Transnational policy influence and the politics of legitimation

Abstract

Many domains of transnational policy are now governed through dynamic, multilevel governance processes, encompassing transnational, national, and subnational scales. In such settings, both membership of policy communities and distributions of authority within them become more fluid and openly contested—increasing the importance of the politics of legitimation as a basis for distributing influence over policy processes and outcomes. Drawing on insights from theories of organizational and institutional legitimation, this article theorizes three distinctive strategies of policy influence exercised by transnational actors in multilevel governance settings, through which strategic efforts to legitimize transnational actors and forums are deployed as means of transnational policy influence. The three strategies involve: transnational field building, localized network building, and role adaptation. The effects of these influencing strategies on policy processes and outcomes are illustrated with reference to the case of Indonesian land governance, in which highly dynamic, contested, and multiscalar governance processes lend our theorized strategies particular salience.

Towards a ‘pluralist’ world order: creative agency and legitimacy in global institutions

“…For example, global institutional protections established as instruments for protecting indigenous or environmental rights have sometimes been appropriated by groups with longer histories of mobilizing in relation to redistributive land reform – enabling them to harness global institutional functions that were established for one regulatory purpose to support goals of a distinct, albeit partially overlapping, nature (Rothman and Oliver, 1999). The legitimacy of such strategies of institutional appropriation is often challenged by established groups who assert formally circumscribed mandates as a way of closing down dissent (Diprose et al, 2019). A pluralist lens offers a theoretical basis for defending such strategies, by highlighting their potential to support legitimacy by facilitating substantive responsiveness not only to shifting boundaries but also to shifting purposes of fluid political constituencies.…”

Inclusion in Global Environmental Governance: Sustained Access, Engagement and Influence in Decisive Spaces

“…The challenge of inclusion is relevant for private and multistakeholder global regulations [2,19], in which civil society actors participate at the local, national, and transnational levels [24]. Private regulatory initiatives for sustainability also promote the inclusion of stakeholders, including corporations and civil society actors, in the governance of global value chains, such as the Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil [82]. However, business actors and NGO-dominated initiatives may continue to exclude affected vulnerable groups [17,61,83].…”

Brokerage, power and gender equity: How empowerment‐focused civil society organisations bolster women's influence in rural Indonesia

“…They also engage with political elites through informal channels of mobilisation and influence (Alexander et al, 2016) and through more formal participation in state forums (Diprose, Savirani, Setiawan, & Francis, 2020; Diprose, Savirani, & Wells, 2020). CSOs can also reduce the distance between authoritative actors and decision‐makers and the women's groups they support (Kabeer et al, 2012) through bridging knowledge fields (Narayanaswamy, 2017) and translating agendas by (re)framing goals in discourses and ideologies that appeal to different constituencies (Diprose, Kurniawan, et al, 2019; Diprose, Savirani, Setiawan, & Francis, 2020; Diprose, Savirani, Hartoto, & Setiawan, 2020).…”