Revisiting Global Governance in Multistakeholder Initiatives
Club Governance Based on Ideational Prealignments
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12577028 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Andrea Schneiker (0000-0001-7369-0063, corresponding author), Joana Joachim (0000-0002-8403-3568) |
| Year | 2017 |
| Volume | 32 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 2-22 |
| Publication date | 2017-09-27 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Global Society (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1360-0826 • E-ISSN: 1469-798X |
| Publisher | Taylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/13600826.2017.1377688 |
| OpenAlex | W2759018963 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 8 |
| References cited | 6 |
Multistakeholder initiatives that bring together actors from the state, the business sector \nand society to formulate, implement and/or monitor rules governing different policy fields \nhave assumed a prominent role in global governance since the 1980s. In the governance \nliterature, it is generally assumed that the actors from the three sectors have diverse interests, \nbut contribute different resources. This should allow to address transnational problems \nmore effectively. While cooperation among the various collective actors in these \ninitiatives might be based in part on complementary resources, we argue here that \nsuch cooperation is also shaped and conditioned by ideational prealignments of the participating \nactors. Such ideational prealignments are consequential, because they predetermine \n(1) the composition of multistakeholder forums in terms of which actors participate \nand which do not, (2) the processes that govern these forums, (3) the results of these \nforums and (4) the relations among the collective actors who participate in these \nforums and the stakeholders they are deemed to represent. When viewed from this perspective, \nmultistakeholder initiatives are a form of club governance that is based on ideational \nfactors. We illustrate this argument by drawing on research that examines the \nsetting of standards for private military and security companies (PMSCs)
Argument (complex analysis · Club · Corporate governance · Economics · Global governance · Management · Political science · Public relations · Sociology · State (computer science · Global Peace and Security Dynamics · International Arbitration and Investment Law · Public Administration
The role of epistemic communities in the “constitutionalization” of internet governance
Why Do Companies Engage in the Creation of Private Governance? A Systematic Literature Review and Research Agenda
The landscape of public-private partnerships in global health governance
Multistakeholder Partnerships and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
The regulation of private military and security companies
Effective horizon management in transnational administration
The Stories They Tell
The False Promise of Multi-stakeholder Governance
Multi‐stakeholder partnerships for sustainable development
The Politics of Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives
Closing the Legitimacy Gap in Global Environmental Governance? Lessons from the Emerging CDM Market
The Democratic Legitimacy of Public-Private Rule Making
Economic integration, democracy and the welfare state
Globalization and the erosion of democracy
| Unique citing works | 8 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 1,33 |
| Citation span | 2020 - 2026 (7) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 8 |