How Policy Transfers Have Emerged And The Purpose It Is Used For
Today, organizational structure changes seem less motivated by competition or the by the need for efficiency. Bureaucratization and other arrangements of organizational change occur as the effect of processes that make organizations more similar without certainly making them more efficient. The literature on policy transfer, diffusion is merging as well as lesson drawing is growing. The common theme among studies in this field is the concern with ‘knowledge about how policies, administrative arrangements, institutions and ideas in one political setting (past or present) is used in the development of policies, administrative arrangements, institutions and ideas in another political setting’. There are many international organizations that promote policy transfer and diffusion of ideas and for nations to implement. These include: World Bank (WB), Asian Development Bank (ADB), Inter-American Development Bank (IADB), European Union (EU) and European Central Bank (ECB), Commercial and investment banks and international finance, International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Trade Organization (WTO), Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), International Labor Organization (ILO) and others. These international organizations and others provide support to nations and organizations that adopt their policies and procedures as a condition for eligibility to receive funds.
In this study, we will explain how policy transfer between organizations and governments and how insinuations model other institution how are more successful, or through coercive approach.
The article covers the backgrounds of the organizational theory and diversity, than explain the concept of Institutional isomorphism and its classification Coercive, Mimetic and Normative and describes the idea of policy transfer in the second part of the article we will discuss the universal declaration of human right adopted by united nations in particularly how China managed the issue of international human rights conventions to meet its core economic growth interest.
Organizational theory and diversity
Modern organizational theory poses a diverse and differentiated world of organizations and seeks to explain the differences between organizations in structure and behavior. At the beginning of their life cycle, the organizational fields present a considerable diversity of methods and form. Once the situation is well established, there is an inevitable push towards homogenization. Coser, Kadushin, and Powell (1982) describe the development of American college textbook start from a period of initial diversity to the current hegemony of only two models, the large bureaucratic generalist, and the small specialist. These cases show the emergence and structuring of an organizational domain resulting from the activities of a diverse set of organizations; and, second, the homogenization of these organizations and newcomers once the field is established. Organizational field refers to organizations that, on the whole, constitute a recognized area of institutional life: key suppliers, consumers of resources and products, regulatory bodies and other organizations producing similar services or products. The structure of an organizational field cannot be determined a priori but must be defined on the basis of empirical evidence. Fields exist only to the extent that they are institutionally defined.
The process of institutional definition, or "structuring", comprises four parts: an increase in the interaction between organizations in the field; the emergence of clearly defined inter-agency structures of domination and coalition patterns; an increase in the information burden faced by organizations in one area; and the development of mutual awareness among the participants of a set of organizations in which they are involved in a common business. Once different organizations belonging to the same industry or business are structured in a real field, powerful forces emerge and bring them to resemble each other more like. Organizations can change their goals or develop new practices, and new organizations enter the file. But, in the long run, organizational actors who make coherent decisions build an environment around them that limits their ability to evolve further in the future.
Primary adopters of organizational innovations are commonly driven by a desire to improve quality and performance. But new practices can become, in Selznick's words, "infused with value beyond the technical requirements of the task at hand." As an innovation feast, an edge is reached beyond which acceptance provides legitimacy rather than improves quality of implementation.
Institutional isomorphism
Paul DiMaggio and Walter Power principally developed the concept of institutional isomorphism. An isomorphism is a relationship of the procedures or structure of one organization to those of another, because of the result of imitation or independent development under similar conditions. There three mechanisms through Institutional isomorphism happen. These are (1) coercive isomorphism that stalks from political influence and the problem of legitimacy; (2) mimetic isomorphism developing from standard responses to uncertainty and ambiguity; and (3) normative isomorphism which associated with professionalization and learning and knowledge background. This classification is an analytic one: the types are not always empirically clear.
Coercive isomorphism: results from formal or informal pressures wielded by organizations by other dependent organizations or by cultural prospects from the society within organizations operate. These pressures can be described as strength, influence or invitation to participate. The existence of a common legal environment affects many aspects of the behavior and structure of an organization. As Weber emphasized the profound impact of a complex and streamlined system of contract law that requires the organizational controls necessary to honor the legal commitment.
Mimetic Processes, However, institutional isomorphism does not derive only from the coercive form. Uncertainty is also a powerful force that boosts imitation. When organizational technologies are not well understood, when objectives are ambiguous or the environment creates symbolic uncertainty, organizations can model themselves on other organizations. Simulations may be disseminated unintentionally indirectly through employee transfer or rotation, or explicitly by organizations such as consulting firms or professional associations. Even innovation can be explained by organizational modeling.
The iniquitousness of certain types of structural arrangements can more likely be attributed to the universality of mimetic processes than to any concrete evidence that the models adopted to improve efficiency. Normative pressures. The third cause of isomorphic organizational transformation is normative and professionalization primarily causes the change. As Larson (1977) and Collins (1979) point out, professionalization is the collective struggle of career members to express the environments and methods of their work, to control "the production of producers" and establish a cognitive base and a legitimation of their professional autonomy.
Policy transfer
Dolowitz and Marsh invented the term “policy transfer” and defined as “the process, by which knowledge about policies, administrative arrangements, institutions and ideas in one political system (past or present) is used in the development of policies administrative arrangements, institutions and ideas in another political system”.
The policy transfer approach distinguishes between voluntary, negotiated, and coercive forms of transfer and thereby tries to answer the question as to why actors engage in transfer processes. Coercive policy transfers occur when political units are forced to adopt certain policies by other actors, e.g. states or international or supranational organizations. Negotiated transfer processes take place when decision makers are compelled to change their policies in exchange for loans or grants. Furthermore, the literature often links voluntary policy transfer with lesson-drawing. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is an internationally important and historic document that states essential rights and fundamental freedoms to which all human beings are entitled. Adopted by the United Nations General assembly on 10 December 1948 as Resolution number 217 in Paris, France. 48-member state voted in favor, none against, eight abstained and two did not vote. The Universal Declaration, motivated by the experiences of the Second World War two, the Declaration was the first time in the history that united nation member state countries agreed on comprehensive principles and shared values of the definite foundations of human rights. The Declaration contains 30 articles that encourage the rights of an individual.
The Universal Declaration was supposed to contain more detailed and inclusive provisions, a single convention covering most areas, including economic and social rights as well as civil and political rights. Although the declaration was passed in the General Assembly, the UDHR does not have the formal authority of a treaty that binds its parties under international law. The Universal Declaration has, directly and indirectly, served as a model and ideal document for protecting fundamental human rights in many constitutions, laws, regulations and national policies. These national manifestations include a direct constitutional reference to the Universal Declaration or the combination of its provisions; consideration of the practical articles of the Universal Declaration in national legislation; and judicial interpretation of national laws (and applicable international law) with reference to the Universal Declaration.
Most of united nation member state countries are now obliged by one or more multilateral treaties concerning protecting human rights, but the existence of such conventional obligations does not necessarily weaken the significance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, there is more human right convention aimed to promote and protect individual human rights but the most two fundamental human rights treaties are; first the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, second Cultural Rights, both became effective in 1976. Today, the universal human right declaration document is translated into 350 languages, is the best-known and most often-cited human rights record on Earth. By setting out, for the first time, fundamental rights to be universally protected, it is momentous in the history of human interfaces and the cause of human rights.
China and international Human rights involvement
There is a fearfulness in the democratic world about the possible effect of the economic rise of China on the UN human rights agenda. There is a concern stated in certain areas that the economic growth of China may consequence in an ultimate reform of the global political order and institutions in sympathy of China. Although Communist China has contained capitalism by liberalizing its economy, by joining the World Trade Organization (WTO) and by admitting private entrepreneurship and the right to private property, it has not been an excited partner when it comes to supporting and protecting human rights. China has supported the idea of the so-called ‘Asian values’ or cultural and political beliefs as well as promoting the idea of a ‘China Model of Democracy’ which seeks to support economic growth at the cost of civil and political rights. China specified in its national report for Universal Periodic Review by the Human Rights Council in 2008 that “it respects the principle of the universality of human rights and considers that all countries have an obligation to adopt measures continuously to promote and protect human rights in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and the relevant provisions of international human rights instruments, and in the light of their national realities.” China was one of the countries endorsed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. Similarly, China had been ratified and supported the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights convention. Informal positions, China has decided into the international human rights framework by signing up to a wide range of human rights treaties. But China continues to view human rights in strongly ambitious rather than legal terms. It claims for importance to be placed on socio-economic rights and the right to development, and continues to maintain that human rights should be applied according to a country’s national conditions and environment. These issues are deeply affected by wider internal debates about whether a more assertive foreign policy is required to match China’s growing global power and whether a strong commitment to non-interference is still tenable in the light of its expanding international economic and strategic interests.
The international human rights system is based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and comprises various UN bodies including the Human Rights Council and the bodies that observer implementation of international human rights treaties. The implications of China’s rise in this area are becoming a place of concerns. China has spoken out frequently against interference on human rights grounds in its internal affairs and those of other states, and it is repeatedly expected that its jurisdiction as a global power is threatening to this part of the international system.
Conclusion
In the last decade, the transfer of policies has become a central concept in research of public policies and political institutions supporting both theoretical and empirical analysis that covers many areas. In the previous lines, we reviewed what has been learned how policy transfers have emerged and the purpose it is used for.
However, as we have stated, that literature relating policy transfer is still evolving while policy transfer remains a niche issue for some researchers, a growing number have been successfully assimilated into broader debates on issues such as globalization, Europeanization and political innovation. It is important to underline that the approach of policy transfer differs from a transfer of policy due to the use of political power. The actors involved in this policymaking mechanism must be engaged in more volunteer way. However, the process of policy transfer normally occurs through economical influence, dominance, and interest. Donors and international organizations to influence certain political environment usually exercise it.
For China, the issue of international human rights is not a standalone foreign policy. Chinese leadership instead they tend to be regarded by them as an matter to be ‘managed’ in the context of global power politics and the significance of the country’s so-called ‘core interests’, which include, preservation of its political system and social stability and defense of its territorial integrity and ensuring promising conditions for China economic growth.
China to achieve its ambition to be the leading economic growth nation in the world and to attract more international investors from western developed industrial countries makes China to provide more attention to the issue of human right and to model like democracy and liberal countries. But China promotes economic rights at the cost of civil and political rights and by the time all rights will come on the place currently people of China in progress become wealthier they eventually seek more civil and political rights.
Though it’s difficult to interlink between the concept of policy transfer and universal human right declaration adoption by single country we can say that policymakers in China to honor its international commitments to protect human right and to achieve success and economic growth objectives China applied the concept mimetic policy transfer by modeling successful and developed western countries and leering lessons from them on the necessary condition and steps of the growth and prosperity.
