46 research outputs found
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 schemeâs 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 â defined in terms of inclusiveness, transparency,
and deliberativeness â 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 GRIâs 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 LegitimitÀt und die EffektivitÀt
transnationaler Politiknetzwerke und Public Private Partnerships
zusammenhĂ€ngen. Das vorliegende Arbeitspapier war die Grundlage fĂŒr diese
Diskussion. Es geht davon aus, dass LegitimitÀt eine wichtige Voraussetzung
fĂŒr den Erfolg privater Steuerung ist. Offen ist jedoch die Frage, wie dies
funktioniert. Im Papier versuchen wir, entsprechende Kausalmechanismenzu
entwickeln. ZunĂ€chst konzeptionalisieren wir die abhĂ€ngige Variable âErfolgâ
als die gelungene Steuerung des Verhaltens der beteiligten privaten Akteure im
Sinne der vereinbarten Normen (compliance). Im nÀchsten Abschnitt stellen wir
verschiedene Quellen und Formen der LegitimitÀt vor und diskutieren,warum wir
prozedurale LegitimitĂ€t als einem zentralen Erfolgsfaktor fĂŒr private
Governance sehen. Auf dieser Basis entwickeln wir Ăberlegungen zu den aus
unserer Sicht drei zentralen Kausalmechanismen, wie sich prozessuale
LegitimitĂ€t in Regeleinhaltung ĂŒbersetzt: (1) Aneignung durch inklusive, faire
und reprĂ€sentative Partizipation; (2) Lernen und Ăberzeugung ĂŒber Deliberation
und den Bezug auf Argumente; (3) Soziale Kontrolle auf der Basis von
Transparenz und Verantwortlichkeit. Unsere Ăberlegungen zu den
KausalzusammenhÀngen plausibilisieren wir in einer kurzen empirischen Studie
zur Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). Dort zeigt sich, dass InklusivitÀt und
Deliberation besonders wichtig sind, um eingangs LegitimitÀt zu erlangen,
Transparenz und Rechenschaftspflichten um LegitimitÀt 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 "democracyâ 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 institutionalization of private governance: How business and nonprofit organizations agree on transnational rules
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 âtradeâ itself to âprotectionismâ and âjusticeâ, 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