Discovering cooperation: Endogenous change in international organizations

Why do some international organizations (IO) accrete delegated authority over time while in others delegation is static or declines? We hypothesize that the dynamics of delegation are shaped by an IO's founding contract. IOs rooted in an open-ended contract have the capacity to discover cooperation over time: as new problems arise these IOs can adopt new policies or strengthen collaboration in existing areas. This, in turn, triggers a demand for delegation. However, this logic is mediated by the political regime of the IO. In predominantly democratic IOs, delegation is constrained by politicization which intensifies as an IO's policy portfolio broadens. These claims are tested using an updated version of the Measure of International Authority dataset covering 41 regional IOs between 1950 and 2019. Controlling for alternative explanations and addressing potential endogeneity across a range of model specifications, we find robust support for our argument.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11558-022-09482-0.

Queer Politics of a Pandemic: LGBTQ + People's Conceptions of COVID-19's Politicization

Introduction

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and/or queer (LGBTQ+) people have historically been at the center of contentious political debates in the United States. The pandemic's divisive politicization has created societal stress in both hindering mitigation efforts and exacerbating social marginalization. Research has examined relatively privileged groups' COVID beliefs; however, explorations are needed into ideological processes among those marginalized by COVID, such as LGBTQ+ people, to provide a holistic framework of queer politics.

Methods

Data come from in-depth interviews conducted with 43 LGBTQ+ people collected between October 2020 and January 2021. Purposive sampling was used to recruit participants from a larger survey on pandemic experiences.

Results

Through the "underdog" framework," LGBTQ+ people held strong convictions to science-informed political beliefs, which informed their critiques of inadequate government leadership. Participants also engaged in ideological resistance to harmful individualistic rhetoric through an emphasis on collectivism. The divisive politicization of the pandemic shaped numerous social stressors that LGBTQ+ people adapted to using various strategies to maintain their mental health.

Conclusions

Participants viewed American individualism and Christian nationalism as a public health threat that led to resistance to health and safety measures putting other people at risk. Findings support the underdog theory, with LGBTQ+ people elevating evidence-based science and disadvantaged groups' wellbeing by emphasizing social empathy as a collective good that supports community health.

Policy Implications

Findings can inform policies and community programming that promotes equity across all social identities through the depoliticization of public health and centering LGBTQ+ people's capacity for resistance and resilience.

Politicization and COVID-19 vaccine resistance in the U.S

Science is frequently used and distorted to advance political, economic, or cultural agendas. The politicization of science can limit the positive impacts that scientific advances can offer when people reject sound and beneficial scientific advice. Politicization has undoubtedly contributed to hesitancy toward uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine. It is urgent for scientists and clinicians to better understand: (1) the roots of politicization as related to COVID-19 vaccines; (2) the factors that influence people's receptivity to scientific misinformation in politicized contexts; and (3) how to combat the politicization of science to increase the use of life-saving vaccines. This chapter explores these issues in the context of COVID-19 vaccine resistance in the United States. After briefly describing the development of the vaccines, we describe the ways in which the disease itself became politicized because of statements by political leaders and also by media accounts including social media. We then review the politicization of the vaccine at both national and international scales, variability in public acceptance of the vaccines in the United States, and response to the emergence of variants. The next section summarizes social science findings on overcoming vaccine resistance, and the concluding section outlines some of the lessons of the politicization of the disease and the vaccine for health practitioners and life scientists.

Science, politics and institutional design in regulation

The politicization of science is a recurring phenomenon in US federal policymaking that is explained in part by the unstructured, collaborative nature of decision-making in most science-intensive US regulatory programs. In this chapter we spotlight some of the most significant worries arising from this longstanding approach to U.S. institutional design for expert agencies and offer recommendations for stronger institutional structures to help guard against the politicization of science.

Effects of politicization on the practice of science

Since many of the problems societies face today are complex and, by origin, are scientific (e.g., climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic, etc.), scientific evidence is imperative in many policymaking processes to get a deeper understanding of these issues and possible risks and to derive and justify certain policy measures. The close intertwining of science and politics, however, can have both positive (e.g., growing recognition or reputation, fact-based decision making) and negative consequences (e.g., growing science skepticism, expertocracy, and misuse of scientific credibility to pursue political agendas) for science. The first aim of our paper is to sharpen the theoretical conceptualization of the phenomenon of politicization, and the second aim is to disentangle different drivers (politics and political actors, media and journalists, science and scientists) that may fuel a politicization of science. Based on this, possible effects of politicization for individual scientists and for science as a whole and, thus, for the practice of science are discussed.

History, status, and politicization of the FDA

The Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) performs an essential role in public health by ensuring, evaluating, and monitoring the safety and efficacy of drugs before they are sold in the US. Before approving new drug applications, CDER ensures that therapeutic benefits of both prescription and over-the-counter drugs (brand name and generic) provide more health benefits than the potential risks. First passed by Congress in 1992, the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) allowed the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to collect fees from drug manufacturers to fund new drug approvals. The law allowed the FDA to expedite drug approvals, but possibly lowered standards for safety and brought potential conflicts of interest within the FDA and pharmaceutical industry. To examine the conflicts of interest, we conducted a review using the Excerpta Medica database, US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health Database (PubMed), Scopus, and Google. Our search yielded Vioxx (rofecoxib) and Exondus-51 (eteplirsen) as examples of consequence when the FDA and pharmaceutical industry are too closely aligned. We further examine how the pharmaceutical industry may indirectly influence the FDA by lobbying to Congress or directly by hiring ex-FDA commissioners.

Timing of COVID-19 vaccine approval and endorsement by public figures

•

Politicization of COVID-19 vaccine approval undermines U.S. public confidence.

•

Approval prior to presidential election reduces uptake intentions.

•

Endorsements by politicians have a polarizing effect among those most confident in vaccines.

•

Dr. Anthony Fauci’s endorsement increases confidence and uptake more broadly.

•

Results document the importance of the politicization of vaccination and medicine.

The global spread of COVID-19 has created an urgent need for a safe and effective vaccine. However, in the United States, the politicization of the vaccine approval process, including which public figures are endorsing it, could undermine beliefs about its safety and efficacy and willingness to receive it. Using a pair of randomized survey experiments, we show that announcing approval of a COVID-19 vaccine one week before the presidential election compared to one week after considerably reduces both beliefs about its safety and efficacy and intended uptake. However, endorsement by Dr. Anthony Fauci increases confidence and uptake among all partisan subgroups. Further, an endorsement by Dr. Fauci increased uptake and confidence in safety even if a vaccine receives pre-election approval. The results here suggest that perceptions of political influence in COVID-19 vaccine approval could significantly undermine the viability of a vaccine as a strategy to end the pandemic.

Politicizing food security governance through participation: opportunities and opposition

Since the 2007/08 food price crisis there has been a proliferation of multi-stakeholder processes (MSPs) devoted to bringing diverse perspectives together to inform and improve food security policy. While much of the literature highlights the positive contributions to be gained from an opening-up of traditionally state-led processes, there is a strong critique emerging to show that, in many instances, MSPs have de-politicizing effects. In this paper, we scrutinize MSPs in relation to de-politicization. We argue that re-building sustainable and just food systems requires alternative visions that can best be made visible through politicized policy processes. Focusing on three key conditions of politicization, we examine the UN Committee on World Food Security as a MSP where we see a process of politicization playing out through the endorsement of the 'most-affected' principle, which is in turn being actively contested by traditionally powerful actors. We conclude that there is a need to implement and reinforce mechanisms that deliberately politicize participation in MSPs, notably by clearly distinguishing between states and other stakeholders, as well as between categories of non-state actors.

Management Education in Public Health: Further Considerations Comment on "Management Matters: A Leverage Point for Health Systems Strengthening in Global Health"

Knowing and applying the basic management functions of planning, organizing, staffing, directing, and controlling, as well as their permutations and combinations, are vital to effective delivery of public health services. Presently, graduate programs that prepare public health professionals neither emphasize teaching management theory, nor its application. This deficit puts those who become managers in public health and those they serve at a distinct disadvantage. This deficit can be remedied by enhanced teaching of management subjects.