A/HRC/30/44 of the polity (e.g. degree of federalism), and prevailing macroeconomic conditions. Even when policymakers have full sovereign command over policy instruments, they may not be able to control specific policy targets effectively. Furthermore, the interplay between these internal and external forces in determining both policymaking and implementation within countries in today’s globalized world is an increasingly complex process. The emergence in the 1980s and 1990s, and the growing acceptance by policymakers throughout the world, of what could be called a standard template for national economic policies — irrespective of the size, context and nature of the economy concerned — was certainly influential (even if not always decisive) in determining patterns of market liberalization. But even as waves of trade liberalization and financial deregulation swept across the world, culminating in what we experience as globalization today, variations across individual countries suggest that they have retained some degree of policy autonomy, along with relatively independent thinking. Certainly, for the more developed countries, globalization à la carte has been the practice to date, as it has been for the more successful developing countries over the past 20 years. By contrast, many developing countries have had to contend with a more rigid and structured approach to economic liberalization. This one size-fits-all approach to development policy has, for the most part, been conducted by or through the Bretton Woods institutions — the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) — whose surveillance and influence over domestic policymakers following the debt crises of the 1980s were considerably extended giving them greater authority to demand changes to what they deemed to be “unsound” policies. Countries seeking financial assistance or debt rescheduling from the Bank or the IMF had to adopt approved macroeconomic stability programmes and agree to “structural” and political reforms, which extended the influence of markets — via liberalization, privatization and deregulation, among others — and substantially reduced the economic and developmental roles of the State. Similarly, and as discussed in greater detail in the next chapter, the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations extended the authority of the World Trade Organization (WTO) to embrace services, agriculture, intellectual property and trade-related investment measures, thereby restricting, to varying degrees, the policy space available to developing countries to manage their integration into the global economy. Emphasizing the role of policy, and of the international economic institutions in promoting one set of policies over another, is an important correction to the view that globalization is an autonomous, irresistible and irreversible process driven by impersonal market and technological forces. Such forces are undoubtedly important, but essentially they are instigated by specific policy choices and shaped by existing institutions. It is also misleading to think of the global economy as some sort of “natural” system with a logic of its own. It is, and always has been, the evolving outcome of a complex interaction of economic and political relations. I n this environment, multilateral rules and institutions can provide incentives and sanctions that encourage countries to cooperate rather than go their own way. And as the world has become increasingly interdependent, it is more challenging for countries to build institutional structures and safeguard remaining flexibilities in support of inclusive development. To the extent that markets and firms operate globally, there are grounds for having global rules and regulations. Moreover, international collective action is needed to help provide and manage global public goods that markets are unable or unwilling to provide. Dealing effectively with emerging threats, such as climate change, also requires appropriate global rules, regulations and resources. However, it goes without saying that governance at the international level is very different from governance at the national level, given that governments are being asked to surrender some measure of their sovereignty and responsibility to support collective actions and goals. It is imperative, therefore, and all the more so in a world of interdependent but unequal States and economies, for international measures to be designed in such a way that they complement 42