VIEWS: 3 PAGES: 16 POSTED ON: 10/1/2012
A NETWORK OF EXCELLENCE ON GLOBAL GOVERNANCE, REGIONALISATION AND REGULATION: THE ROLE OF THE EU (GARNET)* Call Identifier: FP6-2002-Citizens-3 PART B Financial support for the development of this application was generously provided by the UK Economic and Social Research Council, the University of Warwick, the United Nations University, the University of Muenster, the Collaborative Research Center on Transformations of the State of Bremen University, and the Ministry of Science, Northrhine-Westfalia, Germany. This support is acknowledged by the membership of GARNET. The Oxford English Dictionary defines a Garnet as a deep red semi-precious stone with origins from the Latin granatum, as in pomum granatum, 'pomegranate‘ (literally 'apple having many seeds'). It is a symbol of commitment. Summary Page Proposal Title: Global Governance, Regionalisation and Regulation: the Role of the EU Proposed Acronym: GARNET Date of Preparation: 1 December 2003 Type of Instrument: Network of excellence Coordinator: Professor Richard Higgott The University of Warwick email firstname.lastname@example.org List of Participants: 1. Prof. Richard Higgott University of Warwick GB 2. Prof. Geoffrey Underhill Universiteit Amsterdam NL 3. Prof. Nico Schrijver Free University, Amsterdam NL 4. Prof. Elmar Altvater. Free University of Berlin D 5. Prof. Daniel C. Bach Bordeaux University F 6. Prof. Stephan Leibfried University of Bremen D 7. Prof. Dr. Mario Télo Université Libre de Bruxelles B 8. Prof. Laszlo Csaba Central European University H 9. Dr. Karoline Postel-Vinay Centre d’Etudes et de Recherches F Internationales 10. Prof. Sven Bislev Copenhagen Business School DK 11. Prof. Emil Kirchner University of Essex GB 12. Valerie Engemmare Evian Group CH 13. Prof. David Armstrong. Exeter University GB 14. Prof. Dr. Furio Cerutti: University of Florence I 15. Prof. Björn Hettne Göteborg University S 16. Dr. François Godement IFRI F 17. Prof. Richard Robison Institute of Social Sciences, NL 18. Dr. Petra Roter University of Ljubljana SLO 19. Dr. Stephen Woolcock London School of Economics GB 20. Prof. Brigitte Young Westfalische Wilhelms-Universität D Münster 21. Prof. Helge Hveem University of Oslo N 22. Dr. Luk Van Langenhove United Nations University B 23. Prof. Elzbieta Stadtmüller University of Wroclaw PL 24. Prof. Dr Thomas Pedersen University of Aarhus DK 25. Prof. Mathias Albert Bielefeld University D 26. Prof. Dr. Tibor Palankai Budapest University of Economics and H Public Administration 27. Prof. Attila Agh Hungarian Center of Democratic Studies H 28. Prof. Boyan Belev Center for the Study of Democracy BG 29. Prof. Thomas Meyer University of Dortmund D 30. Prof. Vladimir Gligorov Vienna Institute for International A Economic Studies 31. Dr. Bart De Schuetter Vrije Universiteit Brussel B 32. Prof. Nicolas Levrat University of Geneva CH 33. Prof. Sonia Lucarelli Forum on the Problems of Peace and War I 34. Prof. Dr. Reimund Seidelmann University of Giessen D 35. Prof. Christophe Scherrer Kassel University D 36. Prof. Alvaro de Vasconcelos Instituto de Estudos Estratégicos e P Internacionais 37. Prof. Daniele Archibugi Italian National Research Council I 38. Prof. Dr. Tim Shaw University of London GB 39. Prof. Dr. Paolo Guerrieri University of Rome, La Sapienza I 40. Prof. Andrew Gamble University of Sheffield GB 41. Prof. Finn Laursen University of Southern Denmark, Center DK for European Studies 42. Prof. Goran Therborn Swedish Collegium for Advanced Study S in the Social Sciences 43. Prof. Riccardo Scartezzini University of Trento I 44. Prof. Dr. Robert Holton Trinity College Dublin IRE Executive Summary Institutional and political crises in the governance and regulation of the world order under conditions of globalisation are strong. They are exacerbated by the renewed salience of the security agenda and subsequent tensions that have emerged in inter-regional relations (especially across the Atlantic post September 11, 2003) since that time. Thus there is need for European analysts and practitioners undertaking scholarly and policy-oriented research on the theory and practice of global regulation across the economic and security domains to come together in a coordinated and systemic process of dialogue. The EU is the most institutionalised regional policy community and complex system of governance beyond the territorial state, but research on regulation and multi-level governance, although sophisticated, is fragmented, weakly coordinated, and often detached from wider questions of an extra- European nature. GARNET’s aim is to combat this fragmentation and weak coordination by developing a multi-dimensional, multi-disciplinary network of scientific excellence of researchers, analysts and practitioners with expertise in key issues and themes in global and regional governance. Particular focus will be on those elements of the global regulatory framework (trade, finance, security) that (to a greater or lesser extent) structure the modern world system. At the very least, GARNET will create a critical mass of European researchers able to interact on more equal terms and in wider global contexts, with the erstwhile dominant research communities in the USA. In sum, GARNET will create a European research area on governance, regulation and the relationship between multilateralism and regionalism.. Four themes will guide GARNET’s integrating activities: (i) the theory and practice of regionalism and regionalisation; (ii) the identification of key elements in the regulatory framework of governance, especially how best to enhance collective action problem solving at regional and global levels; and (iii) policy issues in global governance: notably those concerned with overcoming problems in the governance of trade, finance, security, environment, technology, development, social production and gender inequality, and disease; (iv) the role of the EU in the advancement of research and policy in themes (i)-(iii). These tasks will be undertaken via the development of a virtual network, the development of a series of common databases, an annual international conference, a program of scholarly mobility; a network of PhD schools, capacity building, the dissemination of excellence in its areas of expertise and the development of a series of jointly executed research activities around its themes. Unlike the United States, which operates in international policy arenas as a unitary actor, Europe has yet to find common supra-national form. Moreover the US scholarly community exhibits a methodological and philosophical coherence not to be found in Europe. Europe speaks with pluralist voices on issues of governance and regulation and even lacks a forum in which such voices might mix. GARNET aspires to harness and consolidate this pluralist vitality of voices on a Europe-wide scale. It will build a stronger, more self-consciously European research community on global governance as a precursor to improving both scholarly presentation and representation, with all the attendant downstream implications for the coherence of policy-making that such improvement in the communication and interaction of knowledge would imply. B.1. Objectives of the network Overall objectives Notwithstanding coordination problems that have arisen in a number of major policy domains in the Europe Union in the early years of the 21st century, the EU is still the most institutionalised regional policy community exhibiting the most complex system of governance beyond the territorial state It is an empirical laboratory without equal (see Rosamond, 2000, Gavin, 2001). But research on the issues of regulation and multi-level governance in Europe, while often sophisticated, is fragmented and weakly coordinated, and often detached from the wider analytical questions of an extra-European nature. The turn of the century has seen a series of institutional and political crises in the governance and regulation of the world order under conditions of economic globalisation (see Higgott, 2000; Stiglitz, 2002). Thus, there is an urgent need for those analysts and practitioners undertaking scholarly and policy-oriented research on the theory and practice of the global regulatory framework across the economic and security domains (and Europe’s role in that framework) to be brought together in coordinated and systematic processes of dialogue on a range of issues, especially those occasioned by the renewed salience of the security issues in the wake of September 11 2001. This proposed network of excellence (hereafter NoE or GARNET) is a response to this challenge. The overall aim of this proposal is to develop a multi-dimensional set of integrating activities that will contribute to the development of a European Research Area for Global Governance, Regionalisation and Regulation via the establishment of a multi-disciplinary, European network of scientific excellence consisting of scholarly researchers, analysts and practitioners with expertise in, and commitment to: Research on key issues and themes in global and regional governance and Formatted: Bullets and Numbering especially those elements of the global regulatory framework that (to a greater or lesser extent) structure the contemporary world system; Understanding, and enhancing, the European Union’s role as an actor in the contemporary global governance system; The development, in a systematic manner, as opposed to the existing ad hoc relationships of many of the NoE partners, of coordinated relationships with researchers in other parts of Europe and the world The objective is to constitute a network of interdisciplinary academic research centres that can pool their competencies to produce and disseminate high quality scholarly research and act as a think-tank (virtual and actual) for the European policy community. The core competencies of the proposed network reflect: A proven capacity amongst its core members, to engage in long-term scholarly interdisciplinary research projects and related training of researchers with theoretical and empirical competences in these areas; An ability to promote policy-oriented, problem-solving research on the global Formatted: Bullets and Numbering regulatory framework and governance in Europe and beyond; An ability to deploy prospective and action-oriented research on different aspects of the global and regional regulatory framework; A monitoring and impact assessment capacity on issues related to the structures of global and regional governance; and especially to compare EU and other regional experiences in multi-level governance; An ability to analyse and articulate legitimacy and identity questions that may arise in the shaping and implementing of political decision-making and institution building at both the regional and global level. An ability to enhance the integration of European social science research through the Formatted: Bullets and Numbering study of political and economic governance emerging under conditions of globalisation, and hence to identify policy choices for Europe as an actor and an area of economic and political space. A key assumption of the application is that there is a demand for collective thinking about how to reshape such structures in the 21st century. These are issues of scholarly concern within many sectors of the EU’s social science research community, but they cast massive policy shadows over extant frameworks of regulation and governance. Formatted: Bullets and Numbering 2.B.1.1 Conceptual framework Three key conceptual areas will guide the work of the network: Globalisation, governance, and regionalisation and the global regulatory framework Globalisation specified Globalisation is the most over used, but under-specified concept in the lexicon of the modern policy sciences. Nevertheless its impact on the modern policy process—both within and beyond the borders of the modern territorial state and in both practical and rhetorical terms— is real. This is now accepted across the analytical spectrum (see inter alia Altvater and Mankopf, 1999; Scholte, 2000; Held et al., 1999; Hurst and Thompson, 2002; Zürn, 1998, Rieger and Leibfried, 2003.) For the purposes of crafting this proposal, globalisation is seen in at least five ways: As a set of contingent sequences and processes that are becoming less hindered by Formatted: Bullets and Numbering territorial or jurisdictional barriers and that enhance the spread of multi-dimensional trans-border practices in economic, political, cultural and socio-behavioural domains via, for example, technological innovation, trade liberalisation, financial deregulation and the thickening of networks of connections in, and across, these domains. As a discourse of political knowledge offering one view of how to make the post- modern world manageable. (Higgott, 1999; Watson, 2003). For many, globalisation as knowledge constitutes a new socio-political and economic reality. This is not to describe or advocate the end of the 'nation-state' rather it is to identify the notion of globalisation as a normalising rationality of government, acting to limit what is possible and thinkable in the domain of both theory and practice. The Janus face of globalisation as ‘normalising rationality’ sees it as a site of contest for those growing sections of civil (and uncivil) global society that wish to challenge it by either peaceful or violent means (Scholte, 2003) As a gendered process that results in both an intensification and erosion of gender differences. While economic transformation promotes, indeed depends on the ‘feminization’ of the workforce’, it also exposes more women to market forces, in the process producing a similarity of experiences for some of them. Globalisation does not imply that all men are winners and all women are losers in this process. Rather, the present process and economic restructuring and the attendant changes in global governance structures produce complex and, at times, contradictory, gender relationships. They do so for three reasons: (i) the transnationalisation of production can have unequal effects on the actual living standards and working situations of men and women; (ii) globalisation is in part based on gender inequalities that in turn are embedded in existing ideologies and socio-political systems; (iii) globalisation promotes changes in existing gender relations and the sexual division of labour in both public and private arenas, provoking political dislocations and new political pressures and processes (Young, 2002 and 2003) As a revolution in information and communication technologies in the organization of the world system. The internet-economy, and fast worldwide multimedia-based communications play a crucial role in governance, regulation and deregulation systems. Internet-communities are non-state-actors acting on a world and intercultural scale next to governments and transnational companies. New possibilities for regulating social affairs in societies as well as for self-regulation are emerging from the development of virtual communities and virtual procedures (see Bislev et al., 2002). As a set of legal institutions and processes (still principally, but no longer exclusively, sponsored by nations states) that function well beyond the nation state to shape, contain or manage many, but not all, of the principal elements of globalisation. Thus globalisation denotes multi-level governance in which a continuum of institutions, from traditional actors such as the Bretton Woods institutions through to newer quasi- state and non-state actors such as the BIS and ICANN, increasingly transcend the boundaries of the state. While these key elements of globalisation lack uniformity, they appear to be moving in a secular direction over time. In so doing, they challenge traditional understandings of governance more than any systemic historical change since the Peace of Westphalia. These processes remain cast in largely gender-neutral and aggregate terms, formulated without consideration for asymmetrical relations of power based on gender. This leads to a silencing of women’s experiences, and indeed those of ethnic minorities and the aged, and thus largely forecloses strategies for inclusion in this virtual reorganization of the modern world system. Thus globalisation exacerbates the need for new understandings (both normative and analytical) of governance to cope with the challenges it throws up (see Higgott and Ougaard, 2002; Ougaard, 2002). The key problem generated by globalisation is the disjuncture between market structures and global governance structures. As understood since the time of Hobbes, interdependence and the lack of governance, when combined, make a deadly mixture. Most importantly, however defined, globalisation has become the principal metaphor around which political contest over the governance of the modern world order is being conducted. The theory and practice of globalisation and the development of regionalism (and not only in Europe) are two key drivers in the development of the contemporary global order. We are at the beginning of this process, not the end of it. The European research community needs a vehicle through which it not only stays abreast of these debates, but also provides a forum in which to shape these debates in a manner reflecting European intellectual and normative priorities and interests. This would be a principal aim of GARNET. Governance Unbound Governance, under conditions of globalisation, is no longer something to be researched in discrete contexts, with the boundary of the state determining the location at which policy issues are addressed. This is recognised in both scholarly and policy-focused literature. In addition, the importance of the link between normative and practical questions in relation to multi-level governance continues to grow. This is well recognised within the EU, particularly through its emphasis on issues of ‘open coordination’ and more generally in the contemporary debate over the role of multilateralism (see Higgott, 2003 for a review) Academics and practitioners employ the notion of governance to connote an increasingly complex set of structures and processes, both public and private, while more popular writers use it synonymously with government and to mean the practice of a set of general characteristics usually associated with national administration. This is a practice that that is no longer helpful and needs to be transcended. Governance needs to be seen more as the way in which a range of actors—individuals, institutions (public and private)—manage their common affairs and attempt to accommodate conflicting interests through processes of collective action decision making. It encompasses the activities of government, but it also includes other channels of communication and especially other prominent and emerging non-state actors. For example, market actors and business actors (such as MNCs and commercial associations) and civil society actors (such as NGOs, sector specific advocacy coalitions and social movements) are generating trans-national mechanisms of governance and networks across the range of functional policy domains, (Stone, 2004). The demand for governance has become important in the international policy community’s discussion of globalisation. This is so for at least seven reasons: The Escalating Demand for Global Governance The growing dissatisfaction with traditional models of public policy that fail to capture the shift in the relationship between state authority and market power under the impetus of globalisation, and especially the impact of the information and communications revolutions on that relationship. The increase in the need for transnational management of policy problems as interdependence across most policy domains—economic (trade and finance), security, the environment, the movements of people (refugees), weapons trafficking, labour standards, human rights, the preservation of intellectual property rights—means that solutions depend increasingly on collective action problem solving. Sovereignty, and cooperation between sovereign states, as the most traditional form of collective action problem solving, has become increasingly problematic. Sovereignty is increasingly a question of relative responsibility rather than one of absolute statist control over a specifically determined space. The methodological nationalism that underwrote much social science in the 20th century is less salient under conditions of globalisation. Major changes in national law and interaction with the international legal system are taking place. Once solely the preserve of states, private rule making is developing in many areas of the trans-national policy domain. The increasing role of multi-level governance structures, enhanced by the role and functions of issue-specific and regional agencies (and the personnel that staff these agencies) have grown dramatically. With the dramatic growth in the importance of non-traditional, non-state actors in global politics the concept of 'global governance' has become a mobilising agent for broadening and deepening understanding of activities beyond the traditional international activities of states and their agents. In short, the demand for global governance is both dramatic, complex and growing. But in key areas of the global cooperative agenda, in both the economic and the security domain, we appear at times to be witnessing a deterioration in governance capacity (see Held and McGrew, 2002). The central policy elements of a global governance agenda are to be found in the security, trade, financial and environmental domains and the various institutions, regimes and groups (state and non-state) that are the actors in these processes. A key role of the NoE will be to examine the pressures on these actors and assess the prospects for enhanced cooperation, harmonisation and coordination of policy in these key issues areas. These are questions for the theorist as much as the practitioner. Indeed, a problem with the much of the contemporary analysis of the demand for governance, beyond the confines of the state, is that it is often posed as a technical, managerial and invariably ‘economistic’ problem. This approach removes any notion of politics or ethics from it. In such a context, governance assumes the mantle of an ethically neutral activity—rather similar to the manner in which we used to understand the notion of public administration within states throughout much of the 20th century. But global governance questions resist the technocratic fix and pose major political and ethical questions about the appropriate manner in which policy is made, decisions are taken and implemented and resources are distributed Actors in this process are not ethically neutral and dispassionate actors, they are players with political agendas. This is so whether we include the relevant international institutions (UN and alliances in the security domain, the IMF or BIS in the international financial arena; the WTO, regional and bilateral institutional arrangements in the trade arena; the World Bank in the context of development; or those ever more visible non state actors (such as MNCs, NGOs, and various advocacy coalitions and global public policy networks such as the Davos Forum or the emerging counter voices to be found at the Global and European Social Forum (see Cutler et al., Higgott et al., 2000, Nayyar, 2002) Many of the tensions can be attributed to our often ill-defined notion of globalisation. In this regard, globalisation, and indeed governance, have fast become the two most overworked clichés of the early 21st century policy sciences. But, like most clichés, their overuse is the product of something ‘real’ happening. Most importantly, they are interlinked. Governance, as opposed to government would not have emerged as a concept without the growth of globalisation over the last several decades. Thus, their clichéd status notwithstanding, both concepts will become more, rather than less important as the current decade progresses. Understanding this fact demands a dramatic rethink of the paradigmatic structures that have, for far too long to our cost driven policy making in the OECD world. Most understanding of policy making emanates from narrow statist methodologies (see Stone, 2002). This must change. It will be an aim of this network to develop modes of analysis and methods of investigation that take us beyond these methodologies and broaden the analysis to include ecological sustainable, gender sensitive and human security concerns across the North-South divide and in the transition economies. But care must be taken. An interest in governance has become something of a cottage industry. This is especially the case in the search for ‘good governance’ and best practice in public life. Governance has become a synonym for problem solving. But, there is a polarisation at the core of our modern understanding of governance—between governance as accountability and representation and governance as effectiveness and efficiency. This polarisation is at the core of the theory-practice divide at the beginning of the 21st century (see Brassett and Higgott, 2004). This is recognised at all levels of governance, from the sub-state and sub-regional level, through the national and supra-national levels in Europe. It is also recognised that the boundaries of thought and action between these levels are increasingly porous. These issues are also significant within the wider global and regional contexts. Specifically something is happening to regionalism and the existing international regulatory order under conditions of globalisation. But the pattern is not constant in all areas of the world including the EC’s close neighbourhood to the east and the south. The NoE would aim to understand how developments at the global level and in other regions of the world impact on Europe and vice versa. Governance is a necessity for the smooth functioning of market-based societies. But, there is a dilemma. Institutions that make up the regulatory framework are potentially oppressive and governments potentially coercive. This is not a new observation. This situation—the essentiality of institutions for governance, but the potential for institutions to act as agents of oppression—is what Robert Keohane calls the ‘governance dilemma’ (2001). This dilemma— a question of legitimacy—can only be resolved by considering both the normative and the empirical dimensions of institutional and governance frameworks. The Governance Dilemma How do we ensure the effective and efficient delivery of governance while at the same time ensuring democratic, inclusive and accountable governance structures to the society (writ small or large) that it claims to serve? Under conditions of globalisation this is becoming an increasingly important question as the policy process transcends and outgrows the level of the nation state into seemingly more remote and less accountable institutions. Economic globalisation exacerbates the ‘democratic deficit’. Governments under conditions of globalisation, in both the developed and developing world have become increasingly obsessed with the first, empirical, understanding of governance—as enhanced effective and efficient delivery of services. This discussion has been at the expense of the second, normative understanding of governance, and the democratic and accountable nature of the institutions of governance. Questions about the legitimisation of the activities of governance beyond the territorial state are salient for both the scholar and the practitioner in the 21st century. This is especially so in the EU, where the demand for legitimation from the bottom up is higher and the capacity to act from the top down is more fragile. These questions are central to both the global policy process itself and to the outcomes of the policy process. How do emerging processes and structures of global governance provide for both efficient and socially just policy-making on the one hand, and appropriate levels of accountability of these structures and processes on the other hand? An aim of GARNET will be to attempt to restore the balance in the relationship between these two questions. Without this balance the rational, stable and harmonious development of an accountable and acceptable system of regulation at the global level will not be possible. Regionalism and the Global Regulatory Framework The concept of regionalism refers generally to the research area of regional integration, as well as the more inclusive process of regionalisation. It can, however, also refer more specifically to the ideology of regionalism; that is region building as a political project. Regionalisation implies the formation of regions, whether by region building actors or more spontaneous processes. The concept of region is used to include both sub-national regions (provinces within states) and supra-national regions (world regions or macro regions). The process of regionalisation also has structural consequences beyond the particular region in which it takes place. Transregionalism refers to institutions and organisations mediating between regions. If this occurs in a formalised way we speak of inter-regionalism (see Gamble and Payne, 1996; Hettne, et al., 1999 and 2000; Breslin et al., 2002). It is an assumption on which this network is built that the strategy of inter-regionalism followed by the EU may prove to be important in the construction of a new, possibly more balanced, world order. It is the meso regional level, between globalisation and the nation-state and especially in a European context, that most effort has been applied to the management of trans-territorial, or multi-territorial collective action problem solving. Moves toward regionally integrated problem solving have been more active in Europe than in other parts of the world. But this is not only a European phenomenon. Elsewhere, the growing linkages between different regional integration schemes, such as the FTA between the EU and Mercosur, or the development of the ASEAN Free Trade Area, for example, are evident (see Sampson and Woolcock, 2003). There is also a growing tendency to devolve competencies from state-level to more local levels in countries that are participating in integration processes. As a result, political authority and powers are becoming increasingly dispersed while economic activities are getting more and more globalised. In addition, non-state actors are also becoming increasingly involved in governance. This is not simply an academic observation. It is also replete with policy implications. We should stop thinking in terms of hierarchical layers of competence separated by the subsidiarity principle. We cannot ignore the strong tendency towards networking arrangements at all levels of governance shaping, proposing, implementing and monitoring policy together. This emerging multi-level governance calls for new ideas and practices to organise governance at local, national, regional and global levels. A European mobilisation of research centres dealing with governance, regional integration and the regulatory framework could contribute in problem-areas relevant to the development of European thinking on questions of governance and regulatory policy practice on: How to co-ordinate policies at different levels of governance with supranational or Formatted: Bullets and Numbering macro-regional organisations. How to make provision for the improved effective performance of multilateral institutions of global governance whose decision making is skewed by asymmetrical, or power influences or deadlocks—pace the contemporary UN or the WTO. How to (re) organise regional representation of, and in, supranational organisations; such as the EU in international organisations. How to understand the main drivers towards regionalisation and to monitor the Formatted: Bullets and Numbering impacts of regional integration processes in Europe and in extra European areas; especially the role of the EU governance model on developments in accession states and other near neighbours. How to understand the interface between supranational organisations, such as the UN, the OSCE, the CoE on the one hand and subregional state and local structures of governance on the other. How to understand the manner in which these actors facilitate or impede processes of democratisation, marketisation, and enlargement inclusion. How to gender mainstream these macrostructures of governance so that women and men can equally compete and maximize their benefits from the multi-level policy practices in the area of governance and regulation. While regionalisation processes can be observed throughout the world over the past decade, with an increasing diversity and complexity in these processes, it is clear that there is, to date at least, no single model of regionalisation. In Asia, Africa, and Latin America, societies are attempting to make their own choices as to the regionalisation processes that best reflect their own needs and the political commitment of the actors involved (see Van Ginkel et al., 2003). But this is not to say that there is consensus within each regional grouping as to which model best reflects actor interests. On the contrary, regionalisation processes are contested (both in practice and in the theoretical literature). What is not in dispute is the desire for collective action by societies, through forms of regional cooperation to counter the adverse, often crisis driven, effects of globalisation on the one hand, and to maximise the benefits to be gained from the processes of globalisation on the other (Shaw, 2001). But, global governance structures are not monolithic and regional governance systems display great differences in both scope and capacity to maintain order within the system. (see Armstrong et al., 2004). The European Union has developed the most sophisticated regulatory frameworks through its institutional architecture and the effective crystallisation of international trade, investment and other common policies. Other regions are developing different regulatory and governance frameworks. On closer examination, it is clear that in Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Americas the regional governance systems are all aiming towards a shared pursuit of governance systems that can be considered to be not only effective but also democratic, legitimate and inclusive (Cerrutti and Rudolph, 2001). So, where do Europe, and the European Union, fit into the system of global governance? And, more importantly, how can the European Union help to shape the global governance system, in all its complexity, towards a system that is both efficient and just—that is, one that is capable of maintaining stability, ensuring accountability, and guaranteeing the representation of all interests in the global institutions? For GARNET, these are key questions. They reflect not only the challenge of reforming the global governance system but also the need to determine Europe’s place in that reform process. The global governance system is fragmented, ineffective, and undemocratic in its decision- making. Thus there is a priority for Europe to identify its role and its responsibility in addressing these issues. This role, as events since the turn of the century tells us, is subject to the vicissitudes of politics and personality. But, difficulties notwithstanding, there are a range of reasons that make a greater role for Europe more, not less, important in the future. For example: Europe does have an integrated governance system, linking institutional structures, Formatted: Bullets and Numbering policies, legal instruments that bring together the national and supranational level of decision-making and policy-implementation. Such integration is key to the overall success of any governance system. In individual policy areas (for example, competition policy) Europe has a sophisticated regulatory framework that is unequalled at the global level. To-date, only Europe has managed to develop a competition framework based upon the adoption by each state of common standards, procedures and laws relating to competition. This is a framework that will not pass easily to the global trade community embodied in the WTO. Europe is already engaged in a web of cooperative relations with other regional groupings, based upon either formal, institutional dialogue or more informal agreements. Inter-regional cooperation has increased in both the scope and density of the agreements. Although often misunderstood, the Asia-Europe (ASEM) process, EU-Mexico, EU-Mercosur, and the Cotonou Agreements constitute examples of the increased aspirations of regional group to build a density of relations and foster trust and understanding fundamental to a global governance framework. The EU governance model relies heavily on the rule of law. The role of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) is crucial in ensuring a system that is both effective and fair at the same time. The ECJ has a key role to play in ensuring the legal provisions of the Treaty of Rome (and subsequent amending treaties) are upheld by the member state governments, the supra-national institutions, and by organisations and individuals. The ECJ is a political actor, as much as a legal one. It does not simply produce more efficient governance in Europe. Increasingly, it is the conduit through which individuals, organisations and states seek redress for infringement of their rights. Notably, the ECJ is an important agent for enhancing gender equality within and across the EU and its member states. It has become a decisive actor because it has to decide on all cases put before it and can do so by simple majority voting. The ECJ offers access to the legal system to private individuals as well as member states and the supranational institutions. It is this accessibility to the legal system that makes the ECJ distinctive from other international governance models. Contrast it with the WTO, where only states can make a complaint to the Dispute Settlement Body. If these legal principles of direct effect and supremacy were to be fully incorporated into other international agreements, and particularly in systems of global governance, there would be a radical change in the effectiveness, the capacity and the fairness of international and global governance. The EU, for all its shortcomings is a community of sovereign states that has managed Formatted: Bullets and Numbering to instil a spirit of cooperation, succeeded in showing the benefits of cooperation for its members, and proving that cooperation can be learned. Moreover, the experience of the EU has shown that cooperation need not be a zero-sum game. In essence, cooperation within the context of an international governance system produces results where the participants can perceive cooperative action as a public good. But cooperation among sovereign states, or between states and non-state actors in the establishment of a governance system is neither automatic nor easy. Successful cooperation to-date has depended on a public-sector push and an emerging supranational structure. Thus, the EU governance model is increasingly based upon the willingness of the member states to pool sovereignty in key areas, to delegate decision-making and to accept authority in matters over which they would otherwise have national autonomy. The EU has proceeded further than any other regional grouping in the establishment of a governance system based upon the principle of pooled sovereignty. The EU has evolved towards a model of governance with a degree of democratic legitimacy. Despite criticism and a literature on the democratic deficit, the EU continues to address the imbalance between the supranational and the national democratic structures. The framework of the European Convention is a reflection of the desire and responsibility to ensure democratic governance. Whatever the outcome of the Convention’s deliberations, the process of consultation followed is an important model with wider relevance for democratising global systems of governance. Europe exhibits both common and distinctive features in its national social models. European models of the welfare state face common internal and external challenges arising from accelerated globalization. Within the academic and the policy communities, the debate about European socio-economic convergence versus national diversities was recently stimulated by the “Lisbon strategy” (2000-2001) aimed at building a competitive ‘European knowledge society’ consistent with social cohesion. Such a modernization process has already had some impact on the co-ordination of national social, economic, employment, research, technology, public health and enterprise policies. They have wider implications for strengthening regional diversity in a semi-globalized world. The EU has a long experience of gender politics (dating back to Article 119 on equal pay in the Treaty of Rome). This provides a rare example of a primarily economic organisation developing a strong trasnantional social policy backed by law. More recently, the policy of “gender mainstreaming” has been adopted, with the stated aim of incorporating gender awareness in all aspects of EU policy making and increasing the representation of women in key forums. These measures have been complementend by provisions to combat discrimination on grounds of race, ethnicity, age and other forms of disadvantage. These developments, and the networking and bargaining surrounding them, provide many lessons for regional and global governance. The European Union has emerged as a major actor in the world economy, with a developed and coherent set of economic policies. However, it is not so successful a global political actor. For the EU to be taken seriously in the international arena, and to exert influence in the international institutions that currently form the global governance system, it needs a regional political identity as an effective and legitimate actor able to represent the interests of all member states. But finding legitimacy among its citizens and in public discourse within the EU on the one hand, and among the actors and institutions of global governance on the other has proved difficult and events can and do derail these processes (see Reuber and Wolkersdorf, 2002). The European Union has built up a dense web of cooperative relations with countries Formatted: Bullets and Numbering and regions in other parts of the world. These form a set of bilateral and multilateral relations linked to trade, aid, investment and other forms of development cooperation. Determined by historical, political and geographical factors, these links demonstrate distinctive priorities, value systems and normative considerations in the negotiation processes and decision-making frameworks, all of which shape the European approach to reform of the global governance system. In an era of often conflicting cultures and intellectual traditions that shape the norms, values and priorities of the leading states in the global system, these differences will be reflected in particular visions of what should constitute a global governance system. The differences extend also to the scope of authority that should be vested in the global regulatory authority, the legal basis upon which authority is free to act, and the nature of its legitimacy with relevant stakeholders. European experience and EU scholarship can make a serious theoretical contribution to the emerging notion of sovereignty. European approaches to governance have developed flexible and multidimensional concepts of sovereignty in the international system. These ideas of sovereignty contrast with the often bounded, state- based/intergovernmental characterisations of sovereignty and international relations as understood by most US practice and scholarship. In a situation of global integration requiring innovation in patterns of governance, it remains important to make an intellectual leap to overcome these more bounded notions of sovereignty. This may be characterised as the “sovereignty trap.” While states have done much to develop democracy and social justice in the advanced economies, the limits of national governance, and of the concepts on which it is based, appear clear in regional and global integration processes. This is especially the case where sovereign capacity is much reduced and attempts at co-operative solutions in a context of sovereign equality often appear unnecessarily zero-sum in nature. The repressive potential of the state remains considerable because of the dynamics of security dilemmas and international competition. We need to escape from a bounded notion of sovereignty and narrow definitions of security and state-interest if the global integration process is deliver better governance. Central to overcoming these limitations must be the recognition that sovereignty can be disaggregated and redistributed across institutional levels from the local to the global. There are examples from EU experience, including the introduction of the single currency, which provide us with a practical example of the ‘division’ of sovereignty. Further cases of a similar nature are likely to develop in due course. It is little wonder that EU scholars put so much emphasis on multi-level models of governance, in contrast to the strict inter-governmentalism of theorising on the other side of the Atlantic. Summary In sum, global governance is not a monolithic concept. The institutions of global governance are many and varied and the scope of the regulatory frameworks differs significantly across issue areas. In some cases the legal provisions are strong, in others law plays an insignificant or no role at all. For example, what has been achieved in terms of the global regulation of trade is very different to what is, or what might be achieved with regard to the development of regulatory systems for policy areas such as the environment, health, or migration. Moreover, the power of individual actors in policy areas cannot be gainsaid. Notwithstanding the rhetoric of multilateralism in global governance studies, as recent history shows us, unilateralism remains a massive factor. Finding improvements and identifying reforms that will make the various components of the system more effective as well as more democratic demands a sustained and multi-faceted programme of enquiry, one that must necessarily be based upon a coherent and coordinated multidisciplinary study. Both for the sake of its internal coherence, and its credibility as an international political actor, the EU must take on a major share of the responsibility for advancing the theory and practice of global governance. Wherever possible this should be done as part of a cooperative endeavour with the world’s other major economic and political powers. As contemporary experience attests, this may be difficult, but there is no reason for Europe not to attempt to carry forward this important discussion. It would be a central element of the mission of GARNET to carry forward the intellectual conversation on the development of a better understanding of global governance and the role of the EU in particular and Europe ingeneral in that process. GARNET would be harnessed to coordinate the best of European social science on these issues, and in such a way that recognises not only the theoretical importance of the questions concerned for the scholar, but also the massive policy shadow that they cast for the wider European policy community. B.1.2 List of the parties involved in the project The network objectives require research skills in many fields. These skills must be both disciplinary and cross-disciplinary. The network also requires sound methodological skills in order to conduct comparative, prospective and policy-relevant studies across a range of issue areas. No single research centre in Europe can deliver all the above skills and competences. Hence the need to bring together a network of research centres in Europe and beyond. The partners in the bid reflect some of the very best of European scholarship in many disciplines: political science, economics, international relations, law, sociology, geography, communication and media studies, psychology, business studies and other cognate disciplines with cross disciplinary and multi-disciplinary strengths in area studies, the political economy of regional integration, cultural identity, globalisation, governance, conflict resolution, feminist political economics and gender studies. Characteristics of Partners No NoE can include all members of a continental scholarly community. But it is an aim of GARNET to be as inclusive as possible in its efforts to bring together many of the very best researchers working in the areas of globalisation and multi-level governance issues in Europe. But it is also GARNET’s aim to bring newer, less well-established members, in to this Consortium as part of the wider process of consolidating a Europe-wide research community in this area. The principal characteristics of the all the largest, and established, partners are sevenfold: All are research centres, or groups of researchers, whose research focus is on the extra- Formatted: Bullets and Numbering national or trans-state dimensions of contemporary social science research in general and the study of key elements of globalisation and governance in particular. All groups and centres are recognised as leaders in their national research communities with extensive international relationships and contexts. All groups and centres have a proven track record for delivering high quality, internationally recognised, research and/or policy focused analysis in the various areas of the study of globalisation, regionalisation and governance. All groups exhibit a strong multi-disciplinarity (especially political science, economics, law, sociology and business studies) in the composition of their research staff. Many of the centres have core research funding from their respective national research councils (ESRC, CNRS, FNRS, CNR etc) and from foundations such as Ford, MacArthur, Soros, and Rowntree, the Volkswagon Stiftung, Thyssen Stiftung, Fondazione Agnelli, the Japan Foundation, the Asia Europe Foundation, and many others. Many have also received funding from the EC such as TSER and Marie Curie awards. Many of the centres have strong track records of consultancy and policy advice to governments, inter-governmental, international organisations and/or non-state actors engaged in work on central elements of the trans-territorial policy processes A final strength of the major partners to the bid is that all of them have large networks of extra European partners in all other major regions of the world. While the bid is crafted around the European partners, it is the intention of this network that all its activities should be open to scholars and practitioners from other regions of the world working in similar areas. Indeed, we already have an extensive network of extra-European partners who are aware of our activities and would be keen to participate in the consolidation of the network over the next few years.
Pages to are hidden for
"Universit�t M�nster DP rof"Please download to view full document