Open access article published in ‘Cooperation and Conflict’
Cooperation and Conflict now includes open to our article ‘Fears of peers? Explaining peer and public shaming in global governance‘. The paper contributes to the academic literature by looking more deeply at what is truly striking about peer reviews among states: Why do some states adopt policies suggested under peer pressure and others do not?
Read the abstract for further information:
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.
More publications can also be found here.