Global Action Networks Research Articles

Global Standards in National Contexts: The Role of Transnational Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives in Public Sector Governance Reform

Multi-stakeholder initiatives (i.e., partnerships between governments, civil society, and the private sector) are an increasingly prevalent strategy promoted by multilateral, bilateral, and nongovernmental development organizations for addressing weaknesses in public sector governance. Global public sector governance MSIs seek to make national governments more transparent and accountable by setting shared standards for information disclosure and multi-stakeholder collaboration. However, research on similar interventions implemented at the national or subnational level suggests that the effectiveness of these initiatives is likely to be mediated by a variety of socio-political factors. This dissertation examines the transnational evidence base for three global public sector governance MSIs—the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, the Construction Sector Transparency Initiative, and the Open Government Partnership—and investigates their implementation within and across three shared national contexts—Guatemala, the Philippines, and Tanzania—in order to determine whether and how these initiatives lead to improvements in proactive transparency (i.e., discretionary release of government data), demand-driven transparency (i.e., reforms that increase access to government information upon request), and accountability (i.e., the extent to which government officials are compelled to publicly explain their actions and/or face penalties or sanction for them), as well as the extent to which they provide participating governments with an opportunity to project a public image of transparency and accountability, while maintaining questionable practices in these areas (i.e., openwashing). The evidence suggests that global public sector governance MSIs often facilitate gains in proactive transparency by national governments, but that improvements in demand-driven transparency and accountability remain relatively rare. Qualitative comparative analysis reveals that a combination of multi-stakeholder power sharing and civil society capacity is sufficient to drive improvements in proactive transparency, while the absence of visible, high-level political support is sufficient to impede such reforms. The lack of demand-driven transparency or accountability gains suggests that national-level coalitions forged by global MSIs are often too narrow to successfully advocate for broader improvements to public sector governance. Moreover, evidence for openwashing was found in one-third of cases, suggesting that national governments sometimes use global MSIs to deliberately mislead international observers and domestic stakeholders about their commitment to reform.%%%%International relations%%%%Public policy%%%%Political science%%%%global action networks, good governance, multi-stakeholder initiatives, social accountability, soft power, transparency%%%%School of International Service%%%%Degree Awarded: Ph.D. School of International Service. American University

Multinational Corporations’ Strategies at the Base of the Pyramid: An Action Research Inquiry

Why and how does a multinational corporation adapt its strategy and organizational capabilities to address markets at the base of the pyramid (BOP)? This paper builds on the results of a 3-year action research program conducted with Lafarge, a global building materials company, during which it started to consider the BOP segment as a strategic business opportunity. The article shows how pilot projects and global action networks created as part of the action research in the Indonesian subsidiary and the firm’s head office contributed to this change. The paper then discusses the implications of BOP strategies in terms of organizational capabilities.

Global Governance and Power Politics: Back to Basics

For many students of global governance who explore the myriad institutions, rules, norms, and coordinating arrangements that transcend individual states and societies, what really marks the contemporary era is not the absence of such governance but its “astonishing diversity.” In addition to “long-standing universal-membership bodies,” such as the United Nations, writes Stewart Patrick, “there are various regional institutions, multilateral alliances and security groups, standing consultative mechanisms, self-selecting clubs, ad hoc coalitions, issue-specific arrangements, transnational professional networks, technical standard-setting bodies, global action networks, and more.” The proliferation and diversification of governance mechanisms—yielding a jumble of formal and informal arrangements—has supplanted the simpler image of state representatives gathering at official assemblies. Many scholars believe this pluralism opens important new avenues for tackling a growing array of complex transnational problems, particularly at a time when the responsiveness of traditional multilateral institutions is being called into question.

Civil Society Conflicts Environment & Social Conflicts

Mainstream models of nature conservation, as they are proposed by Environmental Global Action Networks (EGAN), such as Greenpeace and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), focus on the creation of public property (in the form of national parks), legal prohibitions (such as bans on logging and on trade in endangered species), public education and, more recently, carbon trading schemes. As Indonesia’s Tesso Nilo national park demonstrates, the mainstream approach is not only costly but also highly ineffective. According to our findings, two thirds of the park have been encroached, the park management itself has allegedly been involved in illegal logging, human-wildlife conflict continues unabated, wildlife continues to dwindle and the local population remains hostile to the conservation model. In this paper we attempt to show that the failure of Tesso Nilo is due to the application of mainstream conservation models that are based more on rhetoric than results and ignore economic realities. Alternative, market-based solutions exist and have been proven to be both cost-effective and successful in delivering tangible results. Effective private property rights incentivize the local population to engage in sustainable management of natural resources: “if it pays, it stays.” By contrast, the strategies of the EGANs create social conflict and perverse incentives. International donors should pay more heed to results than rhetoric. This is the first of a series of working papers that will examine the various models of civil society development in Indonesia. The authors consider themselves independent researchers who reject blind faith in collectivist green ideologies and focus on pragmatic, results-based solutions. It is an undeniable fact that environment and development are not mutually exclusive but reinforce each other (otherwise rich countries would not have cleaner environments). At the same time, we recognize the complexity of the issues at hand and the need for more detailed study by governments, donors and NGOs. All too often, the environmental and developmental debate is characterized by political correctness, vested political and economic interests as well as a lack of realism.

Design Guidelines to Address Global Challenges: Lessons from Global Action Networks

Traditional organizations appear to be incapable of adequately addressing critical global issues such as war, climate change, and economic inequality. Addressing these issues suggests the need for organizational innovation to develop global social contracts. Successful innovation must address four integration imperatives: (1) integrate effort and resources across organizational sectors (business, government, civil society) and sense-making, (2) create successful individual to global aggregations, (3) integrate the short and long term, and (4) integrate major issue areas. A new type of organization, Global Action Networks, aims for this integration. Based upon analysis of this new type of organization, five design principles for global social contract organizations are proposed.

Design Guidelines to Address Global Challenges: Lessons from Global Action Networks

Traditional organizations appear to be incapable of adequately addressing critical global issues such as war, climate change, and economic inequality. Addressing these issues suggests the need for organizational innovation to develop global social contracts. Successful innovation must address four integration imperatives: (1) integrate effort and resources across organizational sectors (business, government, civil society) and sense-making, (2) create successful individual to global aggregations, (3) integrate the short and long term, and (4) integrate major issue areas. A new type of organization, Global Action Networks, aims for this integration. Based upon analysis of this new type of organization, five design principles for global social contract organizations are proposed.

Global action networks: Agents for collective action

Global action networks (GANs) are civil society initiated multi-stakeholder arrangements that aim to fulfill a leadership role for systemic change in global governance for sustainable development. The paper develops a network approach to study some of these GANs as motivators of global collective action and investigates how in their interaction processes the actors involved create the organizational capacity for collective change. Based on a variety of case studies, the paper highlights crucial factors determining the performance of GANs; among them the characteristics of the issue field and the development stage of the GAN. The analysis also shows how GANs play two crucial roles, sometimes in combination, sometimes successively. These are labelled as the broker and entrepreneur role. The paper concludes with some conditions for collective action that are underexposed in collective action theory.

Who governs energy? The challenges facing global energy governance

This article conceptualizes the energy problems facing society from a global governance perspective. It argues that a notion of “global energy governance,” taken to mean international collective action efforts undertaken to manage and distribute energy resources and provide energy services, offers a meaningful and useful framework for assessing energy-related challenges. The article begins by exploring the concepts of governance, global governance, and global energy governance. It then examines some of the existing institutions in place to establish and carry out rules and norms governing global energy problems and describes the range of institutional design options available to policymakers. It briefly traces the role of a selection of these institutions, from inter-governmental organizations to summit processes to multilateral development banks to global action networks, in responding to energy issues, and points out their strengths and weaknesses. The article concludes by analyzing how the various approaches to global governance differ in their applicability to addressing the conundrums of global energy problems.

Judge, A.J.N. (Coord.): Global Action Networks. Classified Directory by Subject and Region, 4th ed. (M. P. Satija)

Judge, A.J.N. (Coord.): Global Action Networks. Classified Directory by Subject and Region, 4th ed. (M. P. Satija)

Yearbook of international organizations 1984/85, Vol. 3: Subject guide: global action networks

Yearbook of international organizations 1984/85, Vol. 3: Subject guide: global action networks