Social closure and the reproduction of stratified international order

Naylor, Tristen

doi:10.1177/00471178211010325

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A growing body of research interested in hierarchies in the international system has developed in the last decade (Bukovansky et al, 2012;Donnelly, 2006Donnelly, , 2016Donnelly, , 2017Duque, 2018;Fehl and Freistein, 2020;Lake, 1996Lake, , 2011Lake, , 2017aLake, , 2017bMattern and Zarakol, 2016;Naylor, 2018Naylor, , 2022Pouliot, 2016;Viola, 2020;Zarakol, 2017). IGOs play a pivotal role in this context, through the 'production, reproduction, and transformation of global stratification patterns' (Fehl and Freistein, 2020: 288).…”

Section: Hierarchies And/in the International Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multiple hierarchies within the ‘civilized’ world: country ranking and regional power in the International Labour Organization (1919–1922)

Farias

2023

European Journal of International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is significant and growing interest in better understanding hierarchy in the international system, especially in relation to intergovernmental organizations (IGOs). Acknowledging the existence of hierarchy in a system implies that there are different social positions (higher/lower), but not why or how a specific differentiation came to be used, nor how it is structured, contested or resolved. This article is interested in contributing to these questions, particularly in the context of heterarchical settings (where more than one hierarchy is present), which is also not fully understood. It uses the first years of the International Labour Organization (ILO) as a springboard to reflect upon hierarchy within the so-called ‘civilized’ group of countries in the immediate aftermath of World War I. This IGO was the first to (1) introduce statistical data to rank countries, with criteria designed to ‘objectively’ gauge industrial power and (2) establish a geographic allocation of countries in its main decision-making body’s structure. Non-European countries and non-great powers had critical roles in establishing these novel ways of dealing with hierarchies and their institutional design in IGOs. One hundred years later, these discussions still resonate with several ongoing cases of contestation in IGOs over ‘fair’ hierarchical structures.

show abstract

Section: Hierarchies And/in the International Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multiple hierarchies within the ‘civilized’ world: country ranking and regional power in the International Labour Organization (1919–1922)

Farias

2023

European Journal of International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed, Viola asserts that the significance of the G7's establishment was not just that it provided 'a forum for exchanging ideas and coordinating economic policy but also a new institutional model for global governance decision-making-one based on exclusive multilateralism' (Viola 2020, p. 204). The strategic move is to engage in a form of 'social closure', wherein group members disproportionately benefit from the monopolisation of control, advantages, and opportunities that flow from inclusion, while excluded actors are stuck in a position of relative passivity as international society's 'rule takers' (Keene 2011;Naylor 2021Naylor , 2019Viola 2020). As Vijay Prashad relays, Helmut Schmidt argued at the Rambouillet summit that leaving decisions 'to officials somewhere in Africa or some Asian capital is not a good idea' (Prashad 2014, p. 42).…”

Section: Exclusive Multilateralismmentioning

confidence: 99%

The spread of informal governance practices in G-summitry

Naylor

2022

Int Polit

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the spread of informal practices from the G7 to the G20, analysing the implications of the G20's adoption of six practices that have marked the G7 as a quintessential informal governance group. Drawing on archival documents, elite interviews, and embedded participant observation, the argument is made that the practices that are strengths of the G7 are liabilities for the G20. Key practices that have been central to the G7's success do not entail success in G20. Furthermore, the practices that transpose well into the G20 context are those that have less to do with the way the members relate to one another within the club and more to do with how its members are positioned within the international system overall. These findings add complexity to the proposition that informal governance institutions like the G20 can serve as effective means to channel rising states' status concerns.

show abstract

“…The G20 has been described as a promising forum to mobilise the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (Chun, 2016), and to enable strategic country engagement between members (Luckhurst, 2016). However, it has been questioned regarding its effectiveness and legitimacy (Lei & Rui, 2016; Slaughter, 2020), precisely because of its informal nature and power imbalances within its membership (Naylor, 2022), and regarding its capacity to balance national interests with a genuine commitment to the global common good (Fues & Messner, 2016; Naylor, 2022).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The G20 and the Think 20 as new global education policy actors? Discursive analysis of roles and policy ideas

Matovich

Srivastava²

2023

JICE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe Group of Twenty (G20) has substantial influence in global economic policy but has been peripheral in global education governance. There is intensification of education policy-relevant engagement within the Think 20 (T20), the “ideas bank” and official engagement group of the G20. The authors analyse the evolution of education as a policy domain within the T20, the ideas and discursive framing of education and global education policy “solutions” and assumptions about the G20 in education policy engagement.Design/methodology/approachThe authors view the T20 as an external actor that can mobilise policy-relevant ideas to G20 actors responsible for internal policy selection and translation. The analysis covers the period 2018–2021 when education became an explicit T20 policy area. The authors screened all 461 T20 policy briefs across all domains. Of these, 32 briefs and four final T20 Summit communiqués were reviewed using critical discourse analysis. Data were supplemented via organisational websites and tacit professional knowledge.FindingsThree assumptions on the G20 as an actor prevailed: (1) policymaker, (2) policy shaper and (3) knowledge mobiliser. The framing ideas on education were linked to assumptions on drivers of education system reform as intertwined with, or to enable: (1) economic adaptation, (2) technical adaptation and (3) socio-political adaptation of individuals and societies.Originality/valueAccelerated education engagement within the T20 and its direct reach to G20 leaders makes it, and the G20, analytically unique and new unexamined actors of potential influence. The authors conclude that the T20 is positioned as a unique actor, both that can mobilise education policy-relevant ideas to G20 leaders, and legitimised as the actor from which G20 leaders and policymakers should adopt ideas.

show abstract

Social closure and the reproduction of stratified international order

Cited by 8 publications

References 52 publications

Multiple hierarchies within the ‘civilized’ world: country ranking and regional power in the International Labour Organization (1919–1922)

Multiple hierarchies within the ‘civilized’ world: country ranking and regional power in the International Labour Organization (1919–1922)

The spread of informal governance practices in G-summitry

The G20 and the Think 20 as new global education policy actors? Discursive analysis of roles and policy ideas

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About