Page of

Conclusion: Models of Global Governance and Accountability

Conclusion: Models of Global Governance and Accountability

(p.293) Chapter Nine Conclusion: Models of Global Governance and Accountability
World Rule
University of Chicago Press

This book has argued that the demands of accountability, particularly responsibility and responsiveness, are sometimes incompatible. The empirical observations demonstrate that global governance organizations (GGOs) attempt to manage this tension across four areas of organizational design—structure, rulemaking, adherence, and interest group participation. But unmet expectations are still inevitable, manifested as charges of unaccountable and undemocratic governance. This observation begs the question: do GGOs favor one notion of accountability over another? Is there a coherent explanation for the accountability tendencies of GGOs? The first section of the chapter reviews the “types” defined in the four areas of organizational design and then identifies three GGO models: classical GGOs, cartel GGOs, and symbiotic GGOs. The second section examines the distribution of GGOs across these three types. The final section considers the implications of this study. The findings and observations presented herein complement many existing studies of international organizations, particularly constructivist accounts, and offer an explanation for the structure and processes of GGOs that looks beyond the power of nation-states.

Keywords:   accountability, responsibility, responsiveness, global governance organizations, organizational design, structure, rulemaking, adherence, interest group participation, global governance

Sign In

Copyright © 2021. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy and Legal Notice