Global governance and democratic legitimacy: a bottom-up approach
Global governance and democratic legitimacy: a bottom-up approach
复制标题
全球治理和民主合法性：自下而上的方法
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2013
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
A. Marx
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Wouters;Stephanie Bijlmakers;Nicolas Hachez;M. Lievens;A. Marx
本期特刊旨在为全球治理民主化的辩论做出贡献。其出发点是，“全球治理”概念在学术文献中出现二十年后，它试图描述的不断变化的政治格局的经验特征在很大程度上仍未得到解决。各个学科的文献已经确定了民族国家以外治理的主要趋势。这些表明，全球治理设想各种（非）国家行为体发挥越来越大的作用，这些行为体通过多层次、多维度的监管网络和流程，在缺乏中央公共权力的情况下应对广泛问题领域的全球挑战。然而，全球治理是一个高度多样化、复杂且不断变化的现象。它如何在经验上表现出来取决于多种因素，例如各自的治理模式、流程、逻辑、主体、结果和所涉及的主体，以及特定治理安排所嵌入的时间框架和问题领域。因此，全球治理安排呈现出极大的多样性，从更加制度化和政府间的形式到网络、私人监管计划和标准、公私伙伴关系或多利益相关者倡议。然而，某些探究主题贯穿于全球治理的学术文献中。最突出的问题可能是其中一些创新和特殊治理计划的合法性。全球治理举措，特别是公私伙伴关系，经常因其解决挑战国家权威和国内监管的跨境问题的能力而受到赞扬。它们的有效性已成为合法性的重要来源，或者用沙普夫的术语来说，就是产出合法性（Scharpf 1998）。然而，对全球治理合法性的规范性批评源于这样一个事实：全球治理安排往往具有权威性，其结果支配或间接或直接影响人们的日常生活（De Búrca 2008）。因此，越来越多的人支持这样一种观点：全球治理，就像更传统的现代政府一样，应该从其民主特征中获得合法性。最近关于全球治理民主化的争论见证了政治学家、哲学家和法律理论家在一般层面上解释和概念化超越民族国家的民主的努力。这些努力强调了全球治理作为一个研究领域的跨学科性质，以及学术学者弥合学科分歧以更好、更细致地理解全球治理所能够实现的潜力。然而，关于全球治理民主化的争论往往将全球治理理所当然地视为一个分析范畴，而很少对特定方案和倡议的多样性给予应有的关注。因此，创新：欧洲社会科学研究杂志，2013 年卷。 26，第3号，197 200，http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2013.771898
This special issue aims to contribute to the debate on the democratization of global governance. Its starting point is that, two decades after the emergence of the concept of ‘‘global governance’’ in scholarly literature, the empirical specificities of the transforming political landscape that it seeks to describe remain largely unsettled. Literature in various disciplines has identified key trends in governance beyond the nation state. These suggest that global governance envisions a growing role for variegated (non-)state actors that act through multilevel and multidimensional regulatory networks and processes to tackle global challenges in a wide range of issue areas and in the absence of a central public authority. Yet, global governance is a highly diverse, complex and continuously changing phenomenon. How it manifests itself empirically depends on a variety of factors, like the respective governance modes, processes, logics, agents, outcomes and subjects involved, as well as the timeframe and issue area in which a particular governance arrangement is embedded. Global governance arrangements thus display a great diversity, from the more institutionalized and intergovernmental formats to networks, private regulatory schemes and standards, public private partnerships or multistakeholder initiatives. However, certain themes of inquiry run across the academic literature on global governance. The most prominent question may be that of the legitimacy of some of these innovative and peculiar governance schemes. Global governance initiatives, and notably public private partnerships, have often been praised for their problemsolving capacity with regard to cross-border issues that challenge state authority and domestic regulation. Their effectiveness has served as an important source of legitimacy, or in Scharpf’s terminology, output legitimacy (Scharpf 1998). A normative critique of global governance in legitimacy terms, however, arises from the fact that global governance arrangements are often authoritative and their outcomes govern or have an indirect or direct impact on the daily lives of people (De Búrca 2008). As a result, there is increasing support for the view that global governance, like more traditional types of modern government, ought to derive its legitimacy from its democratic character. Recent debates about the democratization of global governance have witnessed efforts by political scientists, philosophers and legal theorists to explain and conceptualize democracy beyond the nation state at a general level. These efforts underline the interdisciplinary nature of global governance as a field of study, as well as the potential that can be reached if academic scholars bridge disciplinary divides in order to achieve a better and more nuanced understanding of global governance. However, the debate on the democratization of global governance tends to take global governance for granted as an analytical category, and seldom pays due attention to the great diversity of particular schemes and initiatives. Therefore, Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 2013 Vol. 26, No. 3, 197 200, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2013.771898