Non-State Actors In World Affairs (PSC 757

Non-State Actors in World Affairs (PSC 757.001)

Hans Peter Schmitz, Fall 2007

Three Waves of Transnationalism (in IR theory)

First wave, 1970s-early 1980s (‘transnational relations’)

Definition: “contacts, coalitions, and interactions across state boundaries that are not controlled by the central foreign policy organs of governments” (Keohane/Nye, 1971: xi)

Important publications: (Huntington, 1973; Keohane and Nye, 1971; Rosenau, 1980; Willetts, 1982)

Rationale: The first wave of transnationalist research was motivated by two major trends: 1. The proliferation and growth of non-state actors such as multinational corporations which interact across borders without any governmental control. 2. A dissatisfaction of students of IR with the focus of many scholars on intergovernmental organizations as the only ‘visible’ actors beyond the nation-state.

Core insights: 1. Challenge to a state-centric view of international relations. The expectation was that transnational relations will constrain state actions (although S. Huntington early on proposed that transnational relations actually empower states). 2. First-wave transnationalism included all types of transnational interactions, including the Catholic Church, multinational corporations, and NGOs.

The end: The transnationalist agenda never gained mainstream recognition in the filed of IR. Reasons within and outside the academe were responsible for the failure of the research program. First, the 1975 oil crisis and the détente of the 1970s (Helsinki Accords) as well as the ‘new Cold War’ of the 1980s between the super powers shifted attention back to nation states. Second, the transnationalist research agenda was unable to develop a framework capable of stretching across such diverse actors as multinational corporations and NGOs. Scholars remained skeptical that transnational relations are a significant concept in understanding the power of MNCs.

Second Wave, 1990s-early 2000s (‘transnational advocacy networks’)

Definition: “networks of activists distinguishable largely by the centrality of principled ideas and values in motivating their formation” (Keck/Sikkink, p. 1) Important publications: (Boli and Thomas, 1999; Burgerman, 1998; Evangelista, 1999; Florini, 1999; Keck and Sikkink, 1998; Khagram, Riker and Sikkink, 2002; Lipschutz, 1992; O'Brien et al., 2000; Peterson, 1992; Price, 1998; Risse-Kappen, 1995; Risse, Ropp and Sikkink, 1999; Smith, Chatfield and Pagnucco, 1997; Thomas, 2001)

Rationale: The second wave of transnationalist research was motivated by two major trends: 1. Like its predecessor, it made much of the proliferation and growth of non-state actors as well as the emergence of new communication technologies. 2. The end of the Cold War provided a major boost to the transnationalist agenda by introducing constructivist ideas to the field of IR.

Core insights (as distinguished from the first wave): 1. The core question focuses on establishing NGOs and networks as equal players in global affairs. 2. MNCs were dropped from the analysis and the focus was narrowed to NGOs and transnational advocacy networks. 3. The addition of ideas and norms to IR research offers alternative sources of power for NGOs. 4. Transnational actors are not necessarily at the mercy of nation-states to get access to the domestic arena. Instead, NGOs have the power to transform authoritarian regimes. 5. NGOs use international institutions to create pressure on nation states. Internationalism and transnationalism are combined.

The end: The second wave of transnationalist research came to and end in a more productive manner than the first wave. Instead of fading into the background, transnationalism research remains a powerful and expanding research agenda. The reason why we may speak of an end to the second wave is that distinct new perspectives have emerged that have not been recognized second wave.

Third Wave, 2000s (‘global civil society’?)

Definition: “the sphere of ideas, values, institutions, organizations, networks, and individuals located between the family, the state and the market, and operating beyond the confines of national societies, polities, and economies” (Anheier, Glasius, and Kaldor 2001: 17).

Important literature (Anheier, Glasius and Kaldor, 2001; Bob, 2005; Cooley and Ron, 2002; Hertel, 2006; Hopgood, 2006; Jordan and Van Tuijl, 2000; Orenstein and Schmitz, 2006; Schmitz, 2006; Singer, 2003; Tarrow, 2005; Wapner, 1996) Core insights (as distinguished from the second wave) 1. Transnational networks do not just lobby states or create new forms of global governance (Wapner). 2. There are important political tensions within NGO networks (North-South, etc.; Hertel, Jordan/can Tujil). 3. We need to move beyond single-case studies that focus on one issue area. To really understand the domestic effects of transnational mobilization, we need to bring comparative politics and IR together (Orenstein/Schmitz). 4. If we want to understand what NGOs do, we need to understand who they are. NGOs can not be reduced to mere carriers of norms (Hopgood). 5. Transnational mobilization can have negative effects (Kennedy, Schmitz), is biased (Bob), and is much harder to organize than previously assumed (Tarrow). 6. There are violent non-state actors (terrorism) entirely ignored by the research so far.

Challenges ahead 1. Is there a unifying framework to integrate different types of non-state actors? 2. Do non-state actors function differently than state actors? 3. Is there a ‘global civil society’? 4. Do NGOs undermine democratic accountability? 5. ….?

References

Anheier, Helmut, et al. (ed.) (2001) Global Civil Society 2001, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bob, Clifford (2005) The Marketing of Rebellion: Insurgents, Media, and International Activism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Boli, John and George M. Thomas (ed.) (1999) Constructing World Culture. International Non-Governmental Organizations Since 1875, Stanford: Stanford University Press. Burgerman, Susan D. (1998) 'Mobilizing Principles. The Role of Transnational Activists in Promoting Human Rights Principles', Human Rights Quarterly, 20 (4): 905-923. Cooley, Alexander and James Ron (2002) 'The NGO Scramble. Organizational Insecurity and the Political Economy of Transnational Action', International Security, 27 (1): 5- 39. Evangelista, Matthew (1999) Unarmed Forces. The Transnational Movement to End the Cold War, Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Florini, Ann M. (1999) The Third Force. The Rise of Transnational Civil Society, Tokyo: Japan Center for International Change and Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Hertel, Shareen (2006) Unexpected Power. Conflict and Change among Transnational Activists, Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Hopgood, Stephen (2006) Keepers of the Flame. Understanding Amnesty Intenrational, Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Huntington, Samuel P. (1973) 'Transnational Organizations in World Politics', World Politics, 25 (2): 333-368. Jordan, Lisa and Peter Van Tuijl (2000) 'Political Responsibility in Transnational NGO Advocacy', World Development, 28 (12): 2051-2065. Keck, Margaret E. and Kathryn Sikkink (1998) Activists Beyond Borders. Advocacy Networks in International Politics, Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Keohane, Robert O. and Joseph S. Nye (ed.) (1971) Transnational Relations and World Politics, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Khagram, Sanjeev, et al. (ed.) (2002) Restructuring World Politics. Transnational Social Movements, Networks, and Norms, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Lipschutz, Ronnie D. (1992) 'Reconstructing World Politics: The Emergence of Global Civil Society', Millennium, 21 (3): 389-411. O'Brien, Robert, et al. (2000) Contesting Global Governance. Multilateral Economic Institutions and Global Social Movements, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Orenstein, Mitchell A. and Hans Peter Schmitz (2006) 'The New Transnationalism and Comparative Politics', Comparative Politics: Peterson, M.J. (1992) 'Transnational Activity, International Society, and World Politics', Millennium, 21 (3): 371-388. Price, Richard (1998) 'Reversing the Gun Sights: Transnational Civil Society Targets Land Mines', International Organization, 52 (3): 613-644. Risse-Kappen, Thomas (ed.) (1995) Bringing Transnational Relations Back In. Non- State Actors, Domestic Structures and International Institutions, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Risse, Thomas, et al. (ed.) (1999) The Power of Human Rights. International Norms and Domestic Change, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rosenau, James N. (1980) The Study of Global Interdependence. Essays on the Transnationalization of World Affairs, London: Frances Pinter. Schmitz, Hans Peter (2006) Transnational Mobilization and Domestic Regime Change. Africa in Comparative Perspective, Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. Singer, Peter W. (2003) Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry, Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Smith, Jackie, et al. (1997) Transnational Social Movements and Global Politics: Solidarity Beyond the State, Syracuse: Syracuse University Press. Tarrow, Sidney (2005) The New Transnational Activism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Thomas, Daniel (2001) The Helsinki Effect. International Norms, Human Rights, and the Demise of Communism, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Wapner, Paul (1996) Environmental Activism and World Civic Politics, Albany: State University of New York Press. Willetts, Peter (ed.) (1982) Pressure Groups in the Global System: The Transnational Relations of Issue-Oriented Non-Governmental Organizations, New York: St. Martin's Press.