The 2010 Levine Prize awarded Special Recognition to The Politics of Global Regulation, edited by Walter Mattli and Ngaire Woods. The Prize Committee said that this volume:

“critically reflects upon the increasing voice among countries to tighten up regulatory control at the national and global levels. Will we see the rise of ‘regulatory states’ of a new kind? This book serves as a timely caution that regulatory capture or hijacking could take place in this newfound enthusiasm for regulation.”

More information about book, including the introductory chapter, is available via Princeton University Press.

GEG’s Expert Taskforce on Global Knowledge Governance invites you to take part in a short international survey on Global Knowledge Governance and Intellectual Property.

The survey will help us gather a diversity of views from around the world on challenges facing the international institutional arrangements and processes that shape the rules and practices for creating, using and sharing knowledge – and related goods and services. We also seek views on principles that should guide reforms and specific options for consideration. The survey focuses particular attention on questions of how global governance influences international intellectual property-related rules and practices.

For more information and to participate in the survey, click here.

In a letter to the Financial Times, Ngaire Woods addresses the Greek crisis, arguing that Greece must must default thoroughly, so as to assure the markets that no further default is likely. She writes:

‘Sir, Well-meaning friends can be perilous. Intervention by the International Monetary Fund and the European Union has staved off Greek default, for the time being. Over a decade ago the IMF intervened in Argentina, providing a $15bn “blindage” or shield against the markets. The result was to postpone Argentina’s inevitable default and to increase the costs to Argentina.

‘Greece has just received the same. The package bails out banks holding Greek debt. It reflects an official view that, above all, default must be averted. But surely Greece must default…see the FT.com

For more, see GEG’s Recommended Reading on Sovereign Defaults.

Ngaire Woods features in the latest Economist debate, defending the motion:

This house believes that making trade fairer is more important than making it freer.

Trade needs saving, Woods argues, but freer trade will not do the trick. Her opponent is Jagdish Bhagwati of Columbia University, and GEG Senior Fellow Kevin Watkins also weighed in on the debate. Read their statements and comments from the floor at The Economist.

*UPDATE* The votes are in: Ngaire Woods won the debate with 55% support. Announcing the result, moderator Saugato Datta remarked:

‘Ngaire Woods, proposing the motion that making trade fairer is more important than making it freer, began with less than half of the vote. But she steadily gained converts through the course of the debate. In the end, a solid majority of 55% voted for the motion, making Ms Woods the winner. Jagdish Bhagwati made many fine arguments and contributed immensely to the process of clarifying just what it was that was being debated, but he could not, in the end, convince enough participants to support him.’

A recent study by Devi Sridhar, GEG Senior Researcher, and Eduardo Gomez examines the role the international community plays in financing in Brazil, Russia and India. Commenting on the study, Laurie Garrett of the Council of Foreign Relations noted in a recent letter:

‘The Big Four emerging market economies, India, Brazil, China and Russia, are still aid recipients, despite their phenomenal economic growths. Since 2002, external aid dependency for domestic health programs has increased in India and China, stabilized in Russia, and only declined significantly in Brazil. Overwhelmingly, these countries accept foreign aid for health initiatives that they might otherwise either ignore, or grossly under-fund in the absence of external pressure, in the form of offered financial support for HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment, tuberculosis tracking and care, drug abuse aversion programs, malaria prevention, and other initiatives. Though all four countries are overwhelmed by cardiovascular disease, psychiatric illness (especially clinical depression), deaths due to injuries and accidents and cancer, external funding support does not assist in these areas. As a result, there is a tremendous mismatch between government spending priorities for the people of these nations and priority needs’.