Global Governance through Private Organizations

Ronit, Karsten; Schneider, Volker

doi:10.1111/0952-1895.00102

Cited by 115 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…That is, more study is needed of the domestic and international conditions in which such groups succeed/fail. 1 While there are more such studies since 1995, 2 there remains a failure to consider the significance of American philanthropic foundations to building and embedding American hegemony. There are insights provided by studying foundations' roles in US hegemony building that we do not perceive when we neglect those organisations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Foundation Networks and American Hegemony

Parmar¹

2012

ejas

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The major American foundations constructed and sustained the rich texture of cooperative social, intellectual and political relations between key actors and institutions supportive of specific modes of thought that promoted US hegemony. Foundations also fostered and developed the attractive power-knowledge networks that not only radiated intellectual influence but also attracted some of the most creative minds. Finally, liberal internationalist foundations fostered globalism even when the American state was ‘isolationist’, and when US influence abroad unwelcome. Their significance in American hegemony building lay in their sustained, long-term cooperative relationship with the American state through which they helped build national, international and global institutions and networks. The latter process evidences the most significant impact of US foundations – the building of the domestic and international infrastructure for liberal internationalism which has transformed into a kind of “social neoliberalism”. Theoretical conclusions follow from these claims: the sustained and deep cooperation between the state and foundations suggests that we must revise our views of “how power works” in the United States and therefore influences its foreign relations. Therefore, the article shows that elite networks, consisting of state officials and private citizens are powerful means by which foreign policy shifts may be prepared, elite and mass opinion primed and mobilised, new consensus built, ‘old’ forces marginalised, and US hegemony constructed

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Foundation Networks and American Hegemony

Parmar¹

2012

ejas

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Second there is a trend towards the establishment of regulatory regimes by non-governmental actors, which has been particularly marked at the supranational level -engaging both NGOs and firms (Haufler 2001;Abbott and Snidal 2009). Much discussion on the evolution of global regulation focuses on the distinction between regulatory regimes which are fundamentally governmental in character, established by states or more typically associations of states or intergovernmental organisations, on the one hand, and regimes which are predominantly non-state in their origins and character, involving NGOs and firms or associations of firms (Ronit and Schneider 1999;Brunsson and Jacobsson 2000). The bifurcation of inter-governmental and nongovernmental regulatory regimes underpins a widespread assumption, particularly within policy circles, that governmental regulation may both be more effective and more legitimate.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Regulating in Global Regimes

Scott

2010

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An increased emphasis on global regulation is a response to the recognition of economic, social and cultural interdependence between the world's nations and peoples. Policy problems as diverse as reckless behaviour by financial institutions, exploitation of sweat-shop labour in emerging economies, and the threat of climate change present collective action problems which cannot be resolved through the deployment of the state's authority, capacity and legitimacy alone. Global regulatory regimes which have emerged to address these issues are frequently characterised by participation of both governmental and non-governmental organisations. The chapter addresses concerns about coherence, effectiveness and legitimacy of such regimes. I suggest that a degree of fragmentation is inevitable and may bolster both effectiveness and legitimacy through the enrolment of a wider range of instruments and actors. The analysis of effectiveness highlights the significance of contractual mechanisms, alongside more traditional legal and soft law instruments for regulating. The issue of legitimacy highlights problems created by the mix of instruments and actors within global regulatory regimes and the ways in which actors involved seek to manage their legitimacy. The chapter concludes that further adaptation to the inevitably fragmented and hybrid character of global regulatory regimes might further exploit the potential of broad proceduralization to engage actors involved both in a degree of learning and of self-determination as central aspects of such regimes.2

show abstract

“…As Weiss (1997) indicates, policy instruments indeed change, are taken away from states, or need adjustment to boost economic integration, but this could just as easily be a sign of policy weakness, not necessarily state weakness (see also Lipschutz and Conca 1993;Litfin 1994;Ronit and Schneider 1999;Murphy and Gouldson 2000;Cashore 2002). Facilitative states, such as most of the Western European states and Japan, seek to establish agreements with other states that would allow them to expand the horizons of domestic business.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%