Docstoc

A short presentation of Garnet - UNIGE - Accueil

Document Sample
A short presentation of Garnet - UNIGE - Accueil Powered By Docstoc
					                  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                       richard.higgott@warwick.ac.uk



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 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
               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
             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.

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
              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
        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
        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,
         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
    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
    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-
        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.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:14
posted:3/24/2010
language:English
pages:16