Global Interdependency and Strategic Neocorporatism: The Social Identity Dynamics of Progressive Social Movements Utilizing International Sustainable Development Regimes

Downloaded on Wed Oct 13 2021 at 23:10:11 UTC
__________________________________________________________________________
EDITOR
Victoria Hurth, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
MANAGING EDITOR
Kortney Sutherland, Common Ground Research Networks, USA
ADVISORY BOARD
The Advisory Board of the Climate Change Research Network
recognizes the contribution of many in the evolution of the Research
Network. The principal role of the Advisory Board has been, and is,
to drive the overall intellectual direction of the Research Network. A
full list of members can be found at
https://on-climate.com/about/advisory-board.
PEER REVIEW
Articles published in The International Journal of Climate Change:

Impacts and Responses are peer reviewed using a two-way
anonymous peer review model. Reviewers are active participants of
the Climate Change Research Network or a thematically related
Research Network. The publisher, editors, reviewers, and authors all
agree upon the following standards of expected ethical behavior,
which are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
Core Practices. More information can be found at
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLIMATE https://cgnetworks.org/journals/publication-ethics.
CHANGE: IMPACTS AND RESPONSES
https://on-climate.com ARTICLE SUBMISSION
ISSN: 1835-7156 (Print) The International Journal of Climate Change: Impacts and
https://doi.org/10.18848/1835-7156/CGP (Journal) Responses publishes biannually (June, December). To find out more
about the submission process, please visit
First published by Common Ground Research Networks in 2021 https://on-climate.com/journal/call-for-papers.
University of Illinois Research Park
60 Hazelwood Drive ABSTRACTING AND INDEXING
Champaign, IL 61820 USA For a full list of databases in which this journal is indexed, please
Ph: +1-217-328-0405 visit https://on-climate.com/journal.
https://cgnetworks.org
RESEARCH NETWORK MEMBERSHIP
The International Journal of Climate Change: Impacts and Authors in The International Journal of Climate Change: Impacts
Responses is a peer-reviewed, scholarly journal. and Responses are members of the Climate Change Research
Network or a thematically related Research Network. Members
COPYRIGHT receive access to journal content. To find out more, visit
© 2021 (individual papers), the author(s) https://on-climate.com/about/become-a-member.
© 2021 (selection and editorial matter),
Common Ground Research Networks SUBSCRIPTIONS
The International Journal of Climate Change: Impacts and
Responses is available in electronic and print formats. Subscribe to
gain access to content from the current year and the entire backlist.
Contact us at cgscholar.com/cg_support.
Some Rights Reserved. ORDERING

Public Licensed Material: Available under the terms and conditions Single articles and issues are available from the journal bookstore at
of the Creative Commons https://cgscholar.com/bookstore.
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public
License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). The use of this material is permitted OPEN RESEARCH
for non-commercial use provided the creator(s) and publisher receive The International Journal of Climate Change: Impacts and
attribution. No derivatives of this version are permitted. Official Responses is Hybrid Open Access, meaning authors can choose to
terms of this public license apply as indicated here: make their articles open access. This allows their work to reach an
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode even wider audience, broadening the dissemination of their research.
To find out more, please visit
https://cgnetworks.org/journals/open-research.
DISCLAIMER
The authors, editors, and publisher will not accept any legal
responsibility for any errors or omissions that may have been made
in this publication. The publisher makes no warranty, express or
Common Ground Research Networks, a member of Crossref implied, with respect to the material contained herein.
Global Interdependency and Strategic
Neocorporatism: The Social Identity Dynamics of
Progressive Social Movements Utilizing
International Sustainable Development Regimes
Benedict E. DeDominicis,1 Catholic University of Korea, Republic of Korea
Abstract: The integration of social movement, social identity, and neocorporatist state theory contributes to a framework to
conceptualize political strategies for accommodating global interdependence. Cold war–era benign corporatist models
focused on smaller European states dependent on international trade for their economic prosperity. The Trump
administration’s hostility toward institutionalized multilateral international cooperation denies the imperative to confront
the tragedy of the commons unfolding from the negative externalities causing anthropogenic climate change. Complex
interdependency incentivizes the creation of international regimes. Social identity theory highlights the pitfalls and
pathways in responding to the increasing salience of social movements intersecting with global interdependence. The
progressive institutionalization of international human rights regimes includes sustainable development imperatives that
can provide strategic opportunities to promote the pluralization and evolutionary transformation of the state. Worldwide
tensions emerge from nationalist reactionary populist constituencies amid increasingly complex global interdependence.
Great power competition for power and influence within the nuclear setting intensifies in a world in which the sources of
power and influence depend increasingly on provision of sustainable development resources. Neocorporatist frameworks
together with social identity theory offer an approach to conceptualize the impact of progressive international social

movements on the evolution of the state as an ethical behavioral norm system.
Keywords: Corporatism, International Regime, Social Identity, Social Movement, Sustainable Development
Introduction
T he modern state’s function in providing roles and integration utilities manifests itself
through its corporatist welfare and national security functions. State institutions can do the
following: (1) “create a common identity”; (2) “provide roles”; (3) “generate norms”; (4)
and “ensure the future incorporation of nonmembers” into the national community group as “loyal
members” (Cottam and Cottam 2001, 94). These roles provide the capacities and opportunities for
social mobility, that is, individual assimilation, and social creativity, that is, constituent in-group
self-identity positive reevaluation and broader community integration (Cottam and Cottam 2001).
New and expanding social creativity opportunity structures can emerge from state policy, often
driven in part by social movements. Social movements ultimately aim to change formally and
informally institutionalized worldviews, attitudes, and beliefs, beginning with prevailing
perceptions of self and other among internal constituencies. The state is broadly conceived here as
the system of authority norms that supports and constitutes the regime conceptualized as the
control relationship between the public and its authorities.
Corporatism has been narrowly defined as “the state’s licensing and management of forms
of societal representation and its supervision of the patterns of relations between labor and
management” (Dominguez 1998, 46–47, fn. 29). More broadly, it has been explained “as the
institutionalized and privileged integration of organized interests in the preparation and
implementation of public policies, corporatism is institutionalized, has been set up by the
1
Corresponding Author: Benedict E. DeDominicis, 43 Jibong-ro, Kim Su-whan Building, Department of International
Studies, Catholic University of Korea, K206, Bucheon, Gyeonggi-do, 14662, Republic of Korea.
email: bendedominicis@gmail.com
The International Journal of Climate Change: Impacts and Responses

Volume 14, Issue 1, 2021, https://on-climate.com
© Common Ground Research Networks, Benedict E. DeDominicis,
Some Rights Reserved, (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). Permissions: cgscholar.com/cg_support
ISSN: 1835-7156 (Print)
https://doi.org/10.18848/1835-7156/CGP/v14i01/107-128 (Article)
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLIMATE CHANGE: IMPACTS AND RESPONSES
authorities and involves the privileged access of a limited number of interest organizations”
(Óskarsdóttir 2018, 172). Sturn offers a conception integrating civil society as part of a
corporatist regime, including both for-profit and private volunteer organizations:
[C]orporatism…is an institutionalised pattern of policy formation in which large
interest organisations cooperate with each other and with public authorities not only in
the articulation (or even ‘intermediation’) of interests, but—in its developed forms—in
the ‘authoritative allocation of values’ and in the implementation of such policies [sic].
(2013, 244 quoting Lehmbruch 1979, 150)
Corporatist national welfare and security state functions are increasingly amalgamated. Hodge
and Weidenaar (2017, 2) elaborate policy frames reflecting the securitization of public health as
a national security focus in the American federal system: “More recently, federal leaders and
agencies have re-conceptualized the nature of public health emergencies in terms of national
security, reflecting a shift in national authority and accountability.” Hence, “an organizational
chart of the $10 billion initiative…reveals the fullest picture yet of [US] Operation Warp Speed
[to develop and distribute COVID-19 vaccines]: a highly structured organization in which
military personnel vastly outnumber civilian scientists” (Florko 2020).
The sustained, contentious challenge of social movements toward state authority functionally
aims to reconfigure these institutionalized patterns of policy-making in the national state.

Transformational leadership amid managing sustained, contentious networked societal contestation
of the institutionalized status quo constitutes the “process of social change.” Social movements strive
to achieve subjectively defined “higher levels of motivation and morality” (Chrislip et al. 2016, 133,
138). Social movement behavior patterns are “collective challenges, based on common purposes and
social solidarities, in sustained interaction with elites, opponents and authorities” (Tarrow 2011, 9).
In providing his definition of social movements, Tarrow references Tilly, highlighting that social
movements aim, in effect, at a reconfiguration of the state:
Authorities and thoughtless historians commonly describe popular contention as
disorderly…But the more closely we look at the same contention, the more we
discover order. We discover order created by the rooting of collective action in the
routines and organization of everyday life, and by its involvement in a continuous
process of signaling, negotiation, and struggle with other parties whose interests the
collective action touches. (Tarrow 2011, 9, quoting Tilly [1986] 2014, 4)
Social movements are dialectical drivers and manifestations of state evolution: “Organizers
exploit political opportunities, respond to threats, create collective identities, and bring people
together to mobilize them against more powerful opponents. Much of the history of
movement/state interaction can be read as a duet of strategy and counterstrategy between
movement activists and power holders” (Tarrow 2011, 8).
From a social psychological perspective, progressive social movements aim to shape
prevailing political perceptions and attitudes toward self and other to increase political toleration
and protection from abuse by state agents. Progressive movements include the empowerment of
traditionally marginalized ethno-racial communities to participate more effectively as a self-
identified interest group constituency in the state polity. International human rights law can help
support national social movements by the marginalized. Thus, high-profile aspects of international
human rights law underline the intersection between indigenous people’s rights to autonomous
cultural self-expression with environmental protection (Bedriñana, Umaña, and Martín 2020;
Borràs 2016). Paradoxically, international human rights legislation simultaneously relies on the
effective governing capacity of the state to implement its directives while thereby circumscribing
state agent behavior. Xanthaki quotes McCrudden: human rights “empower the state, and they
challenge its power” (2019, 71, quoting McCrudden 2014).
108
DEDOMINICIS: GLOBAL INTERDEPENDENCY AND STRATEGIC NEOCORPORATISM
These opportunities build on the capacities of the state while, in effect, generating feedback
that encourages the development of pluralization and transformation of the liberalizing state.
Who is identified as a state agent, as well as what constitutes repression and abuse, evolves and
develops within the global community (Cassese 2005). The criteria for identification as a state
agent advance along with international legal doctrine. Changing the nature of the state requires
altering the prevailing stereotypes of self and other regarding both intrastate and interstate
constituent group relations. These power relations are part of central political authority and the
prevailing attitudes and beliefs that associate with them that constitute the regime. Partly by
utilizing this developing body of international human rights law, heretofore marginalized ethno-
racial minorities via effective struggle acquire greater aggregate political space to act
collectively and autonomously. Expanding awareness of the historical legacy of slavery
contributes to increasing self-identification with international, anticolonial /or antiracist identity
pan-movements (Murphy et al. 2020). International human rights law impacts the modern
domestic social contract, which has had critical assumptions in the prevailing romanticized
images of hierarchical superiority in the dominant core culture group in society (Gordon 1964;
Gottardi 2020). It also requires purging the internalized self-stereotype of inferiority within the
marginalized group (Parris 2011). A functional aim is to overcome ascription-based social
status differentiation, for example, racial casteism, including the de facto casteism that in the
USA is a legacy of slavery, that is, “colorism” (Davis 2020, 2).

These prevailing superior–inferior comparative images institutionalized in internal colonial and
postenslavement/neocolonial relationships are the social psychological component of the legacy of
slavery. Altering it requires struggle, as Cottam and Cottam (2001) assert, along with the elimination
of the assumption of the superiority of the other. Also to be eradicated is the other’s assumption of
one’s own inferiority, as Fanon (1968, cited in Cottam and Cottam 2001) argued. This effort will be
entirely comparable to the antiimperialist battle in scope and intensity and would include
identification with the forces of anti-imperialism worldwide and alliance with them (Cottam and
Cottam 2001). Research indicates that “simply acquiescing to others can exert a lasting impact on
attitudes…[V]iews are influenced by purely socio-relational concerns, which is far from the
democratic ideal of attitude formation…[T]he attitudes that people hold are not simply a function of
the information they have learned, the arguments they can recall, or their political experiences, but
also the accumulation of their social experiences” [sic] (Levitan and Verhulst 2016, 311).
Cottam and Cottam (2001) note that the nation, that is, the primary, terminal self-identity
community of the typical citizen in a nation state, is an article of faith. It is a large subjectively
defined cultural/ethical community consisting of members who share a common primary in-group
self-identification. The prevailing belief is that they share a common past and are fated to share an
ultimate fate. They note that the ambiguity of African Americans’ in-group self-identification with
the American territorial/national community leads to the manifestation of this social movement
struggle for human rights. As long as a functional, systemic assumption of inferiority exists, full
integration into the American national community cannot occur. The eradication of that assumption
requires contention. But the dispute in which Louis Farrakhan has engaged himself appears
increasingly to other Americans as incompatible with loyalty to the American national community.
A strategy is necessary that reconciles unambiguous commitment to American nationalistic values
with African American insistence on the dignity of acceptance with full equality. This sustained
contention is both for civil and political and social and economic justice/equity.
Progressive ethno-racial social movements, as sustained, networked, contentious politics,
aim to reshape the state through substantive integration of supraordinate identity values into the
national community. These supraordinate in-group self-identifications can include perceived
international diaspora self-identity affirmation of what Fanon (1968, 1) entitled “the wretched
of the earth.” National progressive social movements utilize international law to mobilize so as
to liberate their heretofore systematically marginalized national constituency components. They
recognize themselves as the national pieces of a global African and Indigenous people’s
109
diaspora whose so-called awakening facilitates this struggle for equality and integration into
their respective national communities. A dialectical relationship exists between the perceived
effectiveness of global civil society international human rights movements and the
predisposition of individual actors to employ its components, including international law.
The social movement motivation for this civil society development should draw on the affective
intensity of historical marginalization of ethno-racial minorities in the USA and elsewhere to
motivate this activity. The current narrative references to “eco-socialism” in a “Green New Deal”
emerge in part to counter intensifying racist and xenophobic politics arising from years of neoliberal
policies (Chomsky, Pollin, and Polychroniou 2020). These civil society actors can partner with for-
profit interests and government national security bureaucracies in confronting the national security
and welfare challenges arising from global anthropogenic climate change. The sociopolitical context
of these movements shapes the ideological symbol set they will manipulate to seek legitimacy from
broader public opinion. Current progressive social movements among people of color in the United
States amid the COVID-19 pandemic advocate so-called eco-socialism. This platform aims to help
remedy the de facto institutionalized legacy of international capitalism’s exploitation of imperialism
and slavery perpetuating Black and indigenous people’s marginalization. It includes the systematic
disproportionate operation of highly polluting industries, for example, coal-fired electricity
generating plants, among communities of color, including the American Navajo/Dine tribal
reservation, which now rejects coal (Lipton 2020). The movement attempts to reconfigure prevailing

perceptions, attitudes, and values of self and other. Among other goals, the marginalized now strive
to become the respective national custodians of the earth’s remaining original growth environments
the functions of which include global carbon sequestration (Macedo and Valéria 2020).
National components of transnational progressive diaspora social movements among people of
color provide potential domestic component political coalition allies in a political strategy for nation
state pluralization. The inherent global interdependency amid the intensifying crises arising from
anthropogenic global climate change generates political opportunities for strengthening international
sustainable development cooperation regimes. Populist reactionary nationalist backlash against the
interdependencies of globalization can obstruct international integration, but globalization continues
to create political prospects for strengthening global integration trends.
Social Identity and Public Policy
Cottam and Cottam (2001) apply social identity theory from social psychology to analyze the
political psychology of group behavior. They note that individuals seek to maintain a positive
self-image in engaging in social comparison while concurrently forming in-groups. On
comparing one’s in-group with another other and perceiving one’s own status as inferior and
therefore one’s self-image as negative, the perceiver can respond with three psychological
behavioral strategies. One strategy is social mobility, that is, attempt individually to join the
perceived superior status out-group. A second is social creativity, that is, the perceiver
compensates by changing the evaluation criteria, selecting those on which the perceiver views
their in-group as superior over the out-group. A third is open intergroup conflict, that is, social
competition, in which the in-group perceiver views the relationship with the out-group as zero-
sum. Any gain by the out-group is perceived as coming at the cost to the in-group. National
self-determination movements, by definition, seek to break the relationship through secession to
form their own sovereign community. Social creativity generates potential for integrative
sociopolitical change: for example, “my Native-American people are systemically marginalized
by white supremacy. But we are out in front fighting the threat to America and to human
civilization of global climate change by resisting fossil fuel industry oil pipelines crossing our
territory.” The drive behind social creativity is strong; “self-esteem facilitates and reflects social
survival needs” (Stevens and Fiske 1995, 205).
110
The state, broadly conceived, is the system of authority norms that constitutes the control
regime over the community and supports its authorities. Within this system, politics determines
who gets what, when, and how. “A public policy is any decision or action by a government
authority that results in the allocation of a value” (Danziger 2007, 238). These negative and
positive values are status symbolic as well as material. This system includes those social
institutions assigned to the private sector. Namely, public policy consists of what the state
authorities decline or choose not to do as well as what they choose to do. “Policy…is an
intentional statement by government through “law, regulation, ruling, decision, order, or a
combination of these” (Mosier 2019, 120, quoting Birkland 2010, 7–9). Policy-making process
legitimation may be reformulated as constructing social creativity and social mobility
opportunities to politically critical constituencies. In authoritarian regimes, for example, China,
opposition is more prone to be met by using coercion because the relationship with the
authorities is increasingly perceived/stereotyped as zero-sum both by the authorities and the
opposition. The authorities’ supporters, in turn, gain social creativity opportunities by political
incentivization to perceive/stereotype each other as allies, that is, the enemy of my enemy is my
friend against the scapegoated other (Cottam and Cottam 2001; DeDominicis, forthcoming).
Integration strategies incentivize the creation of a belief that a superordinate community or
organization, for example, the European Union, plays a significant role in effect to provide
social mobility and creativity opportunities. These opportunities are for mobilized, status-

challenged actors. These mobilized actors, for example, nation states, heretofore commonly
emphasized social competition strategies with each other. The perceived superordinate,
nonnational actor, that is, the EU, intervenes in the subordinate community or organization’s
policy-making process. Broadly understood, the policy-making process consists of policy
agenda setting/building, formulation, adoption/decision-making, implementation, and
evaluation. To the extent that this belief in a superordinate, nonnational actor prevails in the
national policy-making process, progressive social movements can exploit the opportunity
structures it can provide. One possible consequence is the creation of greater potentialities and
capacities for social creativity and social mobility within the national policy-making milieu. In
their analysis of Europeanization, Exadaktylos, Graziano, and Vink (2020, 49) highlight, in
effect, both the institutional constraints on nationalistic social competition and the opportunities
for social mobility and creativity: “When it comes to policy-making and its processes, it is very
rare to find domestic policies that are not somehow connected to European ones…Without
considering the European sources of domestic policies, domestic-centered policy analysis would
neglect important international constraints and opportunities for political actors” [sic].
The EU provides social mobility and creativity options particularly oriented toward certain
constituencies, for example, the younger and highly educated. It generates a domestic national
strategic coalition potential, compensating for the immediate political costs of globalization for other
groups, for example, workers in sunset industries and those taxed for wealth redistribution for social
welfare. Previously, national European leaders justified reforming redistributive social welfare and
justice policies in terms of the ideology of “European Social Democracy” even amid the shift toward
neoliberalism, that is, the “Third Way” (Perazzoli 2018, 212). Globalization was thus during this
earlier phase legitimated as part of Europeanization. Clammer (2017) critiques neoliberal economic
models, utilizing a critical anthropological framework for economic behavior; he portrays
neoliberalism as contributing to escalating global crises. He calls for new economic models
emphasizing “convivialist” social solidarity for sustainable development.
Application of social identity theory to public policy would orient toward a broader
typology approach to public policy. Public policies provide social mobility and creativity
opportunities to societal constituencies as well as utilizing social competition coercive
instruments for regime maintenance: for example, Levitsky and Ziblatt (2018) show that post-
reconstruction segregation maintained one-party de facto rule in the American South for several
generations. As noted, social creativity opportunities may emerge through targeting an
111
adversary as a perceived source of threat. “As long as the political community was restricted
largely to whites, Democrats and Republicans had much in common. Neither party was likely to
view the other as an existential threat” (Levitsky and Ziblatt 2018, 144).
“[S]tructural racial domination has counterparts within cultural ideologies; White supremacy
generally goes unquestioned through the internalization of abstract liberalism, particularly for
White [American] Christians, regardless of specific tradition” [sic] (Park, Chang, and Davidson
2020, 12). Progressive social movement strategies aim at image alteration of heretofore
marginalized communities and their constituents. They experience this prejudice from the
consequent stereotyping by the dominant group to justify and institutionalize the former’s political
marginalization. Through organized, sustained contention, social movements aim to change these
politically prevailing images of self and other. They aim to institutionalize this prevailing image
alteration through changes in state public policies that yield substantive results to incentivize
pursuit of individual social mobility as well as group social creativity strategies. Failed integration
strategies to respond to the destabilization of heretofore institutionalized hierarchical
subordination can lead to escalating social competition. It may culminate in attempts at secession
for self-determination by a marginalized ethnic group (Cottam and Cottam 2001).
Corporatist approaches may more readily emerge as legitimation strategies to integrate for
social solidarity in confronting an external threat. The “rally around the flag” effect occurs to the
extent heretofore polarized constituencies share an intense perception of common threat, thereby

strengthening the executive and marginalizing the legislature (Greene 2015, 613). Scapegoating
China may be part of a functional short-term strategy to counter American domestic political
polarization. The Chinese leadership appears cognizant of this danger regardless of who occupies
the US presidency. Chinese President Xi Jinping at the 75th anniversary plenary session of the UN
General Assembly declared China’s commitment to carbon neutrality by 2060 while shortening by
5 years to 2025 its admissions peak (Myers 2020). Xi thereby publicly conformed to what EU
leaders had been pressing China to undertake. US President Trump said nothing on climate issues
in his seven-minute prerecorded address while calling for condemnation of China for its alleged
responsibility for the novel coronavirus outbreak (Gladstone 2020). UN Secretary General
Antonio Guterres warned against a new bipolar division of the world community wherein the
United States and China would lead competing blocs (Fromer, Zheng, and Zhang 2020).
International collaboration, coordination, and cooperation of state policies are necessary to
mitigate anthropogenic global climate change and its consequences. The proposed Green New
Deal may offer strategic opportunities by which to generate long-term social creativity and
mobility opportunities beyond seeking an adversary in China in a neo-cold war.
Becker (2012, 660) notes that a marginalized group may compensate for its negative self-
evaluation from comparison with an out-group perceived as superior in relative social influence and
control capacities: for example, in “power, intelligence and competence.” It may attempt to
compensate by choosing status-irrelevant domains for comparison, for example, “morality and
warmth,” while thereby incentivizing passivity and perpetuation of social inequality. Ethno-racial
minority progressive social movement participants typically risk paying a significantly high cost in
challenging the status quo. Systemically persecuted ethnic minorities have utilized the United
Nations human rights treaty framework to compensate and counteract their local marginalization by
nationalist majoritarian forces. For example, in Burma/Myanmar, the Burmese majority nationalist
regime authorities have enforced a coercive acquisition policy prerogative toward land inhabited by
different ethnic minority groups. The latter have responded partly by utilizing the evolving postwar
United Nations human rights legal system to claim global status recognition as “Indigenous Peoples”
(Dunford 2019, 58). In terms of the Foucaultian typology of international regime power developed in
Hynek (2018, 363–64), exploitation of international human rights law constitutes a utilization of the
potential “compulsory power” of transnational human rights rules. The functional aim is to augment
national state regime evolution, that is, to “alter other actors’ interests and identities.” Their
mobilization itself indicates that their pacification requires response by the authorities. The general
112
classification of their social strategic policy responses includes repression, that is, perpetuate social
competition; cooptation, that is, provide opportunities for individual social mobility; and integration,
that is, provide substantive opportunities for social creativity by reconfiguring official state norms to
incorporate norms supraordinate to the majority ethno-centric national state.
Institutionalization of human rights international regimes, broadly conceived to include
sustainable development as part of economic and social justice goals, correlates with increasing
potential for substantive social creativity options. Abubakar utilizes Haas’ conceptualization of
an epistemic community: “a network of professionals with recognized expertise and
competence in particular domain and an authoritative claim to policy-relevant knowledge within
that domain or issue-area” (2019, 5 quoting Haas 1992, 1–2). Abubakar notes that the
international human rights movement is a global epistemic community diffusing ideas and
information across state borders. Research has shown that “activation of social norms and
professional commitment can mitigate [confirmation] bias” that occurs due to motivated
reasoning in response to pressures from constituents and clients (Misra et al. 2020, 132). These
constituencies include xenophobic, dominant groups, among others. They intensify conservative
populist inclinations engaging “motivated reasoning” to resist change and to justify it
accordingly in terms of institutionalized stereotyping of the marginalized: that is, “people are
more likely to arrive at conclusions that they want to arrive at, conclusions that are consistent
with their current beliefs and that reflect underlying motivations” (Mackie et al. 2001, 91).

Domestic components of cosmopolitan and transnational epistemic constituencies can ally in
response, answering the challenge “What can we do?” [sic] (Mcdonald 2017, 335).
Formal institutionalization and enhancement of these ethical professional and societal norms
in a nascent or developing transnational epistemic community make their activation more feasible,
ceteris paribus. Namely, acting in accordance with European ideals regarding a public policy issue
so as to be a so-called good European is more feasible to the extent that the EU has articulated and
enforced those ideals. To the degree that the international community has articulated and
prescribed global sustainable development norms via, for example, UN entities, it may encourage
the attitudinal trend development supporting the emergence of a global citizenry. International
political integration at the regional European level is far greater than at the global level. The EU
claims international leadership in promoting global sustainable development, deciding in
December 2019 that under the “European Green Deal” strategy the EU “should become the
world’s largest climate neutral region by 2050” (Brodny and Tutak 2020, 3).
An integration peace strategy, as per the European Union, purposely encourages the
formation of so-called European regional epistemic communities transnationally, for
example, policy networks (Bossong 2020). The EU steadily endows them with material and
political resources, enhancing their status. These supraordinate progressive policy
associations contribute to the construction of a civil society foundation of a superordinate
political entity, for example, the European Union. The expanding salience and intensity of the
perceived substantive existence of these supraordinate community identities, that is,
European, represented by their superordinate institutions, that is, the European Union,
increases their political impact. They serve as increasingly substantive standards for socially
creative, alternative, positive self-identification and evaluation. Self-identity in-groups may
seek to transcend negative comparative self-evaluation with other out-groups by striving for
integration into these supra- and superordinate entities. Effective European integration of
third country nationals into European national societies generates a shared attitude of
belonging “through emerging practices and the creation of new sites of belonging and
identification” (Alkopher 2015, 434–44). Global integration to address the intensifying,
cascading crises inherent in intensifying anthropogenic climate change requires nurturing
international environmental protection “regime entrepreneurs” as agents of “multilevel
governance” (Abbott 2014, 80–81). “The Green Deal is an integral part of the Commission’s
strategy to implement the United Nation’s 2030 Agenda and the sustainable development
113
goals” (European Union 2020). Strengthening of formal progressive international human

rights regime institutions occurs concomitantly with the generation of its global civil society
constituency support base.
These nascent superordinate international regimes should be formally structured
institutionally clearly to make its policy decision-making process appear visibly polycentric and
multilateral. The modal citizenries of its member states must be successfully dissuaded from
viewing it as a cloak for the neocolonial national imperial influence expansion of its most
powerful member or members. The modal nation state citizen is prone to suspect that
organizational leadership universalistic rhetoric of liberation is a cloak for particular
nationalistic agendas unless explicit institution-building circumvents this predisposition.
Nationalists are predisposed to perceive nationalistic motivations in others, cloaked or
otherwise (Cottam and Cottam 2001). The EU regime functions politically to the extent it has
generally succeeded in mitigating the evocation of latent but intense nationalistic values among
its member state publics. These sentiments otherwise may be evoked by inadvertently allowing
the propagation of suspicion that the EU is a camouflage for German neocolonial national
imperial expansion. With its foundation in a liberal intergovernmental alliance of several
European midlevel power nation states, the dispersed, polycentric complexity of the EU policy-
making processes functions to thwart this predisposition (DeDominicis 2015, 2020).
A significant implicit indicator of Europeanization is the comparatively high proportion of

coronavirus pandemic economic stimulus aid awarded to sustainable development energy
projects by the European Union. A media report notes that across the Group of 20, governments
allocated $212 billion to fossil fuel industries and a far smaller sum to renewable energy
sources. Yet the EU devoted “as much as 20 percent of its total stimulus spending to
sustainability, compared to only 1 percent to 3 percent in coronavirus pandemic economic
stimulus spending supports [for] sustainable development projects in coronavirus packages by
the United States, China and India” (Sengupta 2020). Apparently, being a so-called good
European has substantive, concrete benefits in terms of social mobility and creativity for those
for-profit and nonprofit actors that commit to sustainable development goals.
These prospects will be more salient and intense to the extent that they pertain to the threat
and application of coercive incentives against perceived external challengers. The EU struggled
to adopt a Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) position to place sanctions on the
Belarusian authorities for alleged fraud in their August 9, 2020 presidential elections (Erlanger
2020). Media reports placed the blame for this delay on the CFSP EU member state unanimity
decision-making rule. Cyprus initially demanded that imposition of proposed sanctions occur
jointly with EU sanctions on Turkey for the latter’s fossil fuel exploration in disputed waters
(Erlanger and Pronczuk 2020). Movement toward default reliance on qualified majority voting
(QMV) in the Council of the EU is unlikely in the near future as a new, general rule for the
CFSP owing to nationalistic constituency sensitivities in the member states. These increasingly
salient nationalistic values are manifested as intensifying trends in populist Euroscepticism
(Härtel 2019). The EU may decide first by unanimity in its Council on a “Common Decision”
that subsequent CFSP policy on sanctions in the form of a “Regulation” would be decided by
QMV (des Courières 2017, 19). The EU has enacted and maintained sanctions previously
against Belgrade during the Kosovo crisis and against Moscow during the Ukraine crisis.
Automatic reliance on QMV on CFSP questions would likely necessitate a new round of EU
treaty amendments. These treaty changes would then need to be ratified by the member states whose
publics have displayed an increasing salience of nationalistic Euroscepticism. It “has dampened any
ambitions for treaty reform and has accelerated alternative routes for reform outside of the European
Union” (Bickerton 2020, 39). The recent acceleration of EU institutional change in response to the
sovereign debt crisis has occurred amid conscious efforts to avoid treaty amendments to approve
them. This institutional change trend has been reinforced in response to the global coronavirus
economic crisis. “The aid package on the table will allow the European Commission to develop new
114
muscles that will make it resemble a federal government more than ever before” (Stevis-Gridneff
2020a). Moving to QMV in CFSP would indicate a significant increase in the substantive symbolic
reality of the EU as a supernational actor, representing a supranational, European community. To
become European via individual social mobility would gain additional substantive participatory
utilitarian ideational significance. The public legal act of de facto announcing EU sovereignty
through CFSP decision-making moving to QMV would be significant in terms of community self-
identity evolution superseding national sovereignty. The EU has moved to QMV in the Council
regarding justice and home affairs issues, including immigration and asylum policy before the
refugee crisis that escalated in 2015 (Hampshire 2016). Enforcing its policy decisions on member
states refusing to accept their refugee quotas has been problematic (Stevis-Gridneff 2020b).
Neocorporatism, Social Identity, and State Evolution

Neocorporatist domestic integration strategies of state authorities intersect with their regional liberal
international regime political economic coordination policies (Katzenstein 1985; DeDominicis
2021a). The functional aim is to shape political trends in directions avoiding stimulation of latent
inter- and intranational polarization cleavages. It thereby aims to maintain a regional and domestic
political environment conducive to the maintenance of liberal national regimes. Regime stability is
challenged by inevitable processes of change in prevailing political views, attitudes, and values

within polities to which these liberal regime authorities respond. Insofar as nationalistic values are a
prevalent and problematic characteristic of these polities, liberal authorities adapt. Channeling their
expression so as to favor the association of these nationalistic values with liberal, cosmopolitan, and
universalistic ideologies and symbols is more feasible in a benign regional international political
system (Collins 2009). Namely, none of the EU major powers manifest a prevailing view within
their respective governments of an intense threat from each other.
The transformation of the ethno-racial core culture state occurs partly through a progressive
process of cosmopolitan integration with institutionalizing international regimes. Observers have
explained contemporary populism as in part a reaction to the perceived reduction in democratic
political self-determination as a consequence of economic and political globalization. The rise of
multinational corporate production chains and international political economic regimes has
instigated a hostile reaction from constituencies perceiving their national constituent economic and
status interests under threat. “Simply put, the realization of neoliberalism, as reflected in the
transformations of Anglo-American political economy and welfare state since the early 1980s
have been directly connected—if in variegated ways—to a racialized politics that has drawn on
far-right political sentiments” (Saull 2018, 15). In contrast, from the perspective of the historically
marginalized, postwar international regimes in the form of human rights obligations have been
more frequently empowering (Gostin et al. 2019). These international human rights treaty
obligations have served to increase their political capacities for utilizing substantive individual
social mobility and group social creativity opportunity structures.
An essential feature of globalization in essence involves the relegation of national identity to
an ascriptive form of status acquisition. Through the acceptance of international legal restrictions
on sovereignty, nationalism is formally and incrementally subordinated to the acquisition of
achievement status vis-à-vis global community accomplishment and evaluation standards. Global
public and private institutions shape standards for success that promote the transcendence of
existing hierarchical, hegemonic ascriptive assignment of national status within the global
marketplace and civil society. It continues at the level of globalization via multinational
enterprises and organizations. Those segments of society better adapted to exploit these individual
social mobility and group social creativity options will be more supportive of it. Those who see
their traditional, that is, ascribed, status position within society under threat will become the core
for reactionary nationalistic populism, for example, Brexit and Trumpism. The creation and
acquisition of social mobility and creativity opportunities requires that cosmopolitan for-profit,
115
nonprofit and public de facto and de jure transnational institutions develop that provide concrete
material and status benefits. This status drive via the interactive, dialectical process of ascription
versus achievement-based status mobilizing social mobility, creativity, and competition is an
engine powering the evolution of the state as a community. This claim conforms to the findings of
Schlicht-Schmälzle, Chykina, and Schmälzle (2018, 12) that “the formation of a post-national
citizenship identity is not an additive but rather an interactive process.”
The European Union is the most advanced in creating transnational political institutions for
acquisition of actor status via achievement on a transnational level of assessment: that is, it has
made significant progress in politically actualizing an imagined, higher ascribed supranational
transnational European community self-identity ideal. Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (2012)
comparatively highlight the modal attitudinal orientation differences among national societies
awarding individual social status on the basis of ascriptive versus achievement-based criteria.
They highlight this interactive, dialectical development relationship between achievement and
ascriptive status that leaders should master while planning competitive organizational strategy;
“Intelligent anticipation requires ascribing importance to certain projects, just as joint ventures,
strategic alliances, and partnerships require us to value a relationship before it proves successful”
[sic] (Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner 2012, 132), and “Achieving status and ascribing status
can be finely interwoven…The European Community (EC) is an example of an ascribed self-
fulfilling prophecy; its importance and power in the world was proclaimed before it had achieved

anything” (Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner 2012, 131).
A functional aim is to create new ethical communities of achievement: that is, new,
supraordinate conceptions of status acquisition emerge through appropriate versus
inappropriate, goal-oriented behavior. The aims of this behavior obtain significant actual or
potential community consensus as desirable through effective social creativity strategies. A
prerequisite is to create substantive benefits in the form of status rewards for achievement.
Status must be conferred by others on the basis of accomplishment, although the ideal toward
which to strive may be ascribed, for example, so-called Europe, or humanity in the case of
controlling anthropogenic global climate change. Achievement implies change, not only in
terms of individual social mobility. Accomplishment also implies social creativity insofar as the
social creativity is seen as delivering concrete benefits, such as in-group power capabilities
heretofore not developed and recognized, for example, national scientific triumphs. Expanding
scientific knowledge implies awareness of interdependency and greater potentiality for global
public recognition of achievement and status. Scientific advancements and revolutions imply
substantive social creativity as well as mobility. They provide social creativity seen globally to
provide concrete benefits and advances in terms of control over the physical and social
environment: for example, the 1960s’ US–Soviet space race, the 2020 respective national
COVID-19 American versus the Chinese People’s Republic pandemic crisis response and the
global vaccine development race. Social status elevation implies more control over the thoughts
and actions of other local, national, and global community members. Cottam and Gallucci
“define power as the exercise of influence over the minds and actions of others” [sic] (1978, 4).
Social creativity without societal impact is not substantive other than pacifying the
perceiver/actor from changing their circumstances. Gjerde argues that “[E]thnic identities are
self-ascriptions upheld, negotiated, and maintained by people in particular social contexts as
well as imposed other-ascriptions” (2014, 184). An ethnic community is distinct from another
cultural community insofar as cultural group boundary divisions are imagined, devised, and
reshaped. “Ethnic identity is generated, validated, or reshaped in the course of interaction
between strategizing and goal-seeking individuals” (Gjerde 2014, 184). In-group identities thus
form in the midst of social interaction to satisfy needs in a dynamic context. Ethnic group labels
tend to emerge to institutionalize the status quo, that is, they become ascriptive status labels.
They may be internalized by the in-group, reinforced through collective institutions of
socialization, that is, ethnocentrism. They may become marginalized and irrelevant as in-group
116
markers depending on the dynamic national and global sociopolitical and economic context
(Wei, López, and Wu 2019). European homeland national self-identifications thus fade among
American immigrants who assimilate into what had been the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant
(WASP) core group (Cottam and Cottam 2001).
Lipset (1997) notes that the legacy of the founding of what became the United States by
Protestant congregationalist sectarian followers was to create the core foundational culture of
the United States. American Catholicism and Judaism in effect assimilate into this core culture,
that is, a strong congregationalist orientation distinguishes them from their coreligionists in
Europe. US President Trump’s most recent nominee to serve on the US Supreme Court, Amy
Coney Barrett, and her husband are members of a militant sectarian community group, People
of Praise. It emphasizes “male headship” in the family, which some critics consider a deviation
from Catholic dogma. “The group believes in prophecy, speaking in tongues and divine
healings, staples of Pentecostal churches that some Catholics have also adopted in a movement
called the charismatic renewal. The People of Praise was an early leader in the flowering of that
movement in North America. It is ecumenical, but about 90 percent of its members are
Catholic” and it was “founded in 1971, claims about 1,800 adult members in 22 locations in
North America and the Caribbean” (Goodstein 2017).
Institutionalized creation of a global community implies the necessity of awareness and
comprehension of the constraints on policy-making decisional latitude owing to global

interdependency. Organizational planning increasingly incorporates global interdependency for
enhanced organizational “resilience” (World Energy Council, n.d.). Those actors that display
new ways of exploiting this interdependency in comprehensible forms that bestow resource
advantages acquire higher status through achievement. At the universal level, they are able to
do so partly to the extent that the ascribed ideal of global community identity is believed to
exist. The connection of substantive social creativity with concrete relative power capability
acquisition by the initiator is comprehensible: that is, the observer/target understands and
comprehends how it can lead to greater influence over others.
A shared community ideal ethical norm system must exist for it to be comprehensible and must
be believed to subsist to allow it to be applied, thereby evolving in the process (Trompenaars and
Hampden-Turner 2012). Ethical norm systems consist of morals, that is, beliefs in right and wrong
forms of behavior. Ethical systems exist for application to social dilemmas in order to resolve them
through rhetorical persuasion of community members attentive to the discourse. Globalizing
economic development encourages the dialectical integration of ethical norm systems to encourage
conditions for their transnational elaboration and development (Liu and Stening 2016). It is the
essence of soft power today (van Leeuwen and Smith 2020; Field 2020). It explains in part the global
public’s comparative evaluation of the respective national pandemic responses to the novel
coronavirus pandemic. It includes their performance in the vaccine development race against the
COVID-19 disease; competition for national prestige that, if institutionalized, contributes to
hegemony, that is, hierarchical ascriptive status differentiation.
This process is critical in the nuclear setting in which direct intensifying national social
competition amid a conflict spiral is potentially suicidal. The cold war intense bipolarization of
international relations was arguably a case of a conflict spiral between Washington and Moscow as
both (mis)perceived aggressive, imperialist intent motivating the belligerency of the other. At its
peak, intensifying, mutually displayed governmental prevailing perception of monolithic enemy
threat was congruent with tendencies toward zero-sum perception of competitive interaction (Cottam
1977). Conflicts of such intensity led to open direct warfare in the prenuclear era. In the postwar
period, preference selection of the option of resolving great power disputes through use of deadly
force against a nuclear-capable adversary would be courting immediate mutual self-annihilation.
Crisis decision-making dynamics nevertheless ran a substantial risk of spiraling rapidly out of
situational control following an inadvertent, violent military operational contingency, for example,
the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis (Allison 1971; Deinema and Leydesdorff 2006).
117
The COVID-19 pandemic has intensified the salience of complex global interdependency
within national polities. As epitomized in the cold war space race, national competition is
increasingly indirect, focused on provision of alternative national socioeconomic and polity
development models. “In short, the goal of both nations [the US and USSR] in this new [space
achievement competition] phase of the Cold War was to portray itself as the more ‘advanced’ or
‘progressive’ society, better equipped to lead the world into this new phase of human
development” [sic] (Kay 2003, 63). The heightened awareness of global economic, social, and
political Anthropocene interdependency affects these competitive dynamics to incentivize
global ethical cooperation that has accelerated since the end of the Cold War. The rhetoric of
Biden administration officials and advisers emphasizes that economic interdependency makes
cold war–style containment of Beijing unfeasible. Yet Biden, at his first news conference as US
president, noted that “[t]his is a battle between the utility of democracies in the 21st century and
autocracies,” “We’ve got to prove democracy works” (Sanger 2021).
In-Group Identity, International Integration, and State Evolution

Reliance solely on the private sector is insufficient to generate these transnational communities
of achievement into which individual social mobility and group social creativity may find
substantive expression. Multinational corporations are headquartered in their respective home

countries. They are prone to perception as extensions of the national polity of the headquarters
state (DeDominicis 2021b). The EU has a transnational regional institutional infrastructure that
incentivizes avoidance of manipulation of this potential diplomatic bargaining lever by
particular headquarter states (Cottam and Gallucci 1978). The global polity lacks developed
transnational institutions to persuade attentive politics that the United Nations represents a
global identity community. The EU has created and empowered its institutions to incentivize
dual sources of legitimacy: European popular participation through the Parliament and national
state representation through the Council, striving toward a “double sovereign of European
citizens and peoples” (Habermas 2015, 554). Enhanced social creativity provision opportunities
may develop along with the aggregation of policy-making authority to the superordinate
European Union institutions. Comparatively, the UN system is underdeveloped.
The EU is perhaps the most advanced strategy for developing a supraordinate entity
(Europe) into a superordinate entity (the European Union). European Union regulatory and
integration policy incentivizes multinational corporations to Europeanize their corporate
strategies. In so doing, the individual social mobility and in-group social creativity capacities
that they elaborate and institutionalize conform with EU development aims: for example, the
EU has committed itself to taking a global leadership position in mitigating global climate
change and its international consequences (Kenealy, Peterson, and Corbett 2018). It has,
accordingly, pushed European multinational fossil fuel corporations to transition to generating
electricity while meeting “net zero” carbon emission targets by 2050 as part of a vast
reengineering of the global economy (Reed 2020). The “it” in the preceding sentence refers to
governments and investors (Reed 2020). They both reflect and promote the influence of the
global environmental social movement goals and interests of the EU polity that the EU
leadership has tended to support and foster.
On March 4, 2020, the European Commission formally proposed legislation to the
European Parliament and Council of the European Union to achieve “climate neutrality” by
2050 as part of a “European Green Deal” (European Commission 2020). The proposal
references the European Union’s commitment to the 2015 Paris Agreement. The formally
proposed EU legislation explicitly advocates engagement of civil society organizations:
“Each Member State shall establish a multilevel climate and energy dialogue pursuant to
national rules, in which local authorities, civil society organisation, business community,
investors and other relevant stakeholders and the general public are able actively to engage
118
and discuss the achievement of the Union’s climate-neutrality objective” [sic] (European
Commission 2020, 19). The critical role of the EU member state in driving this commitment
to regional European integration of global climate policy is evident.
If global superordinate polity institutions are to develop in a pattern that conforms to the
European Union model, then this approach will require a sustained commitment of the
international community to elaborate these institutions. The WTO must therefore function, and
global environmental protection regimes must be developed and reinforced. Resources must
flow to the organizations embodying these regimes, as proposed under the 2015 Paris
Agreement in the Green Climate Fund (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change, n.d.; Brechin and Espinoza 2017). Economic integration to obtain macroeconomic
development growth risks the eventual eruption of populist reactions against the consequences
of liberal globalization, e.g., increasing immigration. Strategies for liberal regime maintenance
require development and consolidation of societal constituencies with a vested political interest
in supporting and augmenting globalization. Business interests are necessary but not sufficient
as the Brexit and Trump cases indicate. An effective welfare state social safety net is also
necessary but, again, not politically sufficient. Liberal regime strategies may also aim to create
new substantive opportunities for socially creative group and individual self-expression in
addition to social mobility opportunities. The European Union is the best regional model for the
creation of such opportunities via the construction of a substantive European identity on the

building block foundations of the European nation state.
On the global level, the international human rights movement reflects the effort to construct
the foundations of a public belief in the existence of a real global community. The UN’s
Sustainable Development Goals highlight the intersectional tensions of global economic and
political liberalism for human development and self-expression (de Vries 2019). Mitigating the
risk of reactionary nationalist populism requires that the nation state be transcended, not
threatened. International human rights law is founded on the sovereign state in a synergistic
relationship with the state in the context of a global community imagining an ideal that constitutes
a “promise of justice” (Mayer 2017, 186, quoting Koskenniemi 2010, 32). Social relations that
prevailing national views may have assumed as being apolitical or outside of the realm of public
policy, for example, gender inequalities, become aspects of public policy significantly through
international law. What politically prevailing views within society had assumed to be outside of
the purview of public regulation becomes a social justice issue, and with the support of
international human rights law, the personal becomes political (Puka and Beshiri 2018).
A government’s heretofore neglect or inattention to an issue becomes, in effect, a choice it is
making, that is, a public policy. “Public policy may be defined as governmental action or inaction,
decided upon and taken by the public, the state, and other actors” (Haras and Brasley 2011, 361).
Thus, reliance primarily on unpaid maternal care for children’s upbringing becomes a public policy,
critically comparable with the public policy of other national governments in a global debate over
best practices (North 2020; Brooks 2020). This critical comparison contributes to institutionalization
of transnational, supraordinate ethical communities: for example, “interpretive incorporation” of
CEDAW (1979 UN Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women), through
rulings by national justices despite the lack of formal incorporation of the treaty into domestic law “is
becoming a widely used technique…in the British Commonwealth” (Neo 2013, 912).
A political danger of advocating the transformation of the American state in terms of abolishing
so-called white supremacy is the vulnerability of this rhetoric to interpretation of white and nonwhite
social relations as zero-sum. One commentator, Tara Sonenshine (2020), a former US undersecretary
of state for public diplomacy and public affairs, called for a long-term strategic “partnership”
approach to pluralizing American authority positions partly to avoid reactionary “backlash.” A
central thesis of this analysis is the imperative to circumvent inadvertent intensification of
perceptions of ethno-racial majority–minority intergroup relations in zero-sum terms. Demagogic
political entrepreneurs are ever present, rhetorically intensifying core culture group constituency
119
opposition by framing reform trends in such evocations. Full integration of heretofore marginalized
ethno-racial groups requires emphasis on creating new opportunities not readily perceived as being
paid at the expense of the WASP American core group.
The Green New Deal and other major programs to address the anthropogenic global
climate change that intersect with the preexisting American infrastructure deterioration trends
may offer strategic openings. The magnitude of the intensifying long-term global crises inherent
in anthropogenic climate change presents a transformation point in international social
movement responses to global interdependency. Mayer advocates Keohane and Nye’s (2012)
conceptualization of “complex interdependence” as a basis for accepting global well-being as a
national interest obligation. It “bridges the barrier between ethics and politics” emergent in
reconciling state national interest and global ethical mandates to develop international climate
law (2015, 380). In the United States, providing global leadership on these issues may be part of
a strategy by which to supersede the WASP core-based nation state.
The perceived failures of the Trump administration to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic
have created a crisis inflection point that may lead to a resurgent commitment to global
international regimes. Competition with Beijing for influence may be one global contextual
issue to incentivize the maintenance of a globalist prevailing view in Washington. Beijing has
raised China’s profile in the so-called developing world, confronting the immediate costs of the
COVID-19 pandemic with comparatively generous distribution agreements of its vaccines in

development (Sui-Lee 2020). Beijing has portrayed itself as a developing country offering a
development model that overcomes the economic and political legacies of imperialism and
neocolonialism (Antwi-Boateng 2017). One Chinese establishment scholar repeatedly
highlighted Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative for “enhancing indigenous capabilities for
economic development through international cooperation” (Xiaohua 2020, 22).
Beijing is promising to provide COVID-19 vaccines to Asia and Africa without
burdensome patent monopoly and profitability restrictions (Sui-Lee 2020). Distribution of
vaccines in recipient states either through humanitarian aid or purchase is notable because of its
implications regarding acknowledgment of continuing interdependency with the supplying
corporate entity. That supplying body is headquartered in a national state and is prone to be
viewed as an extension of the polity of the headquarter state. Monitoring the distribution of the
vaccine and its effects implies a long-term and intensive engagement of the supplying
organization in the society of the recipient community.
Concluding Comments
A strategy may be constructed to promote new, salient transnational communities, providing
substantive benefits in terms of individual social mobility opportunities and group social
creativity possibilities. The EU has made the most strategic progress regionally. Extending it
globally requires partnering with the other great powers within the UN. The UN-sanctioned
2015 Paris Agreement helps provide institutional reference points and goalposts for
transnational, civil society activists. A necessary condition would be that the EU would need to
differentiate itself substantively from the United States as an autonomous actor in international
relations to be effective in regard to conflict resolution through global integration. The globally
prevailing view must not see the EU as the civilian, soft power manifestation of the North
Atlantic Alliance ultimately directed from Washington in containing China.
Global civil society social movements would need to play a critical role in partnership
with economic actors in promoting and supporting these superordinate institutions.
Opportunities to build them include a post-Trump United States joining the Trans-Pacific
Partnership, reformulated as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific
Partnership (CPTPP), and concluding a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. They
must include strong global sustainable development environmental enforcement stipulations
120
that go beyond the copying of environmental provisions in the CPTPP into the United States–
Mexico–Canada Agreement. Building on the recommendations in Heyl et al. (2021), they
must include the following provisions as an interdependent package: (1) A reformed version
of the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) tribunals in the superseded North American
Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). These elaborated tribunals must include all states parties in
a transparent public deliberative format to encourage transnational environmental activist
civil society formation and monitoring. Institutionalization of permanent multilateral
investment courts that would be accessible to natural persons and nongovernmental
organizations is necessary. The extension of access to these civil society actors beyond
corporate and governmental entities in a transparent format would be an essential next step;
(2) further strengthening of language in the most recent trade liberalization agreements, for
example, the Canada–EU Trade Agreement, the EU–Vietnam Trade Agreement, in obligation
statements of states parties regarding climate change, global warming, and greenhouse gases;
(3) explicit inclusion of the precautionary principle in the general dispute resolution
mechanisms of free trade agreement. The precautionary principle provides that “where there
are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used
as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation”
(1992 Rio Declaration, Principle 15, referenced in Laurens et al. 2019, 673).
Environmentalists often condemned the NAFTA for its ISDS tribunals allegedly enabling

corporations to suppress national environmental policy restrictions that violated NAFTA
liberalization obligations. Transparent ISDS-type tribunals must be incorporated in trade
liberalization agreements in combination with treaty legal obligations to address urgently
anthropogenic climate change. They can thereby serve to reinforce the international
institutional scaffolding around which supranational sustainable development social justice
movements can coalesce. They would expand opportunity structures for dialectical pursuit of
group social creativity and individual social mobility opportunities.
These provisions may provide “a way forward” in response to the rise of reactionary
nationalist populism (Grossberg 2018, 860). Mobilizing the large material resources
necessary for responding effectively to the anthropogenic climate change crisis will require
the capacities of the nation state that have a mobilization base relative advantage. Nation
states are prone to perceive challenges to nation state influence and to perceive the source of
the challenge in stereotypical terms. The EU can play an important role in balancing,
mediating as a nonnation state, that is, multinational actor, between nation states China,
Russia, United States, and Japan. As it has played this role among European nation states, it
may potentially play a comparable role globally.
Acknowledgment
This article was produced with the support of the Research Fund of the Catholic University of
Korea. The author thanks two anonymous reviewers for their insightful critiques and
suggestions as well as the editor at Common Ground Research Networks for editorial oversight.
The author would also like to thank his students at the Catholic University of Korea for
providing the author with the opportunity to present and develop his ideas. Any mistakes and
omissions are solely the responsibility of the author.
121
REFERENCES
Abbott, Kenneth W. 2014. “Strengthening the Transnational Regime Complex for Climate
Change.” Transnational Environmental Law 3 (1): 57–88.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S2047102513000502.
Abubakar, Eby H. 2019. “The Struggle to Uphold a Regional Human Rights Regime: The
Winding Role of ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights
(AICHR).” Revista Brasileira De Politíca Internacional 62 (1): 1–19.
https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-7329201900111.
Alkopher, Tal Dingott. 2015. “The Political Psychology of Integration Strategies: The Case of
the European Commission’s Interculturalism.” Journal of International Relations and
Development 18 (4): 428–454. https://doi.org/10.1057/jird.2014.28.
Allison, Graham T. 1971. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Boston:
Little, Brown.
Antwi-Boateng, Osman. 2017. “New World Order Neo-Colonialism: A Contextual Comparison
of Contemporary China and European Colonization in Africa.” Journal of Pan African
Studies (ProQuest Central) 10 (2): 177–195. https://jpanafrican.org/docs/vol10no2/
10.2-13-Antwi-Boateng.pdf.

Becker, Julia C. 2012. “The System-Stabilizing Role of Identity Management Strategies: Social
Creativity Can Undermine Collective Action for Social Change.” Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 103 (4): 647–662. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029240.
Bedriñana, Karen Giovanna Añaños, Bernardo Alfredo Hernández Umaña, and José A.
Rodríguez Martín. 2020. “‘Living Well’ in the Constitution of Bolivia and the
American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Reflections on Well-Being
and the Right to Development.” International Journal of Environmental Research and
Public Health 17 (8): 1–25. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17082870.
Bickerton, Christopher. 2020. “Member States in European Integration.” In The Member States
of the European Union, 3rd ed., edited by Simon Bulmer and Christian Lequesne, 27–
62. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Birkland, Thomas A. 2010. An Introduction to the Policy Process: Theories, Concepts, and
Models of Public Policy Making, 3rd ed. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Borràs, Susana. 2016. “New Transitions from Human Rights to the Environment to the Rights
of Nature.” Transnational Environmental Law 5 (1): 113–143.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S204710251500028X.
Bossong, Raphael. 2020. “Policy Networks for European Internal Security Governance: Toward
a More Systematic Empirical and Normative Assessment.” Journal of Transatlantic
Studies 18 (2): 190–208. https://doi.org/10.1057/s42738-020-00043-0.
Brechin, Steven R., and Maria I. Espinoza. 2017. “A Case for Further Refinement of the Green
Climate Fund’s 50:50 Ratio Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Allocation
Framework: Toward a More Targeted Approach.” Climatic Change 142 (3–4): 311–320.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-1938-8.
Brodny, Jarosław, and Magdalena Tutak. 2020. “The Use of Artificial Neural Networks to Analyze
Greenhouse Gas and Air Pollutant Emissions from the Mining and Quarrying Sector in the
European Union.” Energies 13 (8): 1–31. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13081925.
Brooks, Kim. 2020. “Forget Pancakes. Pay Women.” New York Times, May 10, 2020: SR3.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/08/opinion/sunday/women-housework-coronavirus-
mothers-day.html.2
Cassese, Antonio. 2005. International Law. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
2
Please note that this links to the online version of the article, which may differ from the original printed version.
This is the case for remaining reference entries to content from the New York Times.
122
Chomsky, Noam, Robert Pollin, and C. J. Polychroniou. 2020. “The Political Economy of
Saving the Planet.” Boston Review, September 16, 2020. http://bostonreview.net/
science-nature-global-justice/noam-chomsky-robert-pollin-c-j-polychroniou-political-
economy-saving.
Chrislip, David, Jill Arensdorf, Timothy Steffensmeier, and Mary Hale Tolar. 2016.
“Leadership in the Civic Arena.” Leadership and the Humanities 4 (2): 126–142
http://doi.org/10.4337/lath.2016.02.04.
Clammer, John. 2017. “What (If Anything) Can Economic Anthropology Say to Neoliberal
Development? Toward New Anthropologies of Capitalism and Its Alternatives.”
Dialectical Anthropology 41 (2): 97–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10624-016-9445-2.
Collins, Richard. 2009. “Constitutionalism as Liberal-Juridical Consciousness: Echoes from
International Law’s Past.” Leiden Journal of International Law 22 (2): 251–287.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156509005810.
Cottam, Richard W. 1977. Foreign Policy Motivation: A General Theory and a Case Study.
London: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Cottam, Richard W., and Gerard Gallucci. 1978. The Rehabilitation of Power in International
Relations: A Working Paper. London: University Center for International Studies,
University of Pittsburgh.
Cottam, Richard W., and Martha L. Cottam. 2001. Nationalism and Politics: The Political

Behavior of Nation States. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Danziger, James N. 2007. Understanding the Political World: A Comparative Introduction to
Political Science, 8th ed. London: Pearson Longman.
Davis, Danné E. 2020. “Their American Dream.” Genealogy 4 (2): 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.3390/genealogy4020045.
de Vries, Bert J. M. 2019. “Engaging with the Sustainable Development Goals by Going
beyond Modernity: An Ethical Evaluation within a Worldview Framework.” Global
Sustainability 2 (18): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2019.15.
DeDominicis, Benedict E. 2015. “US Post Cold War Grand Strategy and Multilateral National
Integration in Europe and East Asia.” Review of Business and Finance Studies 6 (1):
57–80. https://www.theibfr.com/wpfb-file/rbfs-v6n1-2015-6-pdf/.
———. 2020. “Democracy in the European Union: The Social Identity Dynamics of
Europeanization.” Review of Business and Finance Studies 11 (1): 77–109.
https://www.theibfr.com/wpfb-file/rbfs-v11n1-2020-5-pdf/.
———. 2021a. “American Economic Nationalism: Corporatist, Neoliberal and Neo-Corporatist
Political Strategic Responses to Contemporary Global Systemic Crises.” Review of
Business and Finance Studies 12 (1): 1–30.
ftp://ftp.repec.org/opt/ReDIF/RePEc/ibf/rbfstu/rbfs-v12n1-2021/rbfs-v12n1-2021.pdf.
———. 2021b. “Multinational Enterprises and Economic Nationalism: A Strategic Analysis of
Culture.” Global Journal of Business Research 15 (1): 19–64.
https://www.theibfr.com/wpfb-file/gjbr-v15n1-2021-2-pdf/.
———. Forthcoming. “American Regime Institutionalization, Segregation, Integration and
Assimilation: The Social Identity Dynamics of Utilitarian Cooptation.” Review of
Business and Finance Studies 13 (1). Institute for Business and Finance Research.
Deinema, Michaël, and Loet Leydesdorff. 2006. “The Two Faces of American Power: Military
and Political Communication during the Cuban Missile Crisis.” Kybernetes 35 (3):
547–566. http://doi.org/10.1108/03684920610653809.
des Courières, Constance Barbou. 2017. “Between Supranationalism and Intergovernmentalism
in the European Union’s Foreign Policy: A Principal-Agent Approach of the Sanction
Policy in the CFSP Framework.” Revista UNISCI 43 (1): 9–34.
https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/767/76749542002.pdf.
123
Dominguez, Jorge I. 1998. “Market Economics and Political Change: A Historical and
Theoretical Examination.” In Market Economics and Political Change: Comparing
China and Mexico, edited by Juan D. Lindau and Timothy Cheek, 33–58. Lanham,
MD: Rowan & Littlefield.
Dunford, Michael R. 2019. “Indigeneity, Ethnopolitics, and Taingyinthar: Myanmar and the
Global Indigenous Peoples’ Movement.” Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 50 (1):
51–67. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0022463419000043.
Erlanger, Steven, and Monika Pronczuk. 2020. “E.U. Imposes Penalties on Belarus over
Crackdown.” New York Times, October 2, 2020: A12. https://www.nytimes.com/
2020/10/01/world/europe/eu-belarus-turkey-poland-hungary.html.
Erlanger, Steven. 2020. “E.U. Failure to Impose Sanctions on Belarus Lays Bare Its Weakness.”
New York Times, September 25, 2020: A11. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/24/
world/europe/europe-sanctions-belarus-cyprus.html.
European Commission. 2020. “Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the
Council Establishing the Framework for Achieving Climate Neutrality and Amending
Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 (European Climate Law).” https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52020PC0080.
European Union. 2020. “The EU in Slides.” https://europa.eu/european-union/documents-
publications/slide-presentations_en.

Exadaktylos, Theofanis, Paolo R. Graziano, and Maarten P. Vink. 2020. “Europeanization: Concept,
Theory and Methods.” In The Member States of the European Union, 3rd ed., edited by
Simon Bulmer and Christian Lequesne, 47–69. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Fanon, Franz. 1968. The Wretched of the Earth. New York: Grove.
Field, Matt. 2020. “The Vaccine and the Satellite: A Tale of Two Sputniks.” Bulletin of the
Atomic Scientists, August 24, 2020. https://thebulletin.org/2020/08/the-vaccine-and-
the-satellite-a-tale-of-two-sputniks/.
Florko, Nicholas. 2020. “New Document Reveals Scope and Structure of Operation Warp Speed
and Underscores Vast Military Involvement.” STAT, September 28, 2020.
https://www.statnews.com/2020/09/28/operation-warp-speed-vast-military-involvement/.
Fromer, Jacob, Sarah Zheng, and Phoebe Zhang. 2020. “US-China Acrimony at 75th UN General
Assembly as Trump Slams Beijing for Coronavirus and Xi Decries ‘Stigma’:
Organisation’s Secretary General Antonio Guterres Warns That the World Is ‘Moving in a
Very Dangerous Direction’ as Washington and Beijing Trade Diplomatic Blows.” South
China Morning Post, September 24, 2020. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/
diplomacy/article/3102539/china-vs-us-welcome-two-new-world-orders-un-turns-75.
Gjerde, Per F. 2014. “An Evaluation of Ethnicity Research in Developmental Psychology:
Critiques and Recommendations.” Human Development 57 (4): 176–205.
https://doi.org/10.1159/000362768.
Gladstone, Rick. 2020. “Before Virtual U.N. Assembly, Trump Casts China as Villain in Pandemic.”
New York Times, September 23, 2020: A9. https://www.nytimes.com/
2020/09/22/world/americas/UN-Trump-Xi-China-coronavirus.html.
Goodstein, Laurie. 2017. “Links to Religious Group Raise Issues for Nominee.” New York
Times, September 29, 2017: A18. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/28/us/amy-
coney-barrett-nominee-religion.html
Gordon, Milton M. 1964. Assimilation in American Life: The Role of Race, Religion, and
National Origins. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Gostin, Lawrence O., John T. Monahan, Jenny Kaldor, Mary DeBartolo, Eric A. Friedman,
Katie Gottschalk, Susan C. Kim et al. 2019. “The Legal Determinants of Health:
Harnessing the Power of Law for Global Health and Sustainable Development.”
Lancet 393 (10183): 1857–1910. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30233-8.
124
Gottardi, Francesca. 2020. “Sacred Sites Protection and Indigenous Women’s Activism:
Empowering Grassroots Social Movements to Influence Public Policy. A Look into the
‘Women of Standing Rock’ and ‘Idle No More’ Indigenous Movements.” Religions 11
(8): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel11080380.
Greene, Alan. 2015. “Questioning Executive Supremacy in an Economic State of Emergency.”
Legal Studies 35 (4): 594–620. https://doi.org/10.1111/lest.12082.
Grossberg, Lawrence. 2018. “Pessimism of the Will, Optimism of the Intellect: Endings and
Beginnings.” Cultural Studies 32 (6): 855–888.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09502386.2018.1517268.
Haas, Peter M. 1992. “Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination.”
International Organization 46 (1): 1–35. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2706951.
Habermas, Jürgen. 2015. “Democracy in Europe: Why the Development of the EU into a
Transnational Democracy Is Necessary and How It Is Possible.” European Law
Journal 21 (4): 546–557. https://doi.org/10.1111/eulj.12128.
Hampshire, James. 2016. “European Migration Governance Since the Lisbon Treaty:
Introduction to the Special Issue.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 42 (4):
537–553. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2015.1103033.
Haras, Catherine, and Stephanie S. Brasley. 2011. “Is Information Literacy a Public Concern?:
A Practice in Search of a Policy.” Library Trends 60 (2): 361–382.

http://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2011.0041.
Härtel, André. 2019. “The EU Member States and the Crisis in Ukraine: Towards an Eclectic
Explanation.” Romanian Journal of European Affairs 19 (2) (12): 87–106.
http://ekmair.ukma.edu.ua/handle/123456789/19324.
Heyl, Katharine, Felix Ekardt, Paula Roos, Jessica Stubenrauch, and Beatrice Garske. 2021.
“Free Trade, Environment, Agriculture, and Plurilateral Treaties: The Ambivalent
Example of Mercosur, CETA, and the EU–Vietnam Free Trade Agreement.”
Sustainability 13 (6): 1–24. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063153.
Hodge, James G, Jr., and Kim Weidenaar. 2017. “Public Health Emergencies as Threats to National
Security.” Journal of National Security Law and Policy 9 (1): 1–12. https://jnslp.com/wp-
content/uploads/2017/04/Public_Health_Emergencies_as_Threats_to_National_Security_F
INAL.pdf.
Hynek, Nik. 2018. “Theorizing International Security Regimes: A Power-Analytical Approach.”
International Politics 55 (3–4): 352–68. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-017-0084-2.
Katzenstein, Peter J. 1985. Small States in World Markets: Industrial Policy in Europe. Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University Press.
Kay, W. D. 2003. “Problem Definitions and Policy Contradictions: John F. Kennedy and the ‘Space
Race.’” Policy Studies Journal 31 (1): 53–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-0072.00003.
Kenealy, Daniel, John Peterson, and Richard Corbett. 2018. “Introduction” In The European
Union: How Does It Work?, edited by Daniel Kenealy, John Peterson, and Richard
Corbett, 2–23. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Keohane, Robert, and Joseph S. Nye, Jr. 2012. Power and Interdependence, 4th ed. London:
Pearson.
Koskenniemi, Martii. 2010. “What Is International Law for?” In International Law, edited by
Malcolm D. Evans, 32–57. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Laurens, Noemie, Zachary Dove, Jean F. Morin, and Sikina Jinnah. 2019. “NAFTA 2.0: The
Greenest Trade Agreement Ever?” World Trade Review 18 (4): 659–677.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474745619000351.
Lehmbruch, Gerhard. 1979. “Liberal Corporatism and Party Government.” In Trends Toward
Corporatist Intermediation, edited by Philippe C. Schmitter and Gerhard Lehmbruch,
147–183. London: Sage.
125
Levitan, Lindsey C., and Brad Verhulst. 2016. “Conformity in Groups: The Effects of Others’ Views
on Expressed Attitudes and Attitude Change.” Political Behavior 38 (2): 277–315.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-015-9312-x.
Levitsky, Steven, and Daniel Ziblatt. 2018. How Democracies Die. New York: Penguin.
Lipset, Seymour Martin. 1997. American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword. New York:
W.W. Norton & Company.
Lipton, Eric. 2020. “Despite Vow to Put ‘Miners Back to Work,’ Coal Keeps Collapsing.” New
York Times, October 6, 2020: A1. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/05/
us/politics/trump-coal-industry.html.
Liu, T. Q., and Bruce W. Stening. 2016. “The Contextualization and De-Contextualization of
Confucian Morality: Making Confucianism Relevant to China’s Contemporary
Challenges in Business Ethics.” Asia Pacific Journal of Management 33 (3): 821–841.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-015-9415-2.
Macedo, Marcia Nunes, and Paye Pereira Valéria. 2020. “We Know How to Stop the Fires:
[Op-Ed].” New York Times, October 4, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/02/
opinion/amazon-rainforest-fire-prevention.html.
Mackie, Diane M., Mi Na Ahn, Arlene G. Asuncion, and Scott T. Allison. 2001. “The Impact of
Perceiver Attitudes on Outcome-Biased Dispositional Inferences.” Social Cognition 19
(1): 71–93. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.19.1.71.18960.

Mayer, Benoît. 2015. “Conceiving the Rationale for International Climate Law.” Climatic
Change 130 (3): 371–382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1271-4.
———. 2017. “Climate Change Reparations and the Law and Practice of State Responsibility.”
Asian Journal of International Law 7 (1): 185–216.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S2044251315000351.
McCrudden, Christopher. 2014. “The Pluralism of Human Rights Adjudication.” In Reasoning
Rights: Comparative Judicial Engagement, edited by Liora Lazarus, Christopher
McCrudden, and Nigel Bowles, 3–26. London: Hart Publishing.
Mcdonald, Angus. 2017. “Our Democracy, Our Identity, Our Anxiety.” Law and Critique 28
(3): 323–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10978-017-9212-9.
Misra, Fauzan, Slamet Sugiri, Eko Suwardi, and Ertambang Nahartyo. 2020. “Information
Search Behavior and Tax Consultants’ Recommendation: Experimental Examination
on the Role of Social Norms.” Journal of Business Economics and Management 21
(1): 115–135. https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2020.11406.
Mosier, Samantha L. 2019. “Policies as Species: Viewing and Classifying Policy from an
Evolutionary Biology Perspective.” Politics and the Life Sciences 38 (2): 117–131.
https://doi.org/10.1017/pls.2019.10.
Murphy, Michael Warren, Jackie Smith, Patrick Manning, and Ruth Mostern. 2020.
“Introduction: World History and the Work of Reparations.” Journal of World—
Systems Research 26 (2): 143–150. https://doi.org/10.5195/JWSR.2020.1011.
Myers, Steven Lee. 2020. “China’s Pledge to Be Carbon Neutral by 2060: What to Know.” New
York Times, September 23, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/23/
world/asia/china-climate-change.html.
Neo, Jaclyn Ling-Chien. 2013. “Calibrating Interpretive Incorporation: Constitutional
Interpretation and Pregnancy Discrimination under CEDAW.” Human Rights
Quarterly 35 (4): 910–934. https://doi.org/10.1353/hrq.2013.0060.
North, Anna. 2020. “Elizabeth Warren Made a Crucial Point at the Democratic Convention: Child
Care Is ‘Infrastructure for Families.’” Vox, August 20, 2020. https://www.vox.com/
2020/8/20/21376792/elizabeth-warren-dnc-convention-child-care-biden.
Óskarsdóttir, Stefanía. 2018. “Public Committees and Corporatism: How Does Iceland
Compare to Scandinavia?” Stjórnmál Og Stjórnsýsla 14 (1): 167–188.
https://doi.org/10.13177/irpa.a.2018.14.1.8.
126
Park, Jerry Z., Joyce C. Chang, and James C. Davidson. 2020. “Equal Opportunity Beliefs
beyond Black and White American Christianity.” Religions 11 (7): 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.3390/rel11070348.
Parris, LaRose T. 2011. “Frantz Fanon: Existentialist, Dialectician, and Revolutionary.” The
Journal of Pan African Studies 4 (7): 4–23. http://www.jpanafrican.org/docs/
vol4no7/4.7-2%20Frantz%20Fanon.pdf.
Perazzoli, Jacopo. 2018. “From the Social Democratic Moment to the Shock of the Global: The
British Labour and the German Social Democracy during the 1960s–1970s.” Annali
Della Fondazione Luigi Einaudi 52 (2): 193–218. https://doi.org/10.26331/1060.
Puka, Edi, and Dilina Beshiri. 2018. “Political and Social Participation of Italian Women in the
European Context.” On-Line Journal Modelling the New Europe 28:160–181.
https://doi.org/10.24193/OJMNE.2018.28.09.
Reed, Stanley. 2020. “Europe’s Oil Titans Ramp up Transition to Cleaner Energy.” New York
Times, August 17, 2020: B1. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/17/business/energy-
environment/oil-companies-europe-electric.html.
Sanger, David E. 2021. “Biden Defines His Underlying Challenge with China: ‘Prove
Democracy Works.’” New York Times, March 26, 2021.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/26/us/politics/biden-china-democracy.html.
Saull, Richard. 2018. “Racism and Far Right Imaginaries within Neo-Liberal Political

Economy.” New Political Economy 23 (5): 588–608.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2017.1417370.
Schlicht-Schmälzle, Raphaela, Volha Chykina, and Ralf Schmälzle. 2018. “An Attitude
Network Analysis of Post-National Citizenship Identities.” PLoS One 13 (12): 1–19.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0208241.
Sengupta, Somini. 2020. “At Climate Week, America’s Cascading Disasters Take Center
Stage.” New York Times, September 26, 2020: A13.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/25/climate/climate-week-2020.html.
Sonenshine, Tara. 2020. “Diversity at the Top: [Letter].” New York Times, August 26, 2020:
A26. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/25/opinion/letters/flu-coronavirus.html.
Stevens, Laura E., and Susan T. Fiske. 1995. “Motivation and Cognition in Social Life: A
Social Survival Perspective.” Social Cognition 13 (3): 189–214.
https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.1995.13.3.189.
Stevis-Gridneff, Matina. 2020a. “EU Leaders Meet to Discuss Virus Rescue Plan, with Obstacles
Ahead.” New York Times, July 17, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/
2020/07/17/world/europe/eu-coronavirus-summit.html.
———. 2020b. “E.U. Offers Members Cash in Plan for Migrants.” New York Times, September
24, 2020: A9. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/17/world/europe/eu-coronavirus-
summit.html.
Sturn, Simon. 2013. “Are Corporatist Labour Markets Different? Labour Market Regimes and
Unemployment in OECD Countries.” International Labour Review 152 (2): 237–254.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2013.00179.x.
Sui-Lee, Wee. 2020. “China Is Using Its Vaccines to Win Friends.” New York Times,
September 11, 2020: B1. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/11/business/china-
vaccine-diplomacy.html.
Tarrow, Sidney G. 2011. Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics, 3rd
ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Tilly, Charles. (1986) 2014. The Contentious French: Four Centuries of Popular Struggle.
Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
Trompenaars, Fons, and Charles Hampden-Turner. 2012. Riding the Waves of Culture:
Understanding Diversity in Global Business, 3rd. ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
127
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. n.d. “What Is the Paris
Agreement?” Accessed October 14, 2020. https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-
paris-agreement/what-is-the-paris-agreement.
van Leeuwen, Hans, and Michael Smith. 2020 “Search for COVID-19 Vaccine Morphs into
Geopolitical Battle.” Financial Review, July 19, 2020. Accessed September 20, 2020.
https://www.afr.com/companies/healthcare-and-fitness/search-for-covid-19-vaccine-
morphs-into-geopolitical-battle-20200717-p55cvc.
Wei, Kai, Daniel Jacobson López, and Shiyou Wu. 2019. “The Role of Language in Anti-
Immigrant Prejudice: What Can We Learn from Immigrants’ Historical Experiences?”
Social Sciences 8 (3): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci8030093.
World Energy Council. n.d. “Shaping the Future While Managing a Crisis: Analysis from the
World Energy Council.” Accessed June 2, 2021.
https://worldenergycongressrussia.org/en/news/formirovat_budushchee_upravlyaya_kr
izisom_analiz_opyta_mirovogo_energeticheskogo_soobshchestva/.
Xanthaki, Alexandra. 2019. “When Universalism Becomes a Bully: Revisiting the Interplay between
Cultural Rights and Women’s Rights.” Human Rights Quarterly 41 (3): 701–724.
https://doi.org/10.1353/hrq.2019.0049.
Xiaohua, Li. 2020. “Capacity Building-Oriented Cooperation between China and BRI Countries.”
China Economist 15 (2): 20–29. https://doi.org/10.19602/j.chinaeconomist.2020.03.02.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Benedict E. DeDominicis: Associate Professor, Political Science, Department of International
Studies, Catholic University of Korea, Bucheon, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea
128
The International Journal of Climate Change:

Impacts and Responses
The International Journal of Climate Change: Impacts

and Responses

Global Interdependency and Strategic Neocorporatism: The Social Identity Dynamics of Progressive Social Movements Utilizing International Sustainable Development Regimes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Global Interdependency and Strategic Neocorporatism: The Social Identity Dynamics of Progressive Social Movements Utilizing International Sustainable Development Regimes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Downloaded on Wed Oct 13 2021 at 23:10:11 UTC

Downloaded on Wed Oct 13 2021 at 23:10:11 UTC

Some Rights Reserved. ORDERING

Downloaded on Wed Oct 13 2021 at 23:10:11 UTC

The International Journal of Climate Change: Impacts and Responses

Downloaded on Wed Oct 13 2021 at 23:10:11 UTC

Downloaded on Wed Oct 13 2021 at 23:10:11 UTC

Downloaded on Wed Oct 13 2021 at 23:10:11 UTC

Downloaded on Wed Oct 13 2021 at 23:10:11 UTC

Downloaded on Wed Oct 13 2021 at 23:10:11 UTC

Downloaded on Wed Oct 13 2021 at 23:10:11 UTC

goals” (European Union 2020). Strengthening of formal progressive international human

Downloaded on Wed Oct 13 2021 at 23:10:11 UTC

Neocorporatism, Social Identity, and State Evolution

Downloaded on Wed Oct 13 2021 at 23:10:11 UTC

Downloaded on Wed Oct 13 2021 at 23:10:11 UTC

Downloaded on Wed Oct 13 2021 at 23:10:11 UTC

In-Group Identity, International Integration, and State Evolution

Downloaded on Wed Oct 13 2021 at 23:10:11 UTC

Downloaded on Wed Oct 13 2021 at 23:10:11 UTC

Downloaded on Wed Oct 13 2021 at 23:10:11 UTC

Downloaded on Wed Oct 13 2021 at 23:10:11 UTC

Downloaded on Wed Oct 13 2021 at 23:10:11 UTC

Downloaded on Wed Oct 13 2021 at 23:10:11 UTC

Downloaded on Wed Oct 13 2021 at 23:10:11 UTC

Downloaded on Wed Oct 13 2021 at 23:10:11 UTC

Downloaded on Wed Oct 13 2021 at 23:10:11 UTC

Downloaded on Wed Oct 13 2021 at 23:10:11 UTC

Downloaded on Wed Oct 13 2021 at 23:10:11 UTC

Downloaded on Wed Oct 13 2021 at 23:10:11 UTC

The International Journal of Climate Change: Impacts

You might also like