Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Information:

  • Access

Actions:

      • Send article to Kindle

        To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

        Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

        Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

        Introduction: The Power of Global Performance Indicators
        Available formats
        ×

        Send article to Dropbox

        To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

        Introduction: The Power of Global Performance Indicators
        Available formats
        ×

        Send article to Google Drive

        To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

        Introduction: The Power of Global Performance Indicators
        Available formats
        ×
Export citation

Abstract

In recent decades, IGOs, NGOs, private firms and even states have begun to regularly package and distribute information on the relative performance of states. From the World Bank's Ease of Doing Business Index to the Financial Action Task Force blacklist, global performance indicators (GPIs) are increasingly deployed to influence governance globally. We argue that GPIs derive influence from their ability to frame issues, extend the authority of the creator, and — most importantly — to invoke recurrent comparison that stimulates governments' concerns for their own and their country's reputation. Their public and ongoing ratings and rankings of states are particularly adept at capturing attention not only at elite policy levels but also among other domestic and transnational actors. GPIs thus raise new questions for research on politics and governance globally. What are the social and political effects of this form of information on discourse, policies and behavior? What types of actors can effectively wield GPIs and on what types of issues? In this symposium introduction, we define GPIs, describe their rise, and theorize and discuss these questions in light of the findings of the symposium contributions.

Political leaders care about their reputations, especially their reputations relative to their peers. Entrepreneurial actors seize on this fact as an opportunity for policy influence. They take advantage of the competitive pressures of globalization, the increasing accountability demands flowing from democratization, and the transformative capacities of new information technologies to nudge global governance in important ways by deploying what we call Global Performance Indicators (GPIs)—regularized public assessments that rate, rank, and categorize state policies, qualities, and/or performance. Such GPIs aim to (re)define global standards, contrive competition, and provoke action according to specific performance criteria. They exemplify how states, intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), think tanks, and other states seek to use modern information politics to invoke reputational concerns and influence policy through the pressure of comparison.

Performance assessments and associated indicators permeate human activity, internationally and nationally, across public and private spheres. Some, such as product ratings in Consumer Reports, or national credit ratings by Standard and Poor's (S&P), have been around for decades; many are intended to inform private decision making.1 More recently, agenda-motivated indicators such as Freedom House's country ratings called Freedom in the World or the Ease of Doing Business Index by the World Bank have appeared.2 Such indicators overtly and purposively seek to engage actors at the highest levels of government and influence their policies and governance practices.

The rising use of indicators has prompted debates about their construct validity, use, and misuse.3 Scholarship has flourished about methodology, reliability, and fairness for a broad range of indicators and has problematized quantification generally.4 We build on a range of insights—from sociology and anthropology to political science—but this symposium focuses on intentional efforts to use comparative information to influence policy and governance. Why do states and other important actors care about ratings and rankings? Is effective use of GPIs confined to already-powerful actors such as the US, or can GPIs contribute to a diffusion of authority? And if a GPI is effective, does it work primarily through material leverage or are other mechanisms, such as reputational or social pressure, at work as well?

This symposium expands our ability to answer these questions by examining the effects of four GPIs: The World Bank's Ease of Doing Business (EDB) Index, the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) for education, the Financial Action Task Force's (FATF) “blacklist” of noncomplying jurisdictions, and an NGO called Publish What You Fund's Aid Transparency (AT) Index. The authors present evidence that these GPIs influence discourse, standards, and measurement, but they also examine whether and how GPIs change actions. Do they reverberate in domestic politics, provoke bureaucracies, shape policy agendas, and influence outputs? Do they influence the reactions and responses of donors and market actors? If they alter priorities, do they have unintended consequences as well? This symposium aims to speak directly to how GPIs might alter politics, policies, and more speculatively, even broader authority structures.

Global Performance Indicators: Definition, Scope, and Context

Global performance indicators are a named collection of rank-ordered data that purports to represent the past or projected performance of different units.5 While thousands of basic indicators such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP) exist to facilitate research or policymaking, and while all such quantification is normative and contestable,6 this symposium focuses on the consequences of overtly strategic state rating and ranking systems that package and deploy information intentionally for policy advocacy and implementation. Such GPIs assemble selected data—facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis—to craft “new” information designed and publicized to complement advocacy for specific ends. We focus on GPIs that, in their purest form, meet all the following criteria. They are:

  • public and easily available;

  • regular and published on a predictable schedule;

  • purposive, explicitly normative, policy focused;

  • deployed to influence state-level outcomes; and

  • comparative of the performance of multiple states within a region or more broadly.

GPIs can take several forms. Indexes or indicators use numbers or grades to rate or rank state performance, compressing enormous variance into a simplified scale.7 Categorical assessments use ordinal categories to produce (un)flattering peer groups, while blacklists and watchlists draw stark distinctions between compliers and offenders. Hybrid systems are also common, as are accompanying country narratives and policy recommendations.

Basic indicators are hardly new—sovereign credit ratings first appeared in 1916—but nearly all the GPIs that fit our definition were created after 1990.8 To demonstrate the trend, we systematically gathered a database based on secondary literature, extensive searches of newspapers and magazines, and the wider web, using terms such as ranking, rating, index, blacklist, and watchlist. Each entry was coded among other things on launch year, regularity, purpose, creator type, country of origin, issue area(s), and the type of comparison used. To be included, a GPI had to have been created no later than 2015. This search produced 282 entries. Extensive culling9 left 159 entries that met our criteria, and of these, 133 were still active as of 2018, meaning they had had been updated in 2015 or later.10 These 159 were included in the source data for Figure 1. The data set is available in the online appendix.

FIGURE 1. GPI contestation across issues, time, and creators

GPI growth has been nearly exponential. While it took almost three decades to approach twenty GPIs in the late 1990s, by the next decade the number had roughly quadrupled, and then in the next fifteen it more than tripled. This proliferation responded to growing demand for policy-relevant performance data, spurred by a consensus that many past development reforms and governance structures were failing,11 and facilitated by the fact that information was becoming ever easier to collect, process, and disseminate.

As both the demand and supply of indicators grew, various actors began to realize that they could deploy GPIs as policy tools. A host of new GPIs, ranging from Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) rankings, began to flourish. Their labels became more normative and vivid, their content ever more actionable, and their messages increasingly displayed to deliver visual impact. Recent GPIs are relentlessly comparative, suggesting an intention to pressure, shame, or provoke competition among states. Competitive prompts are clear in many GPIs’ publicity messages. For example, when releasing the latest PISA rankings, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) announced: “Singapore tops latest OECD PISA global education survey.”12 GPIs are increasingly deployed to stimulate state competition and shape policy agendas, that is, as “technologies of power.”13

A Theory of GPI Power

Why should governments care about a simple ranking or rating, especially if it merely reformats preexisting information? We theorize that the power of GPIs is a function of their ability to engage reputations. Ratings and rankings stoke politicians’ and bureaucrats’ reputational concerns by framing, establishing “standards,” and repeatedly engendering public comparisons. The packaging and intentional deployment of comparative information is thus an inherently social process that stimulates reputational concerns with how others view the performance of the state elites’ competence, effectiveness, and status. These concerns can operate through multiple pathways, depending on local values and institutions.

Sources of GPI Power: Information, Contestation, and the Power to Frame

The social process of GPI influence begins with their ability to frame issues. GPI promulgators seek to influence targets by designing an attention-grabbing form of political communication. By naming an issue, coining a vocabulary for describing it, and creating categories for its assessment, promulgators hope to affect discourse and ultimately policy.14 This influence is akin to what Davis and colleagues call “knowledge effects”15 and what Pierre Bourdieu refers to as “symbolic power”—or the power to name and categorize.16 In some cases, the process begins by collecting new data; in others, existing data are presented in ways that prioritize new objectives. Such efforts shape how publics, organizations, and policymakers think about “what constitutes legitimate social practice.”17

GPIs are both products of, and inputs into, active value contestation. Nowhere is this clearer than in the struggle to define, measure, and rate “development” over recent years.18 The United Nation's Human Development Index was created in 1990, adding lifespan, education, and low fertility to traditional GDP per capita measures to reflect new concerns with the quality of life. A decade later (2000), the new UN Gender Equality Index looked at disparities between men's and women's quality of life as the central conceptual issue.19 The Fraser Institute contested both of these trends with its rival Index of Human Progress (2001) that restored weight to high income levels and reflected the institute's interest in supporting competitive markets.20 In 2006, the Sustainable Society Foundation, an NGO headquartered in the Netherlands, touted its eponymously named index to contest the notion that unbounded growth is desirable.21 In short, creators of GPIs frame successful performance in preferred directions, often crowding the market with GPIs that jostle for agenda-setting visibility.22

Figure 1 indicates contestation across multiple GPI sectors. It shows the gradual uptake of GPIs in different issues areas. A lack of consensus may be one motivation for creating new GPIs and may partly explain the variation in density across issues. For example, while there is likely a greater demand for information about economic and financial performance which has led to a greater supply by actors keen to dominate such visible issues, it is also likely that the lack of consensus around what constitutes favorable policies and ideal outcomes has contributed to the proliferation. Although we excluded indicators created simply to inform investors, over a quarter of the GPIs meeting our definition (36) focused on economic issues with several alternatives measures of prosperity and well-being to contest the traditional GDP. Many GPIs are also concerned with various education or social issues (29%), governance (20%), development (20%), and environment (17%), with several clusters covering hybrids of these issues as well. Many such hybrids represent efforts to contest narrow measures and advocate for broader conceptualizations of policy priorities. This is one reason the classification of GPIs into issue areas results in several that fall in multiple categories. Many are meant precisely to pull traditional conceptions such as growth in unconventional direction, for example, toward justice.

Social Knowledge and Authority

A key source of GPI power is the credibility and authority of its creator.23 What makes some GPI creators more authoritative than others? The social psychology literature suggests that one source of legitimate authority is trust, which in turn develops out of a perception that an actor is fair, knowledgeable, and/or competent.24 This may explain why many GPI creators attempt to bolster their credibility by transparently describing and defending their index's methodology. As important, actors who themselves are thought to exemplify specific norms are more likely to be viewed as authoritative in judging them,25 and to have “normative power,” which Manners defines as the ability to shape conceptions of what is “normal.”26

GPI creators also gain authority based on their (assumed) competence and expertise,27 which in turn may be inferred from their tangible power and wealth. The assumption that global competence in governance, economic policy, and human rights, for example, resides in the western democracies, while contestable, has reinforced their “authority” to rate others in these areas. This may explain why, according to our data, organizations headquartered in the Global North create about 98 percent of the GPIs in existence today.

Social knowledge and authority are also supported by the tangible and intangible advantages of network centrality. Nonstate actors with access to decision makers are better able to mine information and deploy it to assert authority.28 States also have important network resources that are useful in developing and deploying GPIs. For example, the United States Department of State, which creates the Trafficking in Persons Report and grades country performance, uses its embassies and NGO contacts around the world to tap into many sources of information. Actors centrally located in a social and political network are better able to set agendas29 and have an impact on information flows,30 which facilitates both data collection and GPI dissemination.31

Both states and nonstate actors can accrue social authority for different reasons. States have advantages that flow from their preexisting organization, broad resource base, and in some cases their political legitimacy. In contrast, nonstate actors’ authority rests on independence from powerful political actors. An interesting case that Honig and Weaver explore is the Aid Transparency Index.32 They show that a small meagerly resourced NGO used its political independence and first-mover advantage to establish the gold standard for funding transparency. Political independence is plausibly the strength of several GPIs in our database: about half are created by NGOs, and the rest are invented by universities, private actors, or a combination of actors. The United States is the only country that has created GPIs that target other states, which is only about 6 percent of the total. Overall, GPIs are largely not controlled by individual states or IGOs, although those created by the major IGOs and the United States attract more attention and on average may be more influential.

Judgment and Comparison: Provoking Status Concerns and Competition

GPIs are consequential because they engage the reputation of the people or entities being assessed. A reputation refers to a widespread belief that a person or an organization can reliably be characterized in a particular way.33 Status and reputation are related, but status is explicitly comparative: it refers to the relative social or professional standing of someone or something in a formal or informal social hierarchy.34 Both reputation and status are quintessentially social constructs: they are granted or accorded only by a social community. GPIs confer status, which cannot be credibly claimed or manufactured unilaterally by the target. What makes this form of information deployment potentially powerful is its ability to broadly affect social beliefs about successful states and appropriate policies. It is deployed precisely as a form of social pressure on targets to conform—or suffer the reputational consequences, real or imagined.

Exactly why people value their status and reputation or their country's is hotly debated. States and their elites likely seek to cultivate reputations as a form of strategic capital35 to improve their payoffs.36 Some care about their reputations for reasons having to do with their social role or identity.37 The massive literature on shaming, for example, is built on the premise that officials want to avoid damaging their personal, professional, or organizational reputations.38 Bureaucrats, politicians, and their publics39 also care about their own or their country's relative standing, which can be hard to establish in a thinly institutionalized international environment.40 Status can be parlayed into material benefits and/or be an end in itself.41 International relations research accords with similar theories in economics,42 psychology,43 and sociology44 in accepting that people are as motivated by status as by power or material goods, with complex consequences for attitudes and behavior.

GPI creators seek to engage this concern with status and reputation by leveraging comparative information among peers.45 Explicit comparisons create contexts in which judgments are formed and identities are established and reinforced.46 They foster “commensuration,” or “the comparison of different entities according to a common metric,” as a way of making highly simplified sense of the world.47 Labels like “rule of law,” “freedom,” “sustainable development,” “peacefulness,” or “political risk” imply that very different entities are, for the purposes of one concept, comparable. Numbers facilitate standard making through the simplest possible means—averaging.48 GPIs’ recurrent nature incentivizes governments to look to the next iteration of the index and worry about the reputational consequences of their next rating or ranking. The media are particularly fond of reporting relative rankings. In numerous interviews GPI creators frankly acknowledge that they created such indexes precisely to attract media attention.49 About two-thirds of the active GPIs employ explicit top-to-bottom ranking systems, and over a third create clear normative categories or performance tiers, usually in addition to a ranking or rating. These features render GPIs a potent tool for producing social control through the pressure of comparative information.

Pathways to Responses: Domestic Politics, Bureaucratic Responses, and Transnational Pressures

This symposium explores how comparative rankings influence policy choices through multiple mechanisms.50 Figure 2 illustrates how GPIs reverberate through different levels of politics: domestic, elite, and transnational, and underscores the cyclical nature of iterative assessments.

FIGURE 2. From GPIs to policy change: pathways, policy response and reassessment

First, GPIs can provide information that reverberates in domestic politics, especially when amplified by the popular or social media or circulated in civil society.51 Important domestic audiences include local advocacy organizations, local businesses, and even popular opinion generally. These groups use the comparative information from GPIs to demand better policy, especially when their country apparently lags behind. The underlying information need not be wholly new, but the relative performance is. The salience of the new information becomes an opportunity to mobilize in several ways: electorally through the ballot box, by publicizing critiques of performance in the media, engaging in traditional forms of lobbying, or by protesting or engaging in collective action. In responsive political systems, these demands might elicit policy change. At a minimum, officials will have the incentive to claim they are addressing the issue. However, where institutions repress public input and suppress political demands, governments may respond not with reform, but by denigrating the GPI or its creator.52

Articles in this symposium illustrate how GPIs resonate in domestic politics, creating new demands on governments. Honig and Weaver's research shows that the Aid Transparency Index enhances domestic political pressure by equipping transparency reform proponents (particularly those with some material power over aid agencies) with critical information and clear standards to guide policy change. Bisbee and colleagues argue that the extra scrutiny associated with the MDGs criteria encourages greater domestic political attention to those criteria, creating demands for more investment in public goods that improve performance on the MDGs, even at the sacrifice of other equally important public investments.53 Businesses use GPIs to demand policy reform as well. Morse describes how Thai bankers and industrialists all urged the government to modify its laws and improve the image of the country's financial system in response to a noncompliance rating.54 Her research illustrates how a GPI can shape a domestic agenda, drawing attention to policy issues that might otherwise have been entirely disconnected from domestic preferences. In a twist, Doshi, Kelley, and Simmons show how Modi used the Ease of Doing Business Index to provoke domestic awareness and pressure on his own bureaucrats and provincial governments to move business reregulation along, effectively becoming an ally of the World Bank's agenda.55

Second, many GPIs involve intensive consultations with government bureaucrats during which officials take “expert” advice directly into account in their policymaking.56 Such monitoring signals the value the monitor and other actors attach to specific tasks,57 and can influence targets to internalize monitoring regimes and eventually to self-regulate—a process that may mistakenly lead to underestimation of monitoring's effects.58 Referred to as the “Hawthorne effect,” individuals in experimental settings have been found to rearrange their priorities to meet external expectations when they are aware of being observed.59 This form of reactivity—the tendency for people to change their behavior in response to being evaluated—may explain the effect, for example, of US News and World Report's Best Colleges and Best Grad Schools rankings on university priorities.60 When a monitoring regime is applied generally to like units, it eventually gains acceptance by undercutting claims that the monitors have singled out specific targets “unfairly.”61

Used in conjunction with monitoring, GPIs directly engage the reputations for competence and effectiveness of specific officials and their agencies. When GPIs target policies for which specific ministries are directly responsible, officials initiate policy change to deflect criticism that could damage their reputations. As Honig and Weaver find, elites responded to the Aid Transparency Index by inter- and intra-organizational learning, adopting its norms, and professionalizing aid staff and management around the specific standards of transparency that the index promotes. Doshi, Kelley, and Simmons note that some states have literally created agencies tasked to develop policies that meet the expectations of the World Bank, and show that politicians such as Modi use salient GPIs to justify the job they have done, take credit for progress, and set goals for the future.62

Finally, GPIs activate transnational pressures and influence how third parties such as foreign investors, donors, or other states respond to—or are anticipated to respond to—the ratings. Many familiar rating systems leverage social pressure to conform primarily through third parties: universities respond to the US News and World Reports rating system because applicants do;63 hospitals respond because patients do;64 firms respond to environmental rankings because investors do.65 Importantly, raters themselves need not control material resources to unleash transnational pressures. Morse's research in this symposium shows that a noncooperative designation by FATF on anti-money-laundering policies can lead international banks to be less willing to lend money to banks in listed countries. However, Bisbee and colleagues’ examination of budget decisions in response to MDG goals shows that while primary education aid flows respond to the MDGs, there is no evidence that aid flows mediate the government's own response to the MDGs.66 Rather, the MDGs appear to work through domestic information channels.

What Have We Learned?

The contributors in this symposium apply an eclectic set of methods to greatly expand our knowledge about how GPIs influence states’ policies. Important decisions ride on such rankings, from significant changes in the criminal code (Morse) to increased aid transparency (Honig and Weaver) to allocation of school funding (Bisbee and colleagues) to business deregulation (Doshi, Kelley, and Simmons). Together these cases show that GPIs are indeed powerful, their influence is not isomorphic with material resources, and their influence operates across a wider set of actors and issues than previously demonstrated.

This symposium also adds insights into broader questions of who can exercise power and authority through GPIs. Three of our symposium contributions examine GPIs created by IGOs with varying degrees of leverage: The United Nations, while comprehensive, is often considered rather toothless; the World Bank has considerable economic leverage but claims to maintain a firewall between lending and ranking decisions; and the FATF is a standard-setting body without enforcement powers. Even governments’ decisions about education spending do not appear to depend exclusively on how the MDGs affect foreign aid flows. The evidence points more toward the domestic information effects and elite bureaucratic channels of MDGs. Sometimes even poorly resourced NGOs such as Publish What You Fund can successfully leverage GPIs. Empirical evidence across different types of actors shows that it is not necessary that the GPI creator be an already-powerful state or IGO.

Can GPIs work in the face of disagreement on what constitutes appropriate policy, or do they primarily nudge states in directions that reflect broad social consensus? Again, the symposium's articles suggest some answers. The World Bank's focus on business deregulation has sparked massive pushback from environmental and labor groups and major powers such as China.67 Yet despite these dissenters, numerous governments try to climb the ranking in the belief that a poor ranking is bad for their investment climate. The MDGs’ focus on education enrollment, which critics have long argued fails to capture the quality of education, is also controversial.68 Even a topic as seemingly innocuous as aid transparency has stoked debate about whether this focus is productive. Lack of consensus often spurs GPI promulgation in the first place. Although we would expect rankings to have even more clout when they reinforce broadly held social values, consensus is not a necessary condition for GPI success.

Our framework suggests some important scope conditions, which should be the subject of future research. First, domestic governing structures can be expected to produce heterogeneous outcomes. Regime type, the density of civil society actors, and the information environment are all likely to temper GPI effects.69 Second, GPI influence will also vary based on local values. Although GPIs have strong agenda-setting powers, they cannot be expected to force action to which local elites are utterly opposed or where the message does not resonate at all with local actors. Third, GPIs are limited by the capacity of the rated entities to respond. A range of conditions can undermine state capacity, from pervasive political violence to corruption to severe resource shortages. As a corollary, GPIs are more likely to be influential when they are actionable. It is considerably easier for all countries to change a fee, for example, than it is to quickly improve child mortality or perceptions about corruption. This likely explains the near absence of GPIs focused on military issues. The security-related indices that do exist resemble simple data without ambitious statements that they intend to influence state policies. Fourth, when the creator lacks social importance to the target, GPIs are easily ignored. Again, this suggests a corollary: social isolates, such as North Korea, are inherently weak candidates for GPI influence. As with many forms of external pressure, there may be a sweet spot for maximal GPI impact centering on transitioning democracies, the middle-income countries, and/or emerging markets.

While it is reasonable to hypothesize that, all things equal, material leverage or predominant power increase GPI influence, the contributions show that it is not necessary for the creators to possess these traits. Our framework proposes—and the empirical research shows—that GPIs work primarily through reputational concerns sparked by comparative information. Even in the case of the FATF blacklist, which relies primarily on markets to incentivize policy change, Morse finds that officials profess to be more motivated by a desire for a clean international reputation than a specific market reaction.70 The symposium research thus consolidates prior claims that GPIs are strongly driven by reputational concerns while allowing that material leverage and reputation-engaging information likely interact.71

Finally, this symposium calls attention to the possibility of unintended effects. GPIs target specific policies and behaviors, but if governments operate with fixed resources, they may shift their priorities to meet GPI expectations, as Bisbee and colleagues show.72 States tend to game ranking systems, something that at least some states like Georgia appear to have done with respect to the EDB Index.73 This does not mean that all concerted efforts to improve are shallow, but it does highlight a possible cost of using rankings for motivation.

An Agenda for Research

Globalization, accountability, and technology are changing important aspects of global governance. While coercion, enforcement, and material sanctions have often taken pride of place as major movers of interstate relations, scholars and policy agents alike have come to appreciate the multifaceted nature of power exerted more subtly and gradually.74 The proliferation of GPIs is one example of such power. They contain ideas and world views, and they attempt to “regulate” through noncoercive means. When promulgated by authoritative actors, GPIs may have direct, indirect, and even unintended effects. Establishing causality is challenging, but the symposium contributors present corroborating evidence to establish highly plausible channels of GPI influence.

Research on GPIs raises a profound issue: how does assessment power affect worldwide authority relationships in the modern information age more generally?75 It is too early to be sure. Our data show that rich states and wealthy actors overwhelmingly do the rating, while the poor are often the ones being assessed. GPIs are potentially more useful for nudging policy change than traditional coercive power resources, like economic and military sanctions. They effectively supplement other sources of leverage under the control of developed countries. Some evidence suggests their creators realize this and do not squander perceptions of GPI legitimacy with overt political or economic pressure, as the firewalling of the EDB office from the loan office at the World Bank suggests. The FATF does not sanction noncompliant jurisdictions and does not require or even urge its membership to do so. These powerful actors—who could in theory choose otherwise—prefer to stage competition and engage reputations rather than threaten sanctions or exert political pressure. Nonstate actors have also used GPIs to influence discourse, agendas, and ultimately outcomes, and the case of Aid Transparency Index suggests they are sometimes successful.76 But to date, the authority to define the game and to keep score rather firmly resides with existing centers of global power.

Future research should prioritize several issues. First, primary research informed by psychology and sociology should investigate what makes ratings and rankings—and the information on which they are based—believable. Second, more research can be done on the information milieu in which GPIs compete. The papers here are clear about the information ecology of their specific GPI, but it would be useful to know much more about whether and how GPIs compete with other forms of information. Relatedly, it would be useful to know not only why some GPIs seem to succeed, but also why others gain no traction at all. This would require further investigation of first-mover advantages, the authority of the promulgator, and the marketing of ideas in the form of comparative data globally. Third, we envision more intensive research on informational contestation. We have provided a flavor of that contestation, but much more can be done to theorize the politics of information gathering and deployment globally. Fourth, scholars should explore how nonstate actors develop sophisticated information campaigns. While shaming has taken center stage in the study of global advocacy groups, less attention has been given to advocates’ capacity to develop and deploy methodologically transparent performance measures. Fifth, as with any policy instrument, future research should focus not only on whether they obtain their objectives but also at what possible costs, including possible unintended consequences. Sixth, while we have shown that an array of different types of actors use GPIs with success, future research should test the limits of the claim that GPIs can disperse influence beyond traditional power centers. Seventh, our contribution has found a strong rule of reputation, yet we also recognize the link with material leverage. Future research should continue to investigate the interactive consequences of material leverage and reputation-engaging information.

Finally, it would be useful to link research on GPIs as social knowledge and social pressure with other new forms of global governance. GPIs are unique in their reiterated, public, and comparative nature. They are potentially useful as a contemporary “hybrid” governance tool, along with other methods of external influence, such as public-private partnerships,77 experimental governance,78 and multistakeholder initiatives.79 Now may be the time to think creatively about how GPIs support or undermine governance in the presence of what Michael Zürn refers to as growing global governance dilemmas.80 As the increasing prevalence of interstate efforts to manipulate social media and other information flows shows, strategic use of information is rapidly becoming an ever more potent tool of influence. Addressing GPI impact on discourse, governance, and global and local power relations is an ambitious research agenda, but the ideas in this symposium provide a strong start.

2. See respectively Freedom House Freedom in the World ratings at <https://freedomhouse.org/report-types/freedom-world> and Ease of Doing Business rankings at <http://www.doingbusiness.org/en/rankings>.

3. Malito, Umbach, and Bhuta 2018.

4. Arndt and Oman 2006; Ginsburg et al. 2005; Høyland, Moene, and Willumsen 2012; van de Walle 2006. The World Bank's Governance Indicators are a potent example. See Apaza 2009. For a critique of their construct validity, see Thomas 2010.

5. Davis et al. 2012; Davis, Kingsbury, and Merry 2012; Davis, Merry, and Kingsbury 2015; Merry and Conley 2011.

6. Fioramonti 2013.

7. Broome and Quirk 2015; Büthe 2012; Davis et al. 2012; Hansen 2012; Karpik 2010.

8. Löwenheim 2008.

9. Of the 289, twenty-nine were never reissued so they failed the regularity criteria. Another twenty-eight were aimed at investors, so failed the policy purpose. Thirty had no explicit intent stated, so while they might qualify, they fell in a gray zone and for clarity of criteria, we noted them separately. Another thirty-one were just data (and clearly, we could have found hundreds more that would fit this category). A few others fell in other categories that didn't fit.

10. The data collection concluded in July 2018.

11. Arndt 2008; Arndt and Oman 2006. Governance measures are the major theme in the Malito, Umbach, and Bhuta 2018 essay collection.

12. “Singapore Tops Latest OECD PISA Global Education Survey,” 6 December 2016, OECD website, <http://www.oecd.org/education/singapore-tops-latest-oecd-pisa-global-education-survey.htm>, accessed 21 July 2018.

13. Hansen 2012.

14. Scheufele and Tewksbury 2007.

15. Davis, Merry, and Kingsbury 2015.

16. Bourdieu 1989.

17. Hansen 2012.

18. For the history of the Human Development Index, see Stanton 2007. For the World Bank's Governance Indicators see Kaufmann, Kraay, and Zoido 1999.

19. United Nations, Gender Inequality Index, retrieved from <http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/gender-inequality-index-gii>.

20. See Joel Emes and Tony Hahn, “Measuring Development: An Index of Human Progress,” Fraser Institute Occasional Paper 36, retrieved from <https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/MeasuringDevelopmentIHP.pdf>.

21. See “Sustainable Society Index—Your Compass to Sustainability,” retrieved from <http://www.ssfindex.com/>.

22. Miller 2005.

23. On private authority in international relations, see Hall and Biersteker 2002.

24. Espeland and Sauder 2007; Rieh 2002; Wilson 1983. Well-respected raters have accumulative trust over decades, so people may act on this “expert” information, even when it is erroneous. See Simonsohn 2011. On the importance of legitimacy for the effectiveness of international organizations, see Buchanan and Keohane 2006; Zürn 2004.

25. Sikkink 1993.

26. Manners 2002.

27. Monks and Ehrenberg 1999.

28. Hall and Biersteker 2002.

29. Carpenter 2011. For related “social impact theory,” see Latané 1981.

30. Borgatti and Cross 2003.

31. Stone 2002.

32. Honig and Weaver 2019.

33. On the reputational impact of comparisons, see Kelley 2017, chapter 2.

34. Parks and Masaki 2016 find that policymakers rate comparative assessments as more effective than single country assessments.

35. Van Ham 2001.

36. Tingley and Walter 2011.

37. Dafoe, Renshon, and Huth 2014.

38. On social pressures, see Checkel 2001; Johnston 2001. On shaming by states or IGOs, see Joachim, Reinalda, and Verbeek 2008; Lebovic and Voeten 2006. By nongovernmental actors, see Hendrix and Wong 2013; Murdie and Davis 2012; Risse 1999.

39. Rosen 2005; Wohlforth 2009.

40. Dafoe, Renshon, and Huth 2014.

41. Rege 2008. Some scholarship even suggests that status can propel costly policy choices, even war. See Dafoe, Renshon, and Huth 2014.

42. Harsanyi 1966.

43. Blader and Chen 2012.

44. Ridgeway 2013.

45. In one exceptionally ambitious effort to exercise social control through ranking, China reportedly has pilot programs to rate each and every citizen according to a form of “social credit.” See Celia Hatton, “China ‘Social Credit’: Beijing Sets up Huge System, 26 October 2015, retrieved from <http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-34592186>.”

46. Ashmore, Deaux, and McLaughlin-Volpe 2004.

47. Espeland and Sauder 2007; Espeland and Stevens 1998; Schueth 2011; Sinclair 2008. Processes of commensuration inform global benchmarking; see Broome and Quirk 2015.

48. Weisband 2000.

49. This theme was evident in a series of twenty-three interviews we conducted in Washington DC, 12–14 August 2014.

50. These processes align with seminal work on information politics, transnational activism, and domestic mobilization including Davenport, Eccles, and Prusak 1998; Heiss and Kelley 2017; Keck and Sikkink 1998; Ron, Ramos, and Rodgers 2005. In environmental policy, “tote-board diplomacy” has created pressures for change; see Levy 1993. We confirmed similar processes in a series of interviews with GPI creators in August 2014, Washington DC.

51. Carpenter 2007; McCombs and Shaw 1972.

52. See Kelley 2017, chapter 4.

53. Bisbee et al. 2019.

54. Morse 2019.

55. Doshi, Kelley, and Simmons 2019.

56. Parks and Masaki 2016 find that GPIs on which bureaucrats are consulted are among the most salient to government officials. On the importance of bureaucrats’ reputations, see Chwieroth 2013; Nelson 2017.

57. Larson and Callahan 1990.

58. Self-regulation has been found effective in the context of health and safety monitoring by OSHA. Johnson 2018.

59. Adair 1984.

60. Espeland and Sauder 2007.

61. Löwenheim 2008.

62. Doshi, Kelley, and Simmons 2019.

63. Luca and Smith 2013; Meredith 2004; Monks and Ehrenberg 1999.

64. Pope 2009.

65. Aaron, McMillan, and Cline 2012; Murguia and Lence 2015. Murguia and Lence found that getting one position closer to the top of Newsweek’s “Global 100 Green Rankings” increases the value of an average firm in the list by eleven million dollars.

66. Bisbee et al. 2019.

67. Doshi, Kelley, and Simmons 2019.

68. Filmer, Hasan, and Pritchett 2006.

69. Dai 2007. See also Hall and Biersteker 2002; Koppell 2005; Simmons 2009.

70. Morse 2019.

71. Kelley and Simmons 2015 explore, but do not find, such interactive effects, while Kelley 2017 finds some evidence that material leverage enhances GPI effects.

72. Bisbee et al. 2019.

73. Schueth 2011.

74. Baldwin 2016; Barnett and Duvall 2005.

75. Büthe 2012; Davis, Kingsbury, and Merry 2012; Löwenheim 2008.

76. Avant, Finnemore, and Sell 2010; Hale and Held 2011; Hale and Roger 2014.

77. Börzel and Risse 2005; Osborne 2002; Schäferhoff, Campe, and Kaan 2009.

78. De Búrca, Keohane, and Sabel 2014; Szyszczak 2006.

79. Bäckstrand 2006; O'Rourke 2006.

80. Zürn 2018.

Supplementary Material

Supplementary material for this introduction is available at <https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818319000146>.

References

Aaron, Joshua R., McMillan, Amy, and Cline, Brandon N.. 2012. Investor Reaction to Firm Environmental Management Reputation. Corporate Reputation Review 15 (4):304–18.
Adair, John G. 1984. The Hawthorne Effect: A Reconsideration of the Methodological Artifact. Journal of Applied Psychology 69 (2):334–45.
Apaza, Carmen R. 2009. Measuring Governance and Corruption Through the Worldwide Governance Indicators: Critiques, Responses, and Ongoing Scholarly Discussion. PS: Political Science and Politics 42 (1):139–43.
Arndt, Christiane. 2008. The Politics of Governance Ratings. International Public Management Journal 11 (3):275–97.
Arndt, Christiane, and Oman, Charles. 2006. Uses and Abuses of Governance Indicators. Development Centre of the OECD.
Ashmore, Richard D., Deaux, Kay, and McLaughlin-Volpe, Tracy. 2004. An Organizing Framework for Collective Identity: Articulation and Significance of Multidimensionality. Psychological Bulletin 130 (1):80114.
Avant, Deborah D., Finnemore, Martha, and Sell, Susan K., eds. 2010. Who Governs the Globe? Cambridge University Press.
Bäckstrand, Karin. 2006. Multi-stakeholder Partnerships for Sustainable Development: Rethinking Legitimacy, Accountability and Effectiveness. European Environment 16 (5):290306.
Baldwin, David A. 2016. Power and International Relations: A Conceptual Approach. Princeton University Press.
Barnett, Michael, and Duvall, Raymond. 2005. Power in International Politics. International Organization 59 (1):3975.
Bisbee, James, Hollyer, James R., Peter Rosendorff, B., and Vreeland, James Raymond. 2019. The Millennium Development Goals and Education: Accountability and Substitution in Global Assessment. International Organization 73 (3). <https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818319000109>
Blader, Steven L., and Chen, Ya-Ru. 2012. Differentiating the Effects of Status and Power: A Justice Perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 102 (5):9941014.
Borgatti, Stephen P., and Cross, Rob. 2003. A Relational View of Information Seeking and Learning in Social Networks. Management Science 49 (4):432–45.
Börzel, Tanja, and Risse, Thomas. 2005. Public-Private Partnerships: Effective and Legitimate Tools of International Governance. In Complex Sovereignty, edited by Pauly, Louis and Grande, Edgar, 195216. University of Toronto Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1989. Social Space and Symbolic Power. Sociological Theory 7 (1):1425.
Broome, Andre, and Quirk, Joel. 2015. Governing the World at a Distance: The Practice of Global Benchmarking. Review of International Studies 41 (Special Issue 5):819–41.
Buchanan, Allen, and Keohane, Robert O.. 2006. The Legitimacy of Global Governance Institutions. Ethics and International Affairs 20 (4):405–37.
Büthe, Tim. 2012. Beyond Supply and Demand: A Political-Economic Conceptual Model. Governance by Indicators: Global Power Through Classification and Rankings. In Governance by Indicators: Global Power Through Classification and Rankings, edited by Davis, Kevin, Fisher, Angelina, Kingsbury, Benedict, and Merry, Sally Engle, 2951. Oxford University Press.
Carpenter, R. Charli. 2007. Setting the Advocacy Agenda: Theorizing Issue Emergence and Nonemergence in Transnational Advocacy Networks. International Studies Quarterly 51 (1):99120.
Carpenter, R. Charli. 2011. Vetting the Advocacy Agenda: Network Centrality and the Paradox of Weapons Norms. International Organization 65 (1):69102.
Checkel, Jeffrey T. 2001. Why Comply? Social Learning and European Identity Change. International Organization 55 (3):553–88.
Chwieroth, Jeffrey M. 2013. “The Silent Revolution:” How the Staff Exercise Informal Governance Over IMF Lending. The Review of International Organizations 8 (2):265–90.
Dafoe, Allan, Renshon, Jonathan, and Huth, Paul. 2014. Reputation and Status as Motives for War. Annual Review of Political Science 17 (1):371–93.
Dai, Xinyuan. 2007. International Institutions and National Policies. Cambridge University Press.
Davenport, Thomas H., Eccles, Robert G., and Prusak, Laurence. 1998. Information Politics. The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital. In The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital, edited by Klein, David A, 101–20. Butterworth-Heinemann.
Davis, Kevin E., Fisher, Angelina, Kingsbury, Benedict, and Merry, Sally Engle, eds. 2012. Governance by Indicators: Global Power Through Classification and Rankings. Oxford University Press.
Davis, Kevin E., Kingsbury, Benedict, and Merry, Sally Engle. 2012. Indicators as a Technology of Global Governance. Law and Society Review 46 (1):71104.
Davis, Kevin E., Merry, Sally Engle, and Kingsbury, Benedict. 2015. The Quiet Power of Indicators: Measuring Governance, Corruption, and the Rule of Law. Cambridge University Press.
De Búrca, Gráinne, Keohane, Robert O., and Sabel, Charles. 2014. Global Experimentalist Governance. British Journal of Political Science 44 (3):477–86.
Doshi, Rush, Kelley, Judith G., and Simmons, Beth A.. 2019. The Power of Ranking: The Ease of Doing Business Indicator and Global Regulatory Behavior. International Organization 73 (3). <https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818319000158>
Espeland, Wendy Nelson, and Sauder, Michael. 2007. Rankings and Reactivity: How Public Measures Recreate Social Worlds. American Journal of Sociology 113 (1):140.
Espeland, Wendy Nelson, and Stevens, Mitchell L.. 1998. Commensuration as a Social Process. Annual Review of Sociology 24 (1):313–43.
Filmer, Deon, Hasan, Amer, and Pritchett, Lant. 2006. A Millennium Learning Goal: Measuring Real Progress in Education. Center for Global Development Working Paper no. 97. Available at <https://papers.ssrn.com/soL3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=982968>.
Fioramonti, Lorenzo. 2013. Gross Domestic Problem: The Politics Behind the World's Most Powerful Number. Zed Books.
Ginsburg, Alan, Cooke, Geneise, Leinwand, Steve, Noell, Jay, and Pollock, Elizabeth. 2005. Reassessing US International Mathematics Performance: New Findings from the 2003 TIMSS and PISA. American Institutes for Research. Available at < http://www.cimm.ucr.ac.cr/ojs/index.php/eudoxus/article/viewFile/446/445> .
Hale, Thomas, and Held, David. 2011. Handbook of Transnational Governance. Polity.
Hale, Thomas, and Roger, Charles. 2014. Orchestration and Transnational Climate Governance. The Review of International Organizations 9 (1):5982.
Hall, Rodney Bruce, and Biersteker, Thomas J.. 2002. The Emergence of Private Authority in Global Governance. Cambridge University Press.
Hansen, Hans Krause. 2012. The Power of Performance Indices in the Global Politics of Anti-Corruption. Journal of International Relations and Development 15 (4):506–31.
Harsanyi, John C. 1966. A Bargaining Model for Social Status in Informal Groups and Formal Organizations. Behavioral Science 11 (5):357–69.
Heiss, Andrew, and Kelley, Judith G.. 2017. From the Trenches: A Global Survey of Anti-TIP NGOs and Their Views of US Efforts. Journal of Human Trafficking 3 (3):231–54.
Hendrix, Cullen S., and Wong, Wendy H.. 2013. When Is the Pen Truly Mighty? Regime Type and the Efficacy of Naming and Shaming in Curbing Human Rights Abuses. British Journal of Political Science 43 (3):651–72.
Honig, Dan, and Weaver, Catherine. 2019. A Race to the Top? The Aid Transparency Index and the Social Power of Global Performance Indicators. International Organization 73 (3). <https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818319000122>
Høyland, Bjørn, Moene, Karl, and Willumsen, Fredrik. 2012. The Tyranny of International Index Rankings. Journal of Development Economics 97 (1):114.
Joachim, Jutta M., Reinalda, Bob, and Verbeek, Bertjan, eds. 2008. International Organizations and Implementation: Enforcers, Managers, Authorities? Routledge/ECPR.
Johnson, Matthew. 2018. Regulation by Shaming: Deterrence Effects of Publicizing Violations of Workplace Safety and Health Laws. Unpublished manuscript, Duke University. Available at <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HcKpGXZuFWNNLa1YTl0A4Hte1BiJabT-/ view>.
Johnston, Alastair Iain. 2001. Treating International Institutions as Social Environments. International Studies Quarterly 45 (4):487516.
Karpik, Lucien. 2010. Valuing the Unique: The Economics of Singularities. Princeton University Press.
Kaufmann, Daniel, Kraay, Aart, and Zoido, Pablo. 1999. Governance Matters. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper no. 2196: Available at SSRN <https://ssrn.com/abstract=188568>.
Keck, Margaret E., and Sikkink, Kathryn. 1998. Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Cornell University Press.
Kelley, Judith G. 2017. Scorecard Diplomacy: Grading States to Influence Their Reputation and Behavior. Cambridge University Press.
Kelley, Judith G. and Simmons, Beth A.. 2015. Politics by Number: Indicators as Social Pressure in International Relations. American Journal of Political Science 59 (1):1146–61.
Koppell, Jonathan GS. 2005. Pathologies of Accountability: ICANN and the Challenge of “Multiple Accountabilities Disorder.” Public Administration Review 65 (1):94108.
Larson, James R., and Callahan, Christine. 1990. Performance Monitoring: How It Affects Work Productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology 75 (5):530–38.
Latané, Bibb 1981. The Psychology of Social Impact. American Psychologist 36 (4):343–56.
Lebovic, James H., and Voeten, Erik. 2006. The Politics of Shame: The Condemnation of Country Human Rights Practices in the UNCHR. International Studies Quarterly 50 (4):861–88.
Levy, Marc A. 1993. European Acid Rain: The Power of Tote-Board Diplomacy. In Institutions for the Earth: Sources of Effective International Environmental Protection, edited by Haas, Peter M., Keohane, Robert O., and Levy, Marc A., 75132. MIT Press.
Löwenheim, Oded. 2008. Examining the State: A Foucauldian Perspective on International “Governance Indicators.” Third World Quarterly 29 (2):255–74.
Luca, Michael, and Smith, Jonathan. 2013. Salience in Quality Disclosure: Evidence from the US News College Rankings. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 22 (1):5877.
Malito, Debora Valentina, Umbach, Gaby, and Bhuta, Nehal, eds. 2018. The Palgrave Handbook of Indicators in Global Governance. Palgrave MacMillan.
Manners, Ian. 2002. Normative Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms? JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 40 (2):235–58.
McCombs, Maxwell E., and Shaw, Donald L.. 1972. The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media. Public Opinion Quarterly 36 (2):176–87.
Meredith, Marc. 2004. Why Do Universities Compete in the Ratings Game? An Empirical Analysis of the Effects of the US News and World Report College Rankings. Research in Higher Education 45 (5):443–61.
Merry, Sally Engle, and Conley, John M.. 2011. Measuring the World: Indicators, Human Rights, and Global Governance. Current Anthropology 52 (S3):S83S95.
Miller, Clark A. 2005. New Civic Epistemologies of Quantification: Making Sense of Indicators of Local and Global Sustainability. Science, Technology and Human Values 30 (3):403–32.
Monks, James, and Ehrenberg, Ronald G.. 1999. US News and World Report's College Rankings: Why They Do Matter. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 31 (6):4251.
Morse, Julia C. 2019. Blacklists, Market Enforcement, and the Global Regime to Combat Terrorist Financing. International Organization 73 (3). <https://doi.org/10.1017/S002081831900016X>
Murdie, Amanda M., and Davis, David R.. 2012. Shaming and Blaming: Using Events Data to Assess the Impact of Human Rights INGOs. International Studies Quarterly 56 (1):116.
Murguia, Juan M., and Lence, Sergio H.. 2015. Investors’ Reaction to Environmental Performance: A Global Perspective of the Newsweek's “Green Rankings.” Environmental and Resource Economics 60 (4):583605.
Nelson, Stephen Craig. 2017. The Currency of Confidence: How Economic Beliefs Shape the IMF's Relationship with Its Borrowers. Cornell University Press.
O'Rourke, Dara. 2006. Multi-Stakeholder Regulation: Privatizing or Socializing Global Labor Standards? World Development 34 (5):899918.
Osborne, Stephen. 2002. Public-private Partnerships: Theory and Practice in International Perspective. Routledge.
Parks, Bradley, and Masaki, Takaaki. 2016. When Do Performance Assessments Influence Policy Behavior? Micro-Evidence from the 2014 Reform Efforts Survey. Presented at the APSA Annual Conference, Mini-Conference on Assessment Power in World Politics, Philadelphia PA.
Pawson, Ray. 2006. Evidence-based Policy: A Realist Perspective. Sage.
Pope, Devin G. 2009. Reacting to Rankings: Evidence from “America's Best Hospitals.” Journal of Health Economics 28 (6):1154–65.
Rege, Mari. 2008. Why Do People Care About Social Status? Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 66 (2):233–42.
Ridgeway, Cecilia L. 2013. Why Status Matters for Inequality. American Sociological Review.
Rieh, Soo Young. 2002. Judgment of Information Quality and Cognitive Authority in the Web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 53 (2):145–61.
Risse, Thomas. 1999. International Norms and Domestic Change: Arguing and Communicative Behavior in the Human Rights Area. Politics and Society 27 (4):529–59.
Ron, James, Ramos, Howard, and Rodgers, Kathleen. 2005. Transnational Information Politics: NGO Human Rights Reporting, 1986–2000. International Studies Quarterly 49 (3):557–87.
Rosen, Stephen Peter. 2005. War and Human Nature. Princeton University Press.
Schäferhoff, Marco, Campe, Sabine, and Kaan, Christopher. 2009. Transnational Public-Private Partnerships in International Relations. International Studies Review 11 (3):451–74.
Scheufele, Dietram, and Tewksbury, David. 2007. Framing, Agenda Setting, and Priming: The Evolution of Three Media Effects Models. Journal of Communication 57 (1):920.
Schueth, Sam. 2011. Assembling International Competitiveness: The Republic of Georgia, USAID, and the Doing Business Project. Economic Geography 87 (1):5177.
Sikkink, Kathryn. 1993. Human Rights, Principled Issue-Networks, and Sovereignty in Latin America. International Organization 47 (3):411–41.
Simmons, Beth A. 2009. Mobilizing for Human Rights: International Law in Domestic Politics. Cambridge University Press.
Simonsohn, Uri. 2011. Lessons from an “Oops” at Consumer Reports: Consumers Follow Experts and Ignore Invalid Information. Journal of Marketing Research 48 (1):112.
Sinclair, Timothy J. 2008. The New Masters of Capital: American Bond Rating Agencies and the Politics of Creditworthiness. Cornell University Press.
Stanton, Elizabeth A. 2007. The Human Development Index: A History. PERI Working Paper, no. 85. Available at <https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1101&context=peri_workingpapers>.
Stone, Diane. 2002. Introduction: Global Knowledge and Advocacy Networks. Global Networks 2 (1):112.
Szyszczak, Erika. 2006. Experimental Governance: The Open Method of Coordination. European Law Journal 12 (4):486502.
Thomas, Melissa A. 2010. What Do The Worldwide Governance Indicators Measure? The European Journal of Development Research 22 (1):3154.
Tingley, Dustin H., and Walter, Barbara F.. 2011. The Effect of Repeated Play on Reputation Building: An Experimental Approach. International Organization 65 (2):343–65.
Van de Walle, Steven. 2006. The State of the World's Bureaucracies. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 8 (4):437–48.
Van Ham, Peter. 2001. The Rise of the Brand State: The Postmodern Politics of Image and Reputation. Foreign Affairs 80 (5):26.
Weisband, Edward. 2000. Discursive Multilateralism: Global Benchmarks, Shame, and Learning in the ILO Labor Standards Monitoring Regime. International Studies Quarterly 44 (4):643–66.
Wilson, Patrick. 1983. Second-hand Knowledge: An Inquiry into Cognitive Authority. Greenwood.
Wohlforth, William C. 2009. Unipolarity, Status Competition, and Great Power War. World Politics 61 (1):2857.
Zürn, Michael. 2004. Global Governance and Legitimacy Problems. Government and Opposition 39 (2):260–87.
Zürn, Michael. 2018. A Theory of Global Governance: Authority, Legitimacy, and Contestation. Oxford University Press.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the forty-two individuals we interviewed during the summer of 2014 in the policy and advocacy community. In the academic community, we thank the IO editors and authors in this symposium, as well as Angelina Fisher, Laura Henry, Matthew Hoffman, Hyeran Jo, Faradj Koliev, Ranjit Lall, Takaaki Masaki, Melissa Lee, Philip Lipscy, Edmund Malesky, Aila Matanock, Bradley C. Parks, Jordan Roberts, Nancy Green Saraisky, Helena Skagerlind, Thomas Sommerer, Lisa Sundstrom, Jonas Tallberg, and Juan Tellez. We also thank the following discussants at our first conference: Felipe Barrera-Osorio, Dan Drezner, Martha Finnemore, Jeff Frieden, Thomas Gift, Judith Goldstein, Alicia Harley, Connor Huff, Iain Johnston, Robert Keohane, Joshua Kertzer, Lucas Linsi, Elise Le, Christopher Lucas, John Marshall, Sally Merry, Richard Nielsen, Solé Prillaman, Karthik Ramanna, Andon Strezhnev, and Dustin Tingley. We are thankful for International Organization’s support to hold a 2016 workshop at Harvard, and to the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs (WCFIA) and Institute for Quantitative Social Science, both at Harvard, for supplemental funding and staff support for the conference. Finally, thanks to APSA for supporting a mini-conference in 2016.