Post 2015: Global Action for an Inclusive and Sustainable Future

CHApTER TEn
Global public
policies could
be developed
into a web of
international
regimes that
support the
provision of
global public
goods and the
mitigation or
reduction of
global public
‘bads’.
214
the coherence of different policies. Coordination
depends on all relevant parties abiding by jointly
agreed rules and standards in their external policies
in order to avoid duplication and to promote
synergies. modes of coordination need to reflect an
international reality that is shaped by diverse actors,
takes place at many different levels and involves
many issues at the same time. Coherence demands
that national and international policies should be
in tune with globally agreed goals. coherence is
difficult to achieve when commitments to long-term
global objectives conflict with more immediate
national preferences or priorities. both challenges
are likely to become more important in the process of
formulating any post-2015 framework, and there is an
urgent need for improvement on these fronts. Without
progress on coordination and coherence, and more
specifically on PCD, the opportunity to set post-2015
development goals may be missed and international
cooperation will not extend ‘beyond aid’.
It is crucial to solve these problems of international
collective action so as to sustain a global framework
for development that not only fights poverty, but also
shapes global public policies for providing global
public goods. collective action must overcome
market failures, such as incentives for some to ‘free
ride’ on global efforts and not contribute their share,
or reluctance to enter into any obligation requiring
major, long-term financial commitments. Equally
problematic is when countries fail to observe the
principle of ‘smart sovereignty’ (see Section 10.4.2), or
to recognise that if collective action is going to work,
they may need to constrain their own sovereignty
and policy freedom where this may conflict with the
sovereignty and policy freedom of others.
Global public policies could be developed into a web
of international regimes that support the provision of
global public goods and the mitigation or reduction
of global public ‘bads’. International regimes typically
provide rules, standards and structures for a given
policy area, such as trade or global financial flows.
recent global financial instability, for instance, and
EuropEan rEport on DEvElopmEnt 2013
its consequences for developing regions, highlighted
two realities. First, policies in ‘beyond aid’ areas
are crucial for development progress everywhere.
Second, although national policies are the key to
progress, action at the global level is needed to
complement national efforts.
various studies (cepparulo and Giuriato, 2009;
te velde et al., 2002) that describe the relationship
between foreign aid and GpGs have shown that
an increasing share of oDa over the last 20 years,
both bilateral and multilateral, has been devoted to
financing GpGs. this trend is partly due to linkages
between the provision of GpGs and the mDGs. For
instance, the way that funding efforts have been
organised for achieving mDG6 on combating
HIv and aIDS, malaria and other major diseases
is effectively providing a global public good.
Global public policies require increased collective
international action in terms of more financial
resources and longer-term commitments. Steering
efforts towards collective global action becomes
more complicated as numerous, heterogeneous
actors have their own agendas and focus on shortterm
results. at the same time, this diversity can
generate more financial resources and innovative
instruments and mechanisms for providing GpGs.
as more development finance is earmarked for
tackling specific global public ‘bads’, greater
coordination will be required to ensure the
international support system works without leading
to duplications or omissions.
models for orchestrating the complexity of the
development landscape include the ecosystem
approach (barder, 2009), which consists of a light
structure for international cooperation organised
around a set of guidelines, responsibilities and
accountabilities that shape interaction among
different actors. In contrast, the hyper-collective
action approach (Severino and ray, 2010) views
multilateral organisations as agents of collective
action. these agents would in turn be embedded
in a global system characterised by knowledge,