Transgovernmental Relations Research Articles

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: Limits on negotiating behind the border barriers

AbstractThis special issue focuses on the difficulties of negotiating the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), with contributions by scholars from different perspectives. This introductory article briefly examines the trend to mega-FTAs of which TTIP is a leading example. It then reviews the contributions to this special issue, drawing on an analytical approach that reflects extant work on transnational and transgovernmental relations. This approach, we contend, helps to understand the stark mismatch between the desire of some parties to negotiate binding trade rules on behind-the-border regulatory policies in certain key sectors of national economies and the progress made in TTIP talks. We then highlight the significance of some key actors in a case study of failed E.U. attempts to include financial sector reforms and associated regulatory processes in TTIP.

Sanctions and the Future of EU–Russian Economic Relations

The essay examines the qualitative changes in EU–Russian relations which resulted from the 2014 sanctions. Thematic, structural and institutional aspects of the issue are analysed through the ‘level of analysis’ approach. Thematically, policy-specific and implementation measures reinforced an EU–Russian ‘divorce’ both in energy and trade. Structurally, the scope of EU–Russian dialogue narrowed in favour of relations between Moscow and member states, and in multilateral fora; this dialogue also became dependent on Russia–US relations. Institutionally sanctions have led to the growing poverty of transgovernmental and transnational relations. As a result, achievements of previous years have been derailed, and reversal of the negative trends will prove difficult.

Governing from the Border? Quebec’s Role in North American Security

ABSTRACTThis article aims to shed light on Quebec’s role in cross-border security governance. It exposes the challenges Quebec is facing in this area and what cross-border activities fall within its jurisdiction. The supported hypothesis in this article is that security is subjected to an increasing politicization from the Quebec government in a post-9/11 context, which contributes to the edification of an embryonic “multilevel governance.” If this politicization was noticeable in political statements and international agreements, it seems that it was more driven by conjectural imperatives than a real desire to make Quebec a leader in transnational security. Therefore, there were no diplomatic and financial commitments to make security part of the Gérin-Lajoie doctrine and develop a similar paradiplomacy as in other fields. However, on different technical and bureaucratic levels, transgovernmental relations between certain Quebec governmental organizations, including police corps, and their American counterparts were created. Consequently, they contributed to make continental action more effective, at least in a certain measure.

Transnationalism, Transgovernmentalism and Canada–US Relations in the Twenty-first Century

This article assesses the contemporary dynamics of transnationalism in Canada–US relations as the interaction of three key factors: market-driven or “bottom-up” economic integration, sectoral differentiation embedded in transgovernmental relations, and societal (or cultural) transnationalism. It also notes the disruptive and potentially transformative effects of transnational and transgovernmental forces beyond North America which are becoming increasingly central to the calculations of policymakers and major interest groups in both countries. It concludes that transnationalism is a multidimensional phenomenon that appears more likely to facilitate mutual accommodation between the US and its North American neighbors embedded within broader national and international policy streams than to build a broad North American consensus on policy harmonization for the foreseeable future.

Deliberative Equality and the Transgovernmental Politics of the Global Financial Architecture

Revisiting the concept of transgovernmentalism, originally developed by Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye, can shed considerable light on the nature of interstate cooperation in contemporary global financial governance. Transgovernmentalism highlights how certain technocratic policy communities, composed of finance ministries, central banks, and regulators, dominate the global financial architecture. It also provides insights into the political and social basis of these actors' interactions and deliberations. Most importantly, renovating the concept of brings the participatory deficits in the current global financial architecture into sharp focus and points us in the direction of a workable reform agenda that would expand inclusion and participation. This article advocates basing future reform on efforts to achieve a closer realization of the principle of Unfortunately, transgovernmentalism is incompatible with deliberative equality, meaning that it is precisely the transgovernmental characteristics of the current global financial architecture that have to be challenged and overturned if we are to arrive at anything approximating deliberative equality. KEYWORDS: global financial architecture, transgovernmental politics, G7, G-20, deliberation. ********** Over thirty years ago, Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye published a seminal article in the journal World Politics that outlined the concept of transgovernmental relations. (1) In the intervening period, political scientists have rarely applied the concept in empirical research, fewer still sought to revise it for the contemporary era. In this article, I make the argument that a renovated version of the concept of can make a significant contribution to our understanding of the political dynamics of the current global financial architecture (GFA). (2) As a concept, not only reveals much about the nature of interstate cooperation in contemporary global financial governance, but also brings the participatory deficits in the current GFA into sharp focus and points in the direction of a modest, workable reform agenda that would increase inclusion and participation. The review of the GFA undertaken after the Asian financial crisis involved three distinct trends. There was both a partial privatization of financial governance evident in the creation of twelve codes and standards that were designed to enhance market scrutiny of national policies and practices (3) and a limited shift away from the club model of diplomacy evident in the creation of the G-20, which challenged the monopoly of leading developed countries. Most significantly, the architectural exercise consolidated and deepened the transgovemmental characteristics of the GFA. The transgovernmental nature of the GFA restricts participation in key deliberative spaces to a limited number of regulators and central state agencies (almost exclusively finance ministries, central banks, and specialist regulatory agencies), which dominate and control the deliberations that determine the terms and content of global financial governance, resulting in a narrow, technocratic, closed insider policy process that remains largely impenetrable to a wider range of concerned societal interests. While there is some evidence of a shift in global governance arrangements toward a more polycentric form of complex multilateralism in which various civil society groupings, nonstate actors, and developing countries participate alongside more traditional advanced capitalist state bureaucracies in the form of trisectoral networks, (4) I argue in this article that the principal defect of the global financial architecture is that it remains insufficiently pluralist and that this is a direct result of its overriding transgovernmental character. I begin with a brief discussion of the growing significance of the concept of deliberation for the study of global governance, including some consideration of the importance of the issues of participation and representation in the act of deliberation. …

Approaching the Global Polity

The world is becoming increasingly tightly organised politically and the global polity is emerging as a major research theme. Well defined conceptualisations and theoretical approaches have still to be developed but important contributions and insights are found in theories on regime-formation and institutionalisation, the literature on globalisation, convergence and diversity, neo-Gramscian world order analysis, internationalisation of the state and transnational and trans-governmental relations. The paper discusses main themes in these literatures and identifies promising avenues for further research, among them trans- governmental relations and transnational class-formation. Finally the conceptualisation of the global polity is discussed and a definition suggested. The global polity is defined as the totality of global political structures and processes including non-state actors. It is further specified by three analytical aspects: a set of structured arenas, mechanisms for global policies, and embodiment of relations of power.

The demand for international regimes

International regimes can be understood as results of rational behavior by the actors—principally states—that create them. Regimes are demanded in part because they facilitate the making of agreements, by providing information and reducing transactions costs in world politics. Increased interdependence among issues—greater ‘issue density’—will lead to increased demand for regimes. Insofar as regimes succeed in providing high quality information, through such processes as the construction of generally accepted norms or the development of transgovernmental relations, they create demand for their own continuance, even if the structural conditions (such as hegemony) under which they were first supplied, change. Analysis of the demand for international regimes thus helps us to understand lags between structural change and regime change, as well as to assess the significance of transgovernmental policy networks. Several assertions of structural theory seem problematic in light of this analysis. Hegemony may not be a necessary condition for stable international regimes; past patterns of institutionalized cooperation may be able to compensate, to some extent, for increasing fragmentation of power.

Canada and the United States: Transnational and Transgovernmental Relations.

Canada and the United States: Transnational and Transgovernmental Relations.

Canada and the United States: Transnational and Transgovernmental Relations. Edited by Annette Baker Fox, Alfred O. HeroJr., and Joseph S. NyeJr., New York, Columbia University Press, 1976. Pp. xiii + 443. $22.50, cloth; $6.95, paper. - The Mercantile Bank Affair, A Case Study of Canadian Nationalism and a Multinational Firm. By John Fayerweather. New York, New York University Press, 1974.

Canada and the United States: Transnational and Transgovernmental Relations. Edited by Annette Baker Fox, Alfred O. HeroJr., and Joseph S. NyeJr., New York, Columbia University Press, 1976. Pp. xiii + 443. $22.50, cloth; $6.95, paper. - The Mercantile Bank Affair, A Case Study of Canadian Nationalism and a Multinational Firm. By John Fayerweather. New York, New York University Press, 1974.

Book Review: Canada and the United States: Transitional and Transgovernmental Relations, by A. B. Fox, A. O. Hero, Jr., and J. S. Nye (eds.)

Book Review: Canada and the United States: Transitional and Transgovernmental Relations, by A. B. Fox, A. O. Hero, Jr., and J. S. Nye (eds.)

Canada and the United States: Transnational and Transgovernmental Relations

Journal Article Canada and the United States: Transnational and Transgovernmental Relations Get access Canada and the United States: Transnational and Transgovernmental Relations. Edited by Annette Baker Fox, Alfred O. Hero and Joseph S. NyeNew York, London: Columbia University Press. 1976. 443 pp. $28.10. Pb: $8.70. Michael Dunne Michael Dunne 1University of Sussex Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar International Affairs, Volume 53, Issue 3, July 1977, Pages 536–538, https://doi.org/10.2307/2615394 Published: 01 July 1977

Book Reviews

Book Reviews

Canada and the United States: Transnational and Transgovernmental Relations

Canada and the United States: Transnational and Transgovernmental Relations

The politics of policy reversal: the US response to granting trade preferences to developing countries and linkages between international organizations and national policy making

Analysis of the United States’ shift to support of trade preferences for developing countries in 1967 provides evidence for the value of a “bureaucratic politics” model that pays attention to the importance of transgovernmental relations in influencing national policy making. Between 1964 and 1967, international organizations affected, United States policy making on trade preferences, and officials within the US government who favored preferences used such organizations-particularly the OECD-to help change American policy. Intergovernmental, transgovernmental, and national levels of policy making were closely linked to one another. This case study suggests the need for a broadened conception of “bureaucratic politics”; but it also supports the view that the “bureaucratic politics” and “rational actor” approaches are fundamentally complementary rather than antithetical.

On Thinking about Future World Order

Three types of thought approach the question of future world order: the naturalrational, positivist-evolutionary, and historicist-dialectical. The normative criterion in the natural-rational approach has, in recent times, most commonly been bound up with the view that liberal pluralism in polities is the condition for a just world order. This view has, however, succumbed both under the critique of positivist-evolutionary political science which argues that authoritarianism is characteristic of early stages of political development, and to the manipulation of “pluralism” in poor countries by powerful external forces (investment, trade union, and intelligence). The positivist-evolutionary approach has two main currents. One is functionalism, of which the transnational and transgovernmental relations versions are currently fashionable. The other is the notion of a global ecological system. Both versions take existing structures of power and social relations as implicit givens from which future trends are extrapolated; they provide no basis for considering the possibility of changes in these structures. The historicist-dialectical approach offers the possibility of understanding change in these basic structures of power and social relations by searching out points of emerging conflict and the alternative conceptions of order which the forces in conflict express.

Transgovernmental Relations and International Organizations

Students of world politics have tended to assume that states act as units. Yet trans-governmental relations—direct interactions among sub-units not controlled or closely guided by the policies of cabinets or chief executives—are frequently important. Trans-governmental relations are facilitated by extensive personal contacts among officials and by conflicts of interest between departments or agencies within modern governments. International organizations can play important roles in transgovernmental networks by (i) affecting the definition of issues; (2) promoting coalitions among governmental subunits with similar interests; and (3) serving as points of policy intervention in trans-national systems. As policy interdependence among developed-country governments becomes more extensive and complex, these roles of international organizations are likely to become increasingly important. Internationalism of this relatively informal, non-institutionalized type is not a “dead end.”

Bilateral Institutions and Transgovernmental Relations Between Canada and the United States

Preceding essays have documented the dramatic growth of transnational relations between Canadians and Americans and have emphasized the development of new issue areas—private, local, regional, and national—between the two countries. As these relations expand in scope, complexity, and occasionally conflict, we would expect to see a corresponding growth in Canadian-American institutions to provide mechanisms for policy coordination, bargaining, and conflict resolution. The increase in formal governmental institutions between Ottawa and Washington has indeed been notable, but we must not conclude that these institutions constitute the core of the intergovernmental relationship. The informal and formal communications between federal government bureaucracies and between officials of the states and provinces are no less important; hence, the essay will focus not only on the bilateral institutions but also on the phenomenon that Nye and Keohane have called transgovernmental relations, that is, the non institutionalized relationships between subunits of governments and the activities they undertake that remain reasonably immune from central control (see their preceding essay in this volume).