Accountability In Global Governance Research Articles

Accountability in Global Governance: Pluralist Accountability in Global Governance. By Gisela Hirschmann. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020. 288p. $85.00 cloth.

Accountability in Global Governance: Pluralist Accountability in Global Governance. By Gisela Hirschmann. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020. 288p. $85.00 cloth.

The New “New Multilateralism”: Minilateral Cooperation, but at What Cost?

A defining feature of twenty-first century multilateralism is growing reliance on informal, non-binding, purpose-built partnerships and coalitions of the interested, willing, and capable. The rise of minilateral cooperation reflects the failure of formal international organizations to adapt to complex global challenges, dramatic power shifts, and growing normative divergences in world politics. Such ad hoc, disaggregated approaches to international cooperation bring certain advantages, including speed, flexibility, modularity, and possibilities for experimentation. But the new multilateralism also presents dangers, among these encouraging rampant forum-shopping, undermining critical international organizations, and reducing accountability in global governance.

Sport without referees? The power of the International Olympic Committee and the social politics of accountability

As governor of the world’s pre-eminent sporting event, the International Olympic Committee exercises considerable power on the world stage. It has also been widely accused of corruption, corporate greed, and hypocrisy. However, for all of the media attention that the International Olympic Committee receives, it has seldom been examined theoretically and in the context of global governance. Why have so few stakeholders, including the states that host the events and field the teams, engaged in serious efforts to hold it accountable for its actions? In addition, what can the experience of the International Olympic Committee tell us about accountability in global governance more generally? Drawing from conceptual treatments of accountability, we argue that the challenges of the International Olympic Committee are rooted in the organization’s social position and social power. The IOCs position in international society dilutes the base of potential accountability holders and exacerbates collective action problems, while its social power allows it to maintain a reputational shield to guard against meaningful accountability efforts. The article concludes by considering whether these dynamics ripple beyond the experience of the International Olympic Committee into other areas of global governance.

Governing Networks

What would be the governance implications if the introduction of the concept of network were to be made a technical-legal category of private international law? The idea behind the present contribution is an attempt to provide an alternative analysis, with technical purchase, which might in turn open the path towards a new pattern of jurisprudence in line with a global legal paradigm in three concrete instances which point to obvious inadequacies in the legal treatment of transnational private power (risk allocation between a parent company and its foreign subsidiary in respect of the conduct of the latter; transnational supply or value chains; and international commercial and investment arbitration). However technical the proposed change might appear, whether or not legal innovation is worthwhile on this point is ultimately a political assessment of the need for balance, responsibility and accountability in global governance.

Accountability in Global Governance: Civil Society Claims for Environmental Performance at the World Bank

International organizations frequently lack accountability to both states and civil society groups. States often face difficulties monitoring the actions of international organizations. Civil society groups do not often enjoy direct influence over decision-making within international organizations. To address these challenges, states have created accountability mechanisms for international organizations. Accountability mechanisms allow civil society groups to submit complaints about the performance of international organizations. They take the form of ombudsmen offices, accountability panels, and complaint procedures. Little is known about when and why these mechanisms constrain behavior by international organizations that runs counter to the mutual interests of states and civil society groups. Using the World Bank Inspection Panel as a test case, I show that monitoring by civil society groups alters lending at the World Bank when it enhances oversight by powerful states. By combining their abilities in sanctioning and monitoring, states and civil society groups can promote accountability at international organizations.

Prospects of Deliberative Global Governance

Global governance is often equated with international institutions such as the United Nations and the World Bank that were established after World War II to address problems transcending national borders. While these institutions incorporate norms of representative democracy that evolved in national societies, their legitimacy is often questioned on grounds of limited effectiveness and remoteness from the citizens they purportedly serve. The arguments of many democratic theorists that deliberation among ordinary citizens can legitimize policies that heed these views thus bear important implications for global governance. In this paper, the possibility and different ways that civil society enhancing public participation, transparency and accountability in global governance are addressed. The empirical focus will be on the world's first global deliberation—WWViews (world wide views on global warming) that was held in 38 countries with all inhabited continents in 2009. The social drivers that encourage innovation in global democratic governance are analysed, as the main successes and challenges of WWViews and sketch three scenarios of the future of deliberative global governance are based on the experiences and plans around global citizen participation. The authors argue that despite some challenges, such as ensuring high quality of deliberation in highly variant policy cultural contexts and building policy pathways conducive to political impact, the prospects of deliberation in helping solve global environmental and policy problems are high, and likely to see cumulative progress in the near future.

World rule: accountability, legitimacy, and the design of global governance

Dilemmas from climate change to financial meltdowns make it clear that global interconnectedness is the norm in the twenty-first century. As a result, global governance organizations (GGOs) - from the World Trade Organization to the Forest Stewardship Council - have taken on prominent roles in the management of international affairs. These GGOs create and promulgate rules to address a host of pressing problems. But as World Rule reveals, they struggle to meet two challenges: building authority despite limited ability to impose sanctions and maintaining legitimacy while satisfying the demands of key constituencies whose support is essential to a global rulemaking regime. Through a novel empirical study of twenty-five GGOs, Jonathan GS Koppell provides a clearer picture of the compromises within and the competition among these influential institutions by focusing attention on their organizational design. Analyzing four aspects of GGO organization in depth - representation and administration, the rulemaking process, adherence and enforcement, and interest group participation - Koppell describes variation systemically, identifies patterns, and offers explanations that link GGO design to the fundamental challenge of accountability in global governance.

Democracy in Global Governance: The Promises and Pitfalls of Transnational Actors

The participation of transnational actors in global policymaking is increasingly seen as a means to democratize global governance. Drawing on alternative theories of democracy and existing empirical evidence, we assess the promises and pitfalls of this vision. We explore how the structuring and operation of international institutions, public-private partnerships, and transnational actors themselves may facilitate expanded participation and enhanced accountability in global governance. We find considerable support for an optimistic verdict on the democratizing potential of transnational actor involvement, but also identify hurdles in democratic theory and the practice of global governance that motivate a more cautious outlook. In conclusion, we call for research that explores the conditions for democracy in global governance through a combination of normative political theory and positive empirical research.

Complex accountability and power in global governance: issues for global business

PurposeFirms and their executives need to recognize the political complexity of accountability demands, so that they are prepared by training to recognize the signs of change, analyze the strength of the forces behind various and often competing demands, and devise a response that is not only responsive to valid and strongly supported demands, but consistent with their organization's mission and ethic of responsibility toward broader publics and the public‐spirited values that we should all share. This paper aims to investigate these issuesDesign/methodology/approachThe paper identifies seven types of accountability mechanisms and considers their applicability to multinational corporations.FindingsThe paper finds that, to be able to respond quickly and effectively, firms need to be linked institutionally with advocacy groups as well as other firms, so that they get information about demands in a timely fashion and are able to communicate with the relevant actors to devise responses.Originality/valueThe paper gives an overview about different types of accountability in global governance and discusses how firms could face the challenges of complex accountability demands.

Civil Society and Democratically Accountable Global Governance

AbstractThis article explores the ways and extents that civil society associations can bring greater public accountability to global governance. The analysis first reviews the growth of civil society engagement of global governance. Second, the article elaborates four general ways that civil society associations have promoted increased accountability in global governance: by increasing the public transparency of global governance operations; by monitoring and reviewing global policies; by seeking redress for mistakes and harms attributable to global regulatory bodies; and by advancing the creation of formal accountability mechanisms for global governance. Third, the article identifies six broad circumstances that have affected (and often limited) the extent of civil society achievements with respect to accountability in global governance.