Published this month, The Oxford Handbook of Global Policy and Transnational Administration, co-edited by Diane Stone and Kim Moloney with OUP: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-global-policy-and-transnational-administration-9780198758648?cc=au&lang=en&
Diane Stone has also published an article on International Crisis Group: Stone, D. (2019). Transnational policy entrepreneurs and the cultivation of influence: individuals, organizations and their networks. Globalizations, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2019.1567976
Tom Long published a new article in the November issue of International Affairs. His piece, "Latin America and the liberal international order: an agenda for research", explores why the region has played a marginal role in this burgeoning IR debate—and what serious engagement with the region could add to both critical and supportive accounts of liberal international order (LIO). The article argues that, "The LIO has shaped Latin America, and Latin America has shaped the LIO—but not always in the ways supporters or critics might expect."
The article is available here: https://academic.oup.com/ia/article-abstract/94/6/1371/5162441
Ben Clift has recently been interviewed by the New Books Network about his latest monograph on the IMF.
A podcast of Ben's interview is available here:- http://newbooksnetwork.com/ben-clift-the-imf-and-the-politics-of-austerity-in-the-wake-of-the-global-financial-crisis-by-ben-clift-oxford-up-2018/
The IMF and the Politics of Austerity in the Wake of the Global Financial Crisis by Ben Clift (Oxford University Press, 2018) provides the first comprehensive analysis of major shifts in IMF fiscal policy thinking as a consequence of the great financial crisis and the Eurozone debt crisis. It widely presents the IMF’s role in the politics of austerity. The book also offers an innovative theory specifying four mechanisms of IMF ideational change – reconciliation, operationalization, corroboration, and authoritative recognition. It combines in-depth content analysis of the Fund’s vast intellectual production with extensive interviews with IMF economists and management.
New research published in the European Journal of International Relations – one of the leading journals in the field of political science and international relations – by researchers from the Global Benchmarking Project within the Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation (CSGR) has highlighted the problems of ‘bad science’ that are inherent in prominent country ratings and rankings produced by international organisations such as the World Bank and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Benchmarks now pervade many aspects of everyday life in a growing number of countries, including the UK, and risk distorting processes of performance assessment and the strategic priorities pursued by leaders and managers in sectors ranging from healthcare to aid spending to university teaching and research. The Global Benchmarking Project has catalogued 275 instances of global benchmarks that aim to comparatively assess national performance in world politics, which risk distorting policymaking and political priorities at the global level and how national governments set official objectives and evaluate progress relative to their peers.
In this new article, written by André Broome, Alexandra Homolar, and Matthias Kranke, the authors demonstrate how global benchmarking by international organisations is a significant source of indirect power in world politics, and argue that the use of benchmarking to alter how political actors understand best practices, advocate policy changes, and attribute political responsibility constitutes ‘bad science’, which nonetheless enjoys a significant degree of legitimacy as a result of these organisations’ expert status.
An OnlineFirst version of the article is available to download on an open access basis:
André Broome, Alexandra Homolar, and Matthias Kranke. Bad Science: International Organizations and the Indirect Power of Global Benchmarking. Forthcoming in the European Journal of International Relations.
On July 3-4 Dr André Broome participated in an Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) workshop in Kyrgyzstan.
Organised by the OSCE Academy in Bishkek in cooperation with the University Paris 13 (Paris), the American University of Central Asia (AUCA, Bishkek) and the French Institute for Central Asian Studies (IFEAC, Bishkek) within the framework of the research project GLOBALCONTEST funded by the French National Research Agency (ANR), the workshop gathered high profile academics and experienced practitioners from the region and beyond working on international organizations and global governance questions.
Dr Broome spoke on the opening panel of the workshop on the topic of ‘Contesting Transnational Policy Paradigms: Conditionality, Capacity Building, and Global Benchmarking in Central Asia’, when he presented new research from the Global Benchmarking Project within the Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation on the methodological flaws and political distortions inherent in country ratings and rankings and how these have been applied to countries in Central Asia.
An extended analysis of the politics and pathologies of global benchmarking by international organisations can be found in a new research paper co-authored with Alexandra Homolar and Matthias Kranke : 'Bad Science: International Organizations and the Indirect Power of Global Benchmarking'. The paper will be published in 2018 in the European Journal of International Relations. View the pre-print version at: http://warwick.ac.uk/globalbenchmarking/bad-science.pdf