better seen as complementary: each of them stimulates theanalyst to ask questions and look for entities and causalconnections that the other lens may miss. In analogy tophysical lenses, each of them allows the observer to seesome objects more sharply while at the same time blurringthe context or cutting it out altogether. The article consists of two main sections. The ﬁrst sec-tion begins by outlining the key assumptions of the
perspective with regard to the
dimensions of policy making.
It then shows thatthis perspective has led analysts to focus on three broadareas of research: global policy competition, global policy communication and global policy cooperation. Some exem-plary studies conducted on those research questions arementioned. The second section outlines the key assump-tions of the
perspective, again with regard to the
dimensions. It then dis-cusses some emerging research agendas among analystsusing this perspective, notably the theme of the inclusive-ness and public accountability of private and hybrid gover-nance arrangements. The concluding section offers somethoughts on the relationship between the two lenses.
1. The State-Centric Perspective
Authors using a state-centric perspective make a simpleassumption with regard to the
that is the object of analysis: it is the state. The policies under consideration arethus instances of ‘public policy’, to the extent that publicpolicy is equated with policy made by states, individually orcollectively (Section 2 considers this equation further). Inrelation to the dimension of
, the assumption is that itoccurs in two separate arenas: domestic and international.Domestic politics consists of the competition for inﬂuenceon state policy making among groups variously organised aspolitical parties, party factions, pressure groups, judicialbodies, semi-independent public authorities, etc. Dependingon the key institutional features of the polity, electoral poli-tics plays a larger or smaller role in shaping policies, but italways interacts with other mechanisms and channels of interest representation, such as corporatist arrangements, fac-tional bargaining within parties and contentious collectiveaction. International politics, on the other hand, consists of interaction among governments, and it also can take a variety of forms: coercive diplomacy, bilateral and multilateral nego-tiations, reciprocal or unilateral policy adjustment, inclusionin and exclusion from policy arrangements, to mention justthe most common. Domestic and international politics may be interpreted as functioning according to fundamentally different logics. For instance, a very inﬂuential approachin international relations scholarship, structural realism, isbased on the assumption that domestic politics is based onthe political ordering principle of hierarchy whereas interna-tional politics is based on the political ordering principle of anarchy (Waltz, 1979). But the assumption of a fundamentalqualitative difference between the two domains is not a nec-essary component of the state-centric view. What is neces-sary is only that the two political domains are separate andthat they are connected almost exclusively through govern-ments. In other words, there is an ‘outside’ and an ‘inside’and governments are the only gatekeepers between them.One example of a theory based on state-centric assump-tions is ‘liberal intergovernmentalism’, which has beendeveloped by Andrew Moravcsik (1998) and other authors,mostly with reference to European rather than global inte-gration. Liberal intergovernmentalism combines a ‘liberal’approach to the formation of state preferences (based onthe issue-speciﬁc economic interests of powerful domesticconstituents) with a bargaining theory of internationalnegotiations (based on the relative power of states stem-ming from asymmetrical interdependence) and a functionaltheory of institutional choice (based on the role of interna-tional institutions in increasing the credibility of interstatecommitments). The state-centric perspective has generated severalresearch programmes that have greatly enriched our under-standing of the global dimensions of policy making. Theseresearch programmes have clustered around three themesthat can be called ‘global policy competition’, ‘global policy communication’ and ‘global policy cooperation’.
The orderin which these themes are discussed in the remainder of thissection reﬂects the minimum levels of interaction ‘density’,and hence opportunities for ‘socialisation’ among policy makers, that are required for the relevant causal mechanismsto operate. In principle, competition requires very littleinteraction among decision makers in different countries toproduce an effect on policy, as a ‘natural’ selection mecha-nism may eliminate ‘unsuccessful’ policies and allow success-ful policies to survive and be replicated. In practice,however, decisions about which policies to adopt or aban-don are often made after ascertaining which policies areimplemented in other countries. Similarly, in principle,communication may consist of the limited interactioninvolved in gathering information about foreign policy experiences, but in practice government ofﬁcials exchangeinformation on a much more regularised and institutiona-lised basis. Finally, cooperation almost always requiresextensive interaction during pre-agreement negotiation andpost-agreement veriﬁcation of compliance. The followingsubsections present some exemplary ﬁndings.
Global Policy Competition
In academic and public debates it is often remarked thatstates design regulative and redistributive policies in sucha way as to strengthen the competiveness of ‘domestic’ com-panies in global markets and the attractiveness of their own jurisdiction as a location for investments. Once a govern-
Global Dimensions of Policy
2010 London School of Economics and Political Science and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.