Jekyll2020-09-03T10:25:49+00:00http://oliverwesterwinter.com/feed.xmlOliver WesterwinterI am an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the Department of Political Science at the University St. Gallen, Switzerland. From September 2019 until August 2021, I am also a Visiting Fellow at the the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies at the European University Institute. <br/><br/> My research interests include international organizations, transnational public-private governance initiatives, informal governance, institutional design and effectiveness, institutional complexity, international security, and research methods. I am teaching courses on introductory and intermediate statistics, network analysis, programing in R, game theory, international cooperation, informal governance, institutional complexity, and international security. <br/><br/>I received my Ph.D. in Political and Social Sciences with a focus on international relations and research methods in 2014 from the Department of Political and Social Sciences of the European University Institute. In 2011, I was a visiting fellow at the University of California, San Diego, School of International Relations and Pacific Studies. During the academic year 2018-2019, I was a Max Weber Fellow at the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies at the European University Institute.<br/><br/> My research has been funded by several funding agencies and universities, including the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Swiss Network for International Studies, the International Studies Association, and the University of St. Gallen, and has been published in the Journal of Peace Research, Review of International Organizations, International Theory, and with Cambridge University Press and Oxford University Press.Oliver Westerwinter, PhDoliver.westerwinter@unisg.chThe global governance of international development: Documenting the rise of multi-stakeholder partnerships and identifying underlying theoretical explanations2020-09-03T00:00:00+00:002020-09-03T00:00:00+00:00http://oliverwesterwinter.com/frontpage/articles/Development<p>The global governance of development increasingly relies on multi-stakeholder partnerships
between states, intergovernmental organizations, and non-governmental organizations.
This article takes on two tasks. The first is to describe quantitatively the
institutional evolution of the multilateral development system over the past century.
The second is to juxtapose four rational-institutionalist explanations for why states
establish new organizations as transnational governance initiatives—functionalism,
power-oriented theories, domestic politics, and contextual design. The empirical analysis
probes these explanations using the new Transnational Public-Private Governance
Initiatives in World Politics dataset, which combines several existing data sources to
build the most comprehensive data on different forms of institutionalized cooperation in
global governance. The results lend most support to the contextual design view, while
also yielding support for other accounts. By employing Heckman selection models, the
analysis addresses potential selection bias due to unobserved correlation between state
choices to create a new organization and its design. A qualitative case study further
validates measurement choices and causal mechanisms. These findings have implications
for theories of institutional design and development practice, specifically regarding
the role of intergovernmental organizations in an increasingly interconnected world.</p>Oliver Westerwinter, PhDoliver.westerwinter@unisg.chThe global governance of development increasingly relies on multi-stakeholder partnerships between states, intergovernmental organizations, and non-governmental organizations. This article takes on two tasks. The first is to describe quantitatively the institutional evolution of the multilateral development system over the past century. The second is to juxtapose four rational-institutionalist explanations for why states establish new organizations as transnational governance initiatives—functionalism, power-oriented theories, domestic politics, and contextual design. The empirical analysis probes these explanations using the new Transnational Public-Private Governance Initiatives in World Politics dataset, which combines several existing data sources to build the most comprehensive data on different forms of institutionalized cooperation in global governance. The results lend most support to the contextual design view, while also yielding support for other accounts. By employing Heckman selection models, the analysis addresses potential selection bias due to unobserved correlation between state choices to create a new organization and its design. A qualitative case study further validates measurement choices and causal mechanisms. These findings have implications for theories of institutional design and development practice, specifically regarding the role of intergovernmental organizations in an increasingly interconnected world.Informal governance in world politics2020-09-03T00:00:00+00:002020-09-03T00:00:00+00:00http://oliverwesterwinter.com/frontpage/articles/Informal_Governance_WP<p>Informal modes of cooperation are a central element of the complex institutional
architecture of contemporary global governance. Collectively and individually, the
contributions to this special issue broaden the emerging research on informal governance
in world politics and provide novel empirical analyses based on unique data. In
this introduction, we outline the research questions and puzzles that the special issue
addresses. We then sketch three types of informality in world politics: Informality of
institutions, within institutions, and around institutions. We discuss each type and
provide examples from the contributions to the special issue and the existing literature.
We consider how differentiating among these types of informality provides novel
insights into the causes of informal global governance. We also identify candidate
independent variables which, individually and in combination, should allow researchers
to explain the striking variation in the growth and distribution of informal governance
in world affairs.We summarize the main findings of the contributions and conclude by
outlining an agenda for future research on informal governance in world politics.</p>Oliver Westerwinter, PhDoliver.westerwinter@unisg.chInformal modes of cooperation are a central element of the complex institutional architecture of contemporary global governance. Collectively and individually, the contributions to this special issue broaden the emerging research on informal governance in world politics and provide novel empirical analyses based on unique data. In this introduction, we outline the research questions and puzzles that the special issue addresses. We then sketch three types of informality in world politics: Informality of institutions, within institutions, and around institutions. We discuss each type and provide examples from the contributions to the special issue and the existing literature. We consider how differentiating among these types of informality provides novel insights into the causes of informal global governance. We also identify candidate independent variables which, individually and in combination, should allow researchers to explain the striking variation in the growth and distribution of informal governance in world affairs.We summarize the main findings of the contributions and conclude by outlining an agenda for future research on informal governance in world politics.From meditation to action – towards a research agenda for the study of informal global rule-making: remarks on Cosmopolitanism, publicity, and the emergence of a global administrative law2020-09-03T00:00:00+00:002020-09-03T00:00:00+00:00http://oliverwesterwinter.com/articles/Meditation<p>Friedrich Kratochwil engages critically with the emergence of a global administrative law and its consequences for the democratic legitimacy of global governance. While he makes important contributions to our understanding of global governance, he does not sufficiently discuss the differences in the institutional design of new forms of global law-making and their consequences for the effectiveness and legitimacy of global governance. I elaborate on these limitations and outline a comparative research agenda on the emergence, design, and effectiveness of the diverse arrangements that constitute the complex institutional architecture of contemporary global governance.</p>Oliver Westerwinter, PhDoliver.westerwinter@unisg.chFriedrich Kratochwil engages critically with the emergence of a global administrative law and its consequences for the democratic legitimacy of global governance. While he makes important contributions to our understanding of global governance, he does not sufficiently discuss the differences in the institutional design of new forms of global law-making and their consequences for the effectiveness and legitimacy of global governance. I elaborate on these limitations and outline a comparative research agenda on the emergence, design, and effectiveness of the diverse arrangements that constitute the complex institutional architecture of contemporary global governance.Transnational public-private governance initiatives in world politics: Introducing a new dataset2020-09-03T00:00:00+00:002020-09-03T00:00:00+00:00http://oliverwesterwinter.com/frontpage/articles/TGI-Data<p>This article introduces a new dataset on transnational public-private governance
initiatives (TGIs) in world politics. TGIs are institutions in which states and/or intergovernmental
organizations cooperate with business and civil society actors to govern
transnational problems. Thus, they are a special type of transnational public-private
partnership. TGIs have flourished since the late 1990s and, today, govern a broad
range of global policy domains, including environmental protection, human rights,
health, trade, finance, and security. Yet, existing research lacks the data necessary
to map this phenomenon and its variation along dimensions, such as issue areas,
governance functions, participation, and institutional design. The Transnational
Public-Private Governance Initiatives inWorld Politics (TGIWP) data is designed for
this purpose. It contains detailed information on the scope, functions, participants,
and institutional design of 636 TGIs created between 1885 and 2017. I describe the
sample generation and discuss coding rules. I also map the proliferation and characteristics
of TGIs, and provide an exploratory analysis of the relationship between state
participation in TGIs and domestic democracy to show how the new data contributes
to enhancing ongoing debates in international relations. The article concludes by discussing
how the new dataset may be useful in future research on global governance.</p>Oliver Westerwinter, PhDoliver.westerwinter@unisg.chThis article introduces a new dataset on transnational public-private governance initiatives (TGIs) in world politics. TGIs are institutions in which states and/or intergovernmental organizations cooperate with business and civil society actors to govern transnational problems. Thus, they are a special type of transnational public-private partnership. TGIs have flourished since the late 1990s and, today, govern a broad range of global policy domains, including environmental protection, human rights, health, trade, finance, and security. Yet, existing research lacks the data necessary to map this phenomenon and its variation along dimensions, such as issue areas, governance functions, participation, and institutional design. The Transnational Public-Private Governance Initiatives inWorld Politics (TGIWP) data is designed for this purpose. It contains detailed information on the scope, functions, participants, and institutional design of 636 TGIs created between 1885 and 2017. I describe the sample generation and discuss coding rules. I also map the proliferation and characteristics of TGIs, and provide an exploratory analysis of the relationship between state participation in TGIs and domestic democracy to show how the new data contributes to enhancing ongoing debates in international relations. The article concludes by discussing how the new dataset may be useful in future research on global governance.Navigating Institutional Complexity: Actors and Strategies in Densely Populated Global Governance Spaces2020-08-18T00:00:00+00:002020-08-18T00:00:00+00:00http://oliverwesterwinter.com/research/navigating-complexity<p>The last decades have seen a rapid growth in the number and scope of international agreements and organizations governing different areas of world politics. Issues, such as climate change, global health, and intellectual property rights, once governed by relatively disconnected international rule sets and organizations, are today subject to overlapping agreements and organizations that form institutional complexes. As a result, the creation, design, and evolution of individual global governance institutions are fundamentally shaped by how they interact with other institutions.</p>
<p>This project addresses questions that are important for scholars and practitioners alike: 1) How do patterns of overlap within institutional complexes evolve over time? 2) What strategies do states and non-state actors choose to navigate institutional complexes? 3) To what extent do these strategies empower otherwise weak players in institutional complexes?</p>
<p>We draw on theories of regime complexity to capture different types of overlaps and interactions among global governance institutions. We combine this with insights from complexity science, organization science, and public policy. We explore the interactions of multiple forms of cooperation in institutional complexes using a multi-method research design combining quantitative analysis and case studies.</p>
<p>Our results identify the overlap and interactions among different types of global governance institutions across issue areas and over time. We show under which conditions state and non-state actors use particular strategies to navigate institutional complexes. We also explore the extent to which different strategies empower weak actors or are used by powerful players. This extends our understanding of global governance and provides insights for policy makers and activists who think about how to engage the myriad of contemporary global governance institutions in a way that best meets their goals.</p>Oliver Westerwinter, PhDoliver.westerwinter@unisg.chThe last decades have seen a rapid growth in the number and scope of international agreements and organizations governing different areas of world politics. Issues, such as climate change, global health, and intellectual property rights, once governed by relatively disconnected international rule sets and organizations, are today subject to overlapping agreements and organizations that form institutional complexes. As a result, the creation, design, and evolution of individual global governance institutions are fundamentally shaped by how they interact with other institutions.Not All Complexes Are Equal: Variation in Institutional Complexity and Policy Conflict2019-07-31T00:00:00+00:002019-07-31T00:00:00+00:00http://oliverwesterwinter.com/working%20paper/Unequal-Complexes<p>Research on regime complexes tends to treat all complexes as equal. In this paper, I argue that institutional complexes constituted by multiple intergovernmental as well as transnational institutions vary in important ways and that this variation matters for governance processes and their outcomes. Specifically, I develop a theoretical argument that highlights three dimensions along which institutional complexes may vary—overlap, centralization, and informality—and that links variation in these three dimensions to differences in the level of policy conflict among the institutions in a complex. I explore my theoretical argument empirically using methods of network analysis and automated text analysis and new data on intergovernmental and transnational institutions in the development, climate change, and energy domains.</p>Oliver Westerwinter, PhDoliver.westerwinter@unisg.chResearch on regime complexes tends to treat all complexes as equal. In this paper, I argue that institutional complexes constituted by multiple intergovernmental as well as transnational institutions vary in important ways and that this variation matters for governance processes and their outcomes. Specifically, I develop a theoretical argument that highlights three dimensions along which institutional complexes may vary—overlap, centralization, and informality—and that links variation in these three dimensions to differences in the level of policy conflict among the institutions in a complex. I explore my theoretical argument empirically using methods of network analysis and automated text analysis and new data on intergovernmental and transnational institutions in the development, climate change, and energy domains.Gauging Global Governance: The Effectiveness of Transnational Public-Private Governance Initiatives and Intergovernmental Organizations2019-04-27T00:00:00+00:002019-04-27T00:00:00+00:00http://oliverwesterwinter.com/research/Gauging-Global-Governance<p>New players, including firms and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), are engaging in global governance. With these new players have come new forms of governing in which varying mixes of state and non-state actors cooperate. Among these innovations are transnational public-private governance initiatives (TGIs). TGIs are institutions in which states and/or intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) work together with business and civil society actors to govern global policy issues. Examples include the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (GF) in the health sector, and the Kimberley Process in the security area.</p>
<p>TGIs have been growing rapidly since the 1990s. According to a new dataset, the number of TGIs in 2017 was seven times greater than in 1990. Today, TGIs contribute to governing a broad range of global policy domains, including environmental protection, human rights, health, trade, finance, and security.</p>
<p>Despite their proliferation, we know little about the effectiveness of TGIs, defined as the extent to which they attain their goals. Existing evidence suggests that TGIs vary markedly in their effectiveness. In the global health domain, for example, the GF has been highly effective, reaching a large number of people with HIV/AIDS drugs, tuberculosis therapies, and malaria treatment. The Children’s Vaccine Initiative, by contrast, has performed poorly and has been unable to develop improved vaccinations for children. In the labor rights area, the Common Code for the Coffee Community has contributed to improving the social practices of coffee producers, while the Global Alliance for Workers and Communities has failed to enhance workplace conditions in developing countries.</p>
<p>This variation in TGI effectiveness raises important questions, addressed in the proposed project: 1) Are TGIs effective instruments of global governance? 2) Why are some TGIs more effective than others? 3) How does the effectiveness of TGIs compare with the effectiveness of IGOs?</p>
<p>Based on a mixed-method research design that combines case studies and statistical analysis, the results of our research will benefit both scholars and policy-makers. Drawing on theories of international cooperation and institutional complexity in global governance, our research will identify the factors that explain variation in TGI effectiveness. The project will also provide an empirically grounded perspective on how TGIs compare with IGOs, addressing the important question of whether the new forms of global governance matter. By so doing, we will extend current understanding of new forms of global governance and provide insights for policy-makers and activists thinking about creating new TGIs. We provide the first large-n, comparative analysis of the effectiveness of different forms of global governance and one of the first studies that leverages a big data approach to the study of global governance institutions. More generally, our results will provide insights about the provision of collective goods at the global level and the quality and legitimacy of global governance.</p>Oliver Westerwinter, PhDoliver.westerwinter@unisg.chNew players, including firms and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), are engaging in global governance. With these new players have come new forms of governing in which varying mixes of state and non-state actors cooperate. Among these innovations are transnational public-private governance initiatives (TGIs). TGIs are institutions in which states and/or intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) work together with business and civil society actors to govern global policy issues. Examples include the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (GF) in the health sector, and the Kimberley Process in the security area.Explaining the Participation of Intergovernmental Organizations in Transnational Public-Private Governance Initiatives2019-03-10T00:00:00+00:002019-03-10T00:00:00+00:00http://oliverwesterwinter.com/work%20in%20progress/Explaining-the-Participation-of-Intergovernmental-Organizations-in-Transnational-Public-Private-Governance-InitiativesOliver Westerwinter, PhDoliver.westerwinter@unisg.chInstitutional Complexity in Global Governance2019-03-10T00:00:00+00:002019-03-10T00:00:00+00:00http://oliverwesterwinter.com/work%20in%20progress/Institutional-Complexity-in-Global-GovernanceOliver Westerwinter, PhDoliver.westerwinter@unisg.chRevisiting the Correlates of War Project’s Intergovernmental Organizations Data2019-03-10T00:00:00+00:002019-03-10T00:00:00+00:00http://oliverwesterwinter.com/work%20in%20progress/Revisiting-the-Correlates-of-War-Projects-Intergovernmental-Organizations-DataOliver Westerwinter, PhDoliver.westerwinter@unisg.ch