Back in 2007 Harvard’s Dani Rodrik famously argued that democracy, national sovereignty and global economic integration are mutually incompatible. Two of the three can be combined, but it’s impossible to have all three simultaneously and in full. He unsurprisingly linked the Brexit referendum with the technocratic nature of the EU used as an example of the erosion of local sovereignty by Brexit campaigners.
It’s an argument that finds a degree of sympathy from a recent study from Binghamton University, which finds that citizens are increasingly being marginalized by intergovernmental organizations when it comes to the attention of national politicians, and therefore domestic policies.
The paper directly references the rise of the European Union, alongside bodies such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, and their growing influence on national politics.
“It is likely that states will continue to join international institutions and their influence will increase,” the authors explain. “Thus, the undermining of domestic accountability is likely to continue.”
A shifting trifecta
The authors argue that the more of these international institutions a government is a member of, the lower the quality of their domestic policy making. This seems to be so regardless of whether the institutions are powerful, such as the WTO, or less so, such as the World Health Organization.
“All nations face a tradeoff between the advantages of international co-operation for effectively addressing some global or regional problems and the inevitable reduction on domestic accountability inevitably created by international cooperation,” the researchers explain.
The researchers examined nearly 130 countries around the world to determine the number of international organizations they’re a member of. They then compared this against a number of measures that determine the quality of government, including control of corruption, the quality of government index and government effectiveness.
The average number of memberships of such organizations was around 50, and the data appeared to show a correlation between going above this number and a decline in government quality, with an increase of a third (to 74 memberships) correlating with a decline in quality of government by about the same amount. It’s an equivalent decline to that seen by going from being fully democratic to only partially democratic.
“To counterbalance this effect, international organizations should put more effort into making it more difficult for domestic politicians to shirk responsibilities to their own citizens,” the authors propose.
Indeed, when membership of international bodies grows by two thirds, the authors suggest this corresponds with a drop in quality of government about the same as that which would ordinarily result in a fall in per capita income of around $7,500.
International relations
Of course, that’s not to suggest that membership of international organizations is bad, and earlier this year the World Economic Forum cited a lack of international cooperation as a major risk factor in it’s annual Global Risks Report. The Binghamton team believe that the international bodies need to up their game however, not least in promoting greater transparency within member states. They also suggest that national governments could do a better job of communicating the demands of the IGOs.
“Despite criticism that it’s mainly a problem for a third world countries—with developing countries being pushed around by powerful global institutions, our findings show that there are negative consequences of international cooperation for first world countries as well,” the authors explain. “Our research shows it is getting more difficult for individuals in countries to control the bureaucracy of IGOs as the number and complexity of them increases. The influence of IGOs in shaping domestic policy is now so extreme, the ability of citizens in many countries to influence some government policies at the ballot box, is virtually impossible.”
The last few years has seen a degree of introspection about the future of globalization as populist politicians have come to the fore around the world pushing a nativist agenda. The study provides a timely reminder that whilst working cooperatively via IGOs is a positive thing, it is not guaranteed to be so, and IGOs need to both be aware of the potential risks associated with membership, and to then work to mitigate those risks so that the world continues to cooperate on the rising number of issues that demand global rather than national attention.
“More generally, international co-operation has been shown to positively affect the quality of domestic government, particularly when it comes to cross border issues such as climate change,” the authors conclude. “However, as we have shown, increasing embeddedness in intergovernmental organizations also has a disruptive effect on domestic government.”
