Law, expertise and legitimacy in transnational economic governance: an introduction

Abstract

The increasing relevance of transnational governance for the regulation of crossborder economic relations in many public policy fields has given rise to debates about its legitimacy. This paper provides an introduction to normative and empirical approaches and suggests to bridge between them by exploring normative perspectives through the views and strategies of actors practically involved in transnational governance. Based on a synthesis of contributions from different fields of transnational governance, it is suggested that a perceived lack of fit between the regulators' legitimacy claims and the addressees' expectations, if expressed as protest and criticism by the latter, can lead transnational governance institutions to adjust to demands for more inclusiveness, expertise and procedural fairness. However, the rising level of expertise required from participants, stakeholders and publics to meet normative criteria for greater participation and procedural fairness creates new and yet unresolved problems.

Global Governance, Legitimacy and (De)Legitimation

“…Questions about the audiences of legitimation strategies have primarily concerned civil society actors, though some authors have looked at experts as legitimacy-granting audiences (e.g. Cutler, 2010;Quack, 2010;Symons, 2011). The different groups that international organizations now consider relevant audiences of legitimation efforts emphasize different criteria of legitimacy.…”

The legitimacy of transnational private governance arrangements related to nanotechnologies: the case of international organization for standardization

“…The main outcomes of TGAs are consensus-based protocols, testing and reporting schemes and other voluntary measures in the form of standards. Due to their general flexibility and expert-driven quality these outcomes are considered among many researchers/commentators, to be highly important on filling the current scientific and regulatory gaps, as well as ensuring knowledge diffusion and access of new technologies to global markets (Forsberg, 2010;Quack, 2010;EC, 2008c (Bowman, 2014: 325). OECD/WPMN does not have regulatory authority (nor does it aim to), rather it serves as a center for international collaboration and policy dialogue, by promoting "international cooperation in human health and environmental safety-related aspects of [MNs], to assist in the development of rigorous safety evaluation of nanomaterials" (OECD, 2008: 3), and building "communities of practice that promote information sharing and harmonization" (Abbott et al 2012: 291;Falkner and Jaspers, 2012).…”

“…Benz and Papadopoulos, 2006;Black, 2008;Scott et al 2011;Papadopoulos, 2011;Hachez and Wouters, 2011). Furthermore, in the absence of the democratic institutions of the nation state and the global demos at the transnational level, many scholars have questioned, amongst others, the ability of TGAs to ensure the effective inclusion and representation of industrial, economic, regulatory and social interests at transnational level (see for example Buchanan and Keohane, 2006;Brühl, 2006;Curtin and Senden, 2011;Scott et al 2011;Papadopoulos, 2011;Forsberg, 2012;Quack, 2010). As such, TGAs often are considered to provide the "hard case" for legitimacy (Black, 2008: 138).…”

“…On the other hand, many scholars pay attention to legitimacy aspects of regulatory expertise and problem solving capacity of regulators (Esty, 2006;Hodge et al 2010;Majone, 1999). They focus on the robustness of scientific expertise (Carrier, 2011;Forsberg, 2012;Weingart, 2008), and the trustworthiness of experts (Cutler, 2010;Funtowicz and Strand, 2011;Jasanoff, 2003;Lövbrand et al 2011;Take, 2012;Quack, 2010). Therefore, these scholars have provided various norms of legitimacy, which are crucial to guiding the functioning of governance arrangements to achieve socially desirable outcomes at the transnational level.…”

“…The involvement of multiple actors (e.g. governmental, industrial, civil society actors), knowledgeable experts and epistemic communities in one regulatory setting are considered the key elements that shape the governing authority of TGAs (Abbott and Snidal, 2009;Black, 2008;Börzel and Risse, 2005;Ruggie, 2014;Quack, 2010). As such these arrangements are expected to foster collaboration amongst various actors and also develop transnational harmonized approaches related to safety, social, economic and ethical aspects of nanotechnologies (Abbott et al 2010(Abbott et al & 2012Bowman, 2014).…”