Research output

Fears of Peers? Explaining Peer and Public Shaming in Global Governance

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Associated researcher

Associated organisations

Abstract

This article conducts a comparative analysis of peer and public pressure in peer reviews among states. Arguing that such pressure is one increasingly important form of shaming in global politics, we seek to understand the extent to which five different peer reviews exert peer and public pressure and how possible variation among them can be explained. Our findings are based on responses to an original survey and semi-structured interviews among participants in the reviews. We find that peer and public pressure exist to different degrees in the peer reviews under study. Such differences cannot be explained by the policy area under review or the international organization in which peer reviews are organized. Likewise, the expertise of the actors involved in a peer review or perceptions of the legitimacy of peer review as a monitoring instrument do not explain the variation. Instead, we find that institutional factors and the acceptance of peer and public pressure among the participants in a peer review offer the best explanations.

    Research areas

  • Anti-corruption policy, human rights, international authority, naming and shaming, peer review, trade and economic policy, HUMAN-RIGHTS, INTERNATIONAL-ORGANIZATIONS, POLITICS
View graph of relations

Details

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)335-355
Number of pages21
JournalCooperation and Conflict
Volume54
Issue number3
Early online date8 Jan 2019
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Sep 2019