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
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.
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
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