ABSTRACT

The OECD international peer reviews represent a typical example of ‘harder soft governance’ at the international level. Lacking direct regulatory power, the Organisation exerts its influence via soft persuasion through peer pressure, entailing attention from the media, civil society, and other member country governments. Drawing on interviews and documentary material from the period 1996 to 2017, and participant observation from 1996 to 2005, this article examines the implementation of various measures of ‘hardening’ in three OECD peer reviews: the Environmental Performance Reviews and Economic Surveys carried out by the OECD proper, and the Energy Policy Reviews of the OECD International Energy Agency. The three reviews differ along the different dimensions of hardness, yet none of the reviews can be unambiguously classified as the hardest. The article highlights the multiple trade-offs between different types of hardening, as well as between hardness and softness. Hardening is not an end in itself and does not necessarily equate with greater impact. Greater attention should be paid to the directionality and multiple pathways of review influence, the roles of reviews in the service of socialisation, norm-creation and policy advocacy, and the essential function of soft elements as a foundation for hardening.

摘要

经合组织国际同行审查代表了国际上“更严格的软治理”的典型例子。缺乏直接的管理权，本组织通过同伴压力的软说服力发挥其影响力，引起媒体，民间社会和其他成员国政府的关注。本文利用1996年至2017年期间的访谈和文献资料以及1996年至2005年的参与者观察，考察了三项经合组织同行评议中各种“强化”措施的实施情况：环境绩效审查和经济调查。经合组织，以及经合组织国际能源机构的能源政策审查。这三个评价在硬度的不同维度上有所不同，但是没有一个评价可以明确地归类为最硬。本文重点介绍了不同类型的硬化之间以及硬度和柔软度之间的多重权衡。硬化本身并不是目的，并不一定等于带来更大的影响。应该更加注意审查影响力的方向性和多种途径，审查在社会化服务中的作用，规范的建立和政策倡导以及软性要素作为强化基础的基本功能。