Elites in transnational policy networks

Abstract

In this framing article for the special issue we contrast the aims and ambitions of three core approaches to elites in transnational policy networks and highlight where they have productive overlaps. The core approaches employ three distinctive theoretical lenses in their investigations: fields, hegemony, and institutions. We discuss how these approaches trace elites in transnational policymaking and associated methods, such as network analysis, sequence analysis and field theory, which highlight different aspects of how elites in transnational policy networks operate. Most of the contributions are concerned with mapping out elite careers and why career trajectories matter for field and network positions in transnational policymaking. While the contributions share this in common, we highlight the different ways in which the approaches can be used to dissect the same issues. Our contributions include pieces on the Trump administration, the professional ecologies of transnational policy elites, the treatment of transboundary political problems, the characteristics of technocratic elites, the racial and gender composition of transnational elites, and professional competition over transnational policy issues.

Where is the backbone of the transnational corporate elite?

“…This particular structure of the detected backbone network might indicate that there is a trend toward a formation of a more connected corporate world, with shared practices, norms and even identity. Recently emerging empirical studies discover that transnationalizing corporate elites and professionals are characterized by common background and origins, similar educational and career patterns (Harrington & Seabrooke, 2020 ; Henriksen & Seabrooke, 2021 ). These individual‐level similarities, together with the strengthening establishment of continent‐crossing elite network communities might be the first steps toward the formation of a common transnational identity.…”

“…This increasingly international, as opposed to exclusively national, orientation of corporate elites has been explained by, and conceptualized as, the turn of corporations toward operating in multiple nation states (Barnet & Muller, 1974 ). This expansion of corporate activities has, in turn, contributed to the formation of a group of corporate elites and transnational professionals, densely tied to these multinational corporations, while also deeply embedded in transnational policy planning groups, think tanks and international organizations (Harrington & Seabrooke, 2020 ; Henriksen & Seabrooke, 2021 ).…”

“…National‐international links, forged by transnational professionals tend to follow particular class, educational and linguistic affinities, and transnational elite members are often characterized by common backgrounds and origins (Harrington, 2017 ; Harrington & Seabrooke, 2020 ; Young et al., 2021 ). While one might argue that today we are observing the rise of new powerful economic centers, which could be said to be rebalancing power relationships among various elite groups, others will be more prone to conclude that only actors with highly specific backgrounds and origins are able to join the forces of this newly flourishing network of transnational corporations, organizations and policy‐planning groups (see e.g., a discussion on hegemony, fields and institutional approaches to understanding transnational elites in Henriksen & Seabrooke, 2021 ).…”

Recursive recognition in the international political economy

“…The embedding of particular knowledge and normative structures is critical to how structural power favors particular organizations and states over others, as many current investigations of structural power make clear (Fichtner et al, 2017;Henriksen & Seabrooke, 2020;Winecoff, 2015). Policy change need not only be through clear paradigm shifts but also through more everyday and diffuse forms of policy engagement (Kaya & Reay, 2019).…”

Revolving doors in international financial governance

“…The revolving door phenomenon points to how transnational elites affirm their class position through networks (Carroll and Carson 2003), to how policy elites in finance maintain their 'social space' (Lebaron 2008), and to how the transnational circulation of actors affirms the construction of particular forms of policy knowledge (Fourcade 2009). The editors of this special themed section refer to these approaches, respectively, as 'hegemony', 'field', and 'institutions' (Henriksen and Seabrooke 2020). Here we focus on the institutional underpinnings of revolving doors, showing how career mobility is linked to institutional agreements in elite policy networks, as well as organizational objectives.…”