Varieties of localization: international norms and the commodification of knowledge in India and Brazil

Abstract

The legal implementation of internationally agreed norms on a domestic level gives momentum to a substantial reinterpretation. Based on this insight, this article develops an ideal-typology of possible 'localization' outcomes. Apart from a literal adoption of an international norm, we show that the domestic implementation may change its emphasis (accentuation), amend it by supplementary purposes (addition), or imply a deviation which nevertheless sticks to the letter of the international wording (subversion). We argue that the specific form of localization depends on the interaction between international pressure politics and its congruence with the prevailing domestic public and private preferences. International power constellations explain why an international norm is implemented, but the specific character of its localization is mainly determined by domestic actor constellations. To substantiate our claims, we analyze the implementation of two interconnected international agreements in India and Brazil. While both the Convention on Biodiversity and the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights introduce the norm of property rights for intellectual knowledge in previously (at least internationally) unregulated fields, the particular characteristics of their respective implementation in both countries display the interaction between international pressure and domestic preferences in our four case studies.

When global norms meet local politics: Localising transparency in extractive industries governance

“…An important version of this account was developed by Acharya (2004), who argued that norm localisation is most likely to occur when outside norms can establish some form of congruence with established local beliefs and practices. Similarly, Eimer et al (2016) argued that the particular characteristics of a given localisation process will depend importantly on the interplay between international pressure and domestic preferences, while Cortell and Davis (2000) highlighted the significance of “cultural match” between international norms and domestic understandings in determining the degree to which global norms achieve traction at the local level.…”

Teaming Up? China, India and Brazil and the Issue of Benefit-Sharing from Genetic Resource Use

“…One particularly problematic front emerged in the form of indigenous communities' resistance against such projects taking place without their consent during the Cardoso administrations (1995)(1996)(1997)(1998)(1999)(2000)(2001)(2002) (Eimer et al 2016), not to mention the fact that many (but not all) consider the idea of GRs commercialisation as incompatible with their traditions. 25 Just as the discourse on the environment changed during the 1980s, that on indigenous communities living in the Amazon changed, too: often seen as a hindrance to the country's development, they now emerged as defenders of the national biogenetic patrimony and as a fountain of knowledge that could propel Brazil into knowledge economy status (Conklin 2002).…”

“…The most influential of these was made in 1995 by Congresswoman Marina Silvaa notable environmental figure in Brazilfollowed by even further-reaching proposals by PT (Workers Party) representatives (Velez 2010). Such proposals clashed with Cardoso's aim of preserving the Executive's powers over this matter, but although all state agencies agreed that GRs should be utilised towards economic goals, the degree of indigenous communities' involvement was strongly disputed and supported primarily by the Ministry of the Environment and the Public Prosecutor's Office (Eimer et al 2016). It is difficult to evaluate how long this turf war would have lasted.…”

Conceptualizing dynamic challenges to global financial diffusion: Islamic finance and the grafting of sukuk

“…Local agents borrow foreign ideas, stripping off features that are clearly not compatible with the local context. In turn, these ideas might help to amplify, or accentuate, prior held beliefs and practices (Acharya 2004: 245-6; see also Eimer et al 2016). Yet, it is precisely the question of how foreign and local ideas co-mingle -and the resultant stability (or not) of the graft -which warrants further scrutiny.…”