Chaire de recherche du Canada en ÉPI
Équipe
Cynthia Couette is doing a PhD in cotutelle in Political Science at Laval University and in Regulation and Governance at the Australian National University under the supervision of Prof. Jean-Frédéric Morin and Associate Prof. Ashley Schram, respectively.
On the side, Cynthia has been working as a Research Assistant for the chair's project The Polycentric Governance of the Earth's Orbital Space since 2021. She was first responsible for doing interviews before she undertook the coordination of the graphic visualization and analysis team. Since March 2024, she also works as Research Officer for the Australian Centre for Space Governance, where she is in charge of cleaning and analyzing data.
Her work focuses on the role of nonstate actors in the global governance of common goods. More precisely, her thesis studies the influence of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in the global governance of pharmaceutical patents.
Cynthia also collaborates with the Australian Centre for Health Equity, the Planetary Health Equity Hothouse and the Working Group on Earth-Space Governance from the Earth System Governance organization.
Before that, she completed her master's degree with research in International Studies (profile International Relations) at the Graduate School of International Studies, at Laval University. She also has a bachelor's degree in International Studies and Modern Languages, profile International Development.
Research interest
Global Governance
International Political Economy
Non-State Actors
Common Goods
Governance Networks
Teaching
Teaching Assistant for the course POL-1005 International Relations and the Challenges of Globalization
Articles scientifiques
-
Beaumier, G., C. Couette & JF Morin (2024) "Hybrid organisations and governance systems: the case of the European Space Agency," Journal of European Public Policy, DOI: 10.1080/13501763.2024.2325647
The constitutive organisations of governance systems tend to multiply and diversify over time. In parallel, a tendency toward homophily favours the creation of clusters of homogeneous organisations. Yet, few systems drift to the point of disconnection or dislocation. Several remain sufficiently cohesive to allow adaptation and other complex properties to emerge. To maintain equilibrium between order and chaos, some organisations must create bridges between otherwise homogeneous groups. This paper argues that hybrid organisations are ideally suited for this role. By their nature, hybrids share characteristics with different types of organisations in global governance, allowing them to overcome strict homophily and create bridges across clusters. Hybrids benefit from acting as brokers and in doing so, they facilitate the exchange of material and ideational resources across the governance system. Even if it is not their intention, they contribute to holding governance systems together and counterbalance the effect of homophily. We illustrate this argument by examining the space governance system and the hybrid nature, bridging activities, and brokerage role of the European Space Agency.
Voir la publication originale Voir la publication originale en format pdf
-
Couette, C. (2024) Epistemic competition in global governance: The case of pharmaceutical patents. Global Policy, 00, 1–12. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.13342
Expert consensus helps policymakers solve complex problems by identifying and legitimizing policy solutions. Yet, persistent hesitation remains among policymakers regarding the technically adequate policy solution despite the existence and mobilization of epistemic communities. This paper contends that more attention should be given to studying the epistemic competition that may arise when multiple epistemic communities grapple with the same problem but have divergent understandings of its technical nature and its adequate policy solutions. Building on Science and Technology Studies and on the literature on polarization, this paper suggests that two social dynamics, namely the mobilization of resources and increased polarization, may complexify the technical disagreement among experts. In turn, these dynamics may lead to a deadlock in the debates, negatively impacting the institutional context where they take place. To illustrate this, this paper analyzes the case of the pharmaceutical innovation system, which has been prone to tensions between experts arguing for strong patent protection and experts arguing for greater flexibility to meet public health needs. This paper builds on a mixed method combining a social network analysis of experts invited to provide their expertise in the WHO-WTO-WIPO Trilateral Cooperation events and on semi-structured interviews with 24 of these experts.