Search

Begin New Search Political Geography Global Focus Publication Year within 5 Years

1011. The Erroneous Foundations of Law and Economics

Author:
Mark Glick and Gabriel A. Lozada
Publication Date:
02-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET)
Abstract:
The fundamental originating principle of law and economics (L&E) is that legal decisions should be (and are) based on maximizing efficiency. But L&E proponents do not define “efficiency” in the way agreed to by most economists, as Pareto Efficiency. A Pareto optimal condition is obtained when no one can be made better off without making someone worse off. Pareto Improvements are win-win changes where no losers exist. In the judicial system, however, there are always winners and losers, because under Article III § 2 of the Constitution a legal case does not exist unless there is a justiciable “case or controversy” in need of resolution. Unable to use Pareto Efficiency, L&E scholars have been forced to adopt alternative definitions of efficiency. Most L&E scholars claim to define “efficiency” based on the work of Kaldor and Hicks, but (perhaps unwittingly) instead use a definition of “efficiency” derived from the 19th century idea of consumer surplus, which encompasses L&E notions such as “wealth maximization,” and “consumer welfare” in antitrust. Neither of these alternative definitions is viable, however. Outside of L&E, the Kaldor-Hicks approach has long been recognized to be riddled with logical inconsistencies and ethical failures, and the surplus approach is even more deficient. Remarkably, virtually none of the numerous L&E textbooks even hint at such problems. Critically, all definitions of efficiency improvements in economics are biased in favor of wealthy individuals or firms, either because they are dependent on the status quo ante distribution of assets, or because they bestow large advantages on parties with political influence or who can afford to bring lawsuits quickly. Many L&E practitioners treat efficiency improvements instead as being objectively good, an error revealing that L&E is primarily motivated by its neoliberal policy agenda.
Topic:
Economics, Law, Neoliberalism, and Efficiency
Political Geography:
Global Focus

1012. How the United States Can Support Nascent Political Parties

Author:
Patrick Quirk and Jan Surotchak
Publication Date:
05-2021
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Council on International Policy (CIP)
Abstract:
Supporting democracy and human rights overseas is front and center in the Biden administration’s foreign policy. The White House has committed to hold a “summit for democracy” this year, vocally condemned human rights abuses by China, and called for budget increases in foreign assistance and diplomacy critical to execute its democracy agenda abroad. As the Biden team designs this agenda, it will take stock of existing democracy assistance approaches and toolkits to make sure they address the current landscape of threats (i.e., a rise in Russian and Chinese malign influence) and changing needs of democracy partners on the ground (i.e., training on new technology). One area that is in desperate need of an update is how the U.S. helps strengthen political parties abroad, something it has done since the 1980s. The U.S. approach to supporting parties has not kept pace with the evolution of these organizations over the last ten years. Increasingly, political parties are taking novel forms that arise from so called “people power” movements and often focus more on mobilizing voters than formulating policy. One of the four most common types of parties today are those that emerge from mass protest movements and widespread latent dissatisfaction with traditional parties. Examples include the Five Star Movement in Italy, the Union to Save Romania, the New Conservative Party in Latvia, and Semilla in Guatemala. Getting support to this party type ‘right’ is important because many of the countries where these entities are emerging matter for U.S. interests. In both the Czech Republic and Slovakia – NATO allies on the front line of countering Russian and Chinese influence – new, anti-establishment parties are running the government, as traditional parties have struggled with accusations of corruption and failure to meet citizen needs. In Mexico and Brazil, both major strategic partners of the United States, emergent political organizations have taken power. In Iraq, citizens protesting government corruption and inefficiencies have formed several new parties to contest the October 2021 elections and challenge the political establishment. Yet in these and other contexts, the United States lacks an approach to structure its support of such nascent parties. Here, we outline recommendations for selecting which parties to support and then a framework to maximize effectiveness of U.S. assistance to them.
Topic:
Human Rights, International Cooperation, Democracy, Political Parties, Influence, and Partisanship
Political Geography:
North America, Global Focus, and United States of America

1013. Solidarity during Covid-19 at national, regional and global levels: An enabler for improved global pandemic security and governance

Author:
Mika Aaltola, Johanna Ketola, Karoliina Vaakanainen, and Aada Peltonen
Publication Date:
05-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Finnish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
Solidarity has become a global and regional buzzword in the fght against Covid-19. As a result of the unequal and shifting disease burden and resource scarcity among countries, solidarity has manifested itself in various forms depending on the national and regional contexts and disease situations. Politicians worldwide have called for solidarity, which has taken many shapes and forms. At the nation- al and sub-national level, Covid-19 has prompted calls for communal solidarity. Solidarity, at the EU level, has often been used as a synonym for intra-EU coordination and assistance between member states as well as safe- guarding the welfare of EU citizens. In the global arena, UN and WHO leadership has been pushing for global sol- idarity to highlight the global nature and scope of the crisis, simultaneously alluding to the uneven distribu- tion of vaccines and the embedded systemic injustices in global health governance. Tis mosaic of solidarities difers from the normative ideal. In this Briefng Paper, we explore the diferent types of pandemic solidarities to understand the political dis- course during the frst year of the Covid-19 pandemic. We analyze the solidarity rhetoric of the high political leadership as well as key solidarity initiatives at three diferent governance levels: global (UN), regional (EU), and national (case Finland) to see how solidarity has been defned, in which context, and to what ends. Compared to other types of emergencies, pandemics are in a league of their own. One key characteristic of a pandemic emergency is the anxiety connected to the processes of contagion, infection, and spread. As the term ‘pandemic’ signifes, the frst line of defence at the local level has failed, as happened in the initial stage of Covid-19. Whereas natural catastrophes are usually lo- cally contained without additional concerns stemming from the fear of spread, pandemics are, to a degree, an- ti-humanitarian by their very nature. Tey usually lead to a knee-jerk reaction to step back and bufer oneself to prevent the harm from spreading.1 From this per- spective, pandemic solidarity is far more limited and qualitatively diferent. Instead of compassion for distant. others, a nearest-and-dearest approach can ensue. Tis Briefng Paper argues that lower levels of soli- darity should act as enablers for better pandemic gov- ernance at the global level. Until now, the impact of na- tional and regional solidarity has been relatively bleak. Calls for solidarity can act as empty signifers or merely as political rhetoric that is not tied to any concrete efort or action. To shed light on the meanings of solidarity, it is important to identify and distinguish the operative nature of solidarity, or lack thereof, in various contexts.
Topic:
Security, International Cooperation, Governance, Public Health, Pandemic, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Global Focus

1014. Protecting the Environment During Armed Conflict: From Principles to Implementation

Author:
Emma Hakala
Publication Date:
05-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Finnish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
Conflict-related damage to the environment has become widespread and causes sustained harm to public health, ecosystems, and peacebuilding. The International Law Commission (ILC) will finalize its work on new principles for the protection of the environment in relation to armed conflict (the PERAC principles) in 2022. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) published an updated iteration of its Guidelines on the Protection of the Natural Environment in Armed Conflict in 2020. International momentum is gathering for states to implement these frameworks. However, independent mechanisms to monitor the implementation are currently lacking. The international community and civil society actors need to ensure transparent monitoring mechanisms that enable stakeholders to pressure states into compliance.
Topic:
Environment, International Cooperation, Conflict, Peace, and Public Health
Political Geography:
Global Focus

1015. Covid-19 Effects on Peace and Conflict Dynamics: The Need for Prevention Prevails

Author:
Katariina Mustasilta
Publication Date:
05-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Finnish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
Armed conflicts around the world have continued largely unabated, irrespective of the global pandemic. Despite influencing conflict-affected contexts, the pandemic has not (thus far) been a gamechanger regarding conflicts. Both non-state and state actors have tried to seize opportunities stemming from the pandemic measures for their own benefit. This, along with changes in the footprint of peacebuilding efforts, has threatened human security. In the long term, socioeconomic repercussions of the pandemic pose the gravest threats to peace. The socioeconomic fallout can induce conflict by undermining the social contract and social cohesion, particularly in contexts with conflict legacies, deep inequalities, and high external economic dependencies. The EU has multiple tools that it can deploy in its external action to mitigate the conflict-inducing repercussions of the pandemic. Taking preventive action requires a long-term perspective, even amidst the unfolding crisis.
Topic:
Inequality, Conflict, Peace, Public Health, Pandemic, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Global Focus

1016. Recognizing ‘Geoeconomic Risk’: Rethinking Corporate Risk Management for the era of Great-Power Competition

Author:
Christian Fjader, Niklas Helwig, and Mikael Wigell
Publication Date:
06-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Finnish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
As economic policy has become a key strategic means in great-power rivalry, states are attempting to control the economic networks that connect the world. By instrumentalizing businesses they change the risk picture for both public and private companies. The securitization of the economy entails a first source of new risk as states attempt to strengthen their control of companies in sectors considered strategic and security-sensitive. Another source of risk stems from the balkanization of the global economy, whereby it would disintegrate into separate spheres of economies decoupled from each other. The competition for control of the global standard-setting regimes constitutes an emerging area of such risk. A final source of risk is the weaponization that accelerates the use of sanctions and export controls. It entails more barriers for companies and puts pressure on the rules-based international system. A novel concept of ‘geoeconomic risk’ is therefore needed to identify, assess and mitigate these new uncertainties associated with the repurposing of the global economy.
Topic:
Security, Sanctions, Conflict, Economic Development, and Rivalry
Political Geography:
Global Focus

1017. Looking Beyond England: Slavery, Settler Colonialism and the Development of Industrial Capitalism

Author:
Paula Reisdorf
Publication Date:
06-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for Global Political Economy, University of Sussex
Abstract:
This paper examines the debates surrounding industrial capitalism’s origins, critiquing the Eurocentrism in the Political Marxist approach. Instead, using a dialectical framework, I argue that the transition from agrarian to industrial capitalism in Britain required the existence of slavery and settler colonialism in the New World. The reason for this is threefold: Firstly, the removal of surplus populations either to colonies or domestically by employing them in colony- related industries was necessary to avoid stagnation in capitalist development. Secondly, the cheapening of basic commodities leading to a reduction in wages (i.e. relative surplus value extraction) in Britain necessitated enslaved labour in the New World. Thirdly, British industrialisation itself required settler colonialism and slavery because of: 1) the importation of slave-produced raw materials that were manufactured in Britain, 2) the exportation of manufactured products to settler colonies in the Americas, 3) the investment into industry by slaveowners and 4) the credit provision by banks that were tightly linked to the slave trade. I, therefore, conclude by suggesting that taking seriously the links between capitalism and slavery/colonialism could unify post-colonialism and Marxism by demonstrating the interconnectedness between post-colonialism’s principal object of analysis – colonialism – and Marxism’s main object of analysis – capitalism.
Topic:
Post Colonialism, Socialism/Marxism, Capitalism, Slavery, Colonialism, Settler Colonialism, and Eurocentrism
Political Geography:
Britain and Global Focus

1018. Climate of cooperation: How the EU can help deliver a green grand bargain

Author:
Alex Clark, Susi Dennison, and Mats Engström
Publication Date:
10-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR)
Abstract:
The global transition away from carbon will fundamentally alter the EU’s dependencies on energy, raw materials, and new technologies. The bloc needs to manage these dependencies while maintaining the fragile consensus between member states on the European Green Deal and fulfilling its ambitions for global climate leadership. The EU should help deliver a green grand bargain by making use of all its sources of economic, multilateral, and soft power. The bloc should reframe the international debate on energy security to focus on clean energy resources and efficiency, engaging in the market reforms needed to incentivise this shift. The EU should make every effort to reassure countries in the global south that the green transition will not leave them behind. The Global Gateway provides a strong framework for doing this – as would an EU Co-innovation and Green Tech Diffusion Fund. The EU also needs to place European sovereignty at the centre of its internal narrative on the European Green Deal. This could help win support for the agreement from member states that are concerned about the economic and social effects of the green transition.
Topic:
Climate Change, Development, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Science and Technology, European Union, Partnerships, Multilateralism, and Trade
Political Geography:
Europe and Global Focus

1019. Will Only a Green Power Remain a Great Power?

Author:
Marie Dejonghe
Publication Date:
05-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
EGMONT - The Royal Institute for International Relations
Abstract:
When the coronavirus broke out in 2020 the whole world literally came to a pause. The pandemic overshadowed all other major problems and started to shape relations between states. Climate change suddenly disappeared from the international agenda. However, the effects of the global climate crisis are showing faster and more severely than ever before: wildfires in Australia, extreme weather events in Asia, tornado’s in America, a melting Arctic... Secondary effects like climate migration and conflicts have become visible as well. This crisis is more urgent than ever. The COVID-19 crisis has shattered our economies, but lockdown measures taken by almost all governments have had a positive impact on the emission of greenhouse gases. The world took a step forward, even if unintended, towards the goals set in Paris in 2015. COVID-19 has taken away a lot from the world, but it may also have created a momentum to continue this downward trend and make it structural. Even the world’s great powers will have to integrate the green transition in their COVID-19 economy recovery plans in order to not fall off the wagon. But will only a green great power remain a great power?
Topic:
Climate Change, Energy Policy, Environment, Green Technology, Pandemic, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Global Focus

1020. Developments in the Field of Transitional Justice

Author:
Valerie Arnould
Publication Date:
06-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
EGMONT - The Royal Institute for International Relations
Abstract:
For a long time, transitional justice has been described as a ‘nascent’ or ‘emerging’ field. While it is true that transitional justice is a youngish concept and praxis (emerging in the late 1980s), today it has definitely grown out of its infancy and moved into an age of consolidation. It is undeniable that transitional justice has developed into a dynamic field of research and practice. At the same time, it remains a highly contested field that is subject to heated debates about the precise nature, scope, legitimacy and effectiveness of the ‘transitional justice project’. Here, I reflect on five notable developments that have marked the transitional justice field over the past decade.
Topic:
Transitional Justice, Legitimacy, Academia, and Transition
Political Geography:
Global Focus