![Sample our Area Studies journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5922/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Area-Studies.jpg"})
Abstract
Limited research has been done on non-governmental organisation (NGO) heterogeneity and its representation in global governance. Using the example of international climate change politics, we demonstrate that Northern and Southern NGOs tend to pursue different perspectives which are very unevenly represented in international climate change negotiations as NGOs from the Global North still constitute the large majority of NGOs taking part in these negotiations. In contrast to more hopeful outlooks, NGOs, hence, do not automatically contribute to a more democratic and legitimate global governance.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Cora Ditzel and Matthias Edelmann for their great support in data collection. They would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful and constructive comments that greatly contributed to improving the final version of the paper. Finally, they would like to thank Andreas Haidvogl, Julia Leib, Eva Ottendörfer, Anne Peltner and Samantha Ruppel for their valuable suggestions on previous versions of the manuscript.
Notes
1. Beer et al., “NGOs,” 326 − 38.
2. Steffek and Nanz, “Emerging Patterns of Civil Society Participation,” 1 − 29.
3. Prakash and Gugerty, “Advocacy Organizations and Collective Action,” 1–28.
4. Bexell et al., “Democracy in Global Governance,” 93.
5. Held and Koenig-Archibugi, Global Governance and Public Accountability.
6. Scholte, “Civil Society and Democracy in Global Governance,” 211–33.
7. Albin, “Can NGOs Enhance the Effectiveness,” 371–87.
8. Dombrowski, “Filling the Gap?”, 400.
9. Steffek and Nanz, “Emerging Patterns of Civil Society Participation,” 8.
10. Scharpf, Governing in Europe, 7 − 21.
11. Betsill and Corell, NGO Diplomacy; Dany, “Janus-faced NGO Participation,” 419 − 36.
12. Schmidt, “Democracy and Legitimacy in the European Union,” 2 − 22.
13. Brühl, “NGOs in International Negotiations,” 194 − 5.
14. See note 10 above.
15. Price, “Transnational Civil Society and Advocacy,” 579 − 606.
16. See note 3 above.
17. Anderson and Rieff, “Global Civil Society,” 26 − 39.
18. Collingwood and Logister, “State of the Art,” 175–92.
19. Pitkin, The Concept of Representation, 8–9.
20. Chandhoke, “How Global is Global Civil Society?” 355–71; Warren, “The Concept of Representation,” 390.
21. Ibid., 405.
22. Scholte, “Civil Society and Democracy in Global Governance,” 296; see notes 13 and 20 above.
23. Bexell et al., “Democracy in Global Governance,” 93.
24. Pitkin, The Concept of Representation.
25. Steffek and Hahn, “Introduction,” 17.
26. Mansbridge, “Should Blacks Represent Blacks,” 629.
27. Young, Inclusion and Democracy, 87–92.
28. Ibid., 123.
29. Ibid., 136.
30. Ibid., 133–41.
31. Mansbridge, “Should Blacks Represent Blacks,” 643–8.
32. Young, Inclusion and Democracy, 17; Bexell et al., “Democracy in Global Governance,” 85.
33. Dahl, On Democracy, 53.
34. Karlsson, “Affected and Subjected.”
35. Phillips, “Democracy and Representation”; Williams, Voice, Trust, and Memory, 136–7; Mansbridge, “Should Blacks Represent Blacks,” 650–2.
36. Bäckstrand et al., “Non-State Actors in Global Climate Governance,” 570.
37. United Nations, “United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change,” Article 7.
38. The documents analysed are: UNFCCC, “Admission of Organizations as Observers”; UNFCCC, “Organizations Applying for Admission as Observers”; UNFCCC, “List of Participants.”
39. Tyner, “Developing World.”
40. For a discussion of different NGO definitions, see Martens, “Mission Impossible?” 271–85.
41. Carpenter, “Business, Green Groups and the Media,” 321; Alcock, “Conflicts and Coalitions”; Nasiritousi et al., “Pluralising Climate Change Solutions.”
42. Doherty and Doyle, “Beyond Borders,” 697–712. For a similar typology see Clapp and Dauvergne, Paths to a Green World.
43. Doherty and Doyle, “Beyond Borders,” 707.
44. Clapp and Dauvergne, Paths to a Green World, 4–6; Alcock, “Conflicts and Coalitions,” 68, 72–3.
45. See note 42 above.
46. Clapp and Dauvergne, Paths to a Green World, 7–9; see note 47 above.
47. See note 42 above.
48. Pettit, “Climate Justice,” 102–6; Brand, “Environmental Crises,” 114.
49. Brand, “Environmental Crises”; Unmüßig, NGOs and Climate Crisis.
50. Stroup and Murdie, “There’s No Place Like Home”, 525–448.
51. Rootes, “Mobilising for the Environment“; Unmüßig, NGOs and Climate Crisis; Kellow, “Norms, Interests, and Environment NGOs”; Kellow, “NGOs and Climate Politics,” 232–4.
52 Doherty and Doyle, “Friends of the Earth International.”
53 Gardner, “Major Themes”; Bryant and Bailey, Third World Political Ecology, 125–43; Alcock, “Conflicts and Coalitions,” 69.
54. Besides CAN and CJN, Climate Justice Action (CJA) represents another civil society network in global climate politics. As this network primarily consists of little institutionalised movement organisations and groups of the autonomous spectrum, CJA is not taken into further consideration.
55. Reitan and Gibson, “Climate Change or Social Change?” 402; Hadden, Networks in Contention, 45–7.
56. Own calculation based on Climate Action Network, “Annual Report 2015.”
57. Dombrowski, “Filling the Gap?” 409; Hadden, Networks in Contention, 47, 99–100.
58. Reitan and Gibson, “Climate Change or Social Change?” 403; Hadden, Networks in Contention, 96–7, 116.
59. Own calculation based on the latest member list of CJN: Climate Justice Now, “CJN Network Members.”
60. Hadden, Networks in Contention, 117–18, 123.
61. Ibid., 93–5.
62. Ibid., 95–6; Gibson, Dynamics of Radicalization, 230–1.
63. Climate Justice Now, “What’s Missing.”
64. Unmüßig, NGOs and Climate Crisis; Reitan and Gibson, “Climate Change or Social Change?” 397–8.
65. These numbers only change slightly when Southern NGOs are defined according to UNDP’s conception of ‘developing countries’. When this definition is applied, the portion of Northern NGOs at, for example, COP-21 (Paris, 2015) is 76% while Southern NGOs have a share of 24%.
66. Young, Inclusion and Democracy, 17, 133–41.
67. Nasiritousi et al., “Pluralising Climate Change Solutions,” 183.
68. Dryzek and Stevenson, “Global Democracy and Earth System Governance”; Hjerpe and Buhr, “Frames of Climate,” 116–17; Nasiritousi et al., “Pluralising Climate Change Solutions,” 183.
69. Phillips, “Democracy and Difference,” 88.
70. Urbinati and Warren, “The Concept of Representation,” 405.
71. Nordang Uhre, On Transnational Actor Participation, 9.
72. Dryzek and Stevenson, “Global Democracy and Earth System Governance,” 1870.
73. Betsill and Corell, NGO Diplomacy.
74. Ibid.; Lövbrand et al., “Making Climate Governance Global,” 593.
75. Lövbrand et al., “Making Climate Governance Global,” 593.
76. Dryzek et al., “Toward a Deliberative Global Citizens’ Assembly.”
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Marika Gereke
Marika Gereke is research associate and PhD candidate in the Department of Political Science at Goethe-University Frankfurt. She continues her study of power relations within transnational civil society networks in her doctoral thesis.
Tanja Brühl
Tanja Brühl is Professor for political science with a focus on international institutions and peace processes at Goethe-University Frankfurt.