0 votes
A key consequence of such important ideational shifts was their inuence on cognitive authority markers.This constituted two new normative principles of global economic governance, specically the rejection of the rational expectations model of economic actors, in favor of more socially embedded accounts; and the second was increased inclusivity of global economic governance, initially through the augmented role for leading developing states in its most important multilateral fora and institutions, but also, importantly, an expansion of the actors involved that also increased the salience of a wider range of policy issues.This indicated a political rejection of the preGFC dominance of an lite group of wealthy states, especially the GG.It also brought an important shift in the policy norms and practices of global economic governance.The G was a crucial forum for the diffusion of these new normative principles, constituting new global governance norms and practices.There is substantial evidence to indicate how global economic governance networks <a href="http://www.targetmol.com/compound/Glycerite">Targetmol's Tannic acid</a> constitute, deploy, or instrumentalize legitimizing discourses, also for the constitutive effects of the latter on global governance.As noted earlier, the GFC augmented opportunities for global governance networks to contest existing legitimizing discourses, often in the form of conventional policy wisdom, due to the crisis effect in undermining the cognitive authority of these conventional policy approaches and their advocates and policy claims.The G, in particular, was a crucial forum for augmenting the inuence of more heterogeneous global governance networks.It is useful briey to assess four cases of global governance networks deploying legitimizing discourses, to contest global scal, nancial, development, and trade governance norms and practices.There is substantial evidence of networks deploying legitimizing discourses to contest   the norms and practices of global macroeconomic governance since the GFC.There were several politically contested legitimizing discourses during the GFC, built on competing narratives about the causes and consequences of the GFC.One core underlying principle at stake concerned the economic functions of the state and markets, a key focus for political contestation in international policymaking since the s. There was also signicant growth in usage of the signier sustainable during and since the GFC, sometimes implicitly referencing the embedded liberalism argument that some market aws should be resolved through public policymaking and, increasingly, multilateral cooperation, as did multilateral policy networks and actors. This constituted another key legitimizing discourse, deployed by a global economic governance network that favored socially and environmentally sustainable economic growth policies, rather than austerity or freemarketfocused policies.This occurred during the GFC, as the effects of the crisis increased the openness to policy experimentation in global governance circles, due to the evident failures of J.Luckhurst preGFC microprudential policymaking approaches.It effectively normalized or legitimized macroprudential nancial regulation, constituting an enduring shift in nancial governance norms and practices.There is substantial evidence that a global governance network on sustainable development, the third case to consider, inuenced the increasing emphasis on sustainable economic development in global economic governance since the GFC.This is not so much a case of political contestation, as the success of this sustainable economic development governance network has been so comprehensive that it has constituted something close to a dominant consensus in postGFC global development governance.

Please log in or register to answer this question.

Union Party Of Canada