Global Governance and Communicative Action

AbstractThis article discusses arguing and communicative action as a significant tool for non-hierarchical steering modes in global governance. Arguing is based on a logic of action that differs significantly from both the rational choice-based ‘logic of consequentialism’, and from the ‘logic of appropriateness’ theorized by sociological institutionalism. Arguing constitutes a learning mechanism by which actors acquire new information, evaluate their interests in light of new empirical and moral knowledge, and – most importantly – can reflexively and collectively assess the validity claims of norms and standards of appropriate behaviour. As a result, arguing and persuasion constitute tools of ‘soft steering’ that might improve both the legitimacy problems of global governance by providing voice opportunities to various stakeholders and the problem-solving capacity of governance institutions through deliberation.

Download Full-text

Can Strategic Reasoning Alone Account for the Formation of Social Norms?

Dialogue ◽

10.1017/s0012217300006259 ◽

2005 ◽

Vol 44 (2) ◽

pp. 363-372

Author(s):

James Swindal

Keyword(s):

Social Norms ◽

Rational Choice ◽

Communicative Action ◽

Instrumental Reason ◽

Strategic Reasoning ◽

Rational Theory ◽

Theory Of Communicative Action ◽

Successful Communication ◽

Validity Claims ◽

Core Issue

Joseph Heath's Communicative Action and Rational Choice stands out clearly as one of the most astute and original of the several critiques of Jurgen Habermas's theory of communicative action to have emerged in the last decade. Heath refrains from engaging merely in skirmishes with various details of Habermas's theory; he rather aims directly at its core issue: the critique of instrumental reason. Heath argues that Habermas's key criticism—that instrumental reason cannot account for successful communication—is not critical enough. Heath argues that instrumental reason cannot account even for the successful monological action. Heath then claims that one can construct a critical rational theory without much of the problematic addenda that Habermas requires, particularly the need for a tripartite theory of validity claims.

Download Full-text

Part IX Principles of Governance, Ch.55 Transparency

The Oxford Handbook of International Organizations ◽

10.1093/law/9780199672202.003.0055 ◽

2016 ◽

Author(s):

Tallberg Jonas

Keyword(s):

Empirical Study ◽

Rational Choice ◽

Global Governance ◽

Real World ◽

Methodological Development ◽

Sociological Institutionalism ◽

Qualitative Case Studies ◽

Theoretical Approaches ◽

Large N ◽

Rational Choice Institutionalism

This chapter examines the issues of transparency and openness in relation to international organizations (IOs). It begins by introducing and exemplifying the three most prominent theoretical approaches in the study of transparency and openness: rational choice institutionalism, sociological institutionalism or constructivism, and normative democratic theory. It then shows how existing scholarship has explored transparency and openness empirically in three domains: the sources, patterns, and consequences of transparency. It argues, first, that research on transparency and openness has largely developed in response to real-world developments in global governance. As IOs have undergone a revolution in transparency and openness, scholars have sought to understand the origins of this transformation and its implications. Second, multiple theoretical approaches to the study of transparency and openness have evolved in parallel. A particular feature of the evolving theoretical agenda is the exploration of transparency and openness through both positive and normative perspectives. Third, the empirical study is comparatively stronger in uncovering the sources of growing transparency and openness, than in systematically assessing their effects. Fourth, this is a field that has witnessed a methodological development from extensive reliance on qualitative case studies to quantitative large-n research.

Download Full-text

Consequences of Legitimacy in Global Governance

10.1093/oso/9780198826873.003.0009 ◽

2018 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

Thomas Sommerer ◽

Hans Agné

Keyword(s):

Problem Solving ◽

Global Governance ◽

Research Agenda ◽

Systematic Investigation ◽

Research Strategy ◽

Quantitative Measurements ◽

Governance Institutions ◽

New Research ◽

Legitimacy Crisis

This chapter outlines a new research agenda on the consequences of legitimacy for the effectiveness of global governance institutions. The chapter sets the stage for systematic investigation of this issue by disaggregating consequences into empirically observable components and by outlining a research strategy to study these different impacts. Specifically, the chapter highlights four sequential types of consequences, relating to: (a) the resources committed to an institution; (b) the scale of policy output produced by an institution; (c) the actor compliance with an institution’s policies; and (d) the problem-solving effectiveness of the institution. The chapter illustrates the empirical fruitfulness of new quantitative measurements of legitimacy crisis, and argues for its usefulness to test effects of legitimacy in global governance.

Download Full-text

Introduction

10.1093/oso/9780198826873.003.0001 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Jonas Tallberg ◽

Karin Bäckstrand ◽

Jan Aart Scholte

Keyword(s):

Climate Change ◽

Human Rights ◽

Conceptual Framework ◽

Global Governance ◽

Comprehensive Treatment ◽

Human Rights Abuses ◽

Sociological Approach ◽

The Core ◽

Governance Institutions

Legitimacy is central for the capacity of global governance institutions to address problems such as climate change, trade protectionism, and human rights abuses. However, despite legitimacy’s importance for global governance, its workings remain poorly understood. That is the core concern of this volume, which engages with the overarching question: whether, why, how, and with what consequences global governance institutions gain, sustain, and lose legitimacy. This introductory chapter explains the rationale of the book, introduces its conceptual framework, reviews existing literature, and presents the key themes of the volume. It emphasizes in particular the volume’s sociological approach to legitimacy in global governance, its comparative scope, and its comprehensive treatment of the topic. Moreover, a specific effort is made to explain how each chapter moves beyond existing research in exploring the book’s three themes: (1) sources of legitimacy, (2) processes of legitimation and delegitimation, and (3) consequences of legitimacy.

Download Full-text

Fixing Technology with Society: The Coproduction of Democratic Deficits and Responsible Innovation at the OECD and the European Commission

Science Technology & Human Values ◽

10.1177/0162243921999100 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 016224392199910

Author(s):

Nina Frahm ◽

Tess Doezema ◽

Sebastian Pfotenhauer

Keyword(s):

European Commission ◽

Global Governance ◽

International Organizations ◽

New Technologies ◽

Responsible Innovation ◽

Democratic Deficit ◽

Major Barrier ◽

Societal Participation ◽

New Vision ◽

Governance Institutions

Long presented as a universal policy-recipe for social prosperity and economic growth, the promise of innovation seems to be increasingly in question, giving way to a new vision of progress in which society is advanced as a central enabler of technoeconomic development. Frameworks such as “Responsible” or “Mission-oriented” Innovation, for example, have become commonplace parlance and practice in the governance of the innovation–society nexus. In this paper, we study the dynamics by which this “social fix” to technoscience has gained legitimacy in institutions of global governance by investigating recent projects at two international organizations, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the European Commission, to mainstream “Responsible Innovation” frameworks and instruments across countries. Our analysis shows how the turn to societal participation in both organizations relies on a new deficit logic—a democratic deficit of innovation—that frames a lack of societal engagement in innovation governance as a major barrier to the uptake and dissemination of new technologies. These deficit politics enable global governance institutions to present “Responsible Innovation” frameworks as the solution and to claim authority over the coproduction of particular forms of democracy and innovation as intertwined pillars of a market-liberal international order.

Download Full-text

Elite attitudes and the future of global governance

International Affairs ◽

10.1093/ia/iiab034 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Jan Aart Scholte ◽

Soetkin Verhaegen ◽

Jonas Tallberg

Keyword(s):

Global Governance ◽

The United States ◽

Global Scale ◽

The Philippines ◽

Global Institutions ◽

The Future ◽

Medium Level ◽

Government Bureaucracy ◽

Governance Institutions ◽

Problem Solvers

Abstract This article examines what contemporary elites think about global governance and what these attitudes might bode for the future of global institutions. Evidence comes from a unique survey conducted in 2017–19 across six elite sectors (business, civil society, government bureaucracy, media, political parties, research) in six countries (Brazil, Germany, the Philippines, Russia, South Africa, the United States) and a global group. Bearing in mind some notable variation between countries, elite types, issue-areas and institutions, three main interconnected findings emerge. First, in principle, contemporary leaders in politics and society hold considerable readiness to pursue global-scale governance. Today's elites are not generally in a nationalist-protectionist-sovereigntist mood. Second, in practice, these elites on average hold medium-level confidence towards fourteen current global governance institutions. This evidence suggests that, while there is at present no legitimacy crisis of global governance among elites (as might encourage its decline), neither is there a legitimacy boom (as could spur its expansion). Third, if we probe what elites prioritize when they evaluate global governance, the surveyed leaders generally most underline democracy in the procedures of these bodies and effectiveness in their performance. This finding suggests that, to raise elites' future confidence in global governance, the institutions would do well to become more transparent in their operations and more impactful problem-solvers in their outcomes.

Download Full-text

Global Governance in a World of Change

10.1017/9781108915199 ◽

2021 ◽

Keyword(s):

World War Ii ◽

Cold War ◽

Global Governance ◽

Theoretical Framework ◽

World War ◽

Ideal Types ◽

Wide Range ◽

Governance Institutions ◽

The Cold War ◽

Modes Of Governance

Global governance has come under increasing pressure since the end of the Cold War. In some issue areas, these pressures have led to significant changes in the architecture of governance institutions. In others, institutions have resisted pressures for change. This volume explores what accounts for this divergence in architecture by identifying three modes of governance: hierarchies, networks, and markets. The authors apply these ideal types to different issue areas in order to assess how global governance has changed and why. In most issue areas, hierarchical modes of governance, established after World War II, have given way to alternative forms of organization focused on market or network-based architectures. Each chapter explores whether these changes are likely to lead to more or less effective global governance across a wide range of issue areas. This provides a novel and coherent theoretical framework for analysing change in global governance.

Download Full-text