W12 Is global governance democratic ? Is it actually desirable ? Flashcards
Accountability def
acknowledgement and assumption of responsibility for actions, products, decisions and policies
transparency
operating in such a way that it is easy for others to see what actions are performed
- reporting, measuring, justifying, explaining actions
- mechanisms that involve obligations to explain and justify conduct
Problem of global governance and democratic accountability
widespread belief that rules are only legitimate if conform to broadly democratic principles. yet, little democratic accountability in global gov
why is there little democratic accountability in global governance ?
Scholte :
- world politics = no longer among states only. prolif of global gv agencies and supranational laws
- weak links between citizens and global gov org via national govts (weak national accountability chain)
- relationship between nat govts and global gov agencies mainly through unelected technocrats
- govts intervene w global gov institutions in broad policy goals but activities are unchecked
Can global gov be brought under greater democratic control ?
according to Scholte : YES
Civil society associations can bring greater public control to global gov
civil society def
a pol space where voluntary associations of citizens seek, from outside political parties, to shape social rule.
- can overlap w commercial and official/ political spheres
Third Sector
mix of state, community and market = non profit (NGOs, asso foundations)
How does civil society improve accountability in global gov ?
4 main ways ;
1) transparency = pressure global gov to undertake public disclosure of their work
2) policy monitoring and review = evaluation, alert the public
3) pursuit of redress = seek correction of mistakes
4) promoting formal accountability mechanisms = formal mechanisms to monitor and control agencies concerned (civil society accreditation scheme in the UN)
issues for greater democratic accountability in global gov
1) resources : funds, staff, equipment (but compromises autonomy)
2) networks : becoming stronger through coop with other groups (but can compromise establish goals)
3) official attitudes : form relationship w public authorities (can become co-opted)
4) mass média : quality can help or hinder accountability (has its own vested interests)
5) political culture : structural relationships state-civil society depend on social context (can encourage/ discourage citizen action)
6) civil society’s accountability : unaccountable, incompetent, morally dubious («uncivil» groups of fundamentalists, militarists, racists)
problem of democratic accountability far more complex
- common values lacking on a global scale : dem values not universally held bcz entities w different beliefs about what constitutes the good life
- in the abs of a universal global society, cosmopolitan democracy unlikely on a global scale
- likely to continue having a system of interactions between democratic societies and those who hold opposing values
- multiplicity of actors but states remain central
Accountability 2 types
Keohane
- «internal» accountability : principal and agent institutionally linked together -> AUTHORISATION (confers right) and SUPPORT (fin/ pol) create capabilities to hold entities accountable because the principal is providing legitimacy or financial resources to the agent
- «external» accountability : accountability to ppl outside the acting entity, whose lives are affected by it -> IMPACT (WB policies in Africa, US military actions overseas, actions of multinational corp).
Ability to avoid being held externally accountable = dimension of pw
Type of accountability demanded by non state actors/ advocacy networks from pwful entities (states, corporations, IGOS)
IGOs actually relatively accountable
- traditional IGOs = internally accountable to states on the basis of authorisation and support -> created by states and require fin support from states
- to some extent externally accountable to NGOs and the media : if not transparent, bcz governmental pressure for confidentiality
compétition external accountability and internal accountability
external accountability claims by the media and NGOs (based on the impact of IGOs) compete with internal accountability claims by governments (based on authorisation and support)
IGOs are undeservedly targets for external accountability, but more external accountability is needed from
- MNCs
- Transgovernmental and private sector networks
- The roman catholic church
- mass religious mvts
- cover terrorist networks
- POWERFUL STATES-> traditionally the doctrine of sov (westphalian project) has protected states from external accountability
- NGOs often not transparent and only accountable internally to donors
weak external accountability of states
- powerful democratic states internally accountable but not externally accountable
- only weak external accountability of states:
a) weak states accountable to rich states (bcz demand for aid)
b) some limited accountability resulting from membership in Internat. org such as WTO / ICC (multilateralism)
c) reputational concerns
conclusions pbs from weak external accountability
- powerful states pose the most serious threats to accountability in world pol
- demand from NGOs and advocacy networks for «more accountability» from IGOs can reduce states’ interests in such organisations -> then if states get less benefits from IGOs they will be less willing to provide resources and to accept demands on them- through these institutions - for external accountability
- globalization weakens internal accountability within democracies, but it’s pol institutionalisation is a condition for external accountability
how to hold powerful states accountable
more multilateral organisations
condition for global gov to be legitimate
substantial measure of external accountability or mechanisms meshing tgt internal and external accountability
Tensions globalization
Rodrik
- hyperglobalization VS national democratic pol -> hyperglob requires shrinking domestic pol and insultaiton of technocrats from popular demands
- globalization VS domestic social arrangements = core feature of global eco
Example of tensions of globalization
- labor standards : no protection against outsourcing where foreign workers are privileged over domestic ones -> internat. markets erode domestic labor regulations while domestic markets don’t
- corporate tax competition : international mobility of firms/ k+ restricts a nation’s ability to choose the tax structure it prefers -> downward pressure on corporate tax rates shifts the tax burden from capital to labor
- health and safety standards : 1990 GATT’s rule against thailand’s ban on imported cigarettes -> int. tribunals contradict domestic rules
Political trilemma of the world eco
rodrik
management tension national democracy / global markets
Hyperglobalisation / Nat. sov/ Dem. politics
3 options :
1) restrict democracy -> to minimize int. transaction costs
2) limit globalization -> to build democratic legitimacy at home
3) globalize democracy -> at the cost of nat. sovty
CANNOT HAVE ALL THREE
golden straitjacket
hyperglob + nat sovty
governments pursue policies that attract trade and k+ flows : small govts, low taxes, flexible labor markets, deregulation, privatisation and openess
- global economic order before WWI
global gov
hyperglobalization + democratic politics :
global institutions w regulatory and standard setting powers endowed w adequate accountability and legitimacy -> politics does not shrink but relocates to the global level
ex : global federalism, US model global scale or new mechanisms of accountability and rpzation where nat. sov = diminished (EU)
- diversity can embrace common rules ?
- global standards = undesirable bcz lowest common denominator will b a regime of weak and inefficient rules
bretton woods compromise
nat. sovty and democratic politics
loose rules w many policies left outside the scope of international discipline, space for countries to follow their own, «thin» globalization (abandoned in 80s)
