Search

Amidst multiple transnational crises, global governance has retaken center stage in academic and public debates. While previous generations of thinkers and citizens vigorously discussed the perennial idea of a world government, such proposals are nowadays often discarded quickly among scholars and practitioners. However, we know little about citizens' present-day attitudes toward world government proposals. In a survey experiment on more than 42,000 citizens in 17 countries in the global South, North, East, and West, we find that the idea is only rejected by international majorities if it remains unspecified and if we weight countries equally. Specifications as democratic and/or focused on global issues like climate change significantly increase public support and lead overwhelming majorities worldwide to favor a global government. Support is even stronger in more populous, less free, less powerful, and/or less developed countries. The only exception is the United States, where no global government specification receives majoritarian public approval. Overall, our findings show significant international support for fundamental transformations of global governance, and thus indicate to activists and policymakers that relevant reform efforts can build on widespread public endorsement. En medio de múltiples crisis transnacionales, la gobernanza global ha vuelto a ocupar un lugar importante en los debates, tanto académicos como públicos. Si bien las generaciones anteriores de pensadores y ciudadanos debatieron firmemente la idea perenne de un gobierno mundial, hoy en día los académicos y los profesionales descartan, con frecuencia, rápidamente tales propuestas. Sin embargo, tenemos poca información referente a las actitudes de los ciudadanos hacia las propuestas de un gobierno mundial. Llevamos a cabo un experimento de encuesta con más de 42.000 ciudadanos en 17 países del Sur, Norte, Este y Occidente global, y concluimos que la idea solo es rechazada por las mayorías internacionales si esta idea no es concreta (y solo cuando se ponderan los países por igual). El hecho de incluir especificaciones como la democracia y/o centrarse en temas globales como el cambio climático aumentan significativamente el apoyo público y llevan a mayorías abrumadoras en todo el mundo a favor de un gobierno mundial. Por lo general, el apoyo es más fuerte en los países más poblados, menos libres, menos poderosos y/o menos desarrollados. La única excepción es Estados Unidos, donde ninguna de estas especificaciones gubernamentales globales recibe una aprobación pública mayoritaria. En general, nuestras conclusiones muestran un importante apoyo público internacional a las transformaciones fundamentales de la gobernanza mundial y, por lo tanto, indican a los activistas y a los responsables políticos que los esfuerzos de reforma pertinentes pueden partir de un amplio respaldo público. Face aux nombreuses crises transnationales, la gouvernance mondiale revient sur le devant de la scène dans les débats académiques et publics. Alors que les générations antérieures de penseurs et de citoyens débattaient vivement de l'idée toujours d'actualité de gouvernement mondial, de telles propositions sont de nos jours souvent rapidement rejetées par les chercheurs et les professionnels. Cependant, nous en savons peu sur l'attitude des citoyens par rapport aux propositions de gouvernement mondial. Dans une expérience de sondage sur plus de 42 000 citoyens de 17 pays du Sud, du Nord, de l'Est et de l'Ouest, nous constatons que l'idée n'est rejetée par les majorités internationales que si elle reste vague (et seulement si l'on considère les pays à parts égales). Lorsque l'on précise l'idée en qualifiant ce gouvernement mondial de démocratique et/ou de centré sur des problématiques mondiales comme le changement climatique, le soutien public augmente drastiquement et des majorités écrasantes dans le monde entier en viennent à soutenir un gouvernement mondial. Généralement, le soutien est supérieur chez les pays plus peuplés, moins libres, moins puissants et/ou moins développés. La seule exception reste les États-Unis: aucune précision concernant le gouvernement mondial ne reçoit d'approbation d'une majorité du public. Dans l'ensemble, nos résultats montrent qu'il existe un soutien international important du public vis-à-vis de transformations fondamentales de la gouvernance mondiale, et donc signalent aux militants et aux décideurs qu'ils peuvent s'appuyer sur un large soutien populaire pour promouvoir des réformes pertinentes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, we analyze how India's climate change policy is framed, formulated and implemented and argue that it requires carefully balancing of domestic and international interests. Given the country's population size, composition and projected economic growth, India will, in the next few years, see its most significant energy demand upsurge along with a massive need for infrastructure. As projected by the International Energy Agency, "nearly 60% of its CO2 emissions in the late 2030s will be coming from infrastructure and machines that do not exist today". As a result, policy choices made today by India's decision-makers and international negotiators will have severe implications for the world. This paper analyzes global emission trends, climate change impacts and India's international and domestic climate policies—from Paris to Glasgow and New Delhi to rural India. Furthermore, we examine the core constraints that Indian policymakers face and draw attention to shortcomings in India's climate change policies, particularly concerning continued investment in coal despite the country's widely lauded efforts to embrace renewables. We argue that fossil fuel subsidies are a delicate political issue with significant implications for many election-determining poor citizens—hence accompanying "just transition" measures are essential. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Financial inclusion is the process of building viable institutions that provide financial services to those hitherto excluded. These may include savings, insurances, remittances, and credit. Microfinance became the most dominant method for achieving financial inclusion. However, different microfinance schools of thought recommend opposite ways for attaining financial integration. India is a particularly insightful case study due to the sheer number of people excluded from formal financial services, as well as the spectrum of actors and approaches. The aim of this article is threefold. The first aim is to define financial inclusion, depicting its status quo in India and comparing it to its South Asian and Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (BRICS) peers using recently released data from the Global Findex database. The second aim is to focus on microfinance as the dominant vehicle for achieving financial inclusion by scrutinizing its definitions, contrasting its two leading "schools of thought," and analyzing the central role of its dominant group-based approach. The third aim of the article will examine why people opt to take micro-credit at 33 percent interest rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The advent of the UN's Sustainable Development Goals has refocused global attention on the roles of business and other nonstate actors in achieving global goals. Often, business involvement takes the form of collaborations with the more traditional actors—governments and non‐governmental organizations. Although such partnerships for development have been seen before, the scale and expectations are new. This paper explores how and why these cross‐sector collaborations are evolving, and what steps can or should be taken to ensure that partnerships create public and private value. The arguments are illustrated with reference to cases of market‐driven partnerships for agriculture in Southeast Asia that are intended to engage marginalized smallholder farmers in global value chains in agriculture. The aims of these cross‐sector collaborations coincide with several targets of the Sustainable Development Goals such as poverty alleviation, decreasing environmental impact, and achieving food security. This is a hard case for mechanisms intended to protect public interests, given that the target beneficiaries (low‐income smallholder farmers and the environment) are unable to speak effectively for themselves. We find that structures and processes to align interests in ways that protect the public interest are both necessary and feasible, though not easy to achieve. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The term ‘Modi-nomics’ gained widespread publicity across India and resonated internationally during theBharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) campaign for the 2014 general elections. Named after the BJP’s star campaigner and then Prime Ministerial candidate, Narendra Modi,Modi-nomicsrefers to his success as Chief Minister in Gujarat, a state richer, with faster GDP growth, more jobs and industry than most other Indian states. The 2014 campaign promised that the ‘Gujarat model’ of clean government and economic competence, could be replicated across the country. In this article, we identify the promises and premises behindModi-nomics. We take stock of claims and criticism, drawing on comparative development statistics to discuss a much lauded but also highly contested ‘success’ story. To assess whetherModi-nomicsis guiding policy we draw upon Douglas North’s new institutionalism. In addition, we use a sociological understanding of institutions to argue that a central component ofModi-nomicsis to achieve economic change by altering perceptions and images as well as policy. However,Modi-nomicsremains highly contested within India’s domestic political arena and has unleashed other political entrepreneurs drawing on politics of entitlement (the Patel agitation) or religious sensibilities (the beef ban controversy). To gain resilience,Modi-nomicswill have to combine ideational and institutional change and to reconcile the tensions arising in the process. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]