Comparative Legal Tradition Tutorial Question: The efficacy of the efficacy of a unified field of global administrative law

I have just read the assigned reading for the CLT tutorial on global administrative law by Benedict Kingsbury, Nico Krisch, and Richard Stewart.  The article talks about the various requirements that has to be satisfied and the challenges that would be met in the endeavor to create a unified body of global administrative law to better regulate the transnational operations in the current post-fordist/post-industrial world which has seen greater globalised interdependence in such fields as security, the conditions on development and financial assistance to developing countries, environmental protection, banking and financial regulation, law enforcement, telecommunications, trade in products and services, intellectual property, labor standards, and cross-border movements of populations, including refugees. 

Increasingly, these consequences cannot be addressed effectively by isolated national regulatory and administrative measures. As a result, various transnational systems of regulation or regulatory cooperation have been established through international treaties and more informal intergovernmental networks of cooperation, shifting many regulatory decisions from the national to the global level and the flourishing of transnational regulatory organizations to regulate transnational activities.

This situation has created an accountability deficit in the growing exercise of transnational regulatory power. The purpose of global administrative law seeks to "meta-regulate" these regulatory powers. It is in this context featuring the development of transnationalization of regulatory powers that the authors have defined global administrative law in their article as comprising the mechanisms, principles, practices, and supporting social understandings that promote or otherwise affect the accountability of global administrative bodies, in particular by ensuring they meet adequate standards of transparency, participation, reasoned decision, and legality, and by providing effective review of the rules and decisions they make

In the article, the author sought to develop an approach to global administrative action by delineating and elaborating what they believe is a nascent field of global administrative law.

For my tutorial write-up, I am suppose to write my thoughts about whether the proposal is likely to be effective, whether it takes into account the distinctly post-industrial nature of the new globalized world,whether "this" is just another example of Western post-colonial colonialism, along the lines of neo-liberalism and the Washington Consensus, or is it different. And if it is different, how so.

I am not entirely sure how to go about evaluating the proposal for the likelihood of its effectiveness. I would incorporate the aims defined by the authors of the article as the normative aims of global administrative law. It is with these normative aims in mind that I would evaluate the "effectiveness" of the proposal. As such, this would involve the evaluation of whether global administrative law would be successful in promoting or affecting the accountability of global administrative bodies without unduly compromising efficacy of the transnational activities which is being regulated.

One factor that would affect the success of the implementation of global administrative law is the perception by smaller countries of whether it is an impartial regulatory device. Casting global governance in administrative terms might lead to its stabilization and legitimation in ways that privilege current powerholders and reinforce the dominance of Northern and Western concepts of law and sound governance.Thus, from the perspective of smaller developing countries, global regulatory institutions including the WTO, IMF, World Bank, and U.N. Security Council might already appear to be "administering" them at the bidding of the industrialized countries, which are generally subject to far less intrusive external regulation. Confronting these issues in administrative terms may highlight the need to devise strategies for remedying unfairness associated with such inequalities.

Many of the emerging mechanisms of global administrative law stem from northern and western initiatives, and any attempt at justifying the need for such a body of law must thus face the challenge of intellectual and political bias. Justifications must probably be based, in one way or the other, on individual civil rights, economic rights, and democracy, reflecting in some measure solidarist or cosmopolitan conceptions of international ordering. Yet even a limited form of such reconceptualization could face political challenges: an international order based on individual or economic rights may be too close to Western, liberal conceptions to be universally acceptable. Emphasizing the organizing role of state sovereignty may prove superior in coping with the challenge of diversity.

One factor that Professor Dowdle seems to be highlighting in his framing of the tutorial question as a variable affecting the chances of success of this proposal is the "distinctly post-industrial nature of the new globalized world". I am not sure about the relevance of considering this feature in making an evaluation of the likelihood of success of the development of a unified body of global administrative law. It seems to me that the effort to develop a unified body of global administrative law is to solve the accountability deficits inherent in transnational regulatory powers in the new globalized world, and it is an oxymoron to examine the success of the project to develop a unified body of global administrative law based on the circumstances which created the problem which is sought to be resolved.

But perhaps the reason Professor Dowdle thinks that the article has not sufficiently taken into account the nature of post-industrial world because it did not take into account the disaggregated production aspect of transnational economies. Now, what about this feature that would determine the efficacy of the institution of global administrative law? I am not sure, but I think I can leave my answer as being that the authors of the article has not taken into account the nature of the post-industrial/post-fordist world when they made their proposal of the development of a unified body of global administrative law.

But then again, I should offer some evaluation as to how this concept of a post-fordist/post-industrial world would affect the efficacy of the implementation of global administrative laws. I suppose I can make an evaluation of this based on the stipulated requirements in the article for the effective implementation of global administrative laws. They are 1)Procedural Participation and Transparency, 2) Requirement of reasons for administrative decisions, 3) An entitlement to have a decision of a domestic administrative body affecting one’s rights reviewed by a court or other independent tribunal, 4) An expectation that global administrative laws embody substantive standards for administrative action, like those applied in a domestic context – such as proportionality, rational relations between means and ends, use of less restrictive means, or legitimate expectations.

But how does this disaggregated production character of post-industrial economies affect these variables such as to determine the efficacy of the implementation of a unified body of global administrative law?

Professor Michael Dowdle's Comparative Legal Tradition Class: Post-Fordism

For my write up today, I shall write about the lesson I had for Professor Michael Dowdle’s comparative legal tradition class on post-industrialism and globalization. The lesson focused on a subject known as post-Fordism which seems to me like some sort of industrialization method that characterizes the way the world works today. I am not sure what the relevance of this topic is to comparative legal tradition though. It appears to me like a social science topic. It is an interesting lesson nonetheless, allowing me to know how industrialization methods evolved in response to the given circumstances that affects the world.

This terminology of Fordism and Post-Fordism is indeed an interesting one. It bears allusion to one of the great US automobile industrialist named Henry Ford. I suppose the use of his name to connote the stage of industrialism stems from the notion that Henry Ford’s methods to industrialization was a revolution which affects the way industrialization was characterized thenceforth in the early 20^th century. If I could recall my reading on Henry Ford on Wikipedia, he invented the concept of the assembly line method to industrial production. This leveraged on the economic concept of economies of scale, boosting production and lowering cost, making industrial production greatly affordable to the common man.

I haven’t heard of the notion of post-Fordism until today though. I suppose that the economics of production has since moved on from the time of Henry Ford and humans have found more innovative ways in their industrial methods for production. As Professor Michael Dowdle characterized this Post-Fordist stage of industrialization, the emphasis is on responsiveness rather than on production. This is is response to the volatile nature of global circumstances that at the start of the 1970s. For one, there is the formation of the oil cartel in the Middle Eastern countries known as OPEC, and these greatly affected oil prices which affects the industrialization methodology. Information technology also made events in distant parts of the world an affecting cause of things in local nations.

The first nation to develop a new method of industrialization was the Japanese, who had to build up their industrial capacity after the decimation of their industrial capabilities in World War 2. Japan developed an industrial method known as flexible specialization. This allowed it a niche in competing with the US industries, which leveraged on the concept of mass production to achieve economies of scale. By using this method of flexible specialization, the Japanese were able to compete by being more flexible to change. This gave the Japanese an advantage in industries such as the automobile industry. Japan was famous for producing cheap automobiles, but 10 years later, could produce high tech and fuel efficient automobiles that captured the high-end markets.

I am interested to know what theories of production economists have to explain this phenomenon of production. I remember studying the concept of economies of scales in Junior college, and other concepts such as comparative advantage. I wonder how far these economic concepts of production actually work in the actual world. It seems like there are many other innovative methodologies of productions that are carried out which allows firms to corner the market even though they cannot achieve economies of scales. These production methodologies may not be as easily presented in a model easily understandable to the average A level students I suppose.

Japan also used a bifurcated production process, outsourcing the production of standardized parts to cheaper production countries while maintaining focusing the local industry on designing. State economies started becoming more interdependent. In turn, states began decentralizing regulation, giving localities more autonomy and responsibility for managing their own economic and social environments. On the other hand, certain types of regulation move up into the transnational sphere, resulting in a phenomenon known as meta-governance/meta-regulation. Rather than regulating directly by forming and implementing national legislation, nations chose from existing regulatory frameworks presented and implementing them.

So continuing on this idea of the transnational regulatory sphere, there are the likes of international organization like ASEAN, UN, and the WTO. A less visible type of regulatory methodology is the creation of intergovernmental network like the global competition network (GCN). This methodology helped circumvent certain resistance to the US’ bid to introduce competition laws amongst countries so as to further their ability to spread their industrial powers across the world. I never saw it that way, but it is an interesting point. Apparently, all the talks about free trade propounded by western economists might be a strategy to propagate US interest to furnish their exports. Thinking about it, there might be a case for protectionist measures amongst countries by raising tariffs so as to protect their industries. Of course, a trade war might be detrimental to all.

Another feature of the post-Fordist world is the creation of non-governmental organization to regulate the globalized nature of industrialization. One type is the QUANGOS (Quasi non-government organization) such as the World Bank and the IMF, which are in actual fact proprietary arms of the US which seeks to protect western interest more than global economic interest. 

Professor Michael Dowdle’s seminar on Post-Fordism was a really interesting account of the industrial milieu proceeding apace in our modern world and impacting the way our world works.