Legitimizing Private Actors in Global Governance: From Performance to Performativity

Abstract

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.

Editorial to the Issue on Legitimization of Private and Public Regulation: Past and Present

“…Moving on to the sphere beyond the state, the three following contributions by political scientists focus on contemporary forms of transnational governance. The contribution by Krahmann (2017) looks at two contemporary cases of delegation of authority to private actors as part of the international intervention in Afghanistan. Wolf (2017) examines the public-private co-regulation in the field of sports, and Dingwerth (2017) analyzes privatized forms of governance in the field of sustainability governance.…”

“…These discourses might develop rather independently, or they might be linked and influence each other. Audiences can be located within a single state (see Balleisen's contribution), in different states, or in the domestic and transnational sphere (see Krahmann, 2017). This may lead to contradictions and trade-offs because different audiences can have different expectations with regard to what a legitimate institution should look like.…”

Global Governing Bodies: A Pathway for Gene Drive Governance for Vector Mosquito Control

“…), the formal process by which these regulations are developed and ultimately implemented as law varies in methods of communication to affected constituencies and local governments (states, provinces, tribes, etc.). 27 Currently, although the field of genetic modification is quickly growing, there is still no specific governance or process of rule-making on an international scale related to gene drives and the release of gene drive insects. 28 This can be problematic and leaves innovative technologies vulnerable to being stymied by historical patterns of conflict among politics, scientific integrity, and corporate interest.…”

Patterns of Legitimation in Hybrid Transnational Regimes: The Controversy Surrounding the Lex Sportiva

“…In this second line of reasoning, the premise of a decline in democratic legitimation when regulatory authority is transferred to private actors can be traced back to a shift of focus in political science towards policy research, new modes of governance, and new forms of public management (Héritier, 2002;Pierre, 2000;Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2000; see also Krahmann, 2017). The perception that there is a crisis in the regulatory state in general and that 'traditional public command-and-control' in particular has its limitations as a means of governance (Kooiman, 2000, p. 139) has shifted output-related normative considerations centre-stage.…”