Глобальный трансфер неолиберальных моделей и доктрина суверенного государства

Обложка

Цитировать

Полный текст

Аннотация

Рассматриваются механизмы квазидобровольного и принудительного распространения неолиберальных моделей развития на глобальном уровне через целенаправленную деятельность и повестку международных организаций. В настоящее время легитимность как самого процесса продвижения глобального неолиберализма, так и его результатов выглядит противоречивой и широко оспаривается. Данный процесс сопровождался продолжительной эрозией государственного суверенитета, мандатов и полномочий национальных государств. Как результат - «вакуум» в их способности полноценно реализовывать доктрину суверенного государства. Однако сегодня в условиях перехода к многополярному миропорядку государства вновь заявляют о необходимости реализации суверенных подходов к собственному развитию, активно формируя альтернативные неолиберализму стратегии и оперативные планы развития. Проанализированы неолиберальные модели вмешательства в дела государств, а также те сферы, где произошло наибольшее ослабление государственных полномочий. Выдвигается тезис о необходимости формулирования государствами независимых национальных моделей развития, альтернативных насаждаемым неолиберальным программам. Это предполагает обеспечение широких идеологических и философских основ и понимания сути суверенного развития. Для разработки и реализации оперативных планов по возрождению функциональных возможностей национальных государств важно восстановить соответствующие знания и практические навыки, платформы и средства. Представляется, что именно это позволит национальным государствам сформулировать собственные стратегии развития в условиях динамично формирующейся многополярности. Сделан особый акцент на доктрину суверенного государства в сфере экономики. Однако подобный подход может и должен применяться в смежных сферах социального и политического развития.

Об авторах

Горан Шумкоски

Автор, ответственный за переписку.
Email: goran.sumkoski@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-2912-7449

Независимый исследователь

Скопье, Македония

Список литературы

  1. Abelson, D. E. (2002). Do think tanks matter? Assessing the impact of public policy institutes. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
  2. Barrientos, A., & Powell, M. (2004). The route map of the Third Way. In S. Hale, W. Leggett & L. Martell (Eds.), The Third Way and beyond: Criticisms, futures, alternatives (pp. 9-27). Manchester: Manchester University Press.
  3. Berkowitz, D., Pistor, K., & Richard, J.-F. (2003). Economic development, legality, and the transplant effect. European Economic Review, 47(1), 165-195. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0014-2921(01)00196-9
  4. Bernstein, S., & Cashore, B. (2000). Globalization, four paths of internationalization and domestic policy change: The case of ecoforestry in British Columbia, Canada. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 3(1), 67-99. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423900000044
  5. Blagescu, M., & Young, J. (2006). Capacity development for policy advocacy: Current thinking and approaches among agencies supporting civil society organisations. Overseas Development Institute Working Paper, (260), 1-50. Retrieved from https://www.gichd.org/fileadmin/GICHD-resources/rec-documents/Capacity-Development-for-Policy-Advocacy.pdf
  6. Boas, M., & McNeill, D. (Eds.). (2004). Global institutions and development: Framing the world? London: Routledge.
  7. Boettke, P. J., Coyne, C. J., & Leeson, P. T. (2008). Institutional stickiness and the New Development Economics. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 67(2), 331-358. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1536-7150.2008.00573.x
  8. Buchanan, A., & Keohane, O. R. (2005). The legitimacy of global governance institutions. Ethics & International Affairs, 20(4), 405-437. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7093.2006.00043.x
  9. Busch, P. O., & Jörgens, H. (2004). The international sources of policy convergence: Explaining the spread of environmental policy innovations. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(5), 860-884. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760500161514
  10. Cisse, O. (2008). Mineral policy in developing countries: Copy and paste? CEPMLP Annual Review, (12), 1-15. Retrieved from https://www.dundee.ac.uk/download/17271/media
  11. Clark, I. (2003). Legitimacy in a global order. Review of International Studies, 29(S1), 75-95. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210503005904
  12. Court, J., Hovland, I., & Young, J. (2005). Bridging research and policy: Evidence and the change process. Rugby: ITDG Publishing.
  13. D’Aspremont, E., & de Brabandere, A. (2011). The complementary faces of legitimacy in international law: The legitimacy of origin and the legitimacy of exercise. Fordham International Law Journal, 34(2), 190-235.
  14. Deacon, B. (2007). Global social policy & governance. London: Sage. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446212219
  15. Degterev, D. A. (2011). International development assistance: Evolution of international legal regimes and effectiveness of foreign aid. Moscow: Lenand publ. (In Russian).
  16. Degterev, D., & Kurylev, K. (Eds.). (2019). Foreign policies of the CIS states: A comprehensive reference. Boulder: Lynne Rienner. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781626378087
  17. Dementiev, V. E., & Ustyuzhanina, E. V. (2016). The problem of power: Institutional approach. Journal of Institutional Studies, 8(3), 91-101. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.17835/2076-6297.2016.8.3.091-101
  18. Dolowitz, D., & Marsh, D. (1996). Who learns what from whom? A review of the policy transfer literature. Political Studies, 44(2), 343-357. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb00334.x
  19. Domjahn, T. (2013). What (if anything) can developing countries learn from South Korea? Asian Culture and History, 5(2), 16-24. https://doi.org/10.5539/ach.v5n2p16
  20. Drezner, D. W. (2001). Globalization and policy convergence. International Studies Review, 3(1), 53-78. https://doi.org/10.1111/1521-9488.00225
  21. Duan, Y., Nie, W., & Coakes, E. (2010). Identifying key factors affecting transnational knowledge transfer. Information & Management, 47(7-8), 356-363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2010.08.003
  22. Dunning, T., & Pop-Eleches, G. (2004). From transplants to hybrids: Exploring institutional pathways to growth. Studies in Comparative International Development, 38(4), 3-29. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02686326
  23. Evans, P. (2004). Development as institutional change: The pitfalls of monocropping and potentials of deliberation. Studies in Comparative International Development, 38(4), 30-53. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02686327
  24. Gilardi, F., & Wasserfallen, F. (2019). The politics of policy diffusion. European Journal of Political Research, 58(4), 1245-1256. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12326
  25. Goderis, B., & Versteeg, M. (2013). Transnational constitutionalism: A conceptual framework. In D. J. Galligan & M. Versteeg (Eds.), Social and political foundations of constitutions (pp. 103-133). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139507509.007
  26. Hausmann, R., Pritchett, L., & Rodrik, D. (2005). Growth accelerations. Journal of Economic Growth, 10(4), 303-329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10887-005-4712-0
  27. Hennink, M., & Stephenson, R. (2005). Using research to inform health policy: Barriers and strategies in developing countries. Journal of Health Communication, 10(2), 163-180. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730590915128
  28. Holzinger, K., Knill, C., & Sommerer, T. (2008). Environmental policy convergence: The impact of international harmonization, transnational communication, and regulatory competition. International Organization, 62(4), 553-587. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002081830808020X
  29. Jacoby, W. (2008). Minority traditions and post-communist politics: How do IGOs matter? In M. A. Orenstein, S. Bloom & N. Lindstrom (Eds.), Transnational actors in Central and East European transitions (pp. 56-76). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt7zwb44
  30. Jones, N., & Young, J. (2007). Setting the scene: Situating DFID’s research funding policy and practice in an international comparative perspective. London: Overseas Development Institute.
  31. Jones, N., Jones, H., Steer, L., & Datta, A. (2008). Improving impact evaluation production and use. Overseas Development Institute Working Paper, (300), 1-78. Retrieved from https://cdn.odi.org/media/documents/4158.pdf
  32. Jörgens, H. (2004). Governance by diffusion: Implementing global norms through cross-national imitation and learning. In W. M. Lafferty (Ed.), Governance for sustainable development: The challenge of adapting form to function (pp. 246-283). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781845421700.00017
  33. Kahler, M. (2009). Global governance redefined. In A. Sobel (Ed.), Challenges of globalization: Immigration, social welfare, global governance (pp. 174-198). London: Routledge.
  34. Kelley, J. (2004). Ethnic politics in Europe: The power of norms and incentives. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  35. Knill, C. (2005). Introduction: Cross-national policy convergence: Concepts, approaches and explanatory factors. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(5), 764-774. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760500161332
  36. Kramer, A., & Pahl-Wostl, C. (2014). The global policy network behind integrated water resources management: Is it an effective norm diffusor? Ecology and Society Research, 19(4), 11.
  37. Kurylev, K., Degterev, D., Smolik, N., & Stanis, D. (2018). A quantitative analysis of geopolitical pluralism in the post-Soviet space. International Organisations Research Journal, 13(1), 134-156. https://doi.org/10.17323/1996-7845-2018-01-08
  38. Lazer, D. (2001). Regulatory interdependence and international governance. Journal of European Public Policy, 8(3), 474-492. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760110056077
  39. Leimgruber, M. (2012). The historical roots of a diffusion process: The three-pillar doctrine and European pension debates (1972-1994). Global Social Policy, 12(1), 24-44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468018111431668
  40. Levi, M., Sacks, A., & Tyler, T. (2009). Conceptualizing legitimacy, measuring legitimating beliefs. American Behavioral Scientist, 53(3), 354-375. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764209338797
  41. Lin, J. Y. (2012). New structural economics: A framework for rethinking development policy. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
  42. Maggetti, M. (2009). The role of independent regulatory agencies in policy-making: A comparative analysis. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(3), 450-470. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760802662854
  43. Maggetti, M. (2010). Legitimacy and accountability of independent regulatory agencies: A critical review. Living Reviews in Democracy, 2, 1-10.
  44. Manshin, R. V., & Ghafari, A. L. (2021). Investment cooperation between Russia and India. RUDN Journal of Economics, 29(3), 490-501. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2329-2021-29-3-490-501
  45. Margulis, M. E. (2021). Intervention by international organizations in regime complexes. The Review of International Organizations, 16(4), 871-902 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-020-09403-z
  46. Merrien, F. X. (2001). The World Bank’s new social policies: Pensions. International Social Science Journal, 53(170), 537-550. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2451.00343
  47. Minogue, M. (2002). Governance-based analysis of regulation. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 73(4), 649-666. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8292.00209
  48. Moran, T. H. (2011). Foreign direct investment and development: Launching a second generation of policy research: Avoiding the mistakes of the first, re-evaluating policies for developed and developing countries. Washington, D.C.: Peterson Institute for International Economics.
  49. Potoski, M., & Prakash, A. (2005). Green clubs and voluntary governance: ISO 14001 and firms’ regulatory compliance. American Journal of Political Science, 49(2), 235-248. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0092-5853.2005.00120.x
  50. Reinicke, W. H., Deng, F., Witte, J. M., et al. (2000). Critical choices: The United Nations, networks, and the future of global governance. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.
  51. Risse, T. (2006). Transnational governance and legitimacy. In A. Benz & Y. Papadopoulos (Eds.), Governance and democracy: Comparing national, European and international experiences (pp. 179-199). London: Routledge.
  52. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. 5th edition. New York: Free Press.
  53. Rosenau, J. (1995). Governance in the twenty-first century. Global Governance, 1(1), 13-43.
  54. Scott, C. (2010). Regulatory governance and the challenge of constitutionalism. In D. Oliver, T. Prosser & R. Rawlings (Eds.), The regulatory state: Constitutional implications (pp. 15-33). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199593170.003.0002
  55. Stallings, B. (2007). The globalization of capital flows: Who benefits? The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 610(1), 201-216. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716206297918
  56. Stiglitz, J. (2001). Redefining the role of the state: Joseph Stiglitz on building a “post-Washington consensus”. An Interview with introduction by Brian Snowdon. World Economics, 2(3), 45-86.
  57. Stiglitz, J. (2002). Globalization and its discontents. New York: Norton & Company.
  58. Stone, D. (2004). Transfer agents and global networks in the ‘transnationalization’ of policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(3), 545-566. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760410001694291
  59. Sumkoski, G. (2016). Towards socio-economic theory and practice of regulation. Evidence from OECD countries and Bangladesh. Cogent Social Sciences, 2(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2016.1254840
  60. Sumkoski, G. (2017). Building reform capacity. In A. Farazmand (Ed.), Global encyclopedia of public administration, public policy, and governance (pp. 1-6). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_3306-2
  61. Sutinen, J. G., & Kuperan, L. (1999). A socio-economic theory of regulatory compliance. International Journal of Social Economics, 26(1/2/3), 174-193. https://doi.org/10.1108/03068299910229569
  62. Trein, P. (2015). Literature report: A review of policy learning in five strands of political science research. INSPIRES Working Paper Series, (26), 1-22. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2707344
  63. True, J., & Mintrom, M. (2001). Transnational networks and policy diffusion: The case of gender mainstreaming. International Studies Quarterly, 45(1), 27-57. https://doi.org/10.1111/0020-8833.00181
  64. Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  65. Uhlin, A. (2010). Democratic legitimacy of transnational actors: Mapping out the conceptual terrain. In E. Erman & A. Uhlin (Eds.), Legitimacy beyond the state? (pp. 16-37). London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230283251_2
  66. Vachudova, M. A. (2005). Europe undivided: Democracy, leverage, & integration after Communism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/0199241198.001.0001
  67. Verger, A., Novelli, M., & Kosar Altinyelken, H. (2012). Global education policy and international development: An introductory framework. In A. Verger, M. Novelli & H. Kosar Altinyelken (Eds.), Global education policy and international development: New agendas, issues and policies (pp. 3-32). London: Bloomsbury.
  68. Weaver, R. (Ed.). (2000). Think tanks and civil societies: Catalysts for ideas and action. London: Sage.
  69. Weyland, K. (2005). Theories of policy diffusion lessons from Latin American pension reform. World Politics, 57(2), 262-295. https://doi.org/10.1353/wp.2005.0019
  70. Young, O. R. (1979). Compliance and public authority. New York: RFF Press.

Дополнительные файлы

Доп. файлы
Действие
1. JATS XML
Скачать

Согласие на обработку персональных данных

 

Используя сайт https://journals.rcsi.science, я (далее – «Пользователь» или «Субъект персональных данных») даю согласие на обработку персональных данных на этом сайте (текст Согласия) и на обработку персональных данных с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика» (текст Согласия).