• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
11.Legitimating global governance:multinational corporations andthe G8’s multi-stakeholderapproach
Je
ff 
rey A. Hart
INTRODUCTION
Global governance as provided by international institutions like the G8,theWTO,the IMF,and the World Bank has been under attack from the anti-globalization movement as undemocratic.Many groups within the move-ment have been asking for better and more direct representation of‘civilsociety’.Since the above-mentioned institutions are mostly intergovern-mental in nature they have not historically allowed for direct representationofnon-governmental actors.The organizing principle behind most inter-governmental organizations is that whatever representation ofcivil societyis necessary can be done satisfactorily through the domestic politicalprocesses ofmember governments.Anti-globalization groups (and others)argue that this is no longer su
ffi
cient and that civil society organizationsneed to be represented directly in global governance institutions.A number oftheorists and practitioners have begun to address alterna-tives to the intergovernmental model ofglobal governance.Phil Cerny,forexample,has been promoting the concept of‘multi-level governance’.Inspired by the example ofthe European Union,Cerny suggests that it isnecessary to recognize the desirability ofallowing for a distribution ofgov-ernance tasks across a variety ofpolitical levels.Some ofthese levels gobeyond the traditional ones oflocal,state/provincial,central govern-mental,and international to incorporate cross-local,cross-regional,andtransnational forms ofgovernance.Along with advocating multi-level gov-ernance,Cerny recognizes the need to create new forms ofparticipation bycivil society groups in the various levels (Cerny,2005).
Some theorists have been calling for a ‘global republicanism’to replace thecurrently limited representation ofcivil society in intergovernmental forumswith something more like the republican forms ofdemocracy in liberal
 225
EE - VACHANI TEXT.qxd 27/6/06 11:38 AM Page 225 Ray's G4 Ray's G4:Users:ray:Public:Ray's J
 
democracies (Doyle,1986;Onuf,1998;Ikenberry,2001;Alker
et al 
.,2001).In a period when republican forms ofgovernment are on the rise again,thismakes a bit more sense than it did,for example,at the height ofthe ColdWar.Nevertheless,the problem remains that a republican form ofglobalgovernance will be di
ffi
cult to implement fully until the globe is populatedentirely by governments with elected representatives.Even in organizationslike the G8 where all the member governments are republics,internationalgovernance remains intergovernmental rather than republican in essence.
David Held calls for a ‘cosmopolitan multilateralism’to replace the‘executive multilateralism’ofthe contemporary period (Held,n.d.).Theterm ‘executive multilateralism’was coined by Michael Zürn to represent‘a decision-making mode in which government representatives (mainlycabinet ministers) from di
ff 
erent countries coordinate their policies inter-nationally,but with little parliamentary control and away from publicscrutiny’.
1
This is very similar to intergovernmentalism as I have used itabove.Zürn argues that executive multilateralism is the essence ofwhatJohn Ruggie earlier called ‘embedded liberalism’– a solution to theproblem ofdiversity offorms ofgovernment among the liberal democra-cies after World War II so that they could pursue the development oftheworld economy though liberalization oftrade and financial
fl
ows withouthaving to harmonize domestic social welfare policies (Ruggie,1982).Held argues that a new kind ofmultilateralism is needed to recognize thechanges caused by globalization:(1) the creation ofoverlapping networksofpower that cut across territorial boundaries,(2) the fact that the locus of e
ff 
ective political power can no longer be assumed to be simply nationalgovernments,(3) gaps in existing political institutions caused by the firsttwo factors,and (4) increasing global inequality which engenders a ‘moralgap’.What is cosmopolitan multilateralism? According to Held,it involvesthe following:
a)a recognition ofthe increasing interconnectedness ofpolitical communitiesin diverse domains (including the social,economic and environmental);b)thedevelopmentofanunderstandingofoverlapping‘collectivefortunes’whichrequirecollectivenormsandsolutions–locally,nationally,regionallyandglobally;c)the acknowledgement ofthe need for more decisions and more e
ff 
ective andaccountable decisions at transnational levels;d)the extension and transformation ofour existing multilevel,multilayeredpolity,running from the local to the regional and global,so that it adopts,within its
modus operandi 
,the principles oftransparency,accountability,anddemocracy.(Held,n.d.)
As we shall see,the G8’s attempt at cosmopolitan multilateralism in thegovernance ofcyberspace is called the ‘multi-stakeholder approach’.While
226
Transformations in global governance
EE - VACHANI TEXT.qxd 27/6/06 11:38 AM Page 226 Ray's G4 Ray's G4:Users:ray:Public:Ray's J
 
the intention was to address criticisms from the anti-globalization forcesabout the undemocratic nature ofG8 governance,the actuality was a formofglobal neocorporatism that has its own problems oflegitimation(Streeck and Kenworthy,2005;Wilson,1983;Gerber,1995).According toPhilippe Schmitter,corporatism can be defined as follows:
asystemofinterestrepresentationinwhichtheconstituentunitsareorganizedintoalimitednumberofsingular,compulsory,non-competitive,hierarchicallyorderedandfunctionallydi
ff 
erentiatedcategories,recognizedorlicensed(ifnotcreated)bythestateandgrantedadeliberaterepresentationalmonopolywithintheirrespectivecategoriesinexchangeforobservingcertaincontrolsontheirselec-tionofleadersandarticulationofdemandsandsupports.(Schmitter,1984,p.13)
There are two main forms ofcorporatism.
State corporatism
occurs in dic-tatorial states that rule using state-instituted bodies (for example Naziyouth or women’s organizations) in a simulacrum ofgroup representation.
Neocorporatism
occurs in postwar European democracies where the state(already subject to republic forms ofrepresentation) shares ‘the publicspace with social groups organized on a more voluntary basis and entitledto various forms ofcollective participation and self-government,providedthey recognized the primacy ofparliamentary democracy’(Streeck andKenworthy,2005).I will argue below that the move away from intergov-ernmentalism or executive multilateralalism toward a cosmopolitan multi-lateralism ofa neocorporatist variety was clearly a step in the rightdirection for the G8.
THE G8 AND THE GOVERNANCE OF CYBERSPACE
The representatives ofthe countries that comprised the Group ofEight(G8) began to address the problems ofcoordinating policies regarding thegovernance ofcyberspace in the early 1990s.
2
The governance issues theydealt with initially included,among others,the establishment ofnorms,principles,and rules regarding the interconnection ofcomputer networksvia networks ofnetworks like the Internet,rights ofaccess to those net-works,pricing ofaccess,monitoring ofnetwork-mediated economic trans-actions,intellectual property protection,taxation ofgoods and servicesdelivered via the networks,privacy,security,and a variety ofother mattersthought to a
ff 
ect the confidence ofusers.Towards the end ofthe decade,the G8 turned to a new issue:reversing the tendencies toward an increasing‘global digital divide’between rich and poor countries.One ofthe key questions addressed here is why the G8 turned from theprevious set ofcyberspace governance issues in 1999 to consideration of 
Legitimating global governance
227
EE - VACHANI TEXT.qxd 27/6/06 11:38 AM Page 227 Ray's G4 Ray's G4:Users:ray:Public:Ray's J
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...