Modified Boomerang Pattern

I briefly mentioned it in my Module 6 paper, but I think there is an element to the boomerang pattern which could be added. The article Activists Beyond Borders by Margaret Keck and Kathryn Sikkink describes how NGOs in a state requiring action on a particular issue can pressure outside NGOs who can then put pressure on international organizations or other governments to demand change from the original state in question. On certain issues, I think the global public can play a role within the pattern and be key to pressuring a state to change its ways.

I believe there are issues which require more than NGO pressure on outside governments or international organizations. For instance, there are some issues which are easier for outside governments to ignore or only pay lip service to. Issues like freedom of the press come to mind where no one is being physically hurt or no single group of people is being repressed based on race, gender, etc. NGOs may be successful in pressuring a world power to condemn issues like free speech violations, but that often isn’t enough to usher in real change. In order to be more effective on certain topics, NGOs could do a better job communicating certain issues to the global public and make them feel inspired to also demand change. NGO pressure backed up by an outraged global public would be more effective in convincing outside governments to take real action. A global public infuriated by a particular event could lead to mass demonstrations or protest groups not necessarily tied to an NGO. These informal groups could be just has meaningful as NGOs in communicating displeasure with an issue. 

Motivating the global public to take an impassioned stand on any particular issue, admittedly, may not be an easy task. However, technology has made it more possible. Social media can be an effective tool to spread awareness of an issue all over the globe in a short amount of time. The Joseph Kony video which flooded Facebook a couple years ago was incredibly effective in outraging people over an event most probably would have never heard of sans that video. It’s impossible to say if the video or public outcry led to government action, but the US military did eventually send troops to hunt Kony. 

The Keck and Sikkink article was written back in 1998 when social media was in its infancy and not nearly as prevalent as it is in 2014. If the two had developed their boomerang pattern now, I wonder if they would have placed any emphasis on the ability of the global public, not just NGOs, to pressure outside governments to act.

NGOs and the Global Public Sphere

There are many different reasons states block redress from NGOs within it. As Margaret Keck and Kathryn Sikkink describe in Activists beyond Borders there is a boomerang pattern many NGOs face. Though NGOs are generally trying to help support a right that is being denied in a state, the state can find many reasons to block this assistance or influence.

                States are autonomous impermeable entities, in other words they want to maintain full control over themselves. Though an NGO may mean well, most states do not like being told what to do and how to do it. States often do not want to be held accountable to an NGO or have this external entity holding any control over internal functions. If an NGO approaches a situation incorrectly this may be sufficient reason for a state to ignore the NGO.

In addition, sometimes a state is funding support for a certain cause. NGO’s at times want to resolve the actual issue and not just continue to supply money with not resolution to the problem. This is the same problem we often face with celebrities when their support of an NGO persuades the general public to donate money to a cause instead of actually supporting, providing awareness and solutions to the problems. Solely providing financial support does not resolve the issue. Often time’s additional training and support is required to actually assist those in need. For example, simply providing financial support to an area that is suffering from hunger will feed them, which resolves the immediate need. However, providing training and supplies to grow crops and develop farms is a longer term solution. If a state is providing funding to “resolve” an issue internally it may not want an NGO coming in and taking over, making the state look as if they could not resolve the issue themselves even while providing financial support.

                Often times a state is more likely to listen to another state than to an NGO. Gaining support from another state or multiple states can empower NGOs to accomplish their goals. When other states agree upon resolving certain problems they can develop and sign pacts. This holds them accountable to fulfilling their goals, accomplishing what the NGOs wanted them to in the first place. Sometimes another state or an intergovernmental organization has the additional pressure required to persuade a state to cooperate with an NGO or at least accomplish the goals set forth by these NGOs. This is why NGOs do not represent a global public sphere, though beneficial to the global public in general.

Global Public

According to Margaret Keck and Kathryn Sikkink in their book, Activists Beyond Borders, at the core of a transnational advocacy network is information exchange. The main goal of a transnational advocacy network is to bring awareness of a specific issue to targeted audiences. These ideas and values that are spread can eventually transition into norms which are then institutionalized by the state through a "spiral" process described in The Power of Human Rights by Thomas Risse, Stephen Ropp and Kathryn Sikkink.

How these groups spread their ideas varies, but the general process remains the same. Groundwork is done to spread the prevalence of an idea or value so there is general public support. Either the domestic population of a state or the group brings the issue to the attention of the government, and the support for the activist group is already in place.

Here the process can take one of two turns depending on the identity of the state. Let's say that a human rights groups is advocating a particular women's rights policy in a country. Whether or not this country is a liberal democracy makes a difference in the reaction of the government. Either they will enter into argumentative discourse, or they will embrace the new idea and (with domestic pressure and support) institutionalize it as a norm.

According to Risse, Ropp and Sikkink, even if a state enters into argumentative discourse, some form of the norm will eventually become institutionalized due to outside pressure, which they call "shaming." Other governments within the "global community" will condemn the offensive state and exclude it from various privileges such as trade, institutional participation, etc. Once this occurs, the state would normally make strategic concessions in order to save face and maintain world status. This begins a slower process of changing state identity to one which encompasses these newly implemented ideas as norms.

This brings me to Professor Jackson's final question for Module 6... Is there a global public sphere? At first I thought that there may only be regional spheres of community due to the differences in culture and values. But perhaps the spread of ideas and their institutionalization as norms may be the beginning of the formation of a global public sphere. The spread of information through the internet and increasingly integrated economies seems to help the world become one global community. Each culture may influence one another until each becomes all encompassing in one complete identity.

This conclusion ignores the issues of state sovereignty and rational self-defense.... Yet if the world were to operate with a "what's best for everyone" mindset, and became one multinational, global public sphere, maybe war and coercion, the use of violence would cease to exist. However, history, and Hobbes, tells us that the natural state of man is one of war. So however utopian a global public sphere would be, it may not really be possible.

Celebrity Diplomats and Development

I found Dieter and Kumar’s article The Downside of Celebrity Diplomacy: The Neglected Complexity of Development extremely interesting. As technology and social media expands perception and public acceptance become increasingly important. When a celebrity tries to bring awareness to a cause such as Africa anyone working against them or saying donating money to them is not helpful would certainly receive a huge social media backlash. Though the points may be valid the perception to the general population is an obstacle we must overcome.

I can see why Dieter and Kumar claim celebrity diplomats may in fact be doing more harm than good. When trying to help Africa stand on its own without requiring a steady stream of foreign aid to survive the expression “Give a man a fish you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime” comes to mind. Simply providing donations will not resolve the problem where training, support, and awareness is needed. The problem is going against these well-known and liked celebrities is a very difficult task and social media is extremely powerful. Because it looks like these celebrities are doing “good deeds” and what is morally correct, no one stops to question them. No one questions where they are getting their information from or how educated/uneducated they are in development and underdeveloped countries in general.

Working to help Africa develop and providing awareness on areas that require assistance whether humanitarian, political or otherwise is important. However, rather than blindly following celebrity diplomats it is important to actually resolve the problems. Continuously providing the man with fish is not helping him in the long run, once you stop providing the fish he is just as lost as he was before you came along. Certainly, financial assistance will be needed in aiding Africa, however, merely providing supplies for them without actually helping to achieve development strategies will leave Africa in the same position it is in now. It is important to not only develop awareness for other states and areas that require assistance, but equally important to develop awareness in the best way to provide this assistance. If celebrities can provide this kind of awareness then maybe celebrity diplomats will accomplish what they are setting out to do.

Celebrity Diplomats

Living in Los Angeles, I have the “thrill” of seeing D-list celebrities on a semi-regular basis. With Hollywood in my backyard, this week’s articles “Beyond Hollywood and the Boardroom: Celebrity Diplomacy” by Andrew Cooper and “The Downside of Celebrity Diplomacy: The Neglected Complexity of Development” by Heribert Dieter and Rajiv Kumar about were particularly interesting. I was intrigued to see how different their opinions were on the subject. Despite both making excellent points, I found myself more on the side of Dieter and Kumar.

While Cooper makes valid points that celebrities can team up with wealthy businessmen (i.e. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet) to make an impact, I feel development should be left up to the professionals. As both articles mention, we have more and more celebrities trying to get involved with particular causes around the globe but few have the experience or education required to offer effective solutions. Celebrities can certainly use their “star power” to raise awareness for certain causes, but the nitty gritty aspects of development should be handled by experts. Each development situation is different and offers its own challenges. Simply throwing money at an issue often isn’t the solution and has the potential to cause more harm than good. Dieter and Kumar mention how Bono has teamed up with accomplished economist Jeffrey Sachs to tackle development problems in Africa. Both men believe massive amounts of aid is the key to solving issues in Africa. However, as illustrated in The Idealist: Jeffrey Sachs and the Quest to End Poverty by Nina Munk, Sachs’ vision has been unsuccessful. His African “test villages” which received massive amounts of foreign aid ended up falling short of most of the goals originally set by Sachs. Munk shows how there is much more involved with international development than just money.

In addition to celebrities, businesses dedicated to international development have also become more prevalent in recent years. For example, the shoe company Toms pledges to give one pair of shoes to someone in need for every pair of shoes you purchase. This sounds great to the casual consumer, but it’s not the best idea when it comes to international development. Dayo Olopade mentions Toms in her book The Bright Continent: Breaking Rules and Making Change in Modern Africa. She shows how most of the shoes Toms donates to Africa end up in countries where textiles (clothes, shoes, etc) are one of the main industries. With so many free pairs of Toms flooding the market, textile manufactures simply cannot stay in business. Thus, Toms has succeeded in providing people free shoes at the expense of an untold number of jobs in the textile industry. If Toms wanted to commit to making a change in Africa, they could move manufacturing facilities from China to regions in Africa specializing in textiles. By using African manufacturing facilities they may not be able to stick with the “one for one” slogan, but they would be doing much more to help the long term success of African communities.

I am certainly not condemning celebrities or businesses for trying to get involved with international development, but they should know their limits. They must know singing songs or acting in movies doesn’t qualify you as an expert on issues like poverty, AIDS prevention, and genocide. While raising awareness is fantastic, celebrities must stop short of being overly influential and leave solution formation to the experts.

Peace and Corporations

Over the past few weeks we have discussed corporations and their ability to manipulate the state or civil society. One topic we have overlooked thus far is the ability of a multinational corporation to create more peace between the countries it occupies.

The most famous example of this is the McDonald's theory. New York Times published this piece in 1996, and I believe it has since-then been disproven. Yet the idea remains. The spread of corporate offices throughout the world has made it more and more difficult to countries to go to war with each other. Economic binds restrict them from being able to cut off ties for one reason or another.

Whether that reason is because the country needs the particular product or service of the company, the domestic political implications would be too great, or the government is corruptly hiding deep within the corporation's pocket is probably variable. However, the implications of these connections are worth investigating further and even possibly producing a quantitative study on.

What level of economic integration makes it nearly, if not completely, impossible for countries to go to war with one another? Is this even a valid theory? Perhaps it makes no difference whether or not business has spread from one country into another.

The Influence of Society

This week’s discussion generated some interesting thoughts about the influence of civil society over states and markets. When thinking about the role of civil society I think a lot depends on the “type” of civil society which is being looked at. For instance, the amount of leverage able to be achieved by a society will be different in a democracy versus. a more restrictive type of government.

I think it’s fairly simple to observe the amount of leverage civil society has over markets and states which operate under democratic rule. A democratic society has the power to purchase goods and services of their choosing which dictates the companies that make money and which ones do not. Under a democracy, a society also has the power of the vote which allows them to pick the leader that best aligns to their interests.

It becomes more challenging to observe the influence of civil society operating within a more authoritarian type of regime. In this type of situation society loses the power of the vote which signals a loss in their influence over the state. Additionally, consumers may have fewer choices in regards to the purchases they make which limits their power to affect markets.

Despite the apparent restrictions on civil societies living under more restrictive regimes, they are still able to influence the state and markets. Black markets may spring up and allow consumers to trade goods not normally available which can severely affect the players operating within the regular market. Societies under authoritarian regimes may find it difficult to influence state action, but it is certainly possible. The Arab Spring phenomenon that occurred in recent years shows how societies have the ability to drastically affect state behavior.

There are certainly more ways societies can project influence than I have mentioned but it is interesting to note how much their options change depending on the environment they are operating in. Despite the change in options, states certainly do have great power to influence states and markets no matter what type of government structure they are subjected to.

Technology and the Expanding Global Marketplace

As our world becomes increasingly more technological it is interesting to view how the international marketplace adapts. Things such as jurisdiction, taxes and even questions regarding imports/exports all come into question as we acclimate to this new “cyber” world. As both goods and services become readily available electronically we must alter many aspects of the economic marketplace in which products were originally bought and sold. Things such as software, music and programming services are now available entirely online.

An interesting example is brought up in Kobrin’s Economic Governance in an Electronically Networked Global Economy. In the example Kobrin describes an Indian programmer working out of India, but directly supporting a bank in New York installing something or updating their system remotely (Kobrin, pg 52). This brings up many questions, would this transaction be considered an import or export for India? What about for the United States? Where was the work performed, India or the USA? Whose jurisdiction does the work fall under and who does the company pay taxes to. As far as jurisdiction and taxes this probably depends on where the company is incorporated and where it’s physical headquarters is located, however, we see how these aspects become debatable when we operate on a completely cyber level.

The global marketplace will have to continue to adapt as technology advances. It will be interesting to see a shift in the geographic dominance of the market to a more cyber-oriented one. Kobrin himself states, “Geographic space is losing meaning as the basis for the organization of markets” (Kobrin, pg 46). Nations will have to adapt to this new larger global market as technology continues to advance and the cyber marketplace expands. 

Corporations vs States

It is interesting to contemplate whether states have more control over corporations or if corporations are more able to evade state powers.

States have many ways to control corporations. Firstly, corporations are incorporated in a state, which means they have to abide by those rules and pay taxes to a state and often a county on top of federal taxes. States also have laws a corporation has to abide by, and if they do not abide by these laws the state can prosecute these corporations. These corporations can in turn be fined and responsible parties can even be jailed. In addition, states can collect debts corporations don’t pay. Corporations also have to abide by any international trade policies the state which it is incorporated in participates in.

Corporations in turn have many ways to avoid abiding by a particular state’s rules and regulations. The first way a corporation can avoid a state’s power is by moving. Corporations can physically move their location by moving to a different state. Another form of moving is by utilizing technology to move the sale of a product online. If your goods are bought and sold online it is harder to determine where they are being bought/sold and who should have the right to tax them. Another way a corporation can avoid abiding by a state’s power is by repackaging themselves. A corporation can alter their name or owner in order to avoid consequences from a state.

As our world becomes more technological it will be interesting to see how a state tries to impose its control over corporations. Until then it seems that states do have extensive power over corporations. Though a corporation can avoid a state’s power, eventually they will be held accountable to someone or they will cease to exist. Sometimes when a corporation changes names or owners to avoid consequences the corporation can in turn fail. As technology continues to advance and more transactions are able to be completed online it will be interesting to see how states adapt to cover these gaps in borders and regulations. 

Defense Contractors in the Matrix

In this week’s lecture, Professor Jackson once again used the famous 2x2 matrix the class has become familiar with. He used it in order to better examine the types of forces and actors taking part in global economics. The use of the matrix was interesting in its ability to define those in the economic realm and it raised questions about which kind of businesses and organizations should fit in each section of the matrix. Specifically, I started to think about major defense contractors and how they should be placed in the matrix.

When I talk about defense contractors, I’m referring to the large ones who likely would not have a reason to exist (or at least on such a large scale) if it weren’t for the Department of Defense. Companies like Raytheon, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin are among those that come to mind. All these companies do sell to the civilian world, but an enormous portion of their revenue comes from selling to the nation’s largest buyer, the DoD.

In terms of where our large defense contractors fall in Professor Jackson’s matrix, I could see differing viewpoints. If you asked members on the board of directors of any of the top defense contractors, they may see themselves as belonging to the bottom left block in the matrix. They may claim to be in business because of a sheer obligation to help keep our military strong and to protect the nation. They see themselves as a “social enterprise,” as Jackson puts it. However, I certainly don’t think those outside of the defense industry would see these contractors as being in business simply for the greater good. If there wasn’t money to be made from selling to the DoD, these companies certainly would not be doing it. Thus, they don’t belong in the bottom left block.

In my opinion, I see our major defense contractors falling in the bottom right box of the matrix. I say this because at times their relationship with the government almost resembles vertical integration. Granted, there is often more than one contractor competing for government dollars, but once a billion dollar weapons system contract is awarded the government and the contractor are essentially on the same “team.” Both need the product which was ordered to do its job in the field.

The DoD is highly dependent on the success of its main contractors and it certainly cannot allow them fail. It’s in the government’s best interest to keep its contractors running and compensate them with a reasonable level of profit. More profit encourages them to invest in R&D which allows for the development of the next generation of weaponry.

The DoD’s relationship with its contractors is very unique. Both sides are so highly dependent on each other and have few options when it comes to working with other suppliers/buyers. It will be interesting to see if the relationship ever changes. With the DoD experiencing massive budget cuts in the coming years, defense contractors will no doubt feel the pain. Hopefully, they can weather the storm and adopt new business practices which allow them to survive in a world where government contracts may become fewer and far between. If defense contractors can’t survive in a world with less defense spending, there is no doubt the nation’s military strength may be in jeopardy.