Cross-national comparisons in epistemic governance : analysis of parliamentary debates from eight countries

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ccpo20 Contemporary Politics ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ccpo20 Cross-national comparisons in epistemic governance: analysis of parliamentary debates from eight countries Valtteri Vähä-Savo To cite this article: Valtteri Vähä-Savo (2020): Cross-national comparisons in epistemic governance: analysis of parliamentary debates from eight countries, Contemporary Politics, DOI: 10.1080/13569775.2020.1813931 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13569775.2020.1813931 © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Published online: 02 Sep 2020. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 33 View related articles View Crossmark data Cross-national comparisons in epistemic governance: analysis of parliamentary debates from eight countries Valtteri Vähä-Savo Faculty of Social Sciences, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland ABSTRACT Cross-national comparisons are a common instrument of epistemic governance in national parliaments. Their prevalence could be seen as a consequence of the emergence of the ‘competition state’and the ‘rankings explosion’. However, what is actually done with crossnational comparisons has not been properly analysed. The study analyses almost 1000 parliamentary debates from 8 countries from the years 1994–2013. It builds a comprehensive categorisation of the functions of cross-national comparisons. Altogether, six categories were identified: competing nations; rational governance; morals of governance; modern condition; scaling, and picking apples and oranges. The findings indicate no significant increase in the number of comparisons during the studied period. More importantly, only about one third of the comparisons evoke a competitive framing. Cross-national comparisons are a stable feature of political rhetoric and their ubiquitous nature is due, precisely, to their malleability in defining political problems and principles of good governance outside a competitive framework. KEYWORDS Epistemic governance; international comparisons; rankings; competition state; global governance Introduction The image of a world composed of competing nation-states and the political rationale of trying to gain an edge over rival countries are so commonplace (Cammack, 2006) that one does not usually question the impetus for cross-national comparisons in political talk. The production and use of international rankings and governmental indicators are constantly increasing (Davis et al., 2012; Hood et al., 2008) and there has even been talk of a ‘rankings explosion’(Gilbert, 2015; Shore & Wright, 2015) and ‘ratings craze’(Snyder & Cooley, 2015). There are numerous think tanks, national agencies and international organisations specialising in the craft of producing international comparisons and policy advice (Cooley, 2015; Erkkilä & Piironen, 2014; Mahon & McBride, 2009; Stone, 2000,2004). All this generates an abundance of comparative data which is available for national decision-makers and other actors involved in policy debates, who are always on the lookout for new political ammunition to use to their advantage. What makes cross-national comparisons so popular in political debates? There is always a large variety of potential rhetorical strategies and devices available for speakers trying to © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. CONTACT Valtteri Vähä-Savo valtteri.vaha-savo@tuni.fi CONTEMPORARY POLITICS https://doi.org/10.1080/13569775.2020.1813931 persuade their audience. Some scholars have claimed that there has been an ongoing global shift from welfare states to ‘competition states’since the turn of 1970s and 1980s (Cerny, 1997,2010; Fougner, 2006). As Fougner (2006, p. 165) notes ‘if by “competition state”is understood a state geared towards international competitiveness, then there should be little doubt that many, if not most, contemporary states qualify for the label’. According to him, competitiveness is considered almost as significant a priority for state officials as national security. Even though it is not directly argued by the competition state scholars, it is easy to see how international competitiveness, as one of the leading governmental rationales, might lead to an increasing demand for knowledge that produces comparisons and rankings among competing nations. In addition, some have suggested that various actors may find international rankings useful in pressuring governments through ‘naming and shaming’(Bauhr & Nasiritousi, 2012; Kelley & Simmons, 2015). However, as this study demonstrates, cross-national comparisons are not just about situating countries in league tables based on their competitive standings. Along with quantitative rankings, speakers can use qualitative comparisons that, among many other things, establish moral guidelines for decision-makers. International comparisons are malleable objects that play a central part in policy-deliberation in many countries. Yet, there is surprisingly little knowledge of how exactly they are utilised in the politics of policy-making: how are issues and arguments constructed, problematised and justified by using them. When cross-national comparisons are brought up in political rhetoric they are turned into tools of epistemic governance (Alasuutari & Qadir, 2014). They are utilised in efforts to affect people’s conceptions of what is happening in the world and what should be considered desirable. This makes it important to analyse how international comparisons are deployed in shaping people’s understanding of their surroundings and of the actions that should be taken. It also raises the question, what makes international comparisons such an appealing tool for justifying policies on so many political issues? This article unpacks the types of rhetorical uses that international comparisons lend themselves to. Cross-national comparisons can be put to use by a wide variety of actors. However, if one wants to get a comprehensive view of how they can be utilised in political talk, one of the best places to start are national parliaments. Parliamentary debates are fountains of rhetorical activity and, as earlier studies have shown (Alasuutari, 2016), members of parliament (MPs) are typically very eager to take advantage of references to the international community while trying to persuade their audience. These types of references are clearly considered useful and effective in both developed and developing countries across many different issues, but it remains unclear why. This article answers this question by analysing transcripts of over 900 parliamentary debates from eight countries over the time span of 20 years. The article is organised as follows. First, previous literature and the theoretical approach of the study are introduced by discussing scholarship on international rankings and epistemic governance. After that, the case study and the data and methods used will be presented. The following six sections will go through the findings of the analysis. In the discussion section, the main results will be examined in the light of previous research, and the most significant theoretical insights will be pointed out. 2V. VÄHÄ-SAVO Indicators, rankings and epistemic governance Most previous studies examining the governmental role of cross-national comparisons have centred around international rankings and indicators. The bulk of the studies has focused on the effects of rankings on higher education institutions and research, but they have also been examined in relation to national governments and cities. These studies usually examine rankings through one of the following three questions. First, there are studies which aim to evaluate whether given ranking methods are accurate and the results can be considered valid (e.g. Arndt, 2008; Bhuta, 2015;Giffinger et al., 2010). Secondly, some studies focus on the unintended side-effects of the rankings and on the often-innovative responses by the subjects of the rankings (e.g. Grewal et al., 2008; Hazelkorn, 2008,2014; Locke, 2014; Osterloh & Frey, 2015). Typically, these try to analyse the various gaming strategies and ways of ‘playing to the test’(Espeland & Sauder, 2007) that actors use to raise their standing in league tables. Thirdly, there are studies that strive to shed light on how the results of international rankings are used to govern others on the global playing field (e.g. Abdelal & Blyth, 2015; Grek, 2009;2010; Löwenheim, 2008; Takayama, 2008). In many cases, these emphasise the role of international organisations, which produce rankings that are used to apply pressure on national governments through naming and shaming. The last of the abovementioned approaches is closest to the one adopted in this paper. However, there are two main differences. This study does not only focus on rankings, but also analyses other types of cross-national comparisons. Secondly, this study does not try to unveil any actor or organisation as the one really pulling the strings and governing others. Rather, the focus is on epistemic governance: the constant strategic play of governance between a multitude of actors. Epistemic governance (Alasuutari & Qadir, 2014,2016) refers to governing people’s behaviour by influencing their perceptions of the world and their individual positions in it. One can try to affect the conduct of people by shaping the actor’s view of how the world is constituted and how they can pursue their individual interests within it. Whatever the circumstances, knowledge is always an essential aspect of governance. People’s perceptions, understandings and desires are key ingredients of government, even though they might not be the only ingredients. This persuasion work can be as much about hopes and fears as about facts and numbers. This epistemic aspect of governance permeates all forms of power whether they are regarded as ‘soft’or ‘hard’; one can persuade equally by pointing at the statistics as one can by pointing at the ICBMs. Epistemic governance can be equally about tempting possibilities or about presumably pressing necessities. In every attempt to convince others, one should be able to distinguish one or all the three objects of epistemic work: ontology of the environment,actor identifications and norms and ideals (Alasuutari & Qadir, 2014). Basically, these refer to definitions of what is happening in theworld,how peopleshouldidentify themselvesand others,andwhatshouldbeconsidered goodanddesirable.Althoughitiseasytomakeacleardistinctionbetween differentobjectsof epistemic work analytically, in rhetorical use they typically appear mixed together. The case study The dataset of the study consists of transcripts of parliamentary debates from eight countries. What makes parliamentary debates intriguing is their function as a public CONTEMPORARY POLITICS 3 forum in which politicians try to justify their views in morally acceptable and convincing ways for a wide variety of listeners (Alasuutari, 2016, pp. 99–100). Even if MPs do not feel that they can change the minds of their opponents, they can still feel the need to sell their case to a third party non-interactive audience (Fairclough & Fairclough, 2013, p. 233) such as stakeholders directly involved in the issue at hand, the people in their constituency and the general national –or even international –audience. There are of course differences in how parliaments operate in different countries and in how much the MPs are dependent on the support and approval of the voters. However, it is noteworthy that even in countries that can be considered weak democracies and where the views of the national constituency do not necessarily have a great significance, parliamentary debates are nonetheless carried out on regular basis and recorded for everyone to see. Hence, giving justifications for policies in the form of public parliamentary debates is considered an important institution, even if it can appear as an empty ritual in some countries. This ritual is not discarded even in many countries that could be considered dictatorships or oligarchies. One rationale for holding these events can be, precisely, that they are addressed to a wide audience. The key audience for some justifications may be, for example, foreign governments or international organisations –rather than the citizens of the country. Even if the debates are held just for show, someone is apparently presumed to expect or value the show or to gain something from it. From the epistemological viewpoint of the study, it is never possible to determine with certainty whether an individual is using a rhetorical strategy wittingly or not, as we cannot analyse the intentions of the speakers through their statements. Actors can be considered to be so immersed in their own culture that they may not always be conscious of the rhetorical choices they make, when giving justifications that they hope will resonate with the audience. They may feel that they are simply stating the facts or just speaking their mind. Regardless of the intentions and thoughts of the speakers, when actors formulate arguments and justifications, their statements can be analysed as rhetorical moves that aim to persuade the audience and that can be unpacked by a researcher. The statements have effects and they can be considered to do things (construct things, identities and images of the world, etc.) that are strategically beneficial for the speaker’s argument, even if we cannot be sure how cunning and calculating the speaker actually is. The same epistemological reservation has to be extended even to MPs, who can be considered to be quite calculating speakers. MPs are, indeed, experts in political rhetoric. They build their careers by formulating arguments that resonate with as many people as possible. For this reason, parliamentary debates often seem like national political debates in a condensed form: every argument deemed politically useful is likely to be voiced. Even if certain justifications are unlikely to convince members in the opposition, it may be worth mentioning them if they please some section of the voters without angering others. Parliamentary debates are ideal research material for studying how actors try to convince others of what is the right and rational thing to do. The dataset is comprised of ‘second readings’of bills or ‘draft laws’from Australia, Canada, Finland, Kenya, Trinidad & Tobago, Uganda, the United Kingdom and the USA. A sample of bills was collected from all of the eight countries. The sampling technique applied to this dataset can be defined as stratified random sampling: the cases selected are divided as equitably as possible across years and policy areas. Ten policy areas were 4V. VÄHÄ-SAVO selected for the study: civic policy (N= 104), consumer policy (N= 82), crime policy (N= 87), education policy (N= 81), environmental policy (N= 96), fiscal policy (N= 102), foreign and security policy (N= 91), health policy (N= 84), science and technology policy (N= 93), and social policy (N= 134). These eight countries were selected for the substantial variation in their economy, level of technological development, institutionalisation of democracy, and difference in cultural and historical background. However, the group of countries should not be considered globally representative. The sample is limited geographically, all of the countries are majority-Christian and many of them could be considered ‘Anglo-Saxon’countries. Some of the countries have strong historical links with the UK due to being former British colonies and six of the countries are members of the Commonwealth. The variety of countries selected for the study is partly limited by the language proficiency of the researcher. The number of debates collected from each country is roughly 120 and they are comprised from between the years 1994–2013. Only 117 debates were collected from Canada and 119 debates from Australia, Finland and Kenya. The average number of debates per year is 48. The highest number of debates per year is 56 both in 1994 and 2009 and the lowest number of debates per year is 39 in 1998. Altogether 954 debates were analysed. While there are small differences between the countries in how many debates are collected from each year, this should not affect the findings of the study in a significant way. The study does not aim to draw comparisons between countries, but to analyse the rhetorical strategies that cut across national borders. To analyse how cross-national comparisons are used in policy debates, all the statements invoking cross-national comparisons in the data were collected for further analysis. A comprehensive list of search words was constructed to identify all the cases. This was done by carrying out a close reading of over 150 documents (over 5% of the data) included in the dataset and by identifying words and phrases that usually appear together with cross-national comparisons. These words and phrases were used to comb through the rest of the data. This way all the comparisons could be subjected to in-depth qualitative analysis utilising the methodological tool box of discourse analysis (Fairclough, 2003; Wood & Kroger, 2000) and rhetorical analysis (Billig, 1996; Perelman, 1982). The analysis looked at how the comparisons were utilised as parts of justifications by the MPs in order give weight to their statements and to win the audience over. The focus was on the way the comparisons were used to support the arguments made by the speakers by helping to construct images of the social world, of the actors inhabiting it and of appropriate courses of action. The analysis involved constructing a categorisation of the types of comparisons found in the data. The categorisation was refined throughout the process. In the end, the study distinguished six categories of cross-national comparisons, based on their function in the justifications. All of the comparisons found in the data were then coded according to the categorisation. The following sections will go over these categories, how they were used rhetorically by the MPs and how the comparisons were distributed among the categories. Competing nations –constructing and assessing national teams Cross-national comparisons, by their very nature, posit an image of a world comprised of separate, yet comparable nation-states. This image can be used by MPs to construct CONTEMPORARY POLITICS 5 arguments and narratives about the national team, which is in competition with its neighbours. In this way, the audience is led to consider the ramifications of a proposed legislation with regards to the competitive edge of the country. It is the questions of ‘who we are’and ‘how do we compare with others’that make the bulk of the arguments using cross-national comparisons. Consider the following quote from the United States: Secondly, competitiveness, absolutely, top in communications, top in medical technologies. Take the Department of Commerce’s list of the 18 top technologies, and we are the highest quality producer and the lowest cost producer in two-thirds of them. So, yes, we are driving the economic forces of America into the international market, but we must do more. We must help our companies compete. (U.S. Congressional Record, 2004, H7756) The competitive relationship with other nations serves as a justification for reforming current practices. Whether one is leading or lagging behind, the situation can be presented as one that demands action; a complacent leader of today might be the laggard of tomorrow. Comparisons also offer a way to collectivise and nationalise issues. They can be used to make the problems of different stakeholders look like ‘our’collective national dilemmas. Cross-national comparisons enable the representatives of different stakeholders to speak in the name of the nation. The competition between nation-states is not always portrayed as being just about money or strength. A resolution on pretty much any bill can be made to concern the honour and reputation of a nation. Cross-national comparisons can be used to depict images of competition for achievements in the fields of, for example, culture and science. Comparisons can also be used to show that the nation is remarkable or unique in some sense. Examples of this rhetorical tactic can be found in the following excerpts from the United States and Canada: Mr. Speaker, it is very important for us to realize how tough this is; but the United States of America is a very unique Nation, and we stand for freedom throughout the world. It is important for us to stand up now. (U.S. Congressional Record, 2002a, p. H7186) Canada can be that country. We have proven through the land mines issue that we have the moral suasive power to do this. […] We have the personnel in the Department of Foreign Affairs and we have an international reputation that is virtually unrivalled. We also have the security aspect and are involved with people from the Pacific Rim to Europe and to points south. We are in an enviable position to do that. (Parliament of Canada, 1997, p. 1254) The gist of the argument in both cases is that the nation has some unique capabilities and distinctive features. As much as these characteristics may bring glory to the nation, they also compel the decision-makers to act in a certain way: if we want to consider ourselves unique in this regard and be proud of ourselves we should take the proposed action. Every citizen can share in the greatness of the country, but only if they support a bill that is said to be in line with what makes the nation unique and respected. Finally, cross-national comparisons can be used to construct the very criteria for assessing the achievements of a nation. This is especially typical in cases where it is hard to define absolute measures for success and failure. Consider the following quote from the Australian parliament: The claims by the former Leader of the Opposition and the member for Lalor that John Howard and the government are destroying Medicare are hyperbole and are not backed 6V. VÄHÄ-SAVO up by any examination of the facts. Australia’s health remains at the front rank internationally. Amongst developed countries, only Japan, Sweden and Switzerland have longer healthy life expectancies than we do. (Parliament of Australia, 2003, p. 23792) It can be hard to define what should be the optimal expectancy for the healthy life of an individual. However, this can be done rhetorically when cross-national comparisons are put to work; the results are good if they are on the same level, or even better than in other countries. Following this logic, a system that provides an average life expectancy of 15 years might be considered an astonishing achievement so long as other nations only manage up to 13 years. Using comparisons to define the criteria for success also makes it possible for MPs to paint very different pictures of national achievements based on which countries they choose as the reference group in any particular case. Competitive comparisons between nation-states are abundant in our data. Overall, there were 725 statements invoking them. The number shows that MPs consider them a very effective tool. This finding lends support to the hypothesis that the emergence of a competitive state as a guiding governmental rationale might explain the prevalence of cross-national comparisons in policy debates. However, the data also shows that the frequency of cross-national comparisons in debates has not changed significantly between 1994 and 2013. They have been used steadily throughout the period in all policy areas. Their attractiveness has to be explained in a way that does not rely on a theory of cultural shift in political thought. This point is further supported by the fact that competitive comparisons comprise only 36 percent of all the cross-national comparisons found in the data. In addition, their average amount per debate has not changed significantly over the years, as we can see from Figure 1. Both figures fluctuate a bit during the years, but there is no clear trend in either direction. Comparative comparisons and all cross-national comparisons are used quite steadily from one year to the next. The question then becomes what is done with the majority of cross-national comparisons, which are not based on a competitive framing? The analysis found five additional categories of comparisons, which are discussed in the next sections. While none of them is used as frequently as competitive comparisons, together they comprise 64 percent of all cross-national comparisons, and help to explain the prevalence of these comparisons in political talk. It is also worth noting that all of the six types of comparisons are used in all of the studied countries, as we can see from Table 1. Figure 1. The average amount of all comparisons and of competitive comparisons per parliamentary debate 1994–2013. CONTEMPORARY POLITICS 7 One can also see some differences between the countries. For example, the Members of Congress in the United States rely heavily on competitive comparisons. It is the one country where competitive rhetoric appears to be very dominant with regard to crossnational comparisons. Then again, the average number of competitive comparisons per debate has remained stable during the studied period in the US. Hence, there does not seem to be a trend toward increasing emphasis on competitive comparisons even there. However, as the aim of this study is not to make cross-national comparisons, what is significant here is that the same categories of comparisons are found across the board. Similar point can be made about the distribution of types of comparisons among the ten policy areas included in the study, as we can see in Table 2. As the table shows, there are some differences in the figures between the policy areas. Nonetheless, from the viewpoint of this study, the significant thing is that all of the categories of comparisons examined in the following sections are used in all of the policy areas. Rational governance –defining effective and realistic policy-making Cross-national comparisons can also be used to support or disqualify the rationality of a proposed reform, as is done in 30.8 percent (N= 621) of the cases in the data. This can simply mean that one assesses the rationality of a reform on the basis of whether others are doing the same. The idea is that if other actors that are generally considered rational actors are doing something, it is probably a smart course of action. An argument for implementing a new policy can be backed up simply by showing that other levelheaded nations have spent vast sums of money or used a lot of effort to implement a similar policy. We can see this type of effort in the following quote from Trinidad & Tobago: The reason we felt that we would go with the UK model is that there are a lot of case laws on it. There is a plethora of decisions on what constitutes driving under the influence and therefore we felt that if we more or less adopted the UK model, we would have the benefit of a lot of judicial reasoning and thought on this matter which has taken place over the many years that this has been in existence in the United Kingdom and that is basically it. (Parliament of Trinidad & Tobago, 2006, p 592) Other countries can also be used as proof that a causal relationship either exists or does not exist between a given policy and expected results. One can use cross-national Table 1. Types of comparisons in different countries.The mean value of hits per debate is shown in brackets. Competition Rationality Morality Modern Scaling Similarity Total Australia 146 (1,23) 84 (0,71) 56 (0,47) 38 (0,32) 10 (0,08) 4 (0,03) 338 Finland 60 (1,33) 59 (0,69) 28 (0,72) 10 (0,30) 3 (0,14) 6 (0,07) 166 Canada 156 (0,50) 81 (0,50) 84 (0,24) 35 (0,08) 16 (0,03) 8 (0,05) 380 Kenya 56 (0,47) 70 (0,59) 59 (0,50) 20 (0,17) 4 (0,03) 4 (0,03) 213 Trinidad & Tobago 53 (0,44) 120 (1,00) 65 (0,54) 33 (0,28) 2 (0,02) 4 (0,03) 277 Uganda 33 (0,28) 100 (0,83) 51 (0,43) 10 (0,08) 2 (0,02) 5 (0,04) 201 UK 101 (0,84) 88 (0,73) 43 (0,36) 18 (0,15) 10 (0,08) 2 (0,02) 262 USA 120 (1,00) 19 (0,16) 35 (0,29) 4 (0,03) 1 (0,01) 1 (0,01) 180 Total 725 (0,76) 621 (0,65) 421 (0,44) 168 (0,18) 48 (0,05) 34 (0,04) 2017 8V. VÄHÄ-SAVO outset. Cross-national comparisons are not just about assessing achievements or resources of countries, but also about constructing guidelines for rational and moral behaviour. Hence, cross-national comparisons can be as much about generating shared practices and common lessons among countries as they can be about highlighting an image of battle between nation-states. Depending on the objective, the right kind of comparison may make the actions of the government appear safe and normal, which reduces their perceived level of risk. In other cases, one can use them to make reforms seem more ‘modern’and innovative. The world depicted through parliamentary debates is not so much a world of competition among nation-states as it is a world of shared practices and common lessons. As Figure 2 demonstrates, competitive framing among nation-states comprises only a third of all the cross-national comparisons used in the data: While the MPs do underline the competitive advantages of their countries in their statements, they also constantly look to other countries for constructing rules of appropriate and rational behaviour. MPs use examples of developments in other countries as vehicles for distributing blame for local political decisions and for forecasting future national developments. This means that the criteria for moral and rational decision-making for nationstates are as much in flux as is the conception of the modern condition for nationstates. This is very much in line by what has also been observed by the proponents of constructivist scholarship in the field of International Relations (Wendt, 1992; Zehfuss, 2002,p. 4). The findings also shed more light on the synchronisation of national policies (Alasuutari, 2016). As many studies have shown, nation-states are surprisingly similar in terms of their key institutions and policies (Meyer et al., 1997,2009). To some extent this can be explained by the role of international governmental and non-governmental organisations in transnational governance (Boli & Thomas, 1997; Finnemore, 1993; Kentikelenis & Seabrooke, 2017; Park & Vetterlein, 2010). They act as conveyor belts of worldwide models, which they codify and promote to countries where they do not yet exist. However, similarities in policies and political discussions among countries are not just due to international organisations pushing ready-made solutions for nation-states. Local actors have a key role in the process. For example, MPs constantly keep an eye on what is happening Figure 2. The share of different types of cross-national comparisons in the data % (N). CONTEMPORARY POLITICS 15 in other countries and justify their arguments by constructing images of what is happening in the world by using cross-national comparisons, as this study shows. With MPs relying heavily on depictions of what is taking place in other countries to justify policies, the political discussions in various countries become synchronised. All of the countries do not necessarily end up actually implementing the same policies, but their political deliberation gets entangled with global trends in the process (Alasuutari, 2016). One could even say that they end up creating global trends through the use of comparisons. Some could argue that these types of comparisons are quite an obvious strategy for political deliberation as nation-states form a group of very similar units. What this viewpoint misses is that a key reason for the isomorphism among nation-states is the use of cross-national-national comparisons as basis for reforming national institutions and policies in order to be more in line with others. To be recognised as a legitimate nationstate by the international community, one has to resemble others. Depending on the perspective, similarity between nation-states can be viewed either as the starting point for or the outcome of cross-national comparisons. In either case, one can distinguish a shared, self-reinforcing process, where the criteria for respectable and modern statehood gets constantly re-negotiated. This is why there is a need to analyse the constantly changing rules for defining acceptable state behaviour, the seriousness of political issues, rational decision-making and modern statehood from the viewpoint of global and transnational sociology. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). Funding This work was supported by the Academy of Finland [grant number 319183]. Notes on contributor Valtteri Vähä-Savo, PhD, is a researcher at the Faculty of Social Sciences, Tampere University. He is a member of the Tampere Research Group for Cultural and Political Sociology (TCuPS) and a board member of the European Sociological Association RN-15: Global, transnational and cosmopolitan sociology. His research interests include global and transnational sociology, global governance and neo-institutionalist sociology. ORCID Valtteri Vähä-Savo http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5641-0952 References Abdelal, R., & Blyth, M. (2015). Just who put you in charge? We did: CRAs and the politics of ratings. In A. Cooley & J. Snyder (Eds.), Ranking the world: Grading states as a tool of global governance (pp. 39–59). Cambridge University Press. Alasuutari, P. (2016). The synchronization of national policies: Ethnography of the global tribe of moderns. Routledge. 16 V. VÄHÄ-SAVO Alasuutari, P., & Qadir, A. (2014). Epistemic governance: An approach to the politics of policy-making. European Journal of Cultural and Political Sociology,1(1), 67–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/23254823. 2014.887986 Alasuutari, P., & Qadir, A. (2016). Imageries of the social world in epistemic governance. International Sociology,31(6), 633–652. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580916662386 Arndt, C. (2008). The politics of governance ratings. International Public Management Journal,11(3), 275–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967490802301278 Bauhr, M., & Nasiritousi, N. (2012). How do international organizations promote quality of government? Contestation, integration, and the limits of IO power. International Studies Review,14(4), 541–566. https://doi.org/10.1111/misr.12009 Bhuta, N. (2015). Measuring stateness, ranking political orders: Indices of state fragility and state failure. In A. Cooley & J. Snyder (Eds.), Ranking the world: Grading states as a tool of global governance (pp. 85–111). Cambridge University Press. Billig, M. (1996). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge University Press. Boli, J., & Thomas, G. M. (1997). World culture in the world polity: A century of international non-governmental organization. American Sociological Review,62(2), 171–190. https://doi.org/10.2307/ 2657298 Cammack, P. (2006). The politics of global competitiveness. Papers in the Politics of Global Competitiveness,1,1–17. https://ssrn.com/abstract=981846 Cerny, P. G. (1997). Paradoxes of the competition state: The dynamics of political globalization. Government and Opposition,32(2), 251–274. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-7053.1997.tb00161.x Cerny, P. G. (2010). The competition state today: From raison d’État to raison du Monde. Policy Studies, 31(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442870903052801 Cooley, A. (2015). The emerging politics of international rankings and ratings: A framework for analysis. In A. Cooley & J. Snyder (Eds.), Ranking the world: Grading states as a tool of global governance (pp. 1–38). Cambridge University Press. Davis, K. E., Kingsbury, B., & Merry, S. E. (2012). Introduction: Global governance by indicators. In K. E. Davis, B. Kingsbury, & S. E. Merry (Eds.), Governance by indicators: Global power through quantification and rankings (pp. 3–28). Oxford University Press. Erkkilä, T., & Piironen, O. (2014). (De)politicizing good governance: The World Bank Institute, the OECD and the politics of governance indicators. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research,27(4), 344–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2013.850020 Espeland, W. N., & Sauder, M. (2007). Rankings and reactivity: How public measures recreate social worlds. American Journal of Sociology,113(1), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1086/517897 Fairclough, I., & Fairclough, N. (2013). Political discourse analysis: A method for advanced students. Routledge. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. Routledge. Finnemore, M. (1993). International organizations as teachers of norms: The United Nations educational, Scientific, and cultural organization and science policy. International Organization,47 (4), 565–597. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300028101 Fougner, T. (2006). The state, international competitiveness and neoliberal globalisation: Is there a future beyond ‘the competition state’?Review of International Studies,32(1), 165–185. https:// doi.org/10.1017/S0260210506006978 Giffinger, R., Haindlmaier, G., & Kramar, H. (2010). The role of rankings in growing city competition. Urban Research & Practice,3(3), 299–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2010.524420 Gilbert, P. R. (2015). Commentary: The ranking explosion. Social Anthropology,23(1), 83–86. https:// doi.org/10.1111/1469-8676.12104 Grek, S. (2009). Governing by numbers: The PISA ‘effect’in Europe. Journal of Education Policy,24(1), 23–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930802412669 Grek, S. (2010). International organisations and the shared construction of policy ‘problems’: Problematisation and change in education governance in Europe. European Educational Research Journal,9(3), 396–406. https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2010.9.3.396 CONTEMPORARY POLITICS 17 Grewal, R., Dearden, J. A., & Llilien, G. L. (2008). The university rankings game: Modeling the competition among universities for ranking. The American Statistician,62(3), 232–237. https://doi.org/10. 1198/000313008X332124 Hazelkorn, E. (2008). Learning to live with league tables and ranking: The experience of institutional leaders. Higher Education Policy,21(2), 193–215. https://doi.org/10.1057/hep.2008.1 Hazelkorn, E. (2014). Rankings and the global reputation race. New Directions for Higher Education, 2014(168), 13–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20110 Hood, C., Dixon, R., & Beeston, C. (2008). Rating the rankings: Assessing international rankings of public service performance. International Public Management Journal,11(3), 298–328. https:// doi.org/10.1080/10967490802301286 Kelley, J. G., & Simmons, B. A. (2015). Politics by number: Indicators as social pressure in international relations. American Journal of Political Science,59(1), 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12119 Kentikelenis, A. E., & Seabrooke, L. (2017). The politics of world polity: Script-writing in international organizations. American Sociological Review,82(5), 1065–1092. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0003122417728241 Locke, W. (2014). The intensification of rankings logic in an increasingly marketised higher education environment. European Journal of Education,49(1), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12060 Löwenheim, O. (2008). Examining the state: A Foucauldian perspective on international ‘governance indicators’.Third World Quarterly,29(2), 255–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436590701806814 Mahon, R., & McBride, S. (2009). Introduction. In R. Mahon & S. McBride (Eds.), The OECD and transnational governance (pp. 3–22). UBC Press. Malkki, L. H. (1995). Refugees and exile: From “refugee studies”to the national order of things. Annual Review of Anthropology,24(1), 495–523. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.24.100195.002431 Meyer, J. W., Boli, J., Thomas, G. M., & Ramirez, F. O. (1997). World society and the nation-state. American Journal of Sociology,103(1), 144–181. https://doi.org/10.1086/231174 Meyer, J. W., Krücken, G., & Drori, G. S. (2009). World society: The writings of John W. Meyer. Oxford University Press. National Assembly of the Republic of Kenya. (2003, November 20). The Refugees Bill. Hansard, 3979– 4000. National Assembly of the Republic of Kenya. (2010, June 17). Counter-trafficking in Persons Bill. Hansard,46–50. Osterloh, M., & Frey, B. S. (2015). Ranking games. Evaluation Review,39(1), 102–129. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0193841X14524957 Park, S., & Vetterlein, A. (2010). Owning development: Creating policy norms in the IMF and the World Bank. In S. Park & A. Vetterlein (Eds.), Owning development: Creating policy norms in the IMF and the World Bank (pp. 3–26). Cambridge University Press. Parliament of Australia. (1996, May 7). Telstra (dilution of public ownership) bill. House of Representatives Official Hansard, 462–516. Parliament of Australia. (2003, December 4). Health legislation amendment (Medicare) Bill 2004. House of Representatives Official Hansard, 23779–23802. Parliament of Canada. (1994, May 24). Canada student financial assistance act. House of Commons Debates, Official Report (Hansard), 1010–1725. Parliament of Canada. (1997, November 24). Anti-personnel mines convention implementation act. House of Commons Debates, Official Report (Hansard), 1205–2010. Parliament of Canada. (2005, February 7). Telecommunications act. House of Commons Debates, Official Report (Hansard), 1330–1650. Parliament of Canada. (2008, January 30). Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. House of Commons Debates, Official Report (Hansard), 1600–1725. Parliament of Finland. (1994, June 17). Täysistunnon pöytäkirja 66/1994 vp: Hallituksen esitys eduskunnalle alkoholilaiksi ja siihen liittyväksi lainsäädännöksi [Plenary Session’s Record 66/1994 vp: Government’s proposal for a law concerning alcohol and other related legislation], 2107–2119. Parliament of Trinidad & Tobago. (2006, November 3). Motor vehicles and road traffic (Amdt.) Bill. Hansard Reports, 574-624. 18 V. VÄHÄ-SAVO Parliament of Trinidad & Tobago. (2007, September 12). Medical Board (Amdt.) Bill. House of Representatives Hansards, 506–550. Parliament of the Republic of Uganda. (2003, April 17). The Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions (Amendment) Bill, 2002. Hansards,1–40. Perelman, C. (1982). The realm of rhetoric. University of Notre Dame Press. Pi Ferrer, L., Alasuutari, P., & Tervonen-Gonçalves, L. (2019). Looking at others in national policymaking: The construction of reference groups in Portugal and Spain from 2008 to 2013. European Politics and Society,20(3), 333–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/23745118.2018.1540157 Shore, C., & Wright, S. (2015). Governing by numbers: Audit culture, rankings and the new world order. Social Anthropology,23(1), 22–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-8676.12098 Snyder, J., & Cooley, A. (2015). Rating the ratings craze: From consumer choice to public policy outcomes. In A. Cooley & J. Snyder (Eds.), Ranking the world: Grading states as a tool of global governance (pp. 178–193). Cambridge University Press. Stone, D. (2000). Non-governmental policy Transfer: The strategies of independent policy institutes. Governance,13(1), 45–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/0952-1895.00123 Stone, D. (2004). Transfer agents and global networks in the ‘transnationalization’of policy. Journal of European Public Policy,11(3), 545–566. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760410001694291 Takayama, K. (2008). The politics of international league tables: PISA in Japan’s achievement crisis debate. Comparative Education,44(4), 387–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050060802481413 UK Parliament. (2003, January 27). Electricity (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. House of Commons Debates, 581–671. U.S. Congressional Record. (1997, November 5). Political freedom in China Act of 1997. U.S. House of Representatives,H10063–H10080. U.S. Congressional Record. (2002a, October 8). Authorization for the use of Military Force against Iraq Resolution of 2002. House of Representatives, H7178–H7186. U.S. Congressional Record. (2002b, June 27). Medicare modernization and prescription drug act of 2002. House of Representatives, H4166–H4320. U.S. Congressional Record. (2004, June 17). Providing for consideration of H.R. 681, American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. House of Representatives, H7749–H7757. Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics. International Organization,46(2), 391–425. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300027764 Wood, L. A., & Kroger, R. O. (2000). Doing discourse analysis: Methods for studying action in talk and text. Sage Publications. Zehfuss, M. (2002). Constructivism in international relations: The politics of reality. Cambridge University Press. CONTEMPORARY POLITICS 19