African Coalitions and Global Economic Governance

Abstract

The proliferation of international institutions with overlapping scope and authority over issue areas creates strategic dilemmas for all states. While African states are often considered marginalised in world politics and global markets, Michael Byron Nelson shows how coalitions can form a crucial part of African strategies to influence international institutions and achieve results. Building a bottom-up analysis of global governance, through legal analysis, content analysis, and in-depth interviews, Nelson illuminates institutional and coalition dynamics through case studies of three key areas - food safety, intellectual property, and agricultural trade. He highlights the difficulties encountered by coalitions attempting to navigate institutional systems, emerging from institutional thickness (increasing the number of institutions involved) and integration (increasing the formal linkages between those institutions). Finally, Nelson shows how increasing the hierarchy of an institutional system, by creating a focal point on a single institution, can make coordination easier for coalitions.

Compound soft power: the BRICS and the multilateralization of soft power

“…The BRICS has represented a back door into these organizations as other members of the BRICS have had access to the negotiations. This has helped assure that China and Russia's interests are being represented in such diplomatic fora (Van Der Westhuizen 2016, Kurlantzick 2007 andNelson 2016).…”

Compound soft power: the BRICS and the multilateralization of soft power

“…Brazil has done much unilaterally to break down cotton subsides that a group of African nations have been historically keen on. In this respect, Brazil has functioned more as a leader in the African agricultural cause than South Africa, which has been relied upon to fill such a role for African nations in all organizations (Nelson 2016). …”

“…25 24 Brazil's support for African nations in pushing European nations and the U.S. to dismantle cotton subsidies over the past 12 years has provided an interesting window into the diplomatic power which small nation coalitions can generate when working toward similar goals in existing international organizations. On cotton diplomacy, see Nelson (2016). 25 Brazil has been especially valuable as a wedge into Southern hearts, as it has positioned itself as a "Southern development partner" and has achieved a reputation as a "role model" among developing nations .…”

“…The BRICS has represented a back door into these organizations as other members of the BRICS have had access to the negotiations. This has helped assure that China and Russia's interests are being represented in such diplomatic fora (Van Der Westhuizen 2016, Kurlantzick 2007and Nelson 2016). …”

“…South Africa's leadership on the African Continent is strengthened all the more as African nations see it as increasing its influence in international diplomacy through association with superpowers. Even among nations that have had a tumultuous history of foreign relations, joining into blocs with allies of their erstwhile enemies takes an edge off any existing antagonisms: again, the friend of my friend is my friend (Nelson 2016). 26 In terms of negative consequences of transitivity, there is the issue of soft power diversion, i.e., the soft power compromised with erstwhile competitors of BRICS members.…”