Business insiders and environmental outsiders? Advocacy strategies in international climate change negotiations
Business insiders and environmental outsiders? Advocacy strategies in international climate change negotiations
复制标题
DOI：
10.1057/iga.2013.9
复制
发表时间：
2013-10-01
影响因子：
0.8
通讯作者：
Betzold, Carola
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Betzold, Carola
虽然非政府组织在气候变化谈判等政府间谈判中没有正式的发言权，但它们通过一系列活动发出自己的声音，包括与政府谈判代表直接接触、会外活动、媒体接触或示威。这些不同的活动通常被归类为属于内部战略或外部战略，这取决于它们的目的是直接影响政治还是寻求通过媒体和公众从外部施加影响。如何解释这两种宣传策略的使用差异？利益集团在国内政治中的战略已得到广泛研究;集团在多边谈判中的活动迄今为止主要是在定性案例研究中进行的。因此，本文将国内利益集团研究的见解和方法应用于活跃在全球气候变化谈判中的群体。三个原因专业化的内部或外部战略提出。首先，非政府参与的目标-即提供问责制和改进谈判进程-可能相互冲突。第二，各群体接触决策者的程度不同;如果他们缺乏接触机会，他们就无法参与内部宣传。第三，群体不仅寻求影响政策，内部宣传可能更适合;他们也对自己作为组织的生存感兴趣，外部宣传似乎更合适。这些解释导致人们期望不同类型的团体采用不同的宣传战略。特别是，环保组织被认为参与更多的外部宣传，相比之下，商业团体应该在更大程度上依赖内部宣传。然而，如果我们发现不同类型的群体在宣传上存在差异，我们无法确定这些差异是由于获得机会的差异，还是因为不同的群体对影响政策和组织生存的优先级雅阁。通过进一步分析群体特征的影响，特别是专业知识和成员类型，本文试图解开选择一个给定的宣传策略的动机。从经验上讲，这篇文章使用了一项在活跃于国际气候政治的组织中进行的调查的新数据。200多份填写完整的问卷被收回，并提供了关于各组织参与一系列内部和外部宣传活动的频率的信息。对数据的统计分析为不同群体类型之间的差异提供了证据。商业团体更多地使用内部宣传;环保组织倾向于外部战略。然而，除了群体类型之外，数据还表明，经验增加了内部宣传的使用：在所有群体类型中，一个群体参与气候变化谈判的时间越长，它使用的内部宣传就越多。相反，根据分析，成员类型对倡导行为没有影响。这篇文章有助于文献上的利益集团战略看战略在国际层面上。通过比较积极参与气候变化谈判的不同群体的倡导行为，也有助于了解这些不同群体在谈判中的作用和影响，如果我们假设倡导活动的效果不同，就必须考虑到使用倡导战略的差异。由于非国家参与政府间谈判的价值源于不同利益攸关方可为谈判进程带来的各种观点和想法，我们需要问，是否所有观点和想法都有同样的机会被听取。因此，这里的研究结果对于关于谈判合法性的辩论，以及更广泛地说，关于民间社会在环境治理中的作用的辩论，都是相关的。
While non-governmental organisations (NGOs) do not formally have a voice in intergovernmental negotiations, such as the climate change negotiations, they resort to a range of activities to make their voice heard, including direct contacts with government negotiators, side events, media contacts or demonstrations. These diverse activities are typically classified as belonging to either an inside strategy or an outside strategy, depending on whether they aim at influencing politics directly or whether they seek to exert influence from the outside, via the media and the general public. What explains variation in the use of these two advocacy strategies? The strategies of interest groups in domestic politics have been studied extensively; the activities of groups in multilateral negotiations have so far mainly been looked at in qualitative case studies. This article therefore applies insights and methods from the study of domestic interest groups to groups active in the global climate change negotiations. Three reasons for specialisation in an inside or an outside strategy are put forward. First, the goals of non-governmental participation - namely, to provide accountability and to improve the negotiation process - are potentially conflicting. Second, groups differ in the degree of access to policymakers; if they lack access, they are unable to engage in inside advocacy. Third, groups do not only seek to influence policy, for which inside advocacy is presumably more suitable; they are also interested in their survival as organisations, for which outside advocacy seems more appropriate. These explanations lead to expectations that different types of groups employ different advocacy strategies. In particular, environmental organisations are thought to engage in more outside advocacy, compared with business groups that should rely to a greater extent on inside advocacy. Yet, if we find advocacy differences across group types, we cannot be sure whether these are due to differences in access, or because different groups accord differing priorities to influencing policy and organisational survival. By further analysing the effect of group characteristics, specifically expertise and membership type, this article seeks to disentangle the motivations for opting for a given advocacy strategy. Empirically, the article uses novel data from a survey conducted among organisations active in international climate politics. Over 200 fully completed questionnaires were returned and provided information on the frequency with which organisations engage in a range of inside and outside advocacy activities. A statistical analysis of the data provides evidence for differences across group types. Business groups use more inside advocacy; environmental organisations tend towards an outside strategy. Over and above group type, however, the data also indicate that experience increases the use of inside advocacy: across all group types, the longer a group has been involved in climate change negotiations, the more it uses inside advocacy. In contrast, membership type has, according to the analysis, no effect on advocacy behaviour. The article contributes to the literature on interest group strategies by looking at strategies at the international level. By comparing the advocacy behaviour of different groups active in the climate change negotiations, it also helps understand the role and influence of these different groups in the negotiations.If we assume that advocacy activities differ in their effectiveness, it is important to take into account variation in the use of advocacy strategies. As the value of non-state participation in intergovernmental negotiations stems from the diversity of views and ideas that different stakeholders can bring to the process, we need to ask whether all views and ideas have the same chance of being heard. The findings here are hence relevant for debates on the legitimacy of the negotiations, as well as, more generally, on the role of civil society in environmental governance.