Carraro, V., Conzelmann T. & H. Jongen (2016) Fears of Peers? Explaining Peer and Public Shaming in Global Governance. Workshop ‘Shaming in World Politics”, Stockholm, 19-20 May 2016.
‘Peer reviews among states build on the regular collection of information on the policy performance of states, the evaluation of this information by the secretariat of the IO and other states (the ‘peers’), and eventually the assessment of policy performance. In many peer reviews, this assessment is followed by the formulation of recommendations to the reviewed state. Depending on how broadly this assessment is shared, peer review recommendations frequently lead to peer and public pressure on the reviewed state to address shortcomings. This paper discusses the extent to which peer and public pressure is exerted in specific peer reviewing schemes and discuss which institutional, social and organizational factors make naming and shaming more likely to occur. Our discussion focuses on two peer reviews organised within the OECD, namely the Working Group on Bribery (WGB) and the Environmental Performance Reviews (EPR); and two peer reviews within the United Nations Family, namely the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of the Human Rights Council and the Implementation Review Group established within the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC).
E-mail the authors to request a copy of the paper.