Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T03:48:43.244Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Multisectoral Networks in Global Governance: Towards a Pluralistic System of Accountability1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2014

Thorsten Benner ,
Wolfgang H. Reinicke  and
Jan Martin Witte
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper outlines the elements of a pluralistic system of accountability with regard to one of the most ambitious institutional innovations in global governance: multisectoral public policy networks. These networks bring together the public sector (governments and international organizations), civil society and business around issues ranging from corruption, climate change and fighting malaria to environmental and labour standards. We argue that multisectoral networks should be embedded in a pluralistic system of accountability making use of a combination of accountability mechanisms on a number of dimensions (actors, process, outcomes). The paper discusses some of the key conceptual, empirical and practical challenges of a ‘learning model’ of accountability in networks.

Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 39 , Issue 2 , 2004 , pp. 191 - 210
Copyright
Copyright © Government and Opposition Ltd 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

This paper presents the first results of an ongoing research project on ‘Exploring and Analysing the Role of Accountability in Global Governance’ undertaken by the Global Public Policy Institute. We gratefully acknowledge the generous support provided by the Fritz Thyssen Foundation.

References

2 Kaiser, Karl, ‘Transnational Relations as a Threat to the Democratic Process’, International Organization, 25: 4 (1971), p. 715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Klaus Dieter Wolf, Private Actors and Legitimacy of Governance Beyond the State, paper prepared for the workshop ‘Governance and Democratic Legitimacy’, ECPR Joint Sessions, Grenoble, 6–11 April 2001, Darmstadt, TU Darmstadt, 2001, p. 2.

4 Ottaway, Marina, ‘Corporatism Goes Global: International Organizations, NGO Networks and Transnational Business’, Global Governance, 7: 3 (2001), p. 245.Google Scholar

5 Cerny, Philip G., ‘Globalization and the Erosion of Democracy’, European Journal of Political Research, 26: 2 (1999), p. 2.Google Scholar

6 Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, ‘Democracy, Accountability and Global Governance’, manuscript, Cambridge, MA, Kennedy School of Government, 2001, p. 8.

7 Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, ‘Introduction’, in Joseph Nye and John Donahue (eds), Governance in a Globalizing World, Washington, DC, Brookings Institution, 2001, p. 36.

8 Ernst B. Haas, When Knowledge is Power. Three Models of Change in International Organizations, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1990, p. 181.

9 Ruggie, John, ‘The Theory and Practice of Learning Networks. Corporate Social Responsibility and the Global Compact’, Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 5 (2002), pp. 27–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 Inge Kaul et al. (eds), Global Public Goods. International Cooperation in the 21st Century, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1999.

11 Sachs, Jeffrey D., ‘The Strategic Significance of Global Inequality’, Washington Quarterly, 24: 3 (2001), pp. 187–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 Keohane, Robert O., ‘Governance in a Partially Globalized World’, American Political Science Review, 95: 1 (2001), p. 4.Google Scholar

13 Haas, Peter M. and Haas, Ernst B., ‘Learning to Learn: Improving International Governance’, Global Governance, 1 (1995), p. 256.Google Scholar

14 For the following see Wolfgang H. Reinicke, Francis Deng, Jan Martin Witte and Thorsten Benner, Critical Choices. The United Nations, Networks, and the Future of Global Governance, Ottawa, IDRC Publishers, 2000.

15 Khagram, Sanjeev, ‘Neither Temples nor Tombs: a Global Analysis of Large Dams’, Environment, 45: 4 (2003), pp. 1–28.Google Scholar

16 Keohane and Nye, ‘Democracy, Accountability and Global Governance’, op. cit., p. 5.

17 Robert O. Keohane, ‘Political Accountability’, draft paper, Duke University, 2002, p. 12.

18 Keohane and Nye, ‘Democracy, Accountability and Global Governance’, op. cit., p. 5.

19 See Keohane, ‘Political Accountability’, op. cit., for an overview of different accountability mechanisms.

20 Zürn, Michael, ‘Democratic Governance Beyond the Nation-State: The EU and Other International Institutions’, European Journal of International Relations, 6: 2 (2000), p. 206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21 Paul J. Nelson, ‘Agendas, Accountability, and Legitimacy among Transnational Network Lobbying the World Bank’, in Sanjeev Khagram, James V. Riker and Kathryn Sikkink (eds), Restructuring World Politics. Transnational Social Movements, Networks, and Norms, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 2002, p. 150.

22 Ann Florini, ‘Lessons Learned’, in Ann Florini (ed.), The Third Force. The Rise of Transnational Civil Society, Washington, DC, Carnegie Endowment for Peace, 2001, p. 237.

23 Kathryn Sikkink, ‘Restructuring World Politics. The Limits and Asymmetries of Soft Power’ in Khagram, Riker and Sikkink, Restructuring World Politics, op. cit., p. 312.

24 Michael Edwards, NGO Rights and Responsibilities. A New Deal for Global Governance, London, Foreign Policy Centre, 2000, p. 30.

25 Ibid., p. 31.

26 For more information see .

27 For an overview see Ariane Berthoin Antal, Meinolf Dierkes, Keith MacMillan and Lutz Marz, Corporate Social Reporting Revisited. WZB Discussion Paper FS II 02-105, Berlin, WZB, 2002.

28 Jane Nelson, Cooperation Between the United Nations and all Relevant Partners, in Particular the Private Sector, report of the Secretary-General, A 56/323, New York, United Nations, 2001, p. 24.

29 Keohane and Nye, ‘Introduction’, op. cit., p. 35.

30 See Slaughter, Anne-Marie, ‘Building Global Democracy’, Chicago Journal of International Law, 1: 2 (2002), pp. 79–96.Google Scholar

31 See Navroz K. Dubash, Mairi Dupar, Smitu Kothari and Tundu Lissu, A Watershed in Global Governance. An Independent Assessment of the World Commission on Dams, Washington, DC, World Resources Institute, 2001.

32 For a notable exception see Klaus Dingwerth, Globale Politiknetzwerke und ihre demokratische Legitimation. Eine Analyse der World Commission on Dams. Global Governance Working Paper No. 6, Potsdam, Global Governance Project, 2003.

33 See Nölke, Andreas, ‘Regieren in transnationalen Politiknetzwerken? Kritik postnationaler Governance-Konzepte aus der Perspektive einer transnationalen (Inter)-Organisationssoziologie’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen, 7: 2 (2000), pp. 331–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

34 Robert A. Dahl, Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1971.

35 Sikkink, ‘Restructuring World Politics’, op. cit., p. 315.

36 See Anthony Giddens, The Consequences of Modernity, Cambridge, Polity Press, 1990.

37 David Held, Democracy and the Global Order. From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance, Cambridge, Polity Press, 1995.

38 Higgott, Richard, ‘Contested Globalization: the Changing Context and Normative Challenges’, Review of International Studies, 26: 1 (2000), p. 142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

39 Hetty Kovach et al., Power without Accountability? The Global Accountability Report 1, London, One World Trust, 2003.

40 G8 communiqué, Genoa, 22 July 2001 .

41 See Michael Zürn, Regieren jenseits des Nationalstaats. Globalisierung und Denationalisierung als Chance, Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp, 1998.

42 As Karl Kaiser pointed out more than 30 years ago: ‘Only an active society which is “aware, potent and committed”, not blindly active but responsive to essential human values and publicly active, can function as an effective counterforce to national and international technocracies and preserve, if not rebuild, a working democratic system.’ (Kaiser, ‘Transnational Relations’, op. cit., p. 719).