personnalisées.
Coursera propose un accès universel à la meilleure formation au monde,
en partenariat avec des universités et des organisations du plus haut niveau, pour proposer des cours en ligne.
© 2019 Coursera Inc. Tous droits réservés.
