Abstract
This concluding chapter elaborates on the findings of the volume and raises a number of issues pertaining to normative theorizing on democracy beyond the state. Drawing on the individual chapters, it offers a comprehensive analysis of the different democratic requirements applicable to different types of transnational actors (TNAs). We discuss the question of whether different kinds of TNAs necessarily have to be democratic in the same way and to the same extent. We also pay attention to potential trade-offs between different democratic values. Moreover, we analyze the potential roles of TNAs in global democracy, considering formal and informal tracks for linking constituencies to political authority. One principle underlying much scholarship on global democracy — including this volume — is the all-affected principle. A problem in the contemporary debate, however, is that this principle is vaguely defined and presupposed rather than problematized and carefully elaborated. In light of the empirical and theoretical contributions of this volume, we revisit this debate with the aim of sorting out some of the issues that are in need of further attention. We also discuss how the market economy may relate to global democracy, an issue highlighted by the prominence of market actors — not only civil society actors — among the TNAs influencing global governance. It is argued that more normative theoretical work needs to be done in addressing the role of market actors in global democracy. Finally, after having devoted the whole book to issues of democratic legitimacy, we conclude with a brief discussion of other sources of legitimacy linked to TNAs and global governance, which are in need of further elaboration.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Agn, H. (2010) ‘Does global democracy matter? Hypotheses on famine and war,’ in C. Jönsson and J. Tallberg (eds) Transnational Actors in Global Governance ( Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan ).
Bendell, J. and P. Cox (2006) ‘The donor accountability agenda,’ in L. Jordan and P. van Tuijl (eds) NGO Accountability: Politics, Principles and Innovations ( London: Earthscan ).
Brown, L. D. (2008) Creating Credibility: Legitimacy and Accountability for Transnational Civil Society ( Sterling, VA: Kumarian Press).
Carens, J. (2000) Culture, Citizenship, and Community: A Contextual Exploration of Justice as Evenhandedness ( Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Charnovitz, S. (2006) ‘Accountability of non-governmental organizations in global governance,’ in L. Jordan and P. van Tuijl (eds) NGO Accountability: Politics, Principles and Innovations ( London: Earthscan ).
Cohen, J. (1999) ‘Changing paradigms of citizenship and the exclusiveness of the demos,’ International Sociology, 14: 245–68.
Dingwerth, K. (2007) The New Transnationalism: Transnational Governance and Democratic Legitimacy (Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).
Ebrahim, A. (2007) ‘Towards a reflective accountability in NGOs,’ in A. Ebrahim and E. Weisband (eds) Global Accountabilities: Participation, Pluralism, and Public Ethics ( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press ).
Gregoratti, C. (2010) ‘UNDP, business partnerships and the (UN)democratic governance of development,’ in M. Bexell and U. Mörth (eds) Democracy and Public-Private Partnerships in Global Governance ( Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan ).
Habermas, J. (1996) Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy ( Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
Habermas, J. (2008) ‘Life after bankruptcy,’ Die Zeit, 27 November.
Held, D. (1995) Models of Democracy ( Cambridge: Polity Press).
Jordan, L. (2007) ‘A rights-based approach to accountability,’ in A. Ebrahim and E. Weisband (eds) Global Accountabilities: Participation, Pluralism, and Public Ethics ( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press ).
Jordan, L. and P. van Tuijl (2006) ‘Rights and responsibilities in the political landscape of NGO accountability: Introduction and overview,’ in L. Jordan and P. van Tuijl (eds) NGO Accountability. Politics, Principles and Innovations ( London: Earthscan ).
Kovach, H. (2006) ‘Addressing accountability at the global level: The challenges facing international NGOs,’ in L. Jordan and P. van Tuijl (eds) NGO Accountability: Politics, Principles and Innovations ( London: Earthscan ).
Nässträm, S. (2010) ‘Democracy counts: Problems of equality in global democracy,’ in C. Jönsson and J. Tallberg (eds) Transnational Actors in Global Governance ( Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan ).
Saward, M. (2000) ‘A critique of held,’ in B. Holden (ed.) Global Democracy: Key Debates ( London: Routledge ).
Scheuerman, W. (2002) ‘Cosmopolitan democracy and the rule of law,’ Ratio Juris, 15: 439–57.
Sen, A. (1999) ‘Democracy as a universal value,’ Journal of Democracy, 10: 3–17.
Shapiro, I. (2003) The State of Democratic Theory ( Princeton: Princeton University Press).
Weisband, E. and A. Ebrahim (2007) ‘Introduction: Forging global accountabilities,’ in A. Ebrahim and E. Weisband (eds) Global Accountabilities: Participation, Pluralism, and Public Ethics ( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press ).
Whelan, F. (1983) ‘Democratic theory and the boundary problem,’ in J. Pennock and J. Chapman (eds) Liberal Democracy ( New York: New York University Press ).
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2010 Eva Erman and Anders Uhlin
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Erman, E., Uhlin, A. (2010). Conclusion: Transnational Actors and Global Democracy. In: Erman, E., Uhlin, A. (eds) Legitimacy Beyond the State?. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230283251_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230283251_10
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-31613-7
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-28325-1
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)