| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
190213
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Global governance has been widely embraced as an object of analysis and as a way of “seeing” world politics. Yet we still know little about how publishing has evolved. This article presents the first systematic exploration of these patterns. It uses an original dataset of global governance research to answer three first-order questions: How has publishing varied over time? What issues have scholars focused on? And who has been publishing in the field? The authors found that research has grown and become increasingly diverse—but selectively so. Some marginalized issues feature more prominently than in the rest of international relations, but there are blind spots too. Further, while research is less American and women have been comparatively more active relative to other areas, geographical diversity remains extremely limited. Scholars based in the Global South have been the first authors of less than 14 percent of all publications. To conclude, the article reflects on implications for the field.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
193109
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
We present a new dataset of membership in informal international organizations—IOs founded with non-binding instruments—which constitute one-third of operating IOs. We introduce state-IO-year–level membership data for 195 countries that complements the dataset on formal IOs from the Correlates of War Project. We explain our conceptualization of an informal IO, contrast it with other approaches, and detail the data collection process. We illustrate similarities and differences across formal and informal IOs, and across states and regions. We explain how our data validate or challenge conjectures about informal cooperation that have been inaccessible for lack of data. We demonstrate that while formal and informal IOs are similar in size, the composition of informal memberships in informal IOs is more fragmented. While informal IOs are a growing part of the governance portfolios of most states, some countries and regions participate more. We conclude by outlining elements of the research program our dataset unlocks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
148674
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article surveys the literature on transnational governance (TNG) and makes the case that the field of international relations (IR) is underestimating its scholarly value. Three main charges are commonly leveled at TNG scholarship, which broadly analyzes the importance for global governance of rules and rulemaking to coordinate nonstate actors across borders: (1) That TNG scholarship is too descriptive and nontheoretical; (2) that TNG research lacks methodological rigor, and thus its claims and conclusions are unreliable; and (3) that TNG itself is peripheral to what really matters for understanding the power dynamics of world politics. These criticisms seemed largely true for much of the early TNG scholarship from the 1970s to the 1990s. Yet, as the authors argue and document, TNG scholarship since 2000 is converging around explaining three “stages” of TNG—rule emergence, selection, and adoption—and increasingly is theoretically innovative, methodologically rigorous, and speaks to concerns that are central to the larger field of IR. Given this, greater attention to TNG by IR scholars, textbooks, and courses offers many rewards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|