The dynamics of informal institutions and counter-hegemony: introducing a BRICS Convergence Index

IF 2.7 1区 社会学 Q1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
M. Papa, Zhen Han, Frank Anon
{"title":"The dynamics of informal institutions and counter-hegemony: introducing a BRICS Convergence Index","authors":"M. Papa, Zhen Han, Frank Anon","doi":"10.1177/13540661231183352","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Informal institutions are important platforms for renegotiating global governance, but there is disagreement on how they operate and challenge the United States (US). Realists view some informal institutions like Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) as counter-hegemonic entities, while rational institutionalists focus on their structure and performance in specific areas. However, neither approach explains the internal dynamics that make these institutions robust and potentially counter-hegemonic. To fill this gap, we first develop a new convergence approach for analysing informal institutional dynamics, and then we apply this approach to examine BRICS robustness and BRICS–US relations. Our BRICS Convergence Index measures policy convergence of the BRICS states using a novel data set of BRICS cooperation on 47 policy issues between 2009 and 2021. Using data on US policy preferences on the same issues, we also identify the key sites of BRICS–US contestation. We find an overall increase in BRICS policy convergence and limited divergence from US preferences across a wide range of policy issues. However, since BRICS has engaged with more security issues after 2015 and substantively deepened its cooperation, its capability to counter US influence has grown. Our convergence-focused analysis of informal institutions embraces members’ agency and pathways for institution building, while identifying the issues that bind rival countries. As such, it helps explain how informal institutions gain robustness and provides empirical insights into the rise of new powers and global governance reform efforts.","PeriodicalId":48069,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of International Relations","volume":"81 1","pages":"960 - 989"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of International Relations","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13540661231183352","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Informal institutions are important platforms for renegotiating global governance, but there is disagreement on how they operate and challenge the United States (US). Realists view some informal institutions like Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) as counter-hegemonic entities, while rational institutionalists focus on their structure and performance in specific areas. However, neither approach explains the internal dynamics that make these institutions robust and potentially counter-hegemonic. To fill this gap, we first develop a new convergence approach for analysing informal institutional dynamics, and then we apply this approach to examine BRICS robustness and BRICS–US relations. Our BRICS Convergence Index measures policy convergence of the BRICS states using a novel data set of BRICS cooperation on 47 policy issues between 2009 and 2021. Using data on US policy preferences on the same issues, we also identify the key sites of BRICS–US contestation. We find an overall increase in BRICS policy convergence and limited divergence from US preferences across a wide range of policy issues. However, since BRICS has engaged with more security issues after 2015 and substantively deepened its cooperation, its capability to counter US influence has grown. Our convergence-focused analysis of informal institutions embraces members’ agency and pathways for institution building, while identifying the issues that bind rival countries. As such, it helps explain how informal institutions gain robustness and provides empirical insights into the rise of new powers and global governance reform efforts.
非正式机构的动态与反霸权:引入金砖国家趋同指数
非正式机构是重新谈判全球治理的重要平台,但在它们如何运作和挑战美国(US)的问题上存在分歧。现实主义者将巴西、俄罗斯、印度、中国和南非(金砖国家)等一些非正式机构视为反霸权实体,而理性制度主义者则关注它们的结构和在特定领域的表现。然而,这两种方法都无法解释使这些机构强大并具有潜在反霸权作用的内部动力。为了填补这一空白,我们首先开发了一种分析非正式制度动态的新趋同方法,然后运用这种方法研究金砖国家的稳健性和金砖国家与美国的关系。我们的 "金砖国家趋同指数 "利用 2009 年至 2021 年间金砖国家在 47 个政策问题上合作的新数据集来衡量金砖国家的政策趋同性。利用美国在相同问题上的政策偏好数据,我们还确定了金砖国家与美国竞争的关键点。我们发现,在广泛的政策问题上,金砖国家的政策趋同性总体增强,与美国政策偏好的分歧有限。然而,由于金砖国家在 2015 年后参与了更多的安全问题,并实质性地深化了合作,其对抗美国影响的能力也随之增强。我们对非正式机构进行的以趋同为重点的分析,包含了成员的机构和机构建设的途径,同时明确了约束对手国家的问题。因此,它有助于解释非正式机构如何获得稳健性,并为新兴大国的崛起和全球治理改革努力提供经验性见解。
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
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
8.80%
发文量
44
期刊介绍: The European Journal of International Relations publishes peer-reviewed scholarly contributions across the full breadth of the field of International Relations, from cutting edge theoretical debates to topics of contemporary and historical interest to scholars and practitioners in the IR community. The journal eschews adherence to any particular school or approach, nor is it either predisposed or restricted to any particular methodology. Theoretically aware empirical analysis and conceptual innovation forms the core of the journal’s dissemination of International Relations scholarship throughout the global academic community. In keeping with its European roots, this includes a commitment to underlying philosophical and normative issues relevant to the field, as well as interaction with related disciplines in the social sciences and humanities. This theoretical and methodological openness aims to produce a European journal with global impact, fostering broad awareness and innovation in a dynamic discipline. Adherence to this broad mandate has underpinned the journal’s emergence as a major and independent worldwide voice across the sub-fields of International Relations scholarship. The Editors embrace and are committed to further developing this inheritance. Above all the journal aims to achieve a representative balance across the diversity of the field and to promote deeper understanding of the rapidly-changing world around us. This includes an active and on-going commitment to facilitating dialogue with the study of global politics in the social sciences and beyond, among others international history, international law, international and development economics, and political/economic geography. The EJIR warmly embraces genuinely interdisciplinary scholarship that actively engages with the broad debates taking place across the contemporary field of international relations.
×
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