Independent policy learning: Contextual diffusion of active labour market policies

This chapter analyses in which ways diffusion based on interdependent policy learning explains the spread of active labour market policies (ALMP) in the OECD countries. By applying error correction models using multiplicative spatial Prais-Winsten regressions for analyzing the diffusion of ALMPs in 22 OECD countries from 1991–2013, we find evidence of governments adapting labour market policy strategies that have proven successful, that is, perform well in increasing labour market participation in other countries. However, interdependent learning is conditional on the institutional framework: policymakers rather learn from the experience of other countries in the same welfare regime. Even more importantly, the results bear witness to the importance of the European Employment Strategy (EES) as an international coordination framework facilitating policy learning

Contested world order: The delegitimation of international governance

This article argues that the chief challenge to international governance is an emerging political cleavage, which pits nationalists against immigration, free trade, and international authority. While those on the radical left contest international governance for its limits, nationalists reject it in principle. A wide-ranging cultural and economic reaction has reshaped political conflict in Europe and the United States and is putting into question the legitimacy of the rule of law among states

Moving Beyond the Agent-Structure Debate

This forum contrasts two perspectives regarding methodology, written by researchers with avowedly opposing epistemologies. Jeffrey Checkel represents the positivist side, with Kevin Dunn advocating post-positivism. To clarify the assumptions underpinning this juxtaposition, Audie Klotz & Cecelia Lynch revisit the characterization of this epistemological divide & suggest that it unduly overshadows significant agreement. Scholars such as Checkel and Dunn, they claim, should be able to see common ground once they understand each others' terminology. To probe this potential, Checkel and Dunn elaborate on how & why they conduct research in particular ways. Their exchange highlights some commonalities but also suggests abiding limits to the reconciliation between analyses based on causal mechanisms & those based on discursive practices. References. Adapted from the source document

Moving Beyond the Agent-Structure Debate

This forum contrasts two perspectives regarding methodology, written by researchers with avowedly opposing epistemologies. Jeffrey Checkel represents the positivist side, with Kevin Dunn advocating post-positivism. To clarify the assumptions underpinning this juxtaposition, Audie Klotz & Cecelia Lynch revisit the characterization of this epistemological divide & suggest that it unduly overshadows significant agreement. Scholars such as Checkel and Dunn, they claim, should be able to see common ground once they understand each others' terminology. To probe this potential, Checkel and Dunn elaborate on how & why they conduct research in particular ways. Their exchange highlights some commonalities but also suggests abiding limits to the reconciliation between analyses based on causal mechanisms & those based on discursive practices. References. Adapted from the source document

Theorizing norm diffusion within international organizations

International Organizations (IOs) promote and diffuse norms within world politics. This prompts the question: where do these norms come from? This inquiry analyses how IOs have been perceived within the emerging norms literature where IOs are \u27norm diffusers\u27 within the international system, and finds that the way in which IOs themselves internalize norms has not been taken into account. This poses a potentially fruitful new avenue of inquiry into why and when IOs behave as norm diffusers. An interpretation of when and why IOs internalize norms is offered by positing that IO identities are not fixed and that they are \u27norm consumers\u27 socialized by state and non-state actors.<br /

Humanitarian Disarmament Movement: An Assessment and Review

Disarmament has long been a dirty word in the international relations (IR) lexicon. But people have often chosen—for reasons of security, honor, ethics, or humanitarianism—to prohibit or limit certain violent technologies. In the last two decades, the “humanitarian disarmament movement”—a loose coalition of small and medium-sized states, humanitarian agencies, and advocacy groups—have successfully achieved international treaties banning landmines, cluster munitions, and nuclear weapons, as well as restricting the global arms trade. These “New Disarmers” have now set their sights on banning autonomous weapons systems. This chapter introduces, defines and provides historical background on humanitarian disarmament, including its emergence as a transnational advocacy network and community of practice