Part of a Book
Refine
Year of publication
- 2010 (34) (remove)
Document Type
- Part of a Book (34) (remove)
Keywords
- Social Entrepreneurship (3)
- Control (1)
- Coordination (1)
- Scaling (1)
- Sustainability (1)
Abstract : Many observers agree that the multilateral liberalization of service trade was a response to the intense lobbying efforts of financial service companies. In contrast, many of the firms that were affected by the General Agreement on the Trade of Services did not know where their interests lay in the multilateral negotiations and only began to work with their governments very late in the process. This paper shows that the preference evolution of service companies - both the first movers and the late comers - cannot be explained with reference to material rationality only. As a radically new trade issue, service trade was a realm of great uncertainty for business and they relied on social devices rather than pure economic calculations to determine how to position themselves on liberalization. In times of uncertainty, the differential logic of social embeddedness and the institutional constraints of a firm's national setting are therefore a more appropriate indicator for business demands than material incentives arising from the global economy.
Negotiated “policy-arrangements” and their institutionalization are at the heart of global governance. This chapter focuses on the European Union (EU) as one particular arena that produces binding decisions beyond the nation state. For scholars of global governance, the EU constitutes an interesting but idiosyncratic case: the EU’s system of decision-making and enforcement is highly institutionalized; the EU covers a broad policy-remit, touching upon core areas of national sovereignty such as monetary policy or border control; and the EU is exceptionally intrusive and effective, producing binding laws that are widely complied with in its member states. At the same time, the nature of supranational governance – famously described as “less than a federation, more than a regime” (Wallace 1983) – remains open and undefined. For scholars of argumentation, deliberation and persuasion, the European Union is an equally fruitful object of study: the EU’s deliberative decision-style is used to explain compliance with European law (Neyer 2004); the EU is conceptualized as an actor that projects “normative” rather than military power (Manners 2002) and the supranational decision-process serves as testing ground for theories of deliberation (Eriksen and Fossum 2000; Joerges and Neyer 1997a, 1997b), argumentation (Naurin 2010), problem-solving (Elgström and Jönsson 2000), rhetorical action (Schimmelfennig 2001) and judgment (Kornprobst 2008).