What Came Before

{"title":"What Came Before","authors":"","doi":"10.14321/j.ctv75d8bx.29","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and various donor organizations have introduced a multitude of new policies over the past decade and a half. There is a significant difference, however, between identifying a list of policy changes, and defining them as a series of new governance strategies and as a shift in the overall style of global governance. Since these claims are central to this book, it is necessary to spend some time establishing how these new governances strategies differ from their predecessors. As I discussed in the last chapter, governance strategies are ways of defining and managing particular kinds of problems. Institutional actors often develop new strategies in the context of debates about perceived failures, such as World Bank President Robert McNamara's claims of the failure of trickle-down development in the late 1960s, mainstream Bank economists' assertions of the failure of McNamara's targeted poverty reduction efforts in the early 1980s, or more recent arguments from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and economists about the failure of orthodox aid efforts in the 1990s. While these contested failures have things in common – they are all partly defined as failures of expertise – the kinds of responses developed have varied considerably. All govern-ance strategies are thus designed at one level to resolve some of the dilemmas of expert authority. At the same time, each also seeks to respond to a particular problem or challenge. Each of the strategies I examine in this book both defines and seeks to respond to a certain problem of governance. Fostering country ownership is one way of addressing domestic politics and variation between local contexts. Developing global standards is a means of defining and applying a set of universal principles, which international organizations (IOs) can draw on to justify their actions. Efforts to manage risk and vulnerability are a new way of grappling with the perennial challenge of responding to the unknowns of global governance. Results measurement , finally, is one more approach to the institutional imperative to measure and evaluate policy practices.","PeriodicalId":238967,"journal":{"name":"Native Species","volume":"56 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Native Species","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14321/j.ctv75d8bx.29","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and various donor organizations have introduced a multitude of new policies over the past decade and a half. There is a significant difference, however, between identifying a list of policy changes, and defining them as a series of new governance strategies and as a shift in the overall style of global governance. Since these claims are central to this book, it is necessary to spend some time establishing how these new governances strategies differ from their predecessors. As I discussed in the last chapter, governance strategies are ways of defining and managing particular kinds of problems. Institutional actors often develop new strategies in the context of debates about perceived failures, such as World Bank President Robert McNamara's claims of the failure of trickle-down development in the late 1960s, mainstream Bank economists' assertions of the failure of McNamara's targeted poverty reduction efforts in the early 1980s, or more recent arguments from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and economists about the failure of orthodox aid efforts in the 1990s. While these contested failures have things in common – they are all partly defined as failures of expertise – the kinds of responses developed have varied considerably. All govern-ance strategies are thus designed at one level to resolve some of the dilemmas of expert authority. At the same time, each also seeks to respond to a particular problem or challenge. Each of the strategies I examine in this book both defines and seeks to respond to a certain problem of governance. Fostering country ownership is one way of addressing domestic politics and variation between local contexts. Developing global standards is a means of defining and applying a set of universal principles, which international organizations (IOs) can draw on to justify their actions. Efforts to manage risk and vulnerability are a new way of grappling with the perennial challenge of responding to the unknowns of global governance. Results measurement , finally, is one more approach to the institutional imperative to measure and evaluate policy practices.
过去的事
国际货币基金组织(IMF)、世界银行和各种捐助组织在过去15年里推出了许多新政策。然而,在确定一系列政策变化与将其定义为一系列新的治理战略和全球治理总体风格的转变之间存在显著差异。由于这些主张是本书的核心,因此有必要花一些时间来确定这些新的治理策略与它们的前辈有何不同。正如我在上一章中所讨论的,治理策略是定义和管理特定类型问题的方法。机构参与者经常在关于失败的辩论背景下制定新的战略,例如世界银行行长罗伯特·麦克纳马拉在20世纪60年代末声称涓滴式发展失败,主流银行经济学家断言麦克纳马拉在20世纪80年代初的目标减贫努力失败,或者非政府组织(ngo)和经济学家最近关于20世纪90年代正统援助努力失败的论点。尽管这些有争议的失败有一些共同点——它们都被部分地定义为专业知识的失败——但人们做出的反应却大相径庭。因此,所有治理策略都是在一个层面上设计的,以解决专家权威的一些困境。与此同时,每个人也寻求对一个特定的问题或挑战作出反应。我在本书中考察的每一种策略都定义并试图回应某个治理问题。培养国家所有权是解决国内政治和地方背景差异的一种方式。制定全球标准是定义和应用一套普遍原则的一种手段,国际组织可以利用这些原则来证明其行动的合理性。努力管理风险和脆弱性是应对应对全球治理未知问题这一长期挑战的一种新方式。最后,衡量结果是衡量和评估政策实践的制度性必要性的另一种方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信