Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Nanotechnology is an emerging technology holding great promises for the future by introducing nanoscale devices (smaller than 1-9th meter) for medical, computing, and manufacturing applications. Currently nanotechnology poses serious challenges to government regulators. After 1945, the American government moved to develop nuclear fission technology for civilian purposes. Congress established the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) to oversee the promotion and regulation of atomic power in the United States. In the following decades the AEC struggled to build new government capacity to fulfill its dual mandate while nuclear science kept advancing rapidly and the assessment of the risks associated with nuclear power continued to produce new insights - thus forcing the AEC to constantly adapt to new findings. The research presented is a case study drawing from the experiences of the AEC in building capacity to simultaneously promote and regulate an emerging technology, while technological progress is ongoing. The paper holds lessons of the AEC for government agencies involved in the promotion and regulation of nanotechnology today. Research supported by NSF award 0425826.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Why did European countries form two separate yet overlapping networks of independent telecommunications regulators? I argue that these networks constitute an importance compromise between governance on the European level and within member states.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Maude Barlow and Tony Clarke suggest that a global showdown between the corporation and anti-corporate activists is loooming. This paper argues that multinationals are beginning to self-regulate and will consequently outflank their activist opponents. Furthermore, it argues that activist have a reductionist and therefore superficial understanding of multinational corporations.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Global functional systems (e.g. trade, environment, communications) require governance, but constructing a governance authority at the global level is problematic. The basic unit of political authority is the nation state, which is defined in terms of its territory. This territorial limitation fragments political authority. Various strategies of institutional design cope with this. Global governance is often implemented as an inter-governmental organization. The agencies of the UN derive their authority from the many states in the UN system. Alternatively, global governance may be realized in private form. For example, multinational corporations govern their systems of production and distribution, and technical standards are often set by non-governmental standards bodies. Private authority can operate globally in a way that public authority cannot. Not being territorially defined, private authority can more easily span the globe to perform global governance. However, questions of legitimacy often arise. To achieve legitimacy, the nature of the authority must correspond to the nature of the power. Private authority can legitimately govern only private acts; public acts ought to be governed by public authorities.The case of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) offers an interesting twist on global governance. ICANN claims to be a private entity, and it signs contracts with Internet entities around the globe. Yet ICANN has monopoly control over the core resources of the Internet, so those other Internet entities (and even individual users) have little choice but to sign those contracts. To the extent that it is private, ICANN seems to be a monopoly (and, hence, lacks legitimacy.)On the other hand, ICANN doesn?t seem to be so private. Its board of directors has a representative structure that seems to give it some degree of public authority. ICANN is non-governmental, but is accountable to some publics. Thus ICANN?s quasi-public powers (monopoly control over core resources) seems to be matched by the quasi-public nature of its authority (accountability mechanisms.) ICANN seems to be not so much a private authority as a non-governmental public authority. It is a public authority in a new form, an alternative to political authority anchored in the nation state.This paper will examine how ICANN uses private contract law to implement a global system of regulation. In its institutional design, ICANN seems to mask public authority in private status, thereby escaping the territorial boundaries that hamper global governance.The author will ground his analysis in literature on private authority (e.g. Claire Cutler, Virginia Haufler, Thomas Bierstecker,) domestic public corporations (Annmarie Walsh), and global public policy (Wolfgang Reinicke.)###

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This paper will address one of the main problems encountered within the water sector, which is the issue of competition. Many proponents and in particular the World Bank, believed that the introduction of PSP in the water sector would create a more competitive market rather than the previous public sector monopolies. This belief was mainly influenced by the other public utilities, like electricity for example, where one could say that liberalization brought up many of the expected results in terms of competition. This paper will in fact show that the current liberalization of the water sector has not been successful in creating these expectations. In a first part, this paper will question and see whether the water sector can become a competitive market (by looking at concepts such as unbundling, third party access, etc.). In a second step, this paper will outline the main process of concentration at the international level (water TNCs) and in fact see that the situation is perhaps getting even worse than before. Our last section will focus on the possible alternatives to strengthen competition within the water sector. It will primarily focus on a multilevel approach (local to international) and define the different functions and institutions that could be used at each level to reach a more dynamic market.