In from the cold? Self-legitimating the market for private security

Østensen, Åse Gilje

doi:10.1080/14781158.2011.601856

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They affect not only the legitimacy but also the conceptualization, implementation and local experiences of global governance interventions. In contrast to other studies which have investigated the use and success of legitimization strategies (Joachim & Schneiker, 2012;Østensen, 2011), this article focuses on the potential consequences (see also Lewis, 2015). Specifically, the following analysis seeks to understand the way in which the performative turn in performance measurement shapes how public goods are conceptualized, and accordingly implemented, in global governance.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Specifically, the delegation of global governance to private actors, such as non-governmental organizations (NGOs), transnational corporations and Private Security Companies (PSCs), has raised questions over the legitimacy of these actors and their growing roles (e.g. Lister, 2003;Østensen, 2011). Private governance actors frequently lack so-called 'input' legitimacy due to their limited accountability, transparency and public participation in organizational decision-making.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Legitimizing Private Actors in Global Governance: From Performance to Performativity

Krahmann

2017

PaG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Global governance is frequently criticised because of major legitimacy deficits, including lack of public accountability and democratic control. Within this context, questions about the legitimacy of non-state governance actors, such as nongovernmental organizations, transnational corporations and private security companies, are neither an exception nor a surprise. Many actors have, therefore, turned to the measurement of performance, defined as publicly beneficial outcomes, in order to gain legitimacy. However, the rise of performance assessments as legitimizing practice is not without problems. Taking global security and health interventions as examples, this article contends that the immaterial, socially constructed and inherently contested nature of such public goods presents major obstacles for the assessment of performance in terms of observable, measurable and attributable outcomes. Performance is therefore frequently replaced by performativity, i.e. a focus on the repetitive enactment of specific forms of behaviour and capabilities, which are simply equated with the intended results. The implications for how global public goods are conceptualized and, ultimately, implemented are profound.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Legitimizing Private Actors in Global Governance: From Performance to Performativity

Krahmann

2017

PaG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Academic research has identified several strategies by means of which governments, international organizations and the security industry have sought to legitimize the outsourcing of security services to PSCs in the face of public scepticism. These strategies include national and voluntary regulation, international legal discourses, the framing of PSCs as humanitarian actors and their authority as recognized ‘security experts’ ( Joachim and Schneiker, 2012 ; Krahmann, 2012 ; Leander, 2010 ; Leander and Van Munster, 2007 ; Østensen, 2011b ). So far, however, one important legitimizing strategy and its consequences have not been investigated: performance-based contracting and performance assessments ( Ng et al, 2009 ; Perry, 2009 ; Spearin, 2014 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

From performance to performativity: The legitimization of US security contracting and its consequences

Krahmann

2017

Security Dialogue

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Discussions about the legitimacy of private security companies (PSCs) in multilateral military interventions abound. This article looks at how the United States has sought to legitimize the outsourcing of security services to PSCs through performance-based contracting and performance assessments. Both mechanisms aim to demonstrate the effective provision of publicly desirable outcomes. However, the immaterial and socially constructed nature of security presents major problems for performance assessments in terms of observable and measurable outcomes. Performance has therefore given way to performativity – that is, the repetitive enactment of particular forms of behaviour and capabilities that are simply equated with security as an outcome. The implications of this development for the ways in which security has been conceptualized, implemented and experienced within US interventions have been profound. Ironically, the concern with performance has not encouraged PSCs to pay increased attention to their impacts on security environments and civilian populations, but has fostered a preoccupation with activities and measurable capabilities that can be easily assessed by government auditors.

show abstract

Who Am I? The Blurring of the Private Military and Security Company (PMSC) Category

Prem

2017

Security Privatization

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In from the cold? Self-legitimating the market for private security

Cited by 4 publications

References 41 publications

Legitimizing Private Actors in Global Governance: From Performance to Performativity

Legitimizing Private Actors in Global Governance: From Performance to Performativity

From performance to performativity: The legitimization of US security contracting and its consequences

Who Am I? The Blurring of the Private Military and Security Company (PMSC) Category

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About