global knowledge and avoca cy

8/10/2019 Global Knowledge and Avoca Cy

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/global-knowledge-and-avoca-cy 1/11

Global Networks 2, 1 (2002) 1–11. ISSN 1470–2266 1

Introduction: global knowledge

and advocacy networks

DIANE STONE

Abstract As global and regional networks proliferate, one important aspect of their

operations has been the exchange of knowledge, information and expertise. ‘Global

knowledge networks’ have become important components of the global politicaleconomy. Within these networks key knowledge institutions and actors can be devel-

opment agencies, foundations, think-tanks, universities, consultancy firms as well as

individual experts and academics. A primary mechanism for the spread of their

knowledge has been through global and regional networks. The article evaluates first,

concepts of networks, especially the epistemic community and transnational issue net-

work frameworks; second, theories about international diffusion of ideas; and third,

some of the literature on the links between ideas and politics. Control over knowledge

and information is important to policy making. Additionally, the status and prestige

associated with scholarly expertise and professional training is politically empower-ing for individual experts consulted or co-opted into policy making. Yet, norms and

values cannot be divorced from ‘scientific advice’ especially when knowledge gains

greater impact through advocacy and alliance with societal forces.

As global and regional networks proliferate, one important aspect of their operations

has been the exchange of knowledge, information and expertise. ‘Global knowledge

networks ‘have become important components of the global political economy. Key

knowledge institutions and actors can be development agencies, foundations, think-

tanks, universities, consultancy firms as well as individual experts and academics. A

primary mechanism for the spread of knowledge – ideas, research, normative under-

standings – has been through global and regional networks. Accordingly, this edition

of Global Networks addresses the international exchange of knowledge and some of

its implications for policy and politics.

This edition arises from the activities of a recently established ‘global knowledge

network’; that is, the Global Development Network (GDN). Four of the contributions

here were presented initially to the second conference of the GDN in Tokyo, Decem-

ber 2000. The GDN is a global association of researchers, institutes and think-tanks.

Since 1999, the GDN has organised a series of paper panels around the broad theme

‘Business of Development Knowledge’ as part of the wider objectives of the Network

to promote the ‘creation, sharing and application’ of knowledge and research.1 This

introduction builds on some of the themes and ideas that were developed in these

panels at the Tokyo conference but also seeks to draw upon wider conceptual

developments.



Diane Stone

2

In particular, this Introduction will evaluate: first, concepts of networks, especially

the epistemic community and transnational issue network frameworks; second,

theories about the international diffusion of ideas; and third, some of the literature on

the links between ideas and politics. Control over knowledge and information hasbecome an important component of policy making. The status and prestige associated

with expertise, high professional training and authoritative knowledge regarding a

particular problem is politically empowering and provides varying degrees of political

access for individual experts consulted or co-opted into policy making. However, as

the following articles outline in their different contexts, it is difficult to divorce scien-

tific insight from norms and values. Knowledge is likely to have greater impact

through advocacy and alliance with societal forces.

Knowledge networks

Knowledge networks incorporate professional associations, academic research groups

and scientific communities that organize around a special subject matter or issue.

Individual or institutional inclusion in such networks is based upon professional and

official recognition of expert authority as well as more subtle and informal processes

of validating scholarly and scientific credibility. The primary motivation of such

networks is to advance, share and spread knowledge. While many of these arrange-

ments are engaged in the disinterested pursuit of knowledge, they can also be policy

focused. These policy-relevant knowledge networks are the main focus of this specialedition.

Knowledge actors with a policy orientation and increasingly involved in the global

spread of knowledge are varied. Organizational bases include philanthropic

foundations, scientific associations, think-tanks, universities and colleges, training

institutes, autonomous university centres, professional associations and consultancy

firms as well as non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and pressure groups with a

strong research capacity. With the advances in technology and communications of the

last century, established practices of intellectual and professional exchange of knowl-

edge have become global.There are very few definitions available of global knowledge networks, despite

increasing reference to the prevalence of such arrangements. For example, the new

German Agency for International Training (GIB) will seek to ‘help partner countries’

integration in global learning, research and knowledge networks’ (Adelman 2001:

27). As mentioned, the GDN is a knowledge network. Other examples include the

internationally influential Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research

(CGIAR). The Committee for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific (CSCAP) is a

mechanism for informal diplomacy that was instigated by the ASEAN country

Institutes for Security and International Studies (Nesadurai and Stone 2000). In south-eastern Europe, the ‘Bluebird Project’ represents another project to forge a common

regional identity (www.ceu.hu/cps/).

Inderjeet Parmar in this issue offers one definition of a global knowledge network:

‘a system of coordinated research, study (and often graduate-level teaching), results

dissemination and publication, intellectual exchange, and financing across national

boundaries.’ A looser definition is of: ‘voluntary associations of individuals and their

institutes who share a common interest in exchanging information and in rendering



Introduction: global knowledge and advocacy networks

3

support to advocacy and research programs’ (Englehard and Box 1999). Both

emphasize collective action through research and in varying degrees, the importance

of resources in binding the network and contributing to its effectiveness. An alter-

native definition is of ‘embedded knowledge network’ where greater store is placedupon the power of ideas. These are: ‘ostensibly private institutions that possess

authority because of their publicly acknowledged track records for solving problems,

often acting as disinterested “technical” parties in high-value, high-risk transactions or

in validating sets of norms and practices’ (Sinclair 2000). In this neo-Gramscian

definition, the stress is on first, how networks contribute to the construction of the

legitimacy of policy judgements of individual experts and other sources of private

authority; and second, how private knowledge actors and institutions are linked to the

material interests and structures of globalizing capitalism.

The expertise, scientific knowledge, data and methods of knowledge networksprovide them with some authority to inform policy. The knowledge credentials and

expertise of network actors (PhDs; career profile in a think-tank, university or govern-

ment research agency; service on blue ribbon commissions or expert advisory groups,

and so forth) bestow credibility and special status in policy debates and give weight to

their recommendations. A network amplifies and disseminates ideas, research and

information to an extent that could not be achieved by individuals or institutions

alone. Moreover, a network mutually confers legitimacy and pools authority and

respectability in a positive-sum manner. In other words, a network can often be

greater than its constituent parts.Knowledge networks take numerous forms and foci. Virtual networks are well

understood (see for example: www.eldis.org). Similarly, networks organised around a

discipline are readily recognized. Indeed, the term ‘invisible college’ arose to describe

the informal and professional interactions through conferences and journals of far-

flung communities of scholars. Until advances in communication and transport, such

communities had a strong national identity. In many respects, such identity remains

important. However, today, scientific and scholarly communities interact trans-

nationally with ease (Englehard and Box 1999). Sometimes, knowledge networks are

defined by their organizational composition (networks of NGOs, of think-tanks; ofuniversities). For example, in the ‘Transnational Practices’ section at the end of this

edition, Ray Stryuk categorizes a range of think-tank networks. At other times, they

can be classified by their issue orientation towards gender, the environment,

privatization agendas, or by a tighter policy focus on water or forestry management,

or on HIV/AIDS. In this regard, knowledge networks can act as vehicles for multi-

disciplinary research. On a related point, knowledge networks can represent a form of

social capital: transnational professional communities, scientific associations and/or

research teams potentially enhance social cohesion, communication and other

intangible benefits of civic association at global level.As a result, conceptual tools are needed to interpret the movements and objectives

of knowledge networks, and how and when their ideas matter. A handful of network

concepts will be outlined. The ‘policy community’, ‘transnational advocacy network’

and ‘epistemic community’ frameworks share the position that ideas, research or

knowledge are endemic to the policy process. In the following articles, these concepts

are addressed by the contributors.

‘Policy communities’ are stable networks of policy actors from both inside and



Diane Stone

4

outside government and they are highly integrated with the policy making process.

Think-tank experts, university academics and NGO researchers are likely to be

accorded ‘insider’ status if they share the central values and attitudes of the policy

community (Coleman and Perl 1999). Actors invest in these communities to pursuematerial interest. Their interactions are shaped by resource dependencies and bargain-

ing. A policy community can include journalists, researchers and policy analysts as

well as elected officials and bureaucratic leaders. That is, people who share a common

set of basic values, causal assumptions, and problem perceptions. As such, a policy

community is a venue through which knowledge networks can intersect or of which

they can be a subset. Regularized communication, the formation of rules and resource

divisions coordinate the network. Over time the network may become institution-

alized with the creation of formal arrangements such as advisory committees,

consultation procedures and recognition by state and multilateral agencies in theimplementation of policies. However, as Pamela Mbabazi and her co-authors outline,

the policy community idea is not relevant to conflict scenarios where crisis and

uncertainty prevail. It is an idea of greater relevance to situations of stable policy

making in a national setting where a consensus on policy objectives is apparent.

Think-tanks, academics and NGOs sometimes participate in broad ‘transnational

advocacy networks’ that accommodate a range of non-governmental organizations

(NGOs) and activists (Keck and Sikkink 1998). These coalitions seek to shape the

climate of public debate and influence global policy agendas and are often less

integrated into policy-making than policy community actors. These networks arebound together by shared values, dense exchanges of information and services, and a

shared discourse. Unlike the policy community, this approach also places much

stronger emphasis on the techniques and strategies of networking as a transnational

activity through which ideas and norms are spread internationally. They are called

advocacy networks because ‘advocates plead the causes of others or defend a cause or

proposition’ (Keck and Sikkink 1998: 8).

Participants in advocacy network can lack the status of recognized professional

judgement of ‘experts’. However, these networks have been prominent in ‘value-

laden debates over human rights, the environment, women, infant health and indigen-ous peoples, where large numbers of differently situated individuals have become

acquainted over a considerable period and have developed similar world views’ (Keck

and Sikkink 1998: 8–9). These networks cohere around ‘principled beliefs’ –

normative ideas that provide criteria to distinguish right from wrong – unlike epis-

temic communities (outlined below) which form around ‘causal beliefs’ – cause and

effect relationships. As a consequence, transnational advocacy networks are more

effective in valuing ‘grass roots’, traditional and non-scientific knowledge. For this

reason, Mbabzi et al. find it a more useful framework to comprehend the success of

the ‘blood diamonds’ coalition in Africa.In contrast to the stronger normative basis and advocacy orientation of trans-

national advocacy networks, epistemic communities are more exclusive and

‘scientific’ in composition, founded on ‘codified’ forms of knowledge (Haas 1992).

These communities are primarily composed of knowledge actors − professionals,

researchers, scientists – who share common ideas for policy and seek privileged

access to decision-making fora on the basis of their expertise and scholarly knowl-

edge. Epistemic communities assert their independence from government or vested




5

interest on the basis of their expert knowledge. They share common causal methods

or professional judgement, common notions of validity and a common vocabulary;

that is, consensual knowledge. Consensual knowledge may be, for example, a com-

mitment to ecological principles or the tenets of Keynesian economics. Two types ofepistemic community operate. An ‘ad hoc coalition’ aims to solve a particular policy

problem whereby the problem shapes the community. The ‘life’ of such communities

‘is limited to the time and space defined by the problem and its solutions’ (Adler and

Haas 1992: 371). An example would be the Ugandan Debt Network. The other kind is

more constant and is aimed at the establishment and perpetuation of beliefs and

visions as ‘dominant social discourses’. Of importance here are the social interactions

of the community that (re)produces interpretations of reality and the specific defini-

tions of policy problems. An example would be the neo-liberal orthodoxy sometimes

described as the Washington consensus. The status and prestige associated with theirexpertise and their high professional training and authoritative knowledge regarding a

particular problem are politically empowering and provide limited access to the

political system. This is especially the case in conditions of ‘uncertainty’ – conflict

and crisis – where decision-makers cannot make decisions on the basis of existing

knowledge or past experience and approach expert groups for assistance.

These different understandings of networks provide conceptual tools with which

to address the global and regional interactions of advocacy groups and their relations

with international organizations and other actors. Each framework emphasizes differ-

ent features of the way in which policy thinking may be shaped through networkparticipation. However, each network approach outlines how participants can build

alliances, share discourses and construct consensual knowledge that can help bring

about policy change In the articles that follow, these network concepts are utilized,

criticized and modified. It is not necessary to view these approaches as contradictory.

Instead, they highlight the multi-dimensional manner in which networks might accord

influence – through ‘consensusal knowledge’, through bargaining or through trans-

national coalition building. Similarly, they highlight the different environments in

which they operate. Thus, policy communities tend to evolve in relatively stable and

predictable policy environments that are to be found in the advanced industrial liberaldemocracies of the West. By contrast, epistemic communities and transnational advo-

cacy networks emerge in more ambiguous policy environments where new issues or

policy problems are poorly understood or are without political recognition; and in

global and regional domains where authoritative institutions are weak or emerging.

The diffusion of ideas and policy transfer

Knowledge networks are exemplary mechanisms for the international diffusion of

ideas and the promotion of policy transfer. Policy transfer involves the emulation orsynthesis of policies, institutions, ideologies and ideas across time, place or policy

domain. The emphasis in this literature is on understanding the process by which

policies are transferred, the agents engaged in transfer and the decision-making

patterns that bring about cross-national emulation and policy learning, as well as on

the coercive imposition of policy lessons.2 In varying degree, the articles in this

edition address the international diffusion of ideas and focus on the agency of intel-

lectuals and their organizations in the spread of these ideas.



Diane Stone

6

The non-governmental status of private organizations and associations is a major

structural constraint to their role in policy transfer. Nevertheless, ‘independent’

experts, academics and think-tanks actors are effective at the ‘soft transfer’ of broad

policy ideas (Evans and Davies 1999) influencing public opinion and policy agendas.By contrast, officials are more involved in ‘hard’ transfer of policy practices and

instruments involving formal decision-making. Knowledge networks are essential for

the international spread of knowledge, norms and what is deemed international ‘best

practice’. That is policies such as privatization and deregulation, the ‘new public

management’ and financial liberalization that are promoted (compulsorarily through

loan conditions) by international financial institutions such as the International Mone-

tary Fund and the World Bank. However, knowledge networks can also be effective

in advancing alternative policy understandings. Experts, scientists and other knowl-

edge actors involved in lesson-drawing can be regarded as ‘policy transfer entre-preneurs’ (Dolowitz and Marsh 2000). They help transfer the intellectual matter that

underpins policies. They can provide the rhetoric, the language and scholarly dis-

course to give substance and legitimacy to certain preferred positions.

Intellectual exchange, research, studies, and policy dialogues can also promote

social learning. Learning involves reinterpretations of national and elite interests on

the basis of new knowledge that affects fundamental beliefs and ideas behind policy.

Informal diplomacy is one interface between knowledge and policy. The involvement

of non-official actors in brokering international agreements and building consensus or

understanding between different parties in ‘track two’ and ‘track three’ processes ofpolicy dialogue is increasingly evident in conflict resolution as well as in economic

cooperation – a theme developed by Pamela Mbabazi, Sandra McLean and Tim

Shaw.3 However, track two diplomacy is conducted through ad hoc or semi-

permanent networks of private experts and official participants. Their elite character

limits the potential for learning to select participants. Closure to broader societal

interests can undermine learning and institute a dynamic for inertia and habit. This

theme is most clearly developed in the contribution from Herman Kraft. By contrast,

Tomoko Akami and Inderjeet Parmar, with a more historical approach, adopt different

terminology and frameworks to explain how establishment intellectuals in Asia andthe American foundations ‘exported ideas’ and social constructs. Notwithstanding

important differences between the contributors, they share the view that ideas and

norms gain greater impact when adopted by social and political forces.

The knowledge network becomes an important venue not only for the production

of knowledge but also for three other functions. First, the communication and dis-

semination of knowledge can be undertaken in a collective and coordinated fashion

with policy entrepreneurs acting as intermediaries between the (social) scientific/

intellectual community and the policy domain. Second, the network has greater ability

to attract media attention, political patronage and donor support than an individual orsingle organization. The collaboration of a number of respected research institutes,

foundations or leading NGOs drawing together renowned thinkers and researchers

establishes a dynamic where the network becomes perceived as a locus for scientific

authority. Its critical mass of expert opinion gives its representatives some sway in

shaping problem definition, determining research agendas and posing questions for

policy deliberation. Co-financing from foundations, governments and international

organizations also bestows greater credibility and legitimacy on the network.




7

Third, the spread of ideas often has policy implications and the plurality of partici-

pation of many networks combined with their expertise and knowledge resources can

give these networks political status. Governments and international organizations are

using knowledge organizations to assist in the monitoring of international agreements,to undertake policy evaluations and to help diffuse analysis on international best

practice. Official actors often do not have the time, resources or expertise to accu-

mulate sufficient evidence to make valid in-house assessments. Knowledge networks

act as resource banks for information where experts utilize their intellectual and

scholarly base to provide expertise and informed judgements. Primarily private

organizations, these bodies have interacted with other official agents of transfer and

have used their intellectual authority or market expertise to reinforce and legitimate

certain forms of policy or normative standards as ‘best practice’. A good example of

think-tank advocacy that has assisted policy transfer concerns privatization (Stone2000). A more recent example of think-tank roles in the ‘diffusion of knowledge’ is

the Global Development Network. The GDN partnership is a collaborative arrange-

ment for the co-production of local, regional and global knowledge on ‘best practice’

(Stiglitz 2000). It entails information and resource sharing, as well as joint action by

research institutes and think-tanks in conjunction with development agencies,

governments and foundations. The role of academics should not be neglected nor the

manner in which education and skills acquisition are major elements of the inter-

national spread of ideas and the formation of ‘invisible colleges’. For example, the

role of the so-called ‘Chicago boys’ transmitting monetarist ideas to Latin America iswell known as is the spread, in earlier times, of Keynesian ideas.

While there are many positive attributes to sharing knowledge and spreading

policy ideas from one context to another, there are issues of appropriate transfer, criti-

cisms about coercive transfers, and questions of power come to the fore. Consultancy

companies advising the transport of management principles and social reforms from

one context to another have been criticized for ‘pushing’ models and paying ‘little

attention to the particular context in the borrowing political system’ (Dolowitz and

Marsh 2000: 10; also Wedel 1998 on the transition of the post-communist states of

central and eastern Europe). The ‘one-size-fits-all’ method can often result in inap-propriate transfer (Stiglitz 2000).

Foundations are also involved in the transnational spread of ideas, values and

norms as well as specific programmes. The Soros foundation network is concerned to

promote ‘open societies’ by introducing programmes developed in the West into

countries of the former Soviet Union, Haiti and South Africa. However, the large

American foundations have had longer term impact upon the culture of policy. The

Ford Foundation was central in ‘the spread of American style management education’

to Europe from the 1950s into the 1970s (Gemelli 1998). In this volume, Inderjeet

Parmar examines role of three American philanthropic foundations in promoting‘liberal internationalism’ and fostering a pro-US environment of values, methods and

research institutions in the same time period. The international effort of US foun-

dations has not abated in the post-Soviet era, but has mounted and shifted focus.

There has been a shift away from international affairs, peace and security, and inter-

national studies programmes, with greater support for in-country grants for health and

family planning, economic development, human rights, and the development of civil

society and democratic institutions. This has been complemented by an out-pouring of



Diane Stone

8

support for countries in transition in eastern and central Europe and Latin America

(Renz 1998).

Scientific associations, foundations, training institutes, NGOs, consultants and

other knowledge actors stimulate the spread of policy ideas through persuasion andadvocacy. But these groups and organizations are not isolated. Instead they interact in

a complex, overlapping social mosaic and form a rich ecology of ‘knowledge net-

works’. Many are drawn into cooperative engagement with official actors within

global public policy partnerships (Reinicke and Deng 2000). Such ‘global public

policy networks’ are not simply a means for transferring ideas or norm-building but

can gradually become governance structures. Consequently, the nature of the relation-

ship of non-official experts, their organizations (think-tanks, foundations, and so

forth) and their coalitions with state and society present important questions about

representation, accountability and legitimacy.While networks are effective in delivering global or regional public goods, a con-

cern with policy outcomes may lead to a lack of consideration for democratic process.

A well-placed criticism is that networks are composed of elites (Jacobsen 1995).

Participation is often voluntary, but only to those with the means or resources to

devote to network activity. Moreover, inclusion in a network is often subject to subtle

processes of recognition, gate keeping and patronage. Networks behave in a ‘club-

like’ fashion. Elitism, gate keeping and the domination of certain interests are

tendencies that undermine the inclusion of new voices in networks. Participation is

dependent on cognitive resources, expert status or professional experience. Notwith-standing such comments, networks with a stronger advocacy character or directed

towards the promotion of international norms can be more permeable to societal par-

ticipation as outlined in the article by Herman Kraft.

Nevertheless, global or regional networks are not ‘public’ entities – that is,

accountable to formally elected representatives of the public or a sovereign authority.

A network may be accountable to network members but these member organizations

and individuals cannot be considered as representative of the ‘global public’. Global

or regional networks are usually private organizations and are not subject to the usual

reporting and accountability requirements of public bodies in liberal democracies. Thepublic, even the well-informed one of OECD countries, is still largely unaware of the

roles, reach and influence of global networks. Who sees in the newspapers or the elec-

tronic media reports about CGIAR? Moreover, members of the general public often

have neither the expertise, nor the time, nor the inclination to be active participants in

the policy at the national level let alone participate in global policy debates. Com-

bined with the technocratic character of many such networks, the public is excluded

and political responsibility is undermined. This is not to imply that competition is

absent within or between networks. However, networks are not open to all. For

instance, in her article, Tomoko Akami highlights the exclusivity of an internationalsociety of establishment intellectuals. As a consequence of the lack of transparency

and mechanisms for public representation, these networks act with relative autonomy

and in anonymity. Consequently, they are more able to thwart challenges to their

activities by emphasizing their non-state, private status. This tendency is compounded

in knowledge networks that stress their disinterested, scientific and politically neutral

endeavours.




9

Knowledge and advocacy, policy and norms

As the following articles illuminate, the production of knowledge cannot be divorced

from its context. Knowledge networks are a form of power. The contest of ideas and

battles to control the terms of policy debate reveal that the utilization of knowledge –

indeed, what is considered to be valid knowledge – is a political process. The best

ideas or most relevant scientific findings do not always capture political attention and

much policy relevant research lies fallow without a dialogue with those in power. The

receptivity of decision-makers to new ideas is often politically determined in

situations where science and expertise is not seen as ‘objective knowledge’ but as

‘contested information’. Accordingly, the conditions and practices by which ideas are

recognized and selected by governments or international organizations and then

interpreted, applied, modified or rejected, need to be understood.Scholars have long had difficulty in accounting for the role of ideas in policy and

politics (Braun 2000). The causal nexus between knowledge, research and ideas on

the one hand and its implications for agenda-setting, political deliberations and policy

implementation on the other, has never been a clear or unambiguous one. However,

ideational approaches are experiencing a resurgence in the social sciences, most

particularly in the international relations and international political economy (IR/IPE)

literature (Bieler 2001). The concern is to explain why and how particular sets of

ideas prevail in the global political economy and what theories and beliefs shape the

definition of interests. Following Bieler, ideational approaches in IR/IPE can becategorized as ‘cognitive’, ‘constructivist’ or ‘neo-Gramscian’. However, this categor-

ization neglects postmodernist thinking that stresses the independent force of dis-

course, symbolism and language on politics (see Fischer and Forrester 1993). It is not

dealt with further here, given that it is also absent from the following contributions.

Yet, the implications of this approach for understanding ‘global knowledge networks’

is that knowledge – in the form of scientific treatises, scholarly books, NGO advocacy

and the debates between social thinkers – represents the independent power of ideas.

The ‘transnational advocacy network’ and ‘epistemic community’ frameworks

outlined earlier are examples of cognitive explanations of ideas on politics. Similarly,the policy transfer literature is concerned with the transmission of ideas into politics,

not the material sources of their creation. In these approaches, ideas and interests are

distinct and separable. Research or policy analysis can have causal impact if it

becomes embedded in institutions in the form of new procedures, organizational rules

or reforms or if new knowledge shapes the way in which policy actors perceive prob-

lems. However, ideas are distinguished from interests and are treated instrumentally

as tools or commodities that are used by policy actors to manipulate their audiences

and to serve predetermined interests. In this view, policy becomes a battle of ideas

and knowledge is a weapon. Ideas are in the service of interests. Research is used tosubstantiate and legitimate preconceived policy positions. Advocacy is inseparable

from science. Accordingly, ‘global knowledge networks’ are mechanisms with which

to broadcast and advocate one form of knowledge, research or norms in preference to

other perspectives.

Constructivist approaches criticize the inherent objectification of ideas in cog-

nitive explanations. The emphasis is on seeing ideas as causal factors rather than

considering ideas (or knowledge) as partly constituting the wider social reality.



Diane Stone

10

Constructivists focus on the social construction of policy problems, policy belief

systems and identity. The emphasis is on the development of ‘intersubjective know-

ledge’ – common understandings and shared identities – as the dynamic for change.

This positive identification among actors – whether they be states engaged in inter-national negotiations or policy makers in policy communities – challenges the notion

that interests are exogenous and objectively discernible. Instead, interests evolve and

are formed by interactions over time. Institutions and policies are formed around

mutual understanding and policy change is explained by the meaning that states or

individual policy actors attribute to an action or development. Accordingly, research-

ers and advocacy groups are one set of actors producing and articulating shared sets

of meaning. Learning (and interest formation) is endogenous to the policy process

arising from social interactions. Policy change arises through an increased propensity

for cooperation and collective action. In this perspective, global knowledge networksare venues for social learning and the development of mutual understanding that can

lead to cooperation.

Neo-Gramscians claim they can incorporate the insights of both approaches to

connect ideas to the material structure (Bieler 2001). In developing the concept of

hegemony, ideas are treated in a constructivist manner as intersubjective meanings

that shape perceptions of social structure. However, the advantage of cognitive

approaches is that they identify the agents, innovators or carriers of knowledge and

how they use ideas to legitimize policy. What becomes to be considered the truth

involves gaining control over the material resources and networks. The neo-Gramscian emphasis is on ‘organic intellectuals’ playing a central role in hegemonic

projects where specific sets of ideas are funded, generated and disseminated by foun-

dations, think-tanks, publishing houses and NGOs. This approach is employed by

Inderjeet Parmar in his discussion of American foundations and is also apparent in

Tomoko Akami’s analysis of liberal internationalist conceptions of ‘Asia’. As a

consequence, global knowledge networks can be viewed as an evolving contemporary

social mechanism to make ideas more relevant and as a site of ideological contest

where ideas are in league with particular constellations of social forces.

Diane Stone is at the Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation,

University of Warwick, UK.

Notes

1. Further information can be found on the Bonn 1999, Tokyo 2000 and Rio de Janeiro 2001

conference sites at: www.gdnet.org.

2. The policy transfer approach and its links to the literature on lesson drawing, policy

convergence and social learning are outlined in greater detail in Stone 2001.

3. For definitions of tracks one, two and three, see article by Herman Joseph S. Kraft in this

issue.

References

Adelman, K. (2001) ‘International training cooperation: third pillar of German development

cooperation’, Development & Cooperation, 3, 27.




11

Adler, E. and P. Haas (1992) ‘Conclusion: epistemic communities, world order, and the

creation of a reflective research program’, International Organization, 46, 367–90.

Bieler, A. (2001) ‘Questioning cognitivism and constructivism in IR theory: reflections on the

material structure of ideas’, Politics, 21, 93–100.Braun, D. (2000) ‘Interests or ideas: an overview of ideational concepts in public policy

research’, in D. Braun and A. Busch (eds) Public policy and political ideas, Cheltenham:

Edward Elgar, 11–29.

Coleman, W. and A. Perl (1999) ‘Internationalized policy environments and policy network

analysis’, Political Studies, 47, 691–709.

Dolowitz, D. and D. Marsh (2000) ‘Learning from abroad: the role of policy transfer in

contemporary policy-making’, Governance, 13, 5–24.

Englehard, R. J. and Box, L. (1999) ‘Making North–South research networks work’,

Commission for Science and Technology for Development, Geneva, 17 May, prepared for

the European Centre for Development Policy Management, Maastricht, The Netherlands.Evans, M. and Davies, J. (1999) ‘Understanding policy transfer: a multi-level, multi-

disciplinary perspective’, Public Administration, 77, 361–85.

Fischer, Frank and J. Forester (eds) (1993) The argumentative turn in policy analysis and

planning. London: UCL Press.

Gemelli, G. (ed.) (1998) The Ford Foundation and Europe (1950s–1970s): cross fertilization of

learning in social science and management , Brussels: European University Press.

Haas, P. (1992) ‘Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination’,

International Organization, 46, 1–35.

Jacobsen, K. (1995) ‘Much ado about ideas: the cognitive factor in economic policy’, World

Politics, 47, 283–310.Keck, M. and K. Sikkink (1998) Activists beyond borders: advocacy networks in international

politics, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Nesadurai, H. and D. Stone (2000) ‘Southeast Asian research institutes and regional

cooperation’, in D. Stone (ed.) Banking on knowledge: the genesis of the Global

Development Network , London: Routledge, 183–202.

Reinicke, W. and F. Deng (2000) Critical choices: the United Nations, networks and the future

of global governance, executive summary, available at: www.globalpublicpolicy.net/.

Renz, L. (1998) ‘International grant making by US foundations: issues and directions in the

1990s’, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 27, 507–21.

Sinclair, T. J. (2000) ‘Reinventing authority: Embedded knowledge networks and the new

global finance’, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 18, 487–502.

Stiglitz, J. (2000) ‘Scan globally, reinvent locally: knowledge infrastructure and the localization

of knowledge’ in D. Stone (ed.) Banking on knowledge: the genesis of the Global

Development Network , London: Routledge.

Stone, D. (2000) ‘Non-governmental policy transfer: the strategies of independent policy

institutes’, Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration, 13, 45–70.

Stone, D. (2001) ‘Learning lessons, policy transfer and the international diffusion of policy

ideas’, CSGR Working Paper No. 69/01, April, University of Warwick. www.csgr.org/.

Wedel, J. (1998) Collision and collusion: the strange case of Western Aid to Eastern Europe,

New York: St Martin’s Press.

global knowledge and avoca cy

Documents