Inge Kaul

Global Public Goods

Global and transnational challenges figure ever more prominently on national and international policy agendas and are increasingly analysed as global public goods (GPGs). This timely collection, which includes contributions by eminent scholars from a wide range of academic disciplines, provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of the theoretical and empirical research on this topic, and suggestions on where scholarship could go next.

Providing global public goods : managing globalization

Elaborating on the concepts first introduced in Global Public Goods, this book addresses the long overdue issue of how to adjust the concept of public goods to todays economic and political realities. The production of global public goods requires the orchestration of initiatives by a large number of diverse actors across different levels and sectors. It may require the collaboration of governments, business and civil society, and in most cases it almost certainly calls for an effective linkage of the local, national, regional, and global levels. In light of todays new realities, this book examines a series of managerial and political challenges that pertain to the design and implementation of production strategies and the monitoring and evaluation of global public goods provision.As participatory decision-making enhances the political support for - and thus the effectiveness of - certain policy decisions, this volume offers suggestions on a number of pragmatic policy reforms for bringing the global public more into public policy making on global issues. Nine case studies examine the importance of the global public good concept from the viewpoint of developing countries, exploring how and where the concerns of the poor and the rich overlap.Providing Global Public Goods offers important and timely suggestions on how to move in a more feasible and systematic way towards a fairer process of globalization that works in the interests of all. Available in OSO: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/public/content/economicsfinance/0195157400/toc.html

Global public goods and health: taking the agenda forward

We examined recent special health initiatives to control HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis, and make four policy recommendations for improving the sustainability of such initiatives. First, international cooperation on health should be seen as an issue of global public goods that concerns both poor and rich countries. Second, national health and other sector budgets should be tapped to ensure that global health concerns are fully and reliably funded; industrialized countries should lead the way. Third, a global research council should be established to foster more efficient health-related knowledge management. Fourth, managers for specific disease issues should be appointed, to facilitate policy partnerships. Policy changes in these areas have already begun and can provide a basis for further reform.

Public Goods: A Positive Analysis

The studies cover topics in the conceptualization, classification and stratification of public goods. Also examined are public institutional design, global economic institutions and partnership typologies. Individual papers address the financing, regulatory, organizational and legal aspects relating to services of general interest in Europe. The dynamics of global public good production, including monopolies, patents, scientific uncertainty and market failures, are discussed. Empirical research on the state, profit and non-profit sectors is presented. Providing numerous examples of specific public goods, the contributions also highlight the impact of macroeconomic policies on provision. The book presents a broad diversity of new approaches to global public goods within the framework of mixed economies, beyond the standard economic analysis of public services.

Private Provision and Global Public Goods: Do the Two Go Together?

DEFINING PUBLIC GOODS Economic theory defines goods as ‘public’ when they are available for all to consume. Goods that meet this criterion in a full or pure form have two properties: (1) They are nonrival in consumption, meaning that their enjoyment by one actor does not reduce their utility for other actors; and (2) they are non-exclusive, meaning that they do not discriminate between potential consumers. Goods (or services) that posses only one of the two criteria are called impure public goods. In other words, a good’s consumption properties determine whether it is public or private. And private goods have the opposite properties of the public ones: they are rival in consumption and exclusive – only available for those who own them. Because they can usually be parceled out and made exclusive, private goods (such as bread, shoes, cars, or television sets) lend themselves to being provided through the market. Public goods, however, pose special provision problems – precisely because of their publicness in consumption. Think, for example, of law and order. It would be very difficult, if not impossible, for any one person to produce law and order unilaterally. In most instances, a collective effort will be required: all have to follow the law so that a community’s life can be orderly, safe and tranquil. Most public goods are also public in provision, meaning that they require collective action in order to exist. However, it is important to underline that only in very few cases is ‘privateness’ or ‘publicness’ of consumption an innate property of a good. Rather, it is a matter of policy choice.

Providing (Contested) Global Public Goods

Many perceive globalization as a chequered process that has, in part, highly appreciated aspects, and in part, highly controversial and therefore contested dimensions. Many, for example, enjoy the enhanced connectivity that has been brought about by the expanding international communication and transportation networks or the ease with which commerce can be conducted today, due to integrating banking systems and financial markets.

Making the Case for a New Global Development Research Agenda

Recent international agreements such as Agenda 2030 (UN, 2015) suggest that there is growing recognition that we are today confronting two main operational strands of international cooperation: the still-unfinished agenda of development assistance from richer to poorer countries; and the emergent agenda of global public good (GPG) provision. However, this increasing awareness has not yet translated into requisite institutional adjustments. For the most part, states continue to rely on conventional strategies and instruments. To the extent that adjustments have happened, they are moving away from what the lengthening list of underprovided GPGs demands: namely, away from participatory multilateral governance approaches and towards more club-based, mini-lateral initiatives among like-minded richer countries; or towards greater reliance on initiatives at national and local levels, as well as private sector and civil society engagement. A greater multiplicity and diversity of policy responses may well be desirable and even necessary on occasion, but, to date, they do not form a coherent, results-oriented regime. A reason for the fractured nature of international cooperation today could be that we lack a systematic theory of global public policy, notably as regards GPG provision. Where to begin developing such a theory of global public policy? What should be its distinguishing features? The present essay will address these two questions. It draws on the findings of a recent survey of social science studies which examine global challenges through the analytical lens of public goods (Kaul et al., 2016) and takes additional inspiration from Atkinson (2006) and Sandmo (2007). Three lines of future research are suggested as initial steps towards the construction of a theory of global public policy. They are: (1) revisiting key concepts in the light of today’s policymaking realities; (2) building a genuinely global perspective into our analytical frameworks and existing governance systems; and (3) clarifying the differences and synergies between development assistance and GPG provision. The following sections elaborate on these three points in turn.

Human Development: From Concept to Action, A 10-Point Agenda

The Human Development Report (HDR) has, since its first publication in 1990, met with an active, interested response on the part of the global development community. Its messages have been the subject of national and international-level policy debate. Increasingly, policy statements in various fora endorse the notion of people-centred development, i.e. the notion that development should be development of people, by people, and for people. The response to the HDR however, has gone well beyond debate and policy dialogue; in many countries efforts have been made to move from theory to practical action. If one were to classify the different types of initiatives a 10-point agenda would emerge, one that could be pursued and adapted to different contexts. The following discussion discusses each of these points.

Global Social Policy Forum and Policy Brief

The publication in February 2004 of the report of the World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalization commissioned by the ILO (International Labour Organisation) marks a significant step forward in the global discourse taking place within and between international organizations about the management of globalization. Its analysis and recommendations represent a shift from the earlier dominance in globalization talk of the neo-liberal paradigm towards something which is much more recognizable as a social market if not yet a social democratic approach. Scholars of global social policy will be interested in whether the World Commission report adopts the language and concepts of global social policy in its attempt to chart a path towards ‘A Fair Globalization’? In the words of the press release (http://www.ilo.org): ‘The Commission argues that a broader Globalization Policy Forum is required, to bring together international organizations and other key actors and participants in global debates on globalization and its impact, and the design of global economic and social policies’ (emphasis added). So what do its recommendations say about ‘global social redistribution’, ‘global social regulation’, ‘global social rights’ and ‘global social governance’? In terms of global social redistribution the report continues to mince words about global taxation but argues that: ‘A greater effort of resource mobilization at the international level is a basic requirement. The commitment to the target of 0.7% of GDP for ODA must at long last be respected (para. 453–458). A wide range of options for additional sources of funding should also be actively considered (para. 471–472). The potential of voluntary private contributions and philanthropic endeavours for global solidarity should be more fully tapped (para. 471–472).’ Interestingly it argues that ‘international action is likewise needed to support national social protection systems, in order to ensure that there is a minimum level of social protection in the global economy (para. 488–491)’. In terms of global social regulation the report argues: ‘The rules of the global economy should be aimed at improving the rights, livelihoods, security and opportunities of people, families and communities around the world. That includes fair rules for trade, finance and investment, measures to strengthen respect for core G S P F O R U M A N D P O L I C Y B R I E F 131