Governing the poor: the transformation of social governance in Argentina and Chile

A crucial phenomenon during the last two decades has been the transformation of social governance. New orientations in social policy have radically altered the roles of the state, market and civil society in social provision. The thesis proposes a framework for understanding this transformation of social governance that links political leaders’strategic calculations to the particular political challenges they face as a result of changes in the socioeconomic environment as well as to the ideas and institutions that shape their reform attempts. Importantly, it shows how the “pluralist” social policy approach that was initiated by governments all over the developing world in the 1990s may lead to different modes of social governance with contrasting effects on statesociety relations. By drawing on a comparative analysis of Argentina and Chile, the thesis shows how this is highly contingent on regime institutions. In Argentina, regime institutions provide politicians with wide discretion in distributing social funds. The result has been a populist mode of social governance in which neo-clientelism serves to politicize the linkages between the political elites and subaltern sectors. In Chile, by contrast, regime institutions provide politicians with very little discretion in distributing social funds. This has resulted in a technocratic mode of social governance in which neo-pluralism serves to depoliticize the linkages between the political elites and subaltern sectors. Both outcomes differ markedly from widely made assumptions that couple the pluralist social policy approach with more participatory governance and poor people’s empowerment

Holorefleksiivisyydellä kohti globaalia keynesiläisyyttä

Arvio teoksesta Heikki Patomäki (2022): The Three Fields of Global Political Economy. Lontoo: Routledge, 147 s

Nordic resilience: Strengthening cooperation on security of supply and crisis preparedness

Against the backdrop of the COVID-19 crisis and Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, crisis preparedness and security of supply have taken on a new urgency. The recent events have demonstrated the fragility of many of the international flows of critical goods, products and services on which the Nordics also depend. As one of the most interconnected regions in the world, it is only through cooperation that the Nordics can avoid supply disturbances and crises that cascade throughout the region.The Nordics are well placed to enhance such cooperation. Based on extensive comparative analysis, the report shows how the Nordics share key characteristics in their approach to crisis preparedness and security of supply. What this report calls the Nordic resilience approach thus also forms a solid basis for joint action at the regional level.Finland’s and Sweden’s pending NATO accession will further strengthen the potential for Nordic cooperation. It is with this potential in mind that the present report investigates Nordic crisis preparedness and security of supply models, reviews existing cooperation and provides practical recommendations on how to jointly strengthen Nordic resilience.</p

Europe Facing Geoeconomics : Assessing Finland’s and the EU’s Risks and Options in the Technological Rivalry

The geoeconomic rivalry is accelerating with the world’s major powers using economic instruments to advance strategic agendas. This poses a challenge to the EU and its member states. The EU’s market-oriented approach to international economic engagement exposes it to risks arising from the geoeconomic power politics of other major powers. These risks are especially acute in the technological domain where Europe’s competitiveness has been decreasing and its strategic dependencies on China and the United States growing. This report examines the risks and options for the EU and one of its member states – Finland – in adapting to the rise of geoeconomics. The report shows how the risk picture for European businesses are undergoing change, highlighting the need to incorporate geoeconomic dynamics into existing risk assessments. It also surveys emerging EU and Finnish policy instruments for managing strategic interdependencies and associated risks. The report gathers in-depth data on European and Finnish interdependencies with China and the United States, taking stock of critical strengths and vulnerabilities. Key policy recommendations following from this analysis focus on 1) introducing national geoeconomic risk assessments; 2) increasing strategic coordination of technological governance; 3) promoting trade cooperation; and 4) ensuring a level playing field for European companies.This publication is part of the implementation of the Government Plan for Analysis, Assessment and Research. (tietokayttoon.fi) The content is the responsibility of the producers of the information and does not necessarily represent the view of the Government

Geoeconomics in the context of restive regional powers

Geoeconomic power and its use appear to be a crucial, albeit understudied aspect of today's international relations. Traditionally, international power has been thought of in geopolitical rather than geoeconomic terms. Indeed, ever since the famous debate about sea power and land power between Alfred Thayer Mahan and Halford MacKinder at the cusp of the twentieth century, scholars have linked geography with the pursuit of political and military power. However, the term "geoeconomics" is of a more recent origin, and also more vexing than geopolitics. The term is commonly associated with Edward Luttwak's writings in the early 1990s Luttwak (Natl Interes 20:17-24, 1990, Int Econ 7/5:18-67, 1993), although it did not spin a major scholarly discussion at the time. For Luttwak, geoeconomics denoted the successor system of interstate rivalry that emerged in the aftermath of Cold War geopolitics. As a consequence of the rise of major new economic powers, such as China, India and Brazil, there is renewed interest in the concept. Yet, an overview of the literature indicates that there seems to be no agreement on what exactly the term means. This special issue tackles the different ways in which the term geoeconomics is used, in the context of the policies pursued by major regional powers (e.g. China, Russia and Germany). How are we to understand the actions of these regional powers in contexts where economic interests, political power and geography intersect? In the introductory article, we overview the literature and summarise the main arguments of the individual papers.Non peer reviewe

The emergence of strategic capitalism: Geoeconomics, corporate statecraft and the repurposing of the global economy

The global economy is gradually drifting in the direction of strategic capitalism. In contrast to the free market capitalism prevailing in past decades, by resorting to geoeconomic measures, governments are imposing conditions on which goods, services and technologies can be transacted and which foreign economic partners are deemed trustworthy. Companies try to preserve their businesses as far as possible while at the same time recognize they have limited control over the unfolding geoeconomic shifts. The resulting market behaviour is a nuanced attitude that could be called corporate statecraft: companies are both constraining and stimulating state geoeconomic measures. The article describes this dynamic, in which the rise of China plays a central role, and argues that the dynamic between state geoeconomic measures and corporate statecraft will define how far the global economy will depart from the current market orientation and how much it will be subject to national strategic choices.status: Published onlin

The EU Foreign Policy Towards The Brics And Other Emerging Powers: Objectives And Strategies

Five years after the launch of the ‘BRIC’ acronym, Brazil, Russia, India and China in 2006 started a process of political dialogue, with South Africa being admitted as a new member in 2011 – leading to the transformation of ‘BRIC’ into ‘BRICS’. This study demonstrates that the BRICS countries are not acting systematically as a coherent bloc in the UN and other international forums. However, their coordination within the BRICS framework as well as within other forums such as the G20 have an impact upon international negotiations – leading to negative effects for the EU’s ability to pursue its interests. This also points to the major failure of the EU’s ’strategic partnerships‘ with the individual BRICS countries. The strategic partnership concept has been mainly important in rhetorical terms. The EU has not been able to use these partnerships to substantially upgrade its relations with the BRICS countries or to prepare itself to the shifting balance of power to the South and the Asian- Pacific region. This study presents several options for the EU to further develop the strategic partnerships and with policy recommendations to engage more actively with new and emerging powers.nrpages: 49status: publishe