Field Recognition and the State Prerogative: Why Democratic Legitimation Recedes in Private Transnational Sustainability Regulation

Like any regulatory effort, private transnational standard-setters need to legitimate themselves to the audiences from which they seek support or obedience. While early scholarship on private transnational governance has emphasized the centrality of democratic legitimation narratives in rendering private governance socially acceptable, evidence from more recent standard-setting schemes suggests a declining relevance of that narrative over time. In my analysis of private sustainability regulation, I identify a combination of two factors that jointly contribute to this diminished role of democratic legitimation. First, private transnational governance has become a pervasive phenomenon. This means that new entrants to the field no longer face the same liability of newness that required first movers to make an extra effort in legitimation. Second, private standard-setting has moved from areas characterized by 'governance gaps' to areas in which meaningful intergovernmental regulation already exists. In these areas, however, the 'state prerogative' in legitimating governance holds. As a result, transnational standard-setters rely not so much on stressing their democratic credentials, but instead emphasize their contribution to achieving internationally agreed goals

Are the good ones doing better?

Private governance schemes deploy a significant share of their resources to advocate their legitimacy. Assuming that their primary concern is to ensure their own success, this suggests that the initiators of private governance schemes presume a strong relation between a scheme’s perception as legitimate on the one hand and its success on the other. Based on this observation, this article explores the general hypothesis that the procedural legitimacy of private governance schemes – defined in terms of inclusiveness, transparency, and deliberativeness – enhances their prospects for success. We particularly focus on how right process may translate into effectiveness. To this end, the article identifies three mechanisms: the development of ownership based on inclusive, fair and representative participation; social learning and persuasion based on deliberative procedures; and social control based on transparency and accountability. The three mechanisms are subjected to a plausibility probe in an illustrative case study of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), a private governance scheme in the field of corporate sustainability politics. All in all, the study shows how the GRI’s success can be related to procedural legitimacy. In particular, it suggests that while inclusiveness and deliberation are mostly relevant to gain legitimacy, transparency and accountability are primarily relevant to maintain the legitimacy of private transnational governance schemes.Im Dezember 2006 fand am SFB 700 ein Workshop statt, dessen Teilnehmer/innen die Frage diskutierten, inwiefern die Legitimität und die Effektivität transnationaler Politiknetzwerke und Public Private Partnerships zusammenhängen. Das vorliegende Arbeitspapier war die Grundlage für diese Diskussion. Es geht davon aus, dass Legitimität eine wichtige Voraussetzung für den Erfolg privater Steuerung ist. Offen ist jedoch die Frage, wie dies funktioniert. Im Papier versuchen wir, entsprechende Kausalmechanismenzu entwickeln. Zunächst konzeptionalisieren wir die abhängige Variable „Erfolg“ als die gelungene Steuerung des Verhaltens der beteiligten privaten Akteure im Sinne der vereinbarten Normen (compliance). Im nächsten Abschnitt stellen wir verschiedene Quellen und Formen der Legitimität vor und diskutieren,warum wir prozedurale Legitimität als einem zentralen Erfolgsfaktor für private Governance sehen. Auf dieser Basis entwickeln wir Überlegungen zu den aus unserer Sicht drei zentralen Kausalmechanismen, wie sich prozessuale Legitimität in Regeleinhaltung übersetzt: (1) Aneignung durch inklusive, faire und repräsentative Partizipation; (2) Lernen und Überzeugung über Deliberation und den Bezug auf Argumente; (3) Soziale Kontrolle auf der Basis von Transparenz und Verantwortlichkeit. Unsere Überlegungen zu den Kausalzusammenhängen plausibilisieren wir in einer kurzen empirischen Studie zur Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). Dort zeigt sich, dass Inklusivität und Deliberation besonders wichtig sind, um eingangs Legitimität zu erlangen, Transparenz und Rechenschaftspflichten um Legitimität zu erhalten

Democracy Is Democracy Is Democracy? Changes in Evaluations of International Institutions in Academic Textbooks, 1970-2010

This article examines what democracy means when it is used in academic textbook evaluations of international institutions and how the meaning of the term "democracy” in such evaluations has changed over time. An analysis of 71 textbooks on international institutions in the policy areas of international security, environmental, and human rights politics leads us to several answers. We observe slight changes in relation to three aspects. First, the range of democracy-relevant actors expands over time, most notably in relation to nonstate actors as important participants in (or even subjects of) international policymaking. Second, representational concerns become more relevant in justifying demands for greater participation in international institutions. Third, international organizations are increasingly discussed not only as subjects that enhance the transparency and accountability of the policies of their member states, but also as the objects of democratic demands for transparency and accountability themselve

The Language of World Trade Politics: Unpacking the Terms of Trade

Outcomes in major multilateral trade negotiations are conventionally explained as resulting from interests weighted by (trading) power. Offering a different overview of the concepts we use to talk about the international trade regime, this edited collection puts the ideational foundation of world trade politics centre stage, and critically examines the terms in which we make sense of world trade politics. The concepts used to make sense of world trade politics are often employed strategically, making some aspects of reality visible and others invisible. Reflecting upon ten key concepts from ‘trade’ itself to ‘protectionism’ and ‘justice’, this book poses two broad questions: first, how and by whom have the meanings of different terms used to describe, challenge and defend world trade politics been constructed? Second, how have the individual terms changed over time, and with what consequences? The editors and contributors draw on a broad range of theoretical approaches, from post-structuralism or cognitivism to normative theory, shedding new light on why certain trade issues and agendas win out over others, who benefits from the current system of trade governance, and what contemporary challenges the World Trade Organization faces. In doing so, the book speaks to a growing and diverse constructivist literature in International Political Economy. This book will be of interest to scholars, students and policy professionals working within International Relations, International Political Economy and economics