No Synonyms: Global Governance and the Transnational Public

Open access

Abstract

Building on the classical literature of the public, the article critically analyses the current literature on global governance. After briefly presenting the classical understanding of the public the author goes on to argue that in global governance the effectiveness of collective problem-solving is seen as a compensation for its lack of inclusiveness which in turn makes it impossible to equate global governance with (transnational) public. The author criticizes the substitution of the term “the public” by “stakeholders” since the notion of stakeholders allows for economically powerful voices to intervene in public decision-making processes. The article furthermore criticizes ideas on global governance as “strong publics” on the basis that even if the decision-making seen in global governance was to follow the ideal of rational deliberation, this would not make it equal to the transnational publics, since the deliberations of transnational “strong publics” are per definition exclusive in nature.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Adobor H. and R. S. McMullen (2003)‘Global Governance: The Case of Global Nongovernmental Regimes. ’Advanced Management Journal. (78) 1: 11-25.

  • Andrew C. D. Matten and J. Moon (2004) ’Stakeholders as Citizens? Rethinking Rights Participation and Democracy’. Journal of Business Ethics 53 (1/2): 107-122.

  • Bäckstrand K. (2006) ‘Democratizing Global Environmental Governance? Stakeholder Democracy after the World Summit on Sustainable Development’. European Journal of International Relations12 (4): 467-498.

  • Banerjee S. B. (2008) ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: The Good the Bad and the Ugly’. Critical Sociology 34 (1): 51-79.

  • Benner T. W. H. Reinicke and J. M. Witte (2004) ‘Multisectoral Networks in Global Governance: Towards a Pluralistic System of Accountability’.Government and Opposition 39 (2): 191-210.

  • Bentham J. (1791/1843) ‘Of Publicity. The Works of Jeremy Bentham’ http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php&title=1921&sear Berliner D. and A. Prakash (2012) ‘From norms to programs: The United Nations Global Compact and global governance’. Regulation & Governance6 149-166.

  • Blumer H. (1946/1953) ’The Mass The Public and Public Opinion’ pp. 43-50 in B. Berelson and J. Morris (eds.) Reader in Public Opinion and Communication. New York: The Free Press.

  • Bohman J. and W. Rehg (1997) ‘Introduction’ pp. ix - xxx in J. Bohman and W. Rehg(eds.) Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

  • Brüggemann M. (2005) ‘How the EU Constructs the European Public Sphere: Seven Strategies of Information Policy’. Javnost / The Public12 (2): 57-74.

  • Burbach R. O. Nunez and B. Kagarlitsky (1997) Globalization and its Discontents: The Rise of Postmodern Socialisms. London: Pluto Press.

  • Cammaerts B. and N. Carpentier (2006) ‘The Unbearable Lightness of Full Participation in a Global Context: WSIS and Civil Society Participation’ pp. 17-41 in J. Servaes and N. Carpentier (eds) Towards a Sustainable Information Society: Deconstructing WSIS.Bristol: Intellect.

  • Carey J. W. (1995) ’The Press Public Opinion and Public Discourse’ pp. 373 - 402 in T. L. Glasser C. T. Salmon and E. Katz (eds.) Public Opinion and the Communication of Consent. New York: Guilford.

  • Carver J. (2010)‘A Case for Global Governance Theory: Practitioners Avoid It Academics Narrow It the World Needs It’. Corporate Governance: An International Review. (18):2: 49-157.

  • Clarkson M. B. E. (1995) ’A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance’. The Academy of Management Review 20 (1): 92-117.

  • Cohen J. (1989) ‘Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy’ pp. 17-34 in A. Hamlin and P. Pettit(eds.) The Good Polity: Normative Analysis of the State. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Darnton R. (2000) ‘An Early Information Society: News and the Media in Eighteenth-Century Paris’. The American Historical Review 105 (1).

  • Dewey J. (1927/1954) The Public and its Problems. New York: Swalow Press.

  • Dryzek J. S. (1990) Discursive Democracy. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.

  • Dryzek J. S. (1996) Democracy in Capitalist Times: Ideal Limits and Struggles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Dryzek J.S. (2000) Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals Critics Contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Eckersley R. (2007) ‘A Green Public Sphere in the WTO?: The Amicus Curiae Interventions in the Transatlantic Biotech Dispute’. European Journal of International Relations 13 (3): 329-356. Eriksen E. O. and J. E. Fossum (2001) ‘Democracy through Strong Publics in the European Union? ‘ ARENA Working Paper WP01/16 2001. Cited14.12.2007; available at http://www.arena.uio.no/publications/working-papers2001/papers/wp01_16.htm.

  • Finkelstein L. S. (1995) ‘What is Global Governance’. Global Governance 1 (1): 367-372.

  • Fraser N. (1992) ‘Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy’ in C. Calhoun (ed.) Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

  • Fraser N.(2007) ‘Transnationalizing the Public Sphere’. Theory Culture and Society 24 (4): 7-30.

  • Gamble A. (2000/ 2006) Politika in usoda (Politics and Fate). Ljubljana: Sophia.

  • Gastil J. (2008) Political Communication and Deliberation. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

  • Graham T. (2008) ‘Needles in a Haystack: A New Approach for Identifying and Assessing Political Talk in Non-Discussion Forums’. Javnost/The Public 15 (2): 17-36.

  • Gupta Aarti (2008) ‘Transparency Under Scrutiny: Information Disclosure in Global Environmental Governance’. Global Environmental Politics 8 (2): 1-7.

  • Gutmann A. and D. Thompson (1996) Democracy & Disagreement.Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harward University Press.

  • Habermas J. (1962/1989) Strukturne spremembe javnosti (Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit). Ljubljana: Studia Humanitatis.

  • Habermas J. (1996) Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge UK: Polity Press.

  • Harvey D. (1989) The Condition of Postmodernity. Oxford: Blackwell.

  • Hay C. (2007) Why We Hate Politics? Cambridge: Polity Press.

  • Held D. and M. Koenig-Archibugi (2004) ‘Introduction’. Government and Opposition 39 (2): 125-131. Laplume A. O. K. Sonpar and R. A. Litz (2008) ‘Stakeholder Theory: Reviewing a Theory That Moves Us’. Journal of Management 34 (6): 1152-1189.

  • Lynch M. (2000) ‘The Dialogue of Civilisations and International Public Spheres’. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 29 (2): 307-330.

  • Macdonald T. (2008) Global Stakeholder Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Mansbridge J. (1983) Beyond Adversary Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Mill J. S. (1832) ‘On The Liberty Of Thought And Discussion’ pp. 240-264 in J. M. Robson (ed.) The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill Volume XVIII - Essays on Politics and Society Part I. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.

  • Mills C. W. (1956) The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Mitchell R. K. B.R. Agle and D. J. Wood (1997). ‘Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts’. The Academy of Management Review 22 (4): 853-886.

  • Mitzen J. (2005) ‘Reading Habermas in Anarchy: Multilateral Diplomacy and Global Public Spheres’. The American Political Science Review 99 (3): 401-417.

  • Nanz P. and J. Steffek (2004) ‘Global Governance Participation and the Public Sphere’. Government and Opposition 39 (2): 314-335.

  • Papacharissi Z. (2004) ‘Democracy Online: Civility Politeness and the Democratic Potential of Online Political Discussion Groups’. New Media & Society 6 (2): 259-283.

  • Park R. E. (1924/ 2007). ‘Družbeno nadzorovanje’ pp. 103-114 in S. Splichal (ed.) Komunikološka hrestomatija 3. Ljubljana: FDV.

  • Rosenau J. N. (1999) ‘Toward an Ontology of Global Govenance’ pp. 287-302 in M. Hewson and T. J. Sinclair (eds.) Approaches to Global Governance Theory. Albany: State University of New York Press. Rosenau J. N. (2002) ‘Governance in a New Global Order’ in D. Held and A. McGrew (eds.) Governing Globalization: Power Authority and Global Governance. Cambridge UK: Polity Press.

  • Scholte J. A. (2004) ‘Civil Society and Democratically Accountable Global Governance’. Government and Opposition 39 (2): 211-233.

  • Splichal S. (1999) Public Opinion: Developments and Controversies in the Twentieth Century. Boston: Rowman & Littlefield.

  • Splichal S. (2002) ‘Rethinking Publicness: The Precedents of the Right to Communicate’. Javnost/The Public 9 (3): 83 - 106.

  • Splichal S. (2009) ‘”New” Media “Old” Theories; Does the (National) Public Melt into the Air of Global Governance?’ European Journal of Communication24 (4): 391-405.

  • Splichal S. (2010) ‘From Bryce’s “Government by Public Opinion” to Global Governance - Without Public Opinion’ pp. 57-72 in T.Eberwein and D. Mülle (eds.) Journalismus und Öffentlichkeit: Eine Profession und ihr gesellschaftlicher Auftrag. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag Fur Socialwissenschaften.

  • Stanley J. W. and Christopher W. (2004) ‘The Effects of Internet Use on Political Participation; Evidence from an Agency Online Discussion Forum’. Administration & Society 36 (5): 503-527.Steurer R. M. E. Langer A. Konrad and A. Martinuzzi (2005) ‘Corporations Stakeholders and Sustainable Development: A Theoretical Exploration of Business-Society Relations’. Journal of Business Ethics 61 (3): 263-281.

  • Tarde G. (1898/1969) On Communication and Social Influence. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Tönnies F. (1922/1998) Kritika javnega mnenja (Kritik der Öffentlichen Meinung). Ljubljana: FDV.

  • Wallerstein I. (2004) World-Systems Analysis; An Introduction. Durham: Duke University Press.

  • Werhane P. and R. E. Freeman (2006). The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Management Business Ethics. Oxford: Blackwell.

Search
Journal information
Impact Factor


CiteScore 2018: 0.31

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.114
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.418

Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 218 135 8
PDF Downloads 67 47 1