Conceptualizing transnational democratic networks: a case study of world wide views on biodiversity



Download 138.13 Kb.
Page3/3
Date conversion15.05.2016
Size138.13 Kb.
1   2   3

Implications for World Wide Views

Bent Flyvbjerg offers questions for a phronetic researcher, the results of the research project lead me to turn to the network and ask: “Where are we going?” and more specifically “Where are we going with transnational democracy?” (Flyvbjerg 2001, 60, 145). Where is the network situated in theories of transnational democracy, and where may it be headed? Coded content analysis and transcribed interviews revealed a high frequency of Transnational Discursive Democracy, especially in the site host and DBT design levels of analysis. With majority of the total codes being supportive of evidence of Transnational Discursive Democratic design, we may assume that this theory speaks most adequately to World Wide Views on Biodiversity. As the results show strong relations to Transnational Discursive Democracy, what may theory teach practice?

For one, success in feedback of educational materials across all levels of analysis shows strong support for and possibly hints at expanding the dissemination of the education materials for practices outside of the Day of Deliberation. Sharing of educational material will not only create new cells for knowledge and interest but will expand the deliberative core. Citizens and site host managers should be encouraged to share the educational materials and experience beyond the events of a single day. Through frequency and practice, the network has the ability to strengthen its discursive power. Discursive power is important for the understandings of complex ecological, political, and social issues and should be encouraged to be used in alternative ways, beyond the day program. According to Dryzek:

The idea of a deliberative system begins with the recognition that a deliberative democracy cannot easily be sought in a single forum. Instead, it should be sought in the contributions of multiple sites. Rhetoric is essential when it comes to communication between different elements in a deliberative system, because those elements will often feature differently situated actors with different perspectives, subscribing to different discourses. (Dryzek 2010, 66)

To begin to cross discourses in lieu of global deliberations on ecological, political, and social issues, the rhetoric to bridge these discourses must be consistent. The information packets serve as a rhetorical device for the network, bridging together parties that may have not otherwise been affiliated. Such a tool should be encouraged to use in “multiple sites.”

Furthermore, it appears the WWViews network is working towards a continued expansion of the project to incorporate more partners and be representative at more Conference of Parties. Less strict of procedures, such as in design, may alleviate some financial burdens on individual host sites as well as allow for a greater accommodation of variety of participants and site locations. As the network organized through snowballing procedures of discursive and affiliate connections, the design of the network should allow for greater flexibility in organization and design to meet the goals of extending the network. “Central to discursive democracy is the idea of engagement and contestation across multiple discourses in the public sphere,” and a dominating discourse within a network may be constraining (Dryzek 2010, 127). Providing greater room for network partner input and allowing for even more flexibility in design may cast a wider net in the deliberative system, extending scopes of discourse. Caution is thrown to casting too wide of a net and losing credibility in international institutions. The structure of the network, Day of Deliberation, and dissemination builds credibility in the process and citizen results in international and transnational discussions. As shown, the CBD advised the continuation of WWViews involvement in the conference creating future accreditation of the network in the negotiations.

Finding answers to Flyvbjerg’s initial value-rational question for guidance of the phronetic researcher may entail looking at World Wide Views in its shared characteristics to Transnational Discursive Democratic theory in praxis. As a deliberative system, World Wide Views should aim to expand its discursive reach for upcoming projects. The methods of doing so may include the scaling back of DBTF guidelines, topics of discussion, or an increase in guiding post-deliberation processes and individual site host reach. Are there any shifts of power dynamics in these suggested adjustments? Is the track desirable, and based upon this position, what should be done?
Conclusion

The analysis of World Wide Views on Biodiversity finds that transnational democracy pragmatically applied most closely resembles John Dryzek’s theory of Transnational Discursive Democracy. Site hosts and citizens very much valued the education material provided for the deliberations. The network generally formed through snowball affects rather than institutional recommendation or design. Interested parties came together over a shared project. Furthermore, the World Wide Views process is understood to be an evolving initiative. Through progress and trial, the network will feed back to the process with intentions for improvement, as this analysis intends to do. With theory applied to practice, four recommendations are made to expand the discursive power and reach of World Wide Views: (1) Scale back DBTF guidelines, (2) create greater open space for topics of discussion, (3) DBTF should support post-deliberation processes, (4) increase in guiding individual site host reach. These recommendations are based off of the desire for the network to extend is discursive power and reach through expansion within the deliberative system.



Bibliography:
Adler, Emanuel. 1997. “Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics.” European Journal of

International Relations 3(3): 319-363.
Adler, Patricia A. and Peter Adler. 1987. Membership Roles in Field Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Altheide, David L. 1987. “Ethnographic Content Analysis.” Qualitative Sociology 10: 65-77.
Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities. London: Verso, 1983.
Baber, Walter F. and Robert V. Bartlett. 2005. Deliberative Environmental Politics: Democracy and Ecological

Rationality. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Bäckstrand, Karin, Jamil Khan, Annica Kronsell, and Eva Lövbrand. “The promise of new modes of

environmental governance,” In Environmental Politics and Deliberative Democracy: Examining the Promise of New Modes of Governance, (eds) Karin Bäckstrand, Jamil Khan, Annica Kronsell, and Eva Lövbrand. Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc., 1-27, 2010.


Baker, Andrew. “Deliberative Equality and the Transgovernmental Politics of the Global Financial

Architecture.” Global Governance 15(2009): 195-218.


Betsill, Michele. “Transnational actors in international environmental politics,” In International

Environmental Politics, Michele M. Betsill, Kathryn Hochstetler, and Dimitris Stevis (eds), 172-202. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2006.
Betsill, Michele M., and Harriet Bulkeley. 2004. “Transnational Networks and Global Environmental

Governance: The Cities for Climate Protections Program.” International Studies Quarterly 48, no. 2: 471-493.
Betsill, Michele M., and Harriet Bulkeley. 2006. “Cities and the Multilevel Governance of Global Climate

Change.” Global Governance 12: 141-159.
Bexell, Magdalena, Jonas Tallberg and Unders Uhlin. 2010. “Democracy in Global Governance: The Promises and Pitfalls of Transnational Actors”. Global Governance 16: 81-101.
Biermann, Frank and Philipp Pattberg. “Global Environmental Governance Revisited.” In Global

Environmetnal Governance Reconsidered, eds. Frank Biermann and Philipp Pattberg, 1-24. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2012.
Biermann, Frank and Philipp Pattberg. “Conclusions.” In Global Environmetnal Governance Reconsidered,

eds. Frank Biermann and Philipp Pattberg, 265-280. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2012.


Bocking, Stephen. Nature’s Experts: Science, Politics, and the Environment. New Brunswick: Rutgers

University Press, 2004.


Bronner, Stephen Eric. “The Communitarian Idea.” In Ideas in Action: Political Tradition in the Twentieth

Century, 41-54. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1999.
Bulkeley, Harriet. 2005. ‘’Reconfiguring environmental governance: towards a politics of scales and

networks.’’, Political geography, 24(8): 875-902.



Bulkeley, Harriet, Liliana Andonova, Karin Bäckstrand, Michele Betsill, Daniel Compagnon, Rosaleen

Duffy, Ans Kolk et al. "Governing climate change transnationally: assessing the evidence from a database of sixty initiatives."Environment and Planning-Part C 30, no. 4 (2012): 591.
Compagnon, Daniel, Sander Chan, and Asem Mert. “The Changing Role of the State.” In Global

Environmetnal Governance Reconsidered, eds. Frank Biermann and Philipp Pattberg, 237-264. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2012.
Cox, Robert W. “Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations.” Journal of International Studies

12:2(1983): 162-175.


Dryzek, John. Discursive Democracy: Politics, Policy, and Political Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 1990.


Dryzek, John. 1999. “Transnational Democracy,” The Journal of Political Philosophy 7(1): 30-51.
Dryzek, John S. 2000. Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.


Dryzek, John S. with Simon Niemeyer. 2010. Foundations and Frontiers of Deliberative Governance. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.


Dryzek, John S. and Hayley Stevenson. 2011. “Global democracy and earth system governance”.

Ecological Economics 70: 1865-1874.
Dryzek, John S. 2013. The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Eckersley, Robyn. 2007. “From Cosmopolitan Nationalism to Cosmopolitan Democracy,” Review of International Studies 33: 675-692.
Eckersley, Robyn. 2004. The Green State: Rethinking Democracy and Sovereignty. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Fierke, K.M. (2013) Constructivism. In Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith (eds) International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, 3rd edition. Oxford University Press, 187-204.
Flyvbjerg, Bent. 2001. Making Social Science Matter. Cambridge, United Kingdom: The Press Syndicate of

the University of Cambridge.


Fox, Jonathan. 2005. “Unpacking ‘Transnational Citizenship’.” Annual Review of Political Science: 171-201.
Goodin, Robert E. 2003. “Globalizing Justice.” In Taming Globalization: Frontiers of Governance, (eds.) David

Held and Mathias Koenig-Archi, 68-92. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2003.


Gutmann, Amy and Dennis Thompson. 2004. Why Deliberative Democracy?, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Habermas, Jürgen. 1997. “Popular Sovereignty as Procedure,” trans. William Rehg, Deliberative

Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics, ed. James Bohman and William Rehg. Cambridge: The MIT Press: 35-66.
Habermas, Jürgen. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans.

By William Rehg. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1998 [1992].


Haas, Ernst B. Beyond the Nation-State: Functionalism and International Organization. Stanford: Stanford

University Press, 1964.


Haas, Ernst B. Nationalism, Liberalism, and Progress: Volume 2: The Dismal Fate of New Nations. Ithaca:

Cornell University Press, 2000.


Haas, Peter M. 1989. “Do Regimes Matter? Epistemic Communities and Mediterranean Pollution

Control,” International Organization, 43(3), 377-403.


Hay, Colin. “International Relations Theory and Globalization.” In International Relations Theories:

Discipline and Diversity, eds. Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki, and Steve Smith, 287-305. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
Held, David. 2003. “From Executive to Cosmopolitan Multilateralism,” In Taming Globalization: Frontiers of

Governance, (eds.) David Held and Mathias Koenig-Archi, 160-186. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2003.
Held, David and Anthony McGrew. Globalization/Anti-Globalization. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2002.
Held, David and Heikki Patomaki. 2006. “Problems of Global Democracy,” Theory, Culture & Society 23 (5) (2006): 115-133.
Hynek, Nik and Andrea Teti, 2012. “Saving identity from postmodernism? The normalization of

constructivism in International Relations,” Contemporary Political Theory 9 (2) : 171-199.


Keck, Margaret E., and Kathryn Sikkink. "Transnational advocacy networks in international and regional

politics." International Social Science Journal 51, no. 159 (1999): 89-101.
Keohane, Robert O. “Global Governance and Democratic Accountability,” In Taming Globalization:

Frontiers of Governance, (eds.) David Held and Mathias Koenig-Archi, 130-159. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2003.
Keohane, Robert and Joseph Nye. Power and Interdependence. Boston: Little, Brown, 1977.
Koenig-Archi, Mathias. “Introduction: Globalization and the Challenge to Governance.” In Taming

Globalization: Frontiers of Governance, (eds.) David Held and Mathias Koenig-Archi, 1-17. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2003.
Kütting, Gabriela and Sandra Rose. “The environment as a global issue.” In International Environmental

Politics, Michele M. Betsill, Kathryn Hochstetler, and Dimitris Stevis (eds), 113-141. New York:

Palgrave MacMillan, 2006.


Lövbrand, Eva and Jamil Khan. “The deliberative turn in green political theory,” In Environmental Politics

and Deliberative Democracy: Examining the Promise of New Modes of Governance, (eds) Karin Bäckstrand, Jamil Khan, Annica Kronsell, and Eva Lövbrand. Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc., 47-66, 2010.
Marshall, Catherine and Gretchen B. Rossman. 2011. Designing Qualitative Research: Fifth Addition.

California: Sage Publications.


Miles, Matthew B. and A. Michael Huberman. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook,

Second Edition. 1994. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, California.


Mouffe, Chantal. 2000. “Deliberative Democracy or Agnostic Pluralism”. Institute for Advanced Studies, Political Science Series 72: 1-17.
Mouffe, Chantal. On The Political. Abingdon: Routledge, 2005.
Mouffe, Chantal. The Democratic Paradox. London/Brooklyn: Verso, 2009 [2000].
O’Brien, Robert. “Global civil society and global governance,” In Contending Perspectives on Global Governance: Coherence, contestation and world order (eds) Alice D. Ba and Matthew J. Hoffmann. London: Routledge, 2005.
O’Brien, Robert and Marc Williams. Global Political Economy. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.
Picciotto, Sol. “Regulatory Networks and Multi-Level Global Governance” In Responsible Business: Self-

Governance and Law in Transnational Economic Transactions, (eds) Olaf Dilling, Martin Herberg, and Gerd Winter, 315-341. Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing, 2008.
Rask, Mikko, Richard Worthington, and Lammi Minna. 2012. Citizen Participation in Global Environmental

Governance. New York, New York: Earthscan.
Rawls, John. 1997. “The Idea of Public Reason,” Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics, ed.

James Bohman and William Rehg. Cambridge: The MIT Press,: 93-130.


Rehg, William. 1998. “Translator’s Introduction,” Between Facts and Norms. Cambridge: The MIT Press: x-xxxvii.
Risse-Kappen, Thomas. 1995. Bringing Transnational Relations Back In: Non-State Actors, Domestic

Structures, and International Institutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


  • Rosenau, James N. 1995. Governance in the Twenty-first Century. Global Governance 1:13-43.

Rubin, Herbert J. and Irene S. Rubin. 2005. Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data. California:

Sage Publications.
Ruggie, John Gerard. 2003. “Taking Embedded Liberalism Global: the Corporate Connection,” In Taming

Globalization: Frontiers of Governance, (eds.) David Held and Mathias Koenig-Archi, 93-129. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Ruggie, John Gerard. “Reconstituting the Global Public Domain – Issues, Actors, and Practices.” European

Journal of International Relations 10:4 (2004): 499-531.
Ruggie, John, 1998. “What Makes the World Hang Together? Neo-utilitarianism and the Social

Constructivist Challenge,” International Organization 52 (4): 855-885.


Schram, Sanford F. 2006. “Return to Politics: Perestroika, Phronesis, and Post-Paradigmatic Political

Science,” in Making Political Science Matter: Debating Knowledge, Research and Method, ed. Sanford F. Schram and Brian Caterino. New York and London: New York University Press, 17-32.


Speth, James Gustave and Peter M. Haas. Global Environmental Governance. Washington D.C.: Island Press,

2006.
Stone, Diane. “Global Public Policy, Transnational Policy Communities, and Their Networks.” The Policy



Studies Journal 36(2008): 19-38.
Strauss, Anselm and Juliet Corbin. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and

Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, Second Edition. 1998. Sage Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, California.


“Trans-,“ Merriam Webster Online, accessed October 29, 2014. http://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/trans


Viotti, Paul R. and Mark V. Kauppi. “Thinking About IR Theory,” In International Relations Theory, (eds)

Paul R. Viotti and Mark V. Kauppi, 1-16. United States: Pearson Education, Inc., 2010.


Warren, Carol A. B. and Tracy X. Karner. 2005. “The Textual and the Visual as Qualitative Data,” in

Discovering Qualitative Methods: Field Research, Interviews, and Analysis. Los Angeles: Roxbury, 159-186.
Wendt, Alex, 1992. “Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics,”

International Organization 46 (2) : 391-425.
World Wide Views on Biodiversity. “Partners.” Accessed June 2012. http://biodiversity.wwviews.org/
Yin, Robert K. 2009. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Fourth Edition. California.


1 For the purposes of this paper, the concepts of (1) an anthropocene and (2) global ecological crises will be accepted as a frame accepted by the Earth Systems Governance report (Biermann et al. 2012).

2 “The Project,” World Wide Views on Biodiversity, accessed May 10, 2014.

3 The first transnational democratic event occurred in 2009: World Wide Views on Global Warming. See Rask and Worthington, 2012.

4 During the World Wide Views on Biodiversity project and this analysis, the Danish Board of Technology was defunded by the Danish Parliament. The Danish Board of Technology (DBT) then became the Danish Board of Technology Foundation DBTF). Both names are used in the report according to appropriateness with the timeliness of the shift.

5 Throughout the analysis, World Wide Views on Biodiversity (WWVB) and World Wide Views alliance/network (WWViews) are used in reference to two different entities: WWVB is the specific network and event around Biodiversity held in September 2012. WWViews refers to the network partners who have been involved with the project either before or since the Biodiversity event.

6 While a theory of communitarianism maintains factions and contestations within the theory at it’s own right, we may generally understand communitarianism as a relationship of mutual support of and for the “community” (Bronner 1999, 41-54).

7 The initial organizing of the network included sites in Bangladesh and Australia; both withdrew from the process due to limitations on funding and institutional support.

Fiske

1   2   3


The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2016
send message

    Main page