Formal organizing and transnational communities: evidence from global finance governance associations, 1879-2006

The global economic, political and social landscape underwent a remarkable transformation in the latter half of the twentieth century (Giddens 1984, 1990; Hirst & Thompson 1996; Boli and Thomas, 1999; Crori et al 2003; see also Foucault 1970, 1979 on general epistemic shifts). These changes had an impact on many aspects of economic and social life. One of the most profound developments has been the proliferation of transnational organizing through formal structures. The extraordinary growth in global voluntary associations, in particular, and the timing of the emergence of these associations in the global sphere have not yet been adaquately explained by existing theories in organizational analysis and other social sciences. Therefore, an alternative theoretical approach is required to understand how and why associational forms of organization of economic and social activiry have moved into the transnational space. In this chapter we shall address these concerns by looking at the historical emergence of global finance governance organizations and note the existence of archipelagos of agencies that govern finance in different ways. These voluntary associations include legally incorporated associations that exist within local legal jurisdictions as well as loosely structured networks and movements that are disembodied entities that exist and coordinate using electronic media. Incorporated assoviations display local rootedness with implications such as legal liability of its members, the right to own property and enter contracts, and the right to open a bank account and officially lodge a complaint. Much of the earlier work on understanding global organization focused on particular factors related to technology, knowledge or expertise, and worked within the framework of existing nation-state jurisdiction. However, the heterogeneirty within this global space reveals how, through the governance mechanism of global associetions, finance has evolved into a global concern embodying particular logics and following a specific historical trajectory

Building Inclusive Markets in Rural Bangladesh : How Intermediaries Work Institutional Voids

International audienceMuch effort goes into building markets as a tool for economic and social development, often overlooking that in too many places social exclusion and poverty prevent many, especially women, from participating in and accessing markets. Building on data from rural Bangladesh and analyzing the work of a prominent intermediary organization, we uncover institutional voids as the source of market exclusion and identify two sets of activities – redefining market architecture and legitimating new actors – as critical for building ‘inclusive’ markets. We expose voids as ‘analytical spaces’ and illustrate how they result from conflict and contradiction among institutional ‘bits and pieces’ from local political, community, and religious spheres. Our findings put forward a perspective on market building that highlights the ‘on the ground’ dynamics and attends to the ‘institutions at play’, to their consequences, and to a more diverse set of ‘inhabitants’ of institutions.<br/

Pentagon Officials Misled Congress on Transgender Troops by Asserting Falsehoods that DoD’s Own Data Contradict, and by Calling Equal Treatment "Special" Treatment

Two senior Pentagon officials testified on February 27, 2019 before the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel in defense of President Trump’s proposed ban on transgender service members, which the Defense Department plans to reinstate once permitted by courts. In their testimony, James N. Stewart, performing the duties of Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, and Vice Admiral Raquel Bono, Director of the Defense Health Agency, misled Congress by asserting falsehoods about readiness and deployment and by saying that applying a single standard of fitness equally to all service members means giving transgender troops “special accommodations.” Their mischaracterizations echoed many of the main points in DoD’s 2018 “Report and Recommendations on Military Service by Transgender Persons,” known as the “Mattis Report.” Both the written and verbal testimony introduced deceptive, erroneous, and false assertions about the ostensible risk that gender dysphoria poses to readiness and deployment and about standards that DoD plans to apply to transgender service members. DoD witnesses deemed gender dysphoria a risk despite the fact that 1) every Service Chief testified in Congress that inclusive policy has not compromised readiness; 2) no evidence supports the assertion; 3) a global medical consensus finds the medical condition is treatable and should not be disqualifying; and 4) DoD’s own data concerning the successful deployment of hundreds of service members with the diagnosis contradict the claim. DoD witnesses defined transgender individuals as a deployment risk and then blamed them for being “unwilling” to adhere to standards written specifically to exclude them from service