Related Links:

Overview: Aspects of Diffusing Law Globally

Globalization Involves a Battle of Principles

Overview: Relationships, Forums and Tools Are Vital for Global Business Regulation

Who’s in Charge? Rethinking Sovereignty for a Global Age

Sovereignty over Global Markets Becomes More Complex

Research on the diffusion of laws, regulations and norms in a global setting is rife with metaphors. Ideas, values, practices and know-how that are formulated in one part of the world do not simply appear at random in other places around the globe. Somehow, these things are diffused from one place to another in a more or less patterned way.

How do researchers locate and bring a sense of order to what otherwise seems to be a chaotic process? Here is where metaphors come into play. Three metaphors are common in research on the global diffusion of norms.

Networks

The notion of a network is one of the most common metaphors in research on the diffusion of global norms. Think of a network of electronic circuits. They are organized into a system that transfers pieces of information (in the form of packets of electronic impulses) between “nodes.” At the core of this metaphor is the notion that ideas, values and templates for action are transferred along more or less stable sets of relationships. The transfer is in large measure purposeful (that is, people intend to communicate norms). The relationships have a certain degree of order and identifiable patterns (albeit, these patterns may be extremely complex).

Webs

The notion of diffusion through a web is somewhat more recent. It shares many of the connotations of a network, but with a less purposeful and less consciously organized aspect. The image is not of an elegant garden spider web, but more like a mass of linked cobwebs—filaments criss-crossing in complex and seemingly haphazard ways both within a single web and jumping among more or less separate webs.

A key part of this metaphor is the “elasticity” of the strands of the web. That is, actors are able to enroll others and activate relationships by “tugging” on a strand in the web. So, connections among actors are not static and rigid, but may be used (tugged or pulled) as needed to accomplish certain goals.

Flow

The flow metaphor is somewhat less common in the research on diffusion of global norms. The idea of flow draws to mind the image of movement, but in a much less well organized manner than networks or webs. Certainly, the flow of ideas, values and patterns for action can be channeled and purposefully directed (for instance, through organizational procedures, power relationships, etc.). But, the image of flow carries within it the hint of turbulence, leakage, blockage and, potentially, flooding.

For instance, information sessions between NGOs at an international meeting might be a steady and controlled flow of information, but the expressions of outraged public sentiment as a result of the mobilization of powerful symbols or events can create a tsunami-like power that breaks down and through existing channels, sweeping up everything in its path. (You only need think of the events in the former Soviet Union in 1989 to get a sense of the power and unpredictability of the flow of democratic ideas from one part of the globe to another.)

What Do These Metaphors Share?

As different as these metaphors of diffusion are, they still share a common set of associations

Relationships

Ideas, values, practices and know-how travel between persons. There must be some sort of link. Links are not necessarily one-to-one. Mass media, international meetings, accounts of events and the publication of court decisions and research are all geared to communicate to large audiences. But, the basic idea is that there is communication between persons or groups related by some media.

Directionality

In short, there is a source and a target. The direction may change or may be two-way.

Center and Periphery

This aspect implicates uneven relationships of power or influence in diffusion. Norms tend to originate—or at least be “packaged—in common places, institutions, organizations or by similar sets of actors.

For instance, there is a higher probability of international norms being formulated in places like Geneva, the Hague, New York, Washington D.C. or London than in Xining (China), Asyut (Egypt), Zaria (Nigeria) or Colleyville (Texas, U.S.). Statements of transnational norms are more likely to be formulated at a meeting of the WTO than at the local chamber of commerce luncheon. In theory, international norms could be formulated anywhere or by anyone, but the fact is, they are not. They are more likely to originate in international centers than in the global periphery.

Complexity

The globalization of norms involves multiple actors, pursuing alternative agendas, using different methods, mobilizing diverse types of resources, interpreting common problems and solutions in disparate ways and seeking to change behavior in distinctive contexts and issue domains. How exactly all these fit together is the focus of sometimes contrasting and sometimes complementary research on the subject. But, all researchers agree that globalizing norms is anything but a simple process.

Magnitude

Not all norms have the same force. A common perspective is that when multiple actors join together to support, communicate and enforce a norm it is likely to have a greater reach and a higher probability of changing behavior on a large scale. Actors form networks of networks, enroll multiple strands of a web of relationships, combine flows with other flows. Organizations of states (like the OECD) and transnational advocacy networks (like Consumers International) are examples of efforts to amplify the reach and effects of norms in a global context.

Bottom Line

The global diffusion of norms is an extremely complex process. Researchers use several common metaphors to make sense of the process. Though the metaphors emphasize different features of globalizing norms, they share a set of common ideas.