abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb

这页面没有简体中文版本,现以English显示

文章

20 八月 2020

作者:
Harris Gleckman

Commentary: Where Is the Debate About Democracy and Multi-stakeholder Governance?

Beyond standard-setting MSIs, there are two other forms of multi-stakeholder global governance arrangements: (1) multi-stakeholder bodies that develop global policy directions; and (2) multi-stakeholder consortia which implement specific geographically and time-limited projects...

These three types of multi-stakeholder arrangements—standard-setting, policy-setting, and project-delivery—reflect the diversity of forms of multi-stakeholderism in practice and in theory. They represent a drive to shift global governance away from multilateralism and one-country-one-vote toward a multi-stakeholder form of global governance.

In my view, the state of democracy in the MSI world needs to be evaluated on at least four grounds: (1) its internal rules to manage the imbalance of power between the different types of MSI board members; (2) an assessment of the legitimacy of MSIs’ impact on the wider world; (3) the effectiveness of its anti-conflict of interest policies; and (4) their claims to legitimacy through democratic language. This blog looks at the last evaluation criteria.

The advocates of multi-stakeholderism have described MSI undertakings as good examples of “inclusive governance,” “participatory governance,” and “stakeholder governance.” The choice of these expressions says a lot, unintentionally, about their perceptions of democracy...

The democracy claim for stakeholder governance is fundamentally undermined by the political flexibility of the key “stakeholder” term...

Even in MSIs where politically marginal social movements are “represented” in the decision-making body of an MSI, the voluntary nature of MSI compliance means that they are not “participating” in governing their global economic sector...

Examining the use of language of democracy and of inclusion is just one ground on which to challenge multi-stakeholderism in global governance. Indeed, we might see multi-stakeholderism as a linguistic cloak for those who actually desire to institutionalize a corporate position in setting global policies and standards while keeping the profit-focused corporate structure in place. A serious reflection is needed to assess this shift and push for truly democratic global governance.

时间线

隐私资讯

本网站使用 cookie 和其他网络存储技术。您可以在下方设置您的隐私选项。您所作的更改将立即生效。

有关我们使用网络存储的更多信息,请参阅我们的 数据使用和 Cookie 政策

Strictly necessary storage

ON
OFF

Necessary storage enables core site functionality. This site cannot function without it, so it can only be disabled by changing settings in your browser.

分析 cookie

ON
OFF

您浏览本网页时我们将以Google Analytics收集信息。接受此cookie将有助我们理解您的浏览资讯,并协助我们改善呈现资讯的方法。所有分析资讯都以匿名方式收集,我们并不能用相关资讯得到您的个人信息。谷歌在所有主要浏览器中都提供退出Google Analytics的添加应用程式。

市场营销cookies

ON
OFF

我们从第三方网站获得企业责任资讯,当中包括社交媒体和搜寻引擎。这些cookie协助我们理解相关浏览数据。

您在此网站上的隐私选项

本网站使用cookie和其他网络存储技术来增强您在必要核心功能之外的体验。