Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-18T19:06:02.665Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The stakeholder model paradox: How the globalisation of politics fuels domestic advocacy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2017

Marcel Hanegraaff  and
Arlo Poletti
Marcel Hanegraaff*
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Political Science, University of Amsterdam
Arlo Poletti*
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, University of Trento
*
*Author’s email: m.c.hanegraaff@uva.nl
**Author’s email: arlo.poletti@unitn.it
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One of the central assumptions underlying the stakeholder model is that strengthened opportunities for involvement of non-state actors in political procedures hold significant promise for making those procedures more democratically legitimate. However, recent studies show that more open international organisations (IOs) are not perceived as more legitimate by non-state actors. In this article we explore one potential reason to explain this apparent paradox, investigating whether, and under what conditions, strengthened opportunities of stakeholder involvement enable the effective representation of global constituencies. The article shows that globalisation and politicisation of IOs go hand in hand with greater political activity by non-state actors defending domestic, rather than global, interests. Globalisation and politicisation may thus contribute to the exponential growth of the community of non-state actors active at IOs, but they do not make such community more globalised in nature. The article also illustrates that granting greater access to stakeholders in international institutions can somehow mitigate the effects of this underlying structural factors, and that institutional openness disproportionally fosters political activity by civic, rather than business, global stakeholders. We advance these arguments relying on a novel dataset including over eight thousand organisations active at the UN climate conferences and the WTO Ministerial Conferences.

Keywords

Non-State ActorsThe Stakeholder ModelGlobal GovernancePoliticisationGlobalisation
Type
Articles
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 44 , Issue 2 , April 2018 , pp. 367 - 391
Copyright
© British International Studies Association 2017 

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.)

References

1 Archibugi, Daniele, Koenig-Archibugi, Mathias, and Marchetti, Raffaele, ‘Introduction: Mapping global democracy’, in Daniele Archibugi, Mathias Koenig-Archibugi, and Raffaele Marchetti (eds), Global Democracy: Normative and Empirical Perspectives (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), pp. 1–21 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Castells, M., ‘The new public sphere: Global civil society, communication networks, and global governance’, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 61:6 (2008), pp. 78–93 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Held, David, Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995)Google Scholar; Nanz, P. and Steffeck, J., ‘Global governance, participation and the public sphere’, Government and Opposition, 39:2 (2004), pp. 314–335 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Scholte, J. A., ‘Civil society and democracy in global governance’, Global Governance, 8:3 (2002), pp. 281–304 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 See Archibugi, Daniele and Held, David (eds), Cosmopolitan Democracy: An Agenda for a New World Order (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995)Google Scholar; Marchetti, Raffaele, Global Democracy: For and Against: Ethical Theory, Institutional Design and Social Struggles (New York: Routledge, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Nanz and Steffeck, ‘Global governance, participation and the public sphere’, pp. 314–35; Stevenson, H. and Dryzek, J., ‘The discursive democratisation of global climate governance’, Environmental Politics, 21:2 (2012), pp. 189–210 Google Scholar.

4 Scholte, J. A., ‘Civil society and democratically accountable global governance’, Government and Opposition, 39:2 (2004), pp. 211–233 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Macdonald, T., Global Stakeholder Democracy: Power and Representation beyond Liberal States (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008)Google Scholar; Steffeck, Jens, Kissling, Claudia, and Nanz, Patrizia (eds), Civil Society Participation in European and Global Governance: A Cure for the Democratic Deficit? (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008)Google Scholar; Macdonald, K. and Macdonald, T., ‘Non-electoral aaccountability in global politics: Strengthening democratic control within the global garment industry’, European Journal of International Law, 17:1 (2006), pp. 89–119 Google Scholar; Tallberg, Jens and Uhlin, Anders, ‘Civil society and global democracy: an assessment’, in Archibugi, Koenig-Archibugi, and Marchetti (eds), Global Democracy, pp. 210–232 Google Scholar.

5 Tallberg, Jonas, Sommerer, Thomas, Squatrito, Theresa, and Jönsson, Christer, The Opening Up of International Organizations: Transnational Access in Global Governance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013)Google Scholar; J. Tallberg, L. M. Dellmuth, H. Agné, and A. Duit, ‘NGO influence in international organizations: Information, access and exchange, British Journal of Political Science (published online, 2015).

6 Agné, H., Dellmuth, L., and Tallberg, J., ‘Does stakeholder involvement foster democratic legitimacy in international organizations? An empirical assessment of a normative theory’, Review of International Organizations, 10:4 (2015), pp. 465–488 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dellmuth, L. and Tallberg, J., ‘The social legitimacy of international organizations: Interest representation, institutional performance, and confidence extrapolation in the United Nations’, Review of International Studies, 41:3 (2015), pp. 4511–4575 Google Scholar.

7 Agné, Dellmuth, and Tallberg, ‘Does stakeholder involvement foster democratic legitimacy in international organizations?’, p. 32.

8 Tallberg et al., ‘NGO influence in international organizations’, pp. 1–36; Agné, Dellmuth, and Tallberg, ‘Does stakeholder involvement foster democratic legitimacy in international organizations?’, pp. 465–88; Tallberg, J., Sommerer, T.. Squatrito, T., and Jonsson, C., ‘Explaining the transnational design of international organizations’, International Organization, 68:4 (2014), pp. 741–774 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Castells, ‘The new public sphere’, pp. 78–93; Held, D., ‘Democratic accountability and political effectiveness from a cosmopolitan perspective’, Government and Opposition, 39:2 (2004), pp. 364–391 Google Scholar; Macdonald, Global Stakeholder Democracy; Nanz and Steffeck, ‘Global governance, participation and the public sphere’, pp. 314–35; Scholte, ‘Civil society and democratically accountable global governance’, pp. 211–33; Steffeck, Kissling, and Nanz (eds), Civil Society Participation in European and Global Governance.

10 Agné, Dellmuth, and Tallberg, ‘Does stakeholder involvement foster democratic legitimacy in international organizations?’, pp. 465–88; Dellmuth, L. and Tallberg, J., ‘The social legitimacy of international organizations: Interest representation, institutional performance, and confidence extrapolation in the United Nations’, Review of International Studies, 41:3 (2015), pp. 4511–4575 Google Scholar.

11 Keohane, Robert and Nye, Joseph, Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition (New York: Little, Brown, 1977)Google Scholar; Haas, Ernst, The Obsolescence of Regional Integration Theory (Berkeley: Institute of International Studies, 1975)Google Scholar; Mattli, Walter, The Logic of Regional Integration: Europe and Beyond (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999)Google Scholar; Mattli, Walter and Woods, Ngaire, The Politics of Global Regulation (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009)Google Scholar.

12 Drezner, Daniel, All Politics Is Global: Explaining International Regulatory Regimes (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007)Google Scholar; Braithwaite, John and Drahos, Peter, Global Business Regulation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000)Google Scholar.

13 Zürn, M., ‘The politicization of world politics and its effects: Eight propositions’, European Political Science Review, 6:1 (2014), pp. 47–71 Google Scholar.

14 Hooghe, L. and Marks, G., ‘A postfunctionalist theory of European integration: From permissive consensus to constraining dissensus’, British Journal of Political Science, 39:1 (2009), pp. 1–23 Google Scholar; Zürn, ‘The politicization of world politics and its effects’, pp. 47–71.

15 Olson, Mancur, The Logic of Collective Action (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1965)Google Scholar; Dür, A. and De Bièvre, D., ‘Inclusion without influence: NGOs in European trade policy’, Journal of Public Policy, 27:1 (2007), pp. 79–101 Google Scholar.

16 Glasius, Marlies, Kaldor, Mary, and Anheier, Helmut (eds), Global Civil Society 2005/2006 (London: Sage, 2005)Google Scholar; Keck, Margareth and Sikkink, Kathryn, Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998)Google Scholar.

17 Agné, Dellmuth, and Tallberg ‘Does stakeholder involvement foster democratic legitimacy in international organizations?’, pp. 465–88; Dellmuth and Tallberg, ‘The social legitimacy of international organizations’, pp. 4511–475.

18 Macdonald, Terry, ‘Citizens or stakeholders? Exclusion, equality and legitimacy in global stakeholder democracy’, in Archibugi, Koenig-Archibugi, and Marchetti (eds), Global Democracy, pp. 47–68 Google Scholar; Saward, Michael, The Representative Claim (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 Agné, Dellmuth, and Tallberg, ‘Does stakeholder involvement foster democratic legitimacy in international organizations?’, p. 10.

20 Macdonald, ‘Citizens or stakeholders?’, pp. 47–68.

21 Agné, Dellmuth, and Tallberg, ‘Does stakeholder involvement foster democratic legitimacy in international organizations?’, pp. 465–88.

22 Dellmuth and Tallberg, ‘The social legitimacy of international organizations’, pp. 4511–475.

23 Nanz and Steffeck, ‘Global governance, participation and the public sphere’, p. 315.

24 Scholte, ‘Civil society and democracy in global governance’, p. 290.

25 Castells, ‘The new public sphere’, p. 84.

26 Dryzek, John, Deliberative Global Politics: Discourse and Democracy in a Divided World (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2006)Google Scholar; Bohman, James, Democracy across Borders: From Demos to Demoi (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2007)Google Scholar.

27 D. Held, ‘Democratic accountability and political effectiveness from a cosmopolitan perspective’, pp. 364–91.

28 Agné, Dellmuth, and Tallberg, ‘Does stakeholder involvement foster democratic legitimacy in international organizations?’, pp. 465–88.

29 Drezner, D., ‘Globalization and policy convergence’, International Studies Review, 3:1 (2001), p. 53 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30 Rosenau, J., ‘Towards and ontology for global governance’, in M. Hewson and T. J. Sinclair (eds), Approaches to Global Governance Theory (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999), p. 293 Google Scholar; Keohane and Nye, Power and Interdependence; Haas, The Obsolescence of Regional Integration Theory; Mattli, The Logic of Regional Integration; Mattli and Woods, The Politics of Global Regulation.

31 Tarrow, S., ‘Transnational politics: Contention and institutions in international politics’, Annual Review of Political Science, 4:1 (2001), p. 2 Google Scholar.

32 Braithwaite and Drahos, Global Business Regulation; Drezner, All Politics Is Global; Simmons, B., ‘International politics of harmonization: the case of capital market regulation’, International Organization, 55 (2001), pp. 589–620 Google Scholar.

33 Uvin, Peter, ‘From local organizations to global governance: the role of NGOs in international relations’, in Kendall Stukes (ed.), Global Institutions and Global Empowerment: Competing Theoretical Perspectives (New York: St Martins, 2000), pp. 9–29 Google Scholar.

34 Keohane, R. and Martin, L., ‘The promise of institutionalist theory’, International Security, 20:1 (1995), pp. 39–51 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Snidal, D., ‘Coordination versus prisoners’ dilemma: Implications for international cooperation and regimes’, American Political Science Review, 79:4 (1985), pp. 923–942 Google Scholar.

35 Zürn, ‘The politicization of world politics and its effects’, p. 50.

36 Ibid., p. 59.

37 Hooghe and Marks, ‘A postfunctionalist theory of European integration’, pp. 1–23; Zürn, ‘The politicization of world politics and its effects’, pp. 47–71.

38 Haas, Ernst, The Uniting of Europe: Political, Social and Economic Forces 1950–1957 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1958)Google Scholar.

39 Klüver, H., ‘The contextual nature of lobbying: Explaining lobbying success in the European Union’, European Union Politics, 12: 4 (2011), pp. 483–506 Google Scholar; Dür, A., and Mateo, G., ‘The Europeanization of national interest groups’, European Union Politics, 15:4 (2014), pp. 572–594 Google Scholar.

40 Berkhout, J. and Lowery, D., ‘Counting organized interests in the EU: a comparison of data sources’, Journal of European Public Policy, 15:4 (2007), pp. 489–513 Google Scholar; Smith, J. and Weist, D., ‘The uneven geography of global civil society: National and global influences on transnational association’, Social Forces, 84:2 (2005), pp. 621–652 Google Scholar; Nordang-Uhre, A., ‘Exploring the diversity of transnational actors in global environmental governance’, Interest Groups and Advocacy, 3:1 (2014), pp. 59–78 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hanegraaff, M. C., Braun, C., De Bièvre, D., and Beyers, J., ‘The global and domestic origins of transnational advocacy: Explaining interest representation at the WTO’, Comparative Political Studies, 48:12 (2015), pp. 1591–1621 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

41 Beyers, J., ‘Gaining and seeking access: the European adaptation of domestic interest associations’, European Journal of Political Research, 41:5 (2002), pp. 585–612 Google Scholar; Beyers, J. and Kerremans, B., ‘Domestic embeddedness and the dynamics of multi-level venue-shopping in four EU member-states’, Governance, 25:2 (2012), pp. 262–290 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Klüver, H., ‘Europeanization of lobbying activities: When national interest groups spill over to the European Level’, Journal of European Integration, 32:2 (2010), pp. 175–191 Google Scholar; Dür, A., and Mateo, G., ‘The Europeanization of national interest groups’, European Union Politics, 15:4 (2014), pp. 572–594 Google Scholar.

42 Hanegraaff, M. C. and Poletti, A., ‘How participatory is global governance of trade and environment? The cases of WTO and UN climate summits’, in R. Marchetti (ed.), Partnerships in International Policy Making: Civil Society and Public Institutions in European and Global Affairs (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017), pp. 51–70Google Scholar.

43 Barnett, Michael and Finnemore, Martha, Rules for the World: International Organization in Global Politics (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2004)Google Scholar; Meyer, John, ‘The world polity and the authority of the nation state’, in Albert Bergesen (ed.), Studies of the Modern World System (New York: Academic Press, 1980)Google Scholar; Tallberg et al., ‘NGO influence in international organizations’.

44 Tarrow, ‘Transnational politics’, pp. 1–20.

45 Ibid., p. 27.

46 Charnovitz, S., ‘Opening the WTO to non-governmental interests’, Fordham International Law Journal, 24:1 (2000), pp. 173–216 Google Scholar; Robertson, D., ‘Civil society and the WTO’, World Economy, 23:9 (2000), pp. 1119–1134 Google Scholar.

47 Fischer, D., ‘COP-15 in Copenhagen: How the merging of movements left civil society out in the cold’, Global Environmental Politics, 10:2 (2015), pp. 11–17 Google Scholar; Fischer, D. and Green, J., ‘Understanding disenfranchisement: Civil society and developing countries’ influence and participation in global governance for sustainable development’, Global Environmental Politics, 4:3 (2004), pp. 65–84 Google Scholar; Spiro, P., The new sovereignists: American exceptionalism and its false prophets’, Foreign Affairs, 79:9 (2000), pp. 9–12 Google Scholar.

48 Dür and De Bièvre, ‘Inclusion without influence’, pp. 79–101; but see Klüver, ‘The contextual nature of lobbying’, pp. 483–506.

49 Hanegraaff and Poletti, ‘How participatory is global governance of trade and environment?’.

50 Keck and Sikkink, Activists beyond Borders.

51 Tarrow, Sidney, The New Transnational Activism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), p. 26 Google Scholar.

52 See Baumgartner, Frank and Leech, Beth, Basic Interests: The Importance of Groups in Politics and in Political Science (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998)Google Scholar; Yackee, J. and Webb, S., ‘A bias towards business? Assessing interest group influence on the US bureaucracy’, Journal of Politics, 68:1 (2006), pp. 128–139 Google Scholar; Schneider, G., Finke, D., and Baltz, K., ‘With a little help from the state: Interest intermediation in the domestic pre-negotiations of EU legislation’, Journal of European Public Policy, 14:3 (2007), pp. 444–459 Google Scholar.

53 See Hanegraaff, M. C., Braun-Poppelaars, C., and Beyers, J., ‘Open the door to more of the same? The development of interest group representation at the WTO’, World Trade Review, 10:4 (2011), pp. 1–26 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

54 Hanegraaff, M.C., ‘Transnational advocacy over time: Business and NGO mobilization at UN climate summits’, Global Environmental Politics, 15:1 (2015), pp. 83–104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

55 See Muñoz Cabré, M., ‘Issue-linkages to climate change measured through NGO participation in the UNFCCC’, Global Environmental Politics, 11:3 (2011), pp. 10–22 Google Scholar.

56 See Hanegraaff, Braun-Poppelaars, and Beyers, ‘Open the door to more of the same?’, pp. 1–26.

57 Nanz and Steffeck, ‘Global governance, participation and the public sphere’, p. 315.

58 Scholte, ‘Civil society and democracy in global governance’, p. 290.

59 Castells, ‘The new public sphere’, p. 84.

60 Dryzek, Deliberative Global Politics; Bohman, Democracy across Borders.

61 Dreher, A., ‘Does globalization affect growth? Evidence from a new index of globalization’, Applied Economics, 38:10 (2006), pp. 1091–1110 Google Scholar.

62 Zürn, ‘The politicization of world politics and its effects’, pp. 47–71; Zürn, M., Binder, M., and Ecker-Ehrhardt, M., ‘International authority and its politicization’, International Theory, 4:1 (2012), pp. 69–106 Google Scholar.

63 Papke, L. E. and Wooldridge, J. M., ‘Econometric methods for fractional response variables with an application to 401(k) plan participation rates’, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 11:6 (1996), pp. 619–632 Google Scholar.

64 Braithwaite and Drahos, Global Business Regulation; Drezner, All Politics Is Global; Simmons, ‘International politics of harmonization’, pp. 589–620; Uvin, ‘From local organizations to global governance’, p. 15.

65 See {https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/06/07/lobby-climate-change-failure/#4ff3f0b650c6}.

66 Zürn, ‘The politicization of world politics and its effects’, p. 59.

67 Hooghe and Marks, ‘A postfunctionalist theory of European integration’, pp. 1–23; Zürn, ‘The politicization of world politics and its effects’, pp. 69–106.

68 See {http://www.hindustantimes.com/punjab/wto-nairobi-conference-cause-of-worry-for-farmers/story-RQm2FwbnEAxxp6fFqTFG6K.html}.

69 Charnovitz, ‘Opening the WTO to non-governmental interests’, pp. 173–216.

70 Interview with Wendel Trio director at CAN, formerly Greenpeace trade campaign director.

71 Fischer, ‘COP-15 in Copenhagen’, pp. 11–17; Fischer and Green, ‘Understanding disenfranchisement’, pp. 65–84.

72 Charnovitz, ‘Opening the WTO to non-governmental interests’, pp. 173–216; Robertson, ‘Civil society and the WTO’, pp. 1119–34.

73 See also Hanegraaff, M. C., ‘Interest groups at transnational onferences: Goals, strategies, interactions and influence’, Global Governance, 21:4 (2015), pp. 599–620 Google Scholar, for more in-depth studies concerning the relation between NSAs and negotiators during WTO-MCs and climate conferences.

74 Charnovitz, ‘Opening the WTO to non-governmental interests’, pp. 173–216; Robertson, ‘Civil society and the WTO’, pp. 1119–34; Steffeck, Kissling, and Nanz (eds), Civil Society Participation in European and Global Governance; Wilkinson, R., Hannah, E., and Scott, J., ‘The WTO in Bali: What MC9 means for the Doha development agenda and why it matters’, Third World Quarterly, 35:6 (2014), pp. 1032–1050 Google Scholar.

75 See, for example, Fischer, ‘COP-15 in Copenhagen’, pp. 11–17: Fischer and Green, ‘Understanding disenfranchisement’, pp. 65–84; Hanegraaff, ‘Transnational advocacy over time’, pp. 83–104.

76 Stevenson, H., ‘India and international norms of climate governance: a constructivist analysis of normative congruence building’, Review of International Studies, 37:3 (2011), pp. 997–1019 Google Scholar.