![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This article argues that the opening up of international organisations (IOs) to the participation of civil society organisations (CSOs) has not only failed to dismantle structures of rule. Rather, it should be understood as a perpetuation of rule, re-enacted in and through the everyday practices of IO-CSO interactions in dialogue forums. To make this argument, I build on Bourdieu's notion of symbolic power to conceptualise rule as a hierarchical relationship of mutual recognition, characterised by compliance and actualised through (discursive) practices. In dialogue forums, rule is enacted through the ability of dominant actors to impose meanings (classifications, categories, normative standards) as legitimate. By analysing the Civil Society Policy Forum, I show how the institutions have managed the criticism emanating from CSOs through discursive assimilation, i.e. by both opening up space for dialogue and delimiting the boundaries of political discourse, leading CSOs to accept the conditions for reproducing the institutional discourse.
Acknowledgements
Earlier versions of this article were presented at a workshop on “Democracy and Practices of Global Order” at Humboldt University, Berlin, the Centre Marc Bloch, Berlin, the 15th EISA Pan-European Conference on International Relations, Athens, and the Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication, Washington, D.C. I would like to thank Christian Volk, Anna Holzscheiter, Maryam Z. Deloffre, Silvio Waisbord, William Youmans, Ben O’Loughlin and Jürgen Neyer for their careful reviews of this research. I would also like to thank all the participants in the workshops and the research colloquia at the European University Viadrina Frankfurt (Oder) and Humboldt University, Berlin. Finally, I am very grateful for the insightful comments of the two anonymous reviewers, which greatly improved the manuscript.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 I use the term international economic governance “institutions” rather than “organisations” because not all actors in global economic governance that regularly attract(ed) public criticism are formal organisations. Although I study formal organisations, i.e., the World Bank and the IMF, I would expect my arguments to be equally applicable to the interaction between CSOs and, for example, the G7 or the G20.
2 I use the term CSO to refer to a set of non-state, non-profit actors or networks that are actively engaged in promoting various social issues. Unlike the more commonly used term “NGO”, “CSO” encompasses a broader category of actors, including trade unions and faith-based organisations (Risse Citation2002). In contrast to the term “transnational actors” that includes for-profit actors, “CSO” implies a normative commitment on the part of the actors involved. This normative commitment inherent in the concept of civil society is based on the notion of a global common good, which refers to values and goals that are considered part of a common public interest.
3 Civil society engagement with IOs is not a new phenomenon. However, there is evidence that the trend of IOs opening up to civil society participation has accelerated since the 1990s (Tallberg et al. Citation2013; Jönsson and Tallberg Citation2010).
4 The shift is generally explained by a combination of norm socialisation, functional demand, and strategic legitimation (Tallberg et al. Citation2013, chap. 2).
5 In total, I conducted 20 in-depth semi-structured interviews that lasted between one and two hours. As the interviewees are located around the world, most of the interviews were conducted online. The interviews were recorded and transcribed, and all interviewees were guaranteed anonymity.
6 Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the CSPF was held online in 2019–2022 (spring meeting) and in-person in Washington, DC in autumn 2022 and spring 2023.
7 Registration for the CSPF is possible for five different groups: CSOs, delegates (governmental officials of the member countries of the IMF and the World Bank), observer institutions (representatives of international, regional, and economic organisations), press, and guests (representatives of government bodies, private sector, or academia), https://www.worldbank.org/en/meetings/splash/annual/registration (accessed 1 July 2023).
8 The World Bank and IMF's definition of CSOs, which also defines their criteria for institutional access, include “non-governmental organizations, community groups, labor unions, indigenous people's movements, faith-based organizations, professional associations, foundations, think tanks, charitable organizations, and other not-for-profit organizations”, https://www.worldbank.org/en/events/2022/06/16/civil-society-policy-forum-annual-meetings-2022#1 (accessed 14 August 2023).
9 https://www.worldbank.org/en/about/partners/civil-society/civil-society-policy-forum (accessed 14 July 2023).
10 Every third year, the annual meetings of the World Bank and the IMF – and therefore also the CSPF – take place in a member country and not in Washington DC.
11 In the years of my participant observation (2019–2023), Kristalina Georgieva was the Managing Director of the IMF, and David Malpass was the President of the World Bank.
12 Interview 12, 10 February 2023; Interview 16, 12 April 2023; Interview 18, 13 April 2023.
13 Interview 19, 18 April 2023.
14 Interview 12, 10 February 2023.
15 Interview 14, 17 March 2023; Interview 15, 12 April 2023.
16 Interview 11, 10 May 2022.
17 Interview 19, 18 April 2023.
18 This is reflected in panels such as the World Bank Group's “lunch session” “Get to Know CAO” [the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman at the World Bank Group], organised by the World Bank in October 2016
19 CSPF April 2018; CSPF April 2019.
20 CSPF April 2019.
21 Participant observation: “An overview of the World Bank and IFC, followed by question and answers with World Bank's new Managing Director of Operations, Anna Bjerde,” 11 April 2023.
22 Interview 2, 18 March 2022; Interview 3, 31 March 2022; Interview 8, 2 May 2022; Interview 9, 6 May 2023.
23 Interview 9, 6 May 2023.
24 Interview 3, 31 March 2022; Interview 11, 10 May 2022.
25 Interview 3, 31 March 2022; Interview 19, 18 April 2023. For the Terms of Reference and Biographies of Members of the Working Group, see https://www.worldbank.org/en/about/partners/civil-society/civil-society-policy-forum (accessed 31 July 2023).
26 Interview 6, 8 April 2022; Interview 9, 6 May 2023.
27 Interview 8, 2 May 2022.
28 Civil Society Policy Forum Working Group, Terms of Reference, https://www.worldbank.org/en/about/partners/civil-society/working-group-elections (accessed 31 July 2023).
29 Interview 2, 18 March 2022; Interview 10, 9 May 2022.
30 World Bank CSO Newsletter, 24 July 2023.
31 Interview 5, 8 April 2022.
32 Interview 1, 21 February 2022; Interview 4, 5 April 2022.
33 Interview 9, 6 May 2022.
34 Interview 13, 24 February 2023; Interview 15, 12 April 2023; Interview 18, 13 April 2023.
35 Each CSPF typically consists of 45–50 panel sessions, of which Oxfam usually takes part in 4–8 panel sessions, more than any other CSO.
36 Interview 7, 11 April 2022.
37 Interview 1, 21 February 2022; Interview 2, 10 March 2023.
38 Interview 7, 11 April 2022.
39 Interview 5, 8 April 2022; Interview 7, 11 April 2022.
40 Interview 1 21 February 2022.
41 Interview 7, 11 April 2022; Interview 10 9 May 2022.
42 Interview 4, 5 April 2022.
43 Interview 7, 11 April 2022; Interview 9, 5 May 2022; Interview 11, 10 May 2022.
44 Interview 16, 12 April 2023.
45 Interview 17, 12 April 2023.