The OECD and the Reconfiguration of the State in Emerging Economies: Manufacturing ‘Regulatory Capacity’

Abstract

This article explores attempts to construct ‘regulatory capacity’ in developing countries, focusing on the work of the Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development (OECD) and its role as an international standard‐setting institution in regulatory governance. The article explores how the construction of specific forms of regulatory capacity, and attempts to orchestrate the adoption of regulatory reform agendas in emerging economies, reflect broader processes of political‐policy transfer that impact state capacity and the ability of developing states to manage economic development. By analysing the OECD's engagement practices with third party organizations such as APEC (Asia‐Pacific Economic Cooperation organization) and ASEAN (the Association of Southeast Asian Nations) and its specific engagement with emerging economies through country ‘reviews’ and ‘audits’, the author explores the implications for state capacity in terms of the adoption of regulatory systems of governance.

Independent Regulatory Authorities in India: A Comparative Perspective

“…Indian critiques of neoliberalism in some of the contributions in this issue are in good company. I would particularly draw attention to a very thoughtful critical appraisal of the arguably most broad-based and consensually evolved global discourse on the emerging regulatory state adapting to the needs of the emerging economies in Jarvis (2017). Reflecting on the processes and consequences of the diffusion of OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) 'standards', Jarvis concludes:…”

Domestication of international norms for sustainable resource governance: Elite capture in Peru

“…IOs, such as the OECD or the EU, often include social or environmental reform as part of a broader negotiation process (Holzinger, Knill, & Sommerer, 2008). Whereas such diffusion strategies could involve conditionality, elite learning should ideally be characterised by more consensual methods (Checkel, 1999), such as the diagnostic tools and peer‐to‐peer engagements employed by OECD to persuade governments to adopt institutional reforms (Jarvis, 2017). However, this strategy faces important limitations.…”

“…The OECD relies on policy recommendations for exercising “disciplinary power” and motivating countries that aspire to achieve OECD membership to adhere to OECD standards (OECD, 2011, p. 12). From Jarvis's point of view, the OECD possesses “powerful mechanisms promoting ideational formation, standard‐setting and policy transfer” (Jarvis, 2017, p. 8).…”

Policy entrepreneurship and institutional change: Who, how, and why?

“…Literatures addressing the origin of policy ideas, for example, how ideas are learned and adopted by political and policy practitioners, and through what mechanisms and processes they transfer and diffuse, see agential and institutional learning as a key driver of change (Bennett & Howlett, ; Cao, ; Dobbin, Simmons, & Garrett, ; Drezner, ; Elkins & Simmons, ; Gilardi, , ; Meseguer & Gilardi, ; Voegtle, Knill, & Dobbins, ). Several interrelated processes and constituencies are identified, including epistemic communities such as specialist knowledge practitioners who communicate through discrete networks and collectively forge ideational changes in relation to policy thinking, institutional agendas, and goals which then filter into domestic institutional contexts (Blanco, Lowndes, & Pratchett, ; Grossmann, ); or exogenous processes such as international standards regimes, market access considerations or interstate competitive pressures which create new problems and agendas that contribute to policy and institutional change (standards adoption, regulatory reform, or adherence to “best‐practice”/rankings) (Carroll & Jarvis, ; Dolowitz & Marsh, , ; Jarvis, , ). Change thus arises through multidirectional processes that inform policy thinking, agendas, and preferences.…”