The Review of International Organizations

, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp 55–80

A closer look at the information provision rationale: Civil society participation in states’ delegations at the UNFCCC



The previous literature contends inter alia that states may welcome the participation of civil society groups in global environmental governance due to their provision of information. The following research takes this argument as a starting point for a closer examination of its validity within the international climate change regime (UNFCCC) and, specifically, with regard to civil society involvement in states’ negotiation delegations. First, the author theoretically unfolds the information provision argument from a demand, i.e., state perspective along the bureaucratic quality of a country, the salience of a negotiation issue, and regime type. From this foundation, secondly, new data on the composition of states’ negotiation delegations in the UNFCCC is analyzed. The results seem to indicate that the information provision mechanism is unlikely to apply in the context under study. The paper, thus, concludes by providing alternative explanations.


Global environmental governance Climate change negotiations State delegations Civil society participation Information provision UNFCCC 

JEL Codes

C01 D7 D8 F51 F53 L31 Q5 

Supplementary material

11558_2012_9149_MOESM1_ESM.docx (362 kb)
ESM 1(DOCX 362 kb)
11558_2012_9149_MOESM2_ESM.dta (3 mb)
ESM 2(DTA 3050 kb) (9 kb)
ESM 3(DO 10 kb)


  1. Albin, C. (1999). Can NGOs enhance the effectiveness of international negotiation? International Negotiation, 4, 371–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arts, B. (2005). Non-state actors in global environmental governance: New arrangements beyond the state. In M. Koenig-Archibugi & M. Zürn (Eds.), New modes of governance in the global system: Exploring publicness, delegation, and inclusiveness (pp. 177–200). New York: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  3. Austen-Smith, D. (1997). Interest groups: Money, information, and influence. In D. Mueller (Ed.), Perspectives on public choice. A handbook (pp. 296–321). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bättig, M., & Bernauer, T. (2009). National institutions and global public goods: Are democracies more cooperative in climate change policy? International Organization, 63, 281–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baumgartner, F., & Leech, B. (2001). Issue niches and policy bandwagons: Patterns of interest group involvement in national politics. Journal of Politics, 63, 1191–1213.Google Scholar
  6. Beck, N., Katz, J., & Tucker, R. (1998). Taking time seriously: Time-series cross-section analysis with a binary dependent variable. American Journal of Political Science, 42, 1260–1288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bernauer, T., & Betzold, C. (2012). Civil society in global environmental governance. Journal of Environment and Development, 21, 62–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bernauer, T., Böhmelt, T., & Koubi, V. (2013). Is there a democracy—civil society paradox in global environmental governance? Global Environmental Politics, 13, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  9. Bernhagen, P. (2008). Business and international environmental agreements: Domestic sources of participation and compliance by advanced industrialized democracies. Global Environmental Politics, 8, 78–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bernhagen, P. (2012). When do politicians listen to lobbyists (and who benefits when they do)? European Journal of Political Research, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  11. Betsill, M. (2006). Transnational actors in international environmental politics. In M. Betsill, K. Hochstetler, & D. Stevis (Eds.), Palgrave advances in international environmental politics (pp. 172–202). New York: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  12. Betsill, M., & Corell, E. (2001). NGO influence in international environmental negotiations: A framework for analysis. Global Environmental Politics, 1, 65–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Betsill, M., & Corell, E. (2008). NGO diplomacy: The influence of nongovernmental organizations in international environmental negotiations. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Betzold, C. (2010). ‘Borrowing power’ to influence international negotiations: AOSIS in the climate change regime, 1990–1997. Politics, 30, 131–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Biermann, F., & Gupta, A. (2011). Accountability and legitimacy in earth system governance: A research framework. Ecological Economics, 70, 1856–1864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Biermann, F., & Pattberg, P. (2008). Global environmental governance: Taking stock, moving forward. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 33, 277–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Binder, S., & Neumayer, E. (2005). Environmental pressure group strength and air pollution: An empirical analysis. Ecological Economics, 55, 527–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Björkbom, L. (1999). Negotiations over transboundary air pollution: The case of Europe. International Negotiation, 4, 389–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bloodgood, E. (2002). Influential information: Non-governmental organizations’ use of information in foreign policy—making and international regime formation. Princeton University, NJ: PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
  20. Bloodgood, E. (2011). The interest group analogy: International non-governmental advocacy organizations in international politics. Review of International Studies, 37, 93–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Bratton, M. (1990). NGOs in Africa: Can they influence public policy? Development and Change, 21, 87–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Brownars, S. G., & Lott, J. R. (1997). Do campaign donations alter how a politician votes? Or, do donors support candidates who value the same things that they do? Journal of Law and Economics, 40, 317–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Buchanan, J. M., & Tullock, G. (1962). The calculus of consent: Logical foundations of constitutional democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  24. Bueno de Mesquita, B., Morrow, J., Siverson, R., & Smith, A. (1999). An institutional explanation of the democratic peace. American Political Science Review, 93, 791–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Bueno de Mesquita, B., Smith, A., Siverson, R., & Morrow, J. (2003). The logic of political survival. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. Burstein, P., & Hirsh, C. E. (2007). Interest organizations, information, and policy innovation in the U.S. Congress. Sociological Forum, 22, 174–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Castiglione, D. (1998). Civil society. In P. Newman (Ed.), The new Palgrave dictionary of economics and the law (pp. 250–267). Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  28. Chamberlain, J. (1974). Provision of collective goods as a function of group size. American Political Science Review, 68, 707–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Charnowitz, S. (1997). Two centuries of participation: NGOs and international governance. Michigan Journal of International Law, 18, 183–286.Google Scholar
  30. Clark, J. (1995). The state, popular participation, and the voluntary sector. World Development, 23, 593–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Clark, A. M., Friedman, E., & Hochstetler, K. (1998). The sovereign limits of global civil society: A comparison of NGO participation in UN world conferences on the environment, human rights, and women. World Politics, 51, 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Crawford, V., & Sobel, J. (1982). Strategic information transmission. Econometrica, 50, 1431–1451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Dryzek, J. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Dryzek, J. (2012). Global civil society: The progress of post-Westphalian politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 15, 101–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Esterling, K. (2004). The political economy of expertise. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  36. Europa Publications. (1994). The environment encyclopedia and directory (1st ed.). London: Europa Publications Limited.Google Scholar
  37. Europa Publications. (1997). The environment encyclopedia and directory (2nd ed.). London: Europa Publications Limited.Google Scholar
  38. Europa Publications. (2001). The environment encyclopedia and directory (3rd ed.). London: Europa Publications Limited.Google Scholar
  39. Fox, J., & Brown, D. (1998). The struggle for accountability: The World Bank, NGOs, and grassroots movements. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  40. Fredriksson, P. G., & Ujhelyi, G. (2006). Political institutions, interest groups, and the ratification of international environmental agreements. University of Louisville, KY & Harvard University, MA: Typescript.Google Scholar
  41. Gemmill, B., & Bamidele-Izu, A. (2002). The role of NGOs and civil society in global environmental governance. In D. C. Esty & M. H. Ivanova (Eds.), Global environmental governance: Options & opportunities (pp. 1–24). New Haven: Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.Google Scholar
  42. Gerdung, A. (2004). Global environmental governance and the role of civil society groups. New Zealand Journal of Environmental Law, 8, 55–98.Google Scholar
  43. Gleditsch, K. S. (2002). Expanded trade and GDP data. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 46, 712–724.Google Scholar
  44. Gleditsch, K. S. (2008). Modified Polity P4 and P4D data, version 3.0. Available at:
  45. Gough, C., & Shackley, S. (2001). The respectable politics of climate change: The epistemic communities and NGOs. International Affairs, 77, 329–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Grigorescu, A. (2007). Transparency of intergovernmental organizations: The roles of member states, international bureaucracies, and non-governmental organizations. International Studies Quarterly, 51, 625–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Gulbrandsen, L. (2008). The role of science in environmental governance: Competing knowledge producers in Swedish and Norwegian forestry. Global Environmental Politics, 8, 99–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Gulbrandsen, L., & Andresen, S. (2004). NGO influence in the implementation of the Kyoto protocol: Compliance, flexibility mechanisms, and sinks. Global Environmental Politics, 4, 54–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Habeeb, W. (1988). Power and tactics in international negotiations: How weak nations bargain with strong nations. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Hall, R. L., & Deardorff, A. (2006). Lobbying as legislative subsidy. American Political Science Review, 100, 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Hansen, J. (1991). Gaining access: Congress and the farm lobby, 1919–1981. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Hendrix, C. (2010). Measuring state capacity: Theoretical and empirical implications for the study of civil conflict. Journal of Peace Research, 47, 273–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Honaker, J., & King, G. (2010). What to do about missing values in time-series cross-section data. American Journal of Political Science, 54, 561–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Howell, L. (2012). International country risk guide methodology. East Syracuse, NY: The PRS Group. Available at:
  55. Kau, J., & Rubin, P. (1982). Congressmen, constituents, and contributors. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishing.Google Scholar
  56. Keck, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in international politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Kennan, J., & Wilson, R. (1993). Bargaining with private information. Journal of Economic Literature, 31, 45–104.Google Scholar
  58. King, G., & Zeng, L. (2001a). Logistic regression in rare events data. Political Analysis, 9, 137–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. King, G., & Zeng, L. (2001b). Explaining rare events in international relations. International Organization, 55, 693–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lateef, S. (1992). Governance and development. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  61. Lohmann, S. (1995). Information, access, and contributions: A signaling model of lobbying. Public Choice, 85, 267–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Long, J. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  63. Marshall, M. G., & Jaggers, K. (2002). POLITY IV project: Political regime characteristics and transitions, 1800–2002. Dataset user’s manual. College Park, MD: University of Maryland. Available at:
  64. Mathews, J. (1997). Power shift. Foreign Affairs, 76, 50–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Mendelsohn, R., Dinar, A., & Williams, L. (2006). The distributional impact of climate change on rich and poor countries. Environment and Development Economics, 11, 159–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Neumayer, E. (2002). Do democracies exhibit stronger international environmental commitment? A cross-country analysis. Journal of Peace Research, 39, 139–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Newell, P. (2000). Climate for change: Non-state actors and the global politics of the greenhouse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Nye, J. S. (2001). Globalization’s democratic deficit: How to make international institutions more accountable. Foreign Affairs, 80, 2–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Oberthür, S., Buck, M., Müller, S., Pfahl, S., Tarasofsky, R., Werksman, J., & Palmer, A. (2002). Participation of non-governmental organizations in international environmental governance: Legal basis and practical experience. Berlin: Ecologic.Google Scholar
  70. Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action—public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Payne, R. A. (1995). Freedom and the environment. Journal of Democracy, 6, 41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Pfetsch, F., & Landau, A. (2000). Symmetry and asymmetry in international negotiations. International Negotiation, 5, 21–42.Google Scholar
  73. Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  74. Princen, T. (1994). NGOs: Creating a niche in environmental diplomacy. In T. Princen & M. Finger (Eds.), Environmental NGOs in world politics: Linking the local and the global (pp. 29–47). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Raustiala, K. (1997). States, NGOs, and environmental institutions. International Studies Quarterly, 41, 719–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Raustiala, K. (2001). Non-state actors in the global climate regime. In U. Luterbacher & D. Sprinz (Eds.), International relations and global climate change (pp. 95–117). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  77. Riddel, M. (2003). Candidate ECO—labeling and senate campaign contributions. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 45, 177–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Risse-Kappen, T. (1994). Ideas don’t float freely. International Organization, 48, 185–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Risse-Kappen, T. (1995). Bringing transnational relations back in. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Roberts, J. T., Parks, B., & Vásquez, A. (2004). Who ratifies environmental treaties and why? Institutionalism, structuralism, and participation by 192 nations in 22 treaties. Global Environmental Politics, 4, 22–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Salamon, L., & Anheiner, H. (1991). Toward an understanding of the international non-profit sector—project outline. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.Google Scholar
  82. Sarewitz, D. (2004). How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental Science and Policy, 7, 385–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Sell, S., & Prakash, A. (2004). Using ideas strategically: The contest between business and NGO networks in intellectual property rights. International Studies Quarterly, 48, 143–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Simmons, B., & Danner, A. (2010). Credible commitments and the international criminal court. International Organization, 64, 225–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Singer, D. (1988). Reconstructing the correlates of war dataset on material capabilities of states, 1816–1985. International Interactions, 14, 115–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Slantchev, B. (2006). Politicians, the media, and domestic audience costs. International Studies Quarterly, 50, 445–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Sloof, R. (1998). Game-theoretic models of the political influence of interest groups. Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  88. Snidal, D. (1994). The politics of scope: Endogenous actors, heterogeneity, and institutions. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 6, 449–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Sprinz, D., & Vaahtoranta, T. (1994). The interest-based explanation of international environmental policy. International Organization, 48, 77–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Srinivasan, U. T. (2010). Economics of climate change: Risk and responsibility by world region. Climate Policy, 10, 298–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Stasavage, D. (2004). Open-door or closed-door? Transparency in domestic and international bargaining. International Organization, 58, 667–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Steffek, J., & Ferretti, M. (2009). Accountability or ‘good decisions?’ The competing goals of civil society participation in international governance. Global Society, 23, 37–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Steffek, J., & Nanz, P. (2007). Emergent patterns of civil society participation in global and European governance. In J. Steffek, C. Kissling, & P. Nanz (Eds.), Civil society participation in European and global governance: A cure for the democratic deficit? (pp. 1–29). New York: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Stroup, S., & Murdie, A. (2013). There’s no place like home: Explaining international NGO advocacy. Review of International Organizations, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  95. Thomann, L. (2007). The ILO, tripartism, and NGOs: Do too many cooks really spoil the broth? In J. Steffek, C. Kissling, & P. Nanz (Eds.), Civil society participation in European and global governance: A cure for the democratic deficit? (pp. 71–94). New York: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  96. Vabulas, F. (2011). When and why do intergovernmental organizations grant formal access to NGOs? IL: University of Chicago. Typescript.Google Scholar
  97. Weiss, T., & Gordenker, L. (1996). NGOs, the UN, and global governance. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
  98. Wiser, G. (1999). Compliance systems under multilateral agreements. A survey for the benefit of Kyoto protocol policy makers (CC99–2). Washington, DC: The Center for International Environmental Law.Google Scholar
  99. Yamin, F. (2001). NGOs and international environmental law: A critical evaluation of their roles and responsibilities. Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, 10, 149–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Comparative and International Studies, ETH ZurichZürichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations