In the October 2024 (Volume 76, Number 4) issue of World Politics, Allison Carnegie, professor of political science at Columbia University, Richard Clark, assistant professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame, and Noah Zucker, assistant professor of international relations at the London School of Economics, argue that populists withhold or distort scientific information from international organizations, or IOs. During a time of complex global challenges, such as climate change, pandemics and even artificial intelligence, hindering information provision can have devastating consequences.

Using new data on the source and quality of information provided to IOs, the authors found that populist leaders are significantly less likely to provide scientific information to IOs than are other types of leaders. When they do offer such data, they are less accurate than the information that other sources supply. 

In our Storied Teller series — designed to extend World Politics’ content to a non-academic audience — the journal’s executive editor Emily Babson speaks with the authors about the worrying effects of populist governments on IOs and the potential workarounds for IOs to obtain scientific information from these governments nonetheless. 

What are international organizations (IOs) and why is it important to conduct research on them? 

Clark: Created by three or more countries to address common issues or coordinate actions, IOs tend to have a formal structure and always have a formal mandate. Prominent examples include the UN, the World Trade Organization (WTO), the European Union, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). IOs create institutionalized carrots and sticks, without which countries would constantly try to take advantage of one another.

Zucker: IOs function as clearing houses for information that is essential for many processes, including checking for violations of trade agreements and ensuring compliance with climate accords. They collect information, verify its accuracy, and help disseminate this information across the international community.

How does underreporting or misreporting of scientific data from countries headed by populist governments impact critical areas that need global cooperation — like climate change, global health and AI?

Clark: Each of these areas depends on states to submit information to international organizations (IOs). Addressing climate change needs reliable reporting of emissions levels. The Paris Agreement relies on a review-and-ratchet system where the international community must review a country's progress toward their emissions reduction targets and encourage ratcheting up ambition over time. That process is threatened without accurate information. Health is another area. During COVID, countries eschewed the WHO because they thought the institution was being favorable to China by not mandating the flow of information to contain the initial outbreak. AI is interesting because it's technically complex and rapidly evolving. Bureaucrats in these institutions may not have necessary expertise and the technology evolves quickly. You need constantly updated information to ensure AI stays within the guardrails of nascent regulations. 

Your article extends the literature on transmission of information to IOs by exploring the “essential role of information provision.” How would you suggest governments or IO member states extract this underappreciated but much-needed resource from populist-controlled governments? Is there any way to deal with them while they're in office?

Carnegie: Sometimes IOs can wait, especially if a populist is leading a small country. We have identified several different ways that IOs could go about getting information, including essentially bribing populists, saying, “Listen, you give me the information, I'll give you more power within the IO or fewer conditions on some loan.” Or you can work around the populists. IOs sometimes sign information-sharing agreements with other international organizations. They can also target domestic constituents to reduce pressure on populists to withhold information. 

Zucker: Technological breakthroughs could help IOs get the information they need, despite a resistant populist government. For example, remote sensing technology helped track deforestation in the Amazon even when Jair Bolsonaro’s government in Brazil was cracking down on domestic scientific and environmental agencies. And there are technologies for seeing how much greenhouse gases countries are emitting. 

You focus on the World Bank because you say it's important for scientific domains, including those pertaining to the environment and health-related issues. Can you talk about the Bank's specific role in these areas?

Clark: The World Bank is an information hub. It collects, cleans and publishes some of the most widely used information and data in a wide range of areas that measure development, global health and environmental trends. The World Bank also conditions financial assistance on progress in some areas, whether that’s infant mortality or trying to reduce the spread of disease. Increasingly, the World Bank is trying to tie funding to climate change initiatives. This includes requiring countries to honor the Paris Agreement to receive funding. 

Are states led by a populist leader more likely to disengage from IOs? And if so, how do IO officials deal with data from these populist-led member states?

Carnegie: I do think populist leaders disengage more from IOs. Anecdotally, we saw the Trump administration disengaging from the WHO, and to some extent, from the UN and the WTO. IOs might react by offering concessions to keep them in the fold. With Trump, IOs tried to limit the disengagement through private meetings to try to convince him or soothe his anxieties about the organization. IOs attempted all kinds of concessions to stop the U.S. from exiting an IO or hampering its ability to achieve its mandates.

What are the takeaways from your article for IOs and their ability to function globally in countries with populist movements?

Zucker: In recent years, the most powerful populist movements have risen in established, stable high-income democracies. And even in these cases, you see a suppression or manipulation of information or an erosion of domestic scientific capacity. Around the world, we see populist movements vilify science and technical expertise. The ramifications of such views go beyond state capacity or a country’s quality of policymaking. Through IOs, such movements have substantial spillover effects around the world. 

To read Carnegie, Clark and Zucker’s World Politics article, “Global Governance under Populism” in full, please visit Project Muse.

This interview was condensed by Poornima Apte for World Politics.