UNIVERSITY OF ZIMBABWE

FACULTY OF SOCIAL AND BEHAVIOURAL SCIENCES

DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC MANAGEMENT

Name of Student: Learnmore Mangunda

Registration Number: R1611362

Programme: Master’s in Public Policy and Governance

Module: Politics, Public Policy, and Governance

Module Code: MPPG 508

Convener: E.V Masunungure

Assignment Question: Discuss how the nexus between local and global dynamics
impact on politics, public policy and governance at the national
level

Due Date: 31 May 2021

This essay seeks to discuss the impact of the global dynamics and globalisation on politics,
public policy and governance at the national level. According to Negash (2015), the
dynamics of governance do not play out solely within the boundaries of nation-States.
Countries face an interconnected, globalised world characterised by a high velocity and
magnitude of flows of capital, trade, ideas, technology, and people (Tuca, 2015). The
reason is that most problems affecting the world today such as poverty, environmental
pollution, economic crisis, organised crime, terrorism and diseases are transnational in
nature and cannot be dealt effectively at the domestic level or simple bilateral
relations.

In the mid-1990s, Cerny (1995) as cited by Stone (2008), argued that domestic policy
making was increasingly constrained by international economic, political and cultural
forces, and concluded that globalisation had ‘destabilised’ traditional divisions of labour
between sub-national, national, regional and international authorities. Thus, due to the
global nature of the societal challenges, it is no longer enough to act at the national level.
International cooperation and coordination is proving to be a critical element of any
credible and effective policy response (Stone and Ladi, 2015).

According to Patomaki (2021), as globalisation has intensified, the power of national

government to tackle the challenge associate with globalisation appears to have
decline. The State is no longer the locus of power and neither is possible to locate with in a
single national unit because of the transcendence of issues beyond national boundaries
(Weiss and Wilkinson, 2014). Nonetheless, the scope for national State to mediate between
the supra and sub-national state is primordial in dealing with social conflict and
redistributive policies, unless supranational organisations acquire some measure of
democratic legitimacy and accountability (Negash, 2015).

Bernstein and Cashore (2012) point out that the fact that some government functions are
relocated in the international organisations does not undermine the primacy of the State
since international organisations are depending on nation States for support and operations.
However, the growing social and economic interdependence seems to impact national
decision making process (Negash, 2015).

1
In addition, the economic, social, demographic and technological forces are dramatically
altering relationships among nations as well as the nature of politics, public policy,
administration, and the institutional relations within the nation-States (Norris and Drude,
2015). According to Stone and Ladi (2015), the wave of globalisation is certainly not
resistible although often confronted with a lot of mixed reactions, which to some degree
reflects a lot of frustration and dissatisfaction, especially from the Global South. One of
the ‘hair-splitting’ arguments pertaining to globalisation is that it is seen as an economic
‘monster’ whose objectives include, among others, the wiping away of the nation-State’s
sovereignty especially with regard to socio-economic and political autonomy (Weiss and
Wilkinson, 2014). As a matter of fact, the nation-state is seen as a toothless partner in the
process and does not have the power or mandate to control or have a democratic voice
pertaining to the principles and policies under which the globalisation gospel is advanced
(Negash, 2015).

Patomaki (2021) points out that as global interconnections and movements touch a wide
variety of issues and areas along with miraculous growth of information and
communication technology, goods capital, knowledge, crimes, pollutants even disease
move across national boundaries. Naturally, this makes traditional conceptions of nations
states seems to be at odds with the expanding scale upon which contemporary economics
cultural and political activity is currently organised (Jotia, 2011).

According to Negash (2015), power has acquired a transnational, regional dimensions.

Furthermore, the explosive growth of transnational institutions does have striking parallel
structures of governance departments mirroring national governments in all directions and
their impact is too (Jotia, 2011). For example, international institutions regulations is not
limited to the obvious common problems like environment and drugs but also applies to
many other aspects of national governance ranging from taxation to safety standards
(Negash, 2015).

In addition, since politics is trans-nationalised, it is no longer contiguous with national

territory and hence states are no longer the sole masters of their own or their citizens’
fate (Shaffer, 2013). Some of the examples are the interventions by the North Atlantic
Treaty Organisation (NATO) in Yugoslavia in 1999 and Libya in 2011 on humanitarian
grounds to ‘save’ the citizens. Although, very much controversial the trend in terms of the

2
interventions by NATO gives national governments cannot treat their citizens in whatever
way they want. But it does not mean absolute curb on sovereignty of States in all matters
at the domestic sphere. The notion of global politics does not deny the continuing
significance of national politics or politics between States, but it does suggest that both are
embedded in a dense web of social, economic, and political relations, all which transcend
borders, in turn creating overlapping communities of fate (Tuca, 2015).

Furthermore, the transnational civil society movement is facilitated by the advancement of

modern global communication, increasing interdependence and the growing awareness of
common interests between people in different countries and regions across the globe
(Patomaki, 2021). As earlier mentioned the extension of trans-boundary problems creates
what is referred as ‘overlapping communities of fate.’ That is a condition in which the
fortunes of peoples and individual political communities are increasingly bound together
(Tuca, 2015). These are a kind of ‘citizenship diplomacy’ of political or social arena in
which citizens and private interests collaborate across borders to advance their mutual
goals or to bring governments and the formal institutions of global governance to account
for their activities (Patomaki, 2021).

It is also essential to note that the global interactions can undermine domestic social and
economic development by exerting power in ways that prevent the adoption of policies fit
for the domestic or local context or by reinforcing pre-existing conditions that sustain
socially undesirable outcomes (Tuca, 2015). The resurgence of populist politics and its
rejection of trade and migration in several Western countries can be seen as a reaction to
these negative effects (Negash, 2015).

More specific to public policy, Howlet and Ramesh (2002) argued that all claims about the
influence of internationalisation on public policy are about policy change, that is, about
how policy outputs are affected by the interpenetration of domestic and international
policy processes. The International actors can themselves enter the policy arena, and can
empower or shape the incentives of citizens and elites by providing resources (Tuca,
2015). For example, Foreign aid and governance since the end of World War II has been
one of the most prominent policy tools used by high income countries to promote security,
growth, and equity in low-income countries (Shaffer, 2013).

3
According to Weiss and Wilkinson (2014), primarily intended to fill capital shortfalls,
official development assistance (ODA) has become a means of meeting a range of
development, humanitarian, strategic, and commercial goals. In addition to finance, aid
includes the transfer of knowledge, expertise, and ideas intended to influence norms,
capacity, and power. Development actors, especially the international financial institutions,
have been among the most influential generators of transnational rules, norms, and ideas,
using aid as a diffusion mechanism (Stone and Ladi, 2015). Tuca (2015) argues that, just
as economic orthodoxy has evolved over time, from an emphasis on the role of the state in
planning and investment in the 1960s and 1970s, to the macroeconomic discipline and
market liberalisation of the Washington Consensus in the 1980s, to poverty alleviation and
market institutions in the 1990s, to achievement of the Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs), and improvement of governance institutions in the 2000s, aid modalities have
evolved in search of more effective means of translating these norms into development
outcomes.

Moreover, structural adjustment lending policies in the 1980s marked the high point of ex-
ante conditionality, that is, aid transfers depended on the recipient’s adoption of pre-set
conditions (Negash, 2015). Thus, the developing countries, especially in Africa, were
forced to adopt the structural adjustment policies by the international financial institutions
(World Bank and International Monetary Fund).

Tuca (2015) also points out that the international actors can shift the preferences of
citizens and elites. At times, international actors enter directly into the policy arena.
Foreign states, multinational corporations, development agencies, or transnational non-
governmental organisations (NGOs) can gain a seat at the domestic bargaining table as
they pursue specific goals or support domestic efforts that are aligned with their interests
(Negash, 2015).

International actors and mechanisms largely affect the policy arena indirectly (Norris and
Drude, 2015). In doing so, they may change incentives and preferences toward enabling or
constraining institutional functions for development and open or foreclose the possibilities
for contestation. International actors can shape the arena in which policy making and
contestation occur by creating alternative spaces in which actors can bargain. For example,
foreign investors can bring states to the International Centre for Settlement of Investment

4
Disputes (ICSID) for independent arbitration rather than rely on the legal mechanisms of
the host State (Tuca, 2015).

Transnational flows and mechanisms can change the payoff structure and incentives of
domestic actors by providing inducements or threats (Negash, 2015). For example,
conditions attached to foreign aid (conditionality) can make assistance dependent on
specific behaviour by domestic actors. Similarly, the desire to attract foreign investment
can act as an incentive for positive changes in domestic governance. For example, the
pursuit of foreign investment in China and Vietnam spurred institutional improvements in
economic management at the provincial level, with greater flows leading to even more
institutional reforms (Tuca, 2015). Moreover, in 2012, Malawi was due to host the African
Union Summit, but having been pressured by ‘donors’ they refused to accept the
attendance of Sudanese leader Omar al-Bashir, and the summit was moved to Addis
Ababa. Thus, global dynamics shaped the political processes in Malawi, which decided to
go against the decision of fellow African States.

Furthermore, international trade agreements, by changing the incentives of domestic

actors, can serve as a commitment device. At the same time, the incentives and payoffs
may be structured in favour of private goods rather than global or national public goods
(Jotia, 2011). A government may sign a trade agreement to tie its hands in the face of
domestic vested interests that might induce it to implement suboptimal policies such as
high tariffs, or it may use transnational flows as a reason to avoid regulating a costly and
challenging issue, such as the environmental damage caused by mining activities (Tuca,
2015).

International actors and transnational interactions also shape preferences by influencing

the ideas and beliefs of actors in the domestic policy arena (Negash, 2015). Improvements
in technology, by facilitating greater global connectivity, have helped spread international
ideas and norms. Transnational networks of technical experts can play an important role in
changing preferences and internalising new norms through the diffusion of evidence and
authoritative expertise. For instance, in China, the interaction of the National
Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA) with experts resulted in new perspectives, peer
standards, data, and research findings that NEPA drew on to shape the debate over
accession to the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer, shifting the views of other

5
political actors and allowing successful bargaining with more domestically grounded
agencies, including the State Meteorological Administration (Stone and Ladi, 2015).
Beyond finance and other forms of leverage, development actors can be most influential
through the dissemination of knowledge and evidence. But, as Patomaki (2012) argues,
knowledge and evidence can also reflect particular agendas and reduce the space of public
discourse.

Moreover, the last century has witnessed a ‘Rights Revolution’ in which global treaties
and norms have facilitated the spread of the notion of rights (Negash, 2015). International
human rights and gender quotas illustrate the ways in which transnational ideas diffuse and
the mechanisms through which those ideas affect domestic governance arrangements.
Although a range of incentives can lead to the formal adoption of such norms, the norms
eventually become effective and internalized according to the extent to which they reshape
societal preferences (Tuca, 2015).

Since passage of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, human rights have
been increasingly specified and embedded in international treaties, institutions, and
organisations (Patomaki, 2021). Country adoption and participation have been widespread.
However, international treaties are not always effective in changing state behaviour and
practices. Indeed, a persistent implementation gap exists between the de jure pledge to
protect human rights, as measured by States’ ratification of major international human
rights treaties and conventions, and actual compliance. Some scholars like Stone (2008),
Shaffer (2013), Stone and Ladi (2015), and Tuca (2015) argue that human rights are
nothing more than window dressing or empty promises that are unable to constrain power
or change the behaviour of domestic actors. Explaining why state compliance with human
rights treaties and conventions varies requires taking a closer look at the interaction
between international norms and the domestic bargaining process. Once signed,
international treaties ‘empower individuals, groups, or parts of the State with different
rights preferences that were not empowered to the same extent in the absence of the
treaties’ (Tuca, 2015).

According to Negash (2015), by referring to international norms, ordinary citizens and

disadvantaged groups can strengthen the legitimacy of their claims and successfully
challenge the prevailing norms, pressuring governments to transform state institutions and

6
reform public policies. Elite resistance frequently increases the incentives for domestic
actors to build transnational alliances to support their claims. Often referred to as the
‘boomerang effect’, this dynamic process increases the costs incurred by state actors when
resisting change and eventually leads to compliance. The human rights struggles in Latin
American countries during military dictatorships illustrate this point, as well as the
mobilisation against the Apartheid government in South Africa (Negash, 2015). Indeed,
the most transformative social movements of the 20 th century, including labour rights,
women’s rights, and civil rights, and, the indigenous and environmental movements, have
all explicitly adopted the language and instruments of international rights (Tuca, 2015).

In addition, over the last decades, different forms of gender quotas for representation in
national legislatures, including legislated quotas, reserved seats, and voluntary party
quotas, have spread to more than 100 countries, including in Zimbabwe. These new
provisions have helped double the global percentage of women in the lower house of
national legislatures from approximately 10% in 1995 to 22% in 2015 (Norris and Drude,
2015). In early adopters, mainly European countries that introduced voluntary party quotas
in the 1980s, domestic social movements and left-leaning political parties were especially
influential. By contrast, international non-governmental organisations and multilateral
organisations have become increasingly influential for late adopters among developing
countries, especially post-conflict countries largely dependent on international assistance
(Tuca, 2015).

The processes of international norm diffusion interact with domestic factors to strengthen
the bargaining power of women’s organisations and improve their capacity to influence
constitutional reforms and lobby for the adoption of gender-sensitive policies (Negash,
2015). Many countries, however, still face important challenges in closing their
implementation gap and achieving the level of political participation for women defined in
the quota laws. The gap is larger for legislative quotas. Although these gaps may reflect in
part overly ambitious targets, the short time since adoption of the quota, and the weakness
of mechanisms to sanction noncompliance, evidence suggests that social norms also play a
role. In Spain, for example, a study by Esteve-Volart and Bagues (2012), as cited by
Shaffer (2013), found that political parties nominate female candidates for seats in areas
where they have little chance of being elected in order to reduce the risk of losing
decision-making power within the party. It is yet to be seen how more recent reform

7
efforts by some parties, such as the adoption of ‘zipper systems’ in which male and female
candidates are alternated on ballot lists, will influence these dynamics within Spain.

Major shocks, such as conflict, can speed up the process of changing norms and create new
windows of opportunity for disadvantaged groups. A process of ‘policy learning’ can also
occur; initially ineffective quota laws have been revised to improve their effect on the de
facto political representation of women (Norris and Drude, 2015).

More specific on governance, the contemporary world is very different from the situation
that existed in the past century as the cross-border flows were low, and there was no
proliferation of transnational treaties, norms, and regulatory mechanisms (Tuca, 2015).
Internationalisation has fundamentally changed how states govern (Howlett and Ramesh,
2002). The era of globalisation and ‘global governance’ presents both opportunities and
challenges globalisation has significantly progressed as an economic, social, technological
and politically integrative process, because of the sound involvement of the nation-State
through the liberalization and rapid expansion of the markets as well as the harmonisation
of trade.

This essay showed that States can no longer be sovereign in the traditional sense of the
word. The global dynamics now have a huge impact on the politics, public policy and
governance at the national level.

8
 References
Bernstein, S. and Cashore, B. 2012. Complex Global Governance and Domestic Policies:
Four Pathways of Influence. International Affairs, 88(3), 585-604.

Howlett, M. and Ramesh, M. 2002. The Policy Effects of Internationalisation: A

Subsystem Adjustment Analysis of Policy Change. Journal of Comparative Policy
Analysis: Research and Practice 4, 31-50.

Jotia, A.L. 2011. Globalisation and the Nation-State: Sovereignty and State Welfare in
Jeopardy. US-China Education Review B2 (2011), 243-250.

Negash, M.H. 2015. The Contemporary Globalisation and Its Impact on the Role of States.
Research on Humanities and Social Sciences, 5(13), 86-94.

Norris, P. and Drude, D. 2015. On the Fast Track: The Spread of Gender Quota Policies
for Elected Office. Cambridge: Harvard Kennedy School, HKS Working Paper 15-41.

Patomaki, H. 2021. The Political Economy Dynamics of Global Disintegration and its
Implications for War, Peace and Security in the 21st Century. In Hosseini, S., Gills, B.,
Goodman, J. and Motta, S. (eds). The Routledge Handbook of Transformative Global
Studies, London and New York: Routledge, 150- 163.

Shaffer, G. 2013. Transnational Legal Ordering and State Change. New York: Cambridge
University Press.

Stone, D. 2008. Global Public Policy, Transnational Policy Communities and their
Networks. The University of Warwick. Available at http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk [Accessed
18 May 2021].

Stone, D. and Ladi, S. 2015. Global Public Policy and Transnational Administration.
Available at http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk [Accessed 18 May 2021].

Tuca, S. 2015. Global Governance vs. National Sovereignty in a Globalised World.

Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iasi, Centre for European Studies, Iasi, 7(1), 193-201.

Weiss, T.G. and Wilkinson, R. 2014. Rethinking Global Governance? Complexity,

Authority, Power, Change. International Studies Quarterly, 58(1), 207-215.