Sustainability Politics and Limited Statehood Contesting New Modes of Governance

Edited by ALEJANDRO ESGUERRA, NICOLE HELMERICH and THOMAS RISSE

GOVERNANCE AND LIMITED STATEHOOD Governance and Limited Statehood

Series Editor Thomas Risse Director of the Center for Transnational Relations, Foreign and Security Policy at the Otto Suhr Institute of Political Science Freie Universität Berlin Germany Aim of the Series This ground-breaking monograph series showcases cutting edge research on the transformation of governance in countries with weak state institutions. Combing theoretically informed and empirically grounded scholarship, it challenges the conventional governance discourse which is biased towards modern developed nation states. Instead, the series focuses on governance in Africa, Asia and Latin America including transnational and trans-regional dimensions. Located at the intersection of global governance and international relations, on the one hand, and comparative politics, area studies, international law, history, and development studies, on the other, this innovative series helps to challenge fundamental assumptions about governance in the social sciences.

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/15020 Alejandro Esguerra • Nicole Helmerich • Thomas Risse Editors Sustainability Politics and Limited Statehood

Contesting New Modes of Governance Editors Alejandro Esguerra Nicole Helmerich University of Potsdam Hertie School of Governance Postdam , Germany Berlin, Germany

Thomas Risse Freie Universität Berlin Berlin, Germany

Governance and Limited Statehood ISBN 978-3-319-39870-9 ISBN 978-3-319-39871-6 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-39871-6

Library of Congress Control Number: 2016956378

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifi cally the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfi lms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specifi c statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.

Cover image © Bill Frymire

Printed on acid-free paper

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG Switzerland ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The origins of this book date back to a collaborative research project conducted by the Freie Universität Berlin, the London School of Economics, and the Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations (IDDRI)/Sciences Po, funded by the European Union Seventh Framework Programme, with the title: Sustainable development refl exive inputs to world organization. The individual chapters partly refl ect the research that was carried out at these institutions and partly go beyond the initial project. We, as editors, would like to express our gratitude to the authors of this volume for engaging in a lively conversation on the new modes of governance in areas of limited statehood. In addition, we would like to thank two research institutions at the Freie Universität Berlin, the Research Center 700 “Governance in Areas of Limited Statehood” and the Kolleg-Forschergruppe “The Transformative Power of Europe” that were instrumental in realizing an authors’ workshop and in fi nalizing the manuscript. A number of colleagues and friends offered critical comments, among them Tobias Berger, Lea Hartung, Anne Koch and Alexandros Tokhi. Ruth Brown, Susan Berger, Susanna Fazio and Stefan Wiechmann supported us with language editing and layout. Also, we thank the Palgrave team for their fl exibility, help and guidance in seeing the project through.

v CONTENTS

1 Introduction: Sustainability Politics and Limited Statehood. Contesting New Modes of Governance 1 Alejandro Esguerra , Nicole Helmerich , and Thomas Risse

Part 1 New Modes of Governance at the Transnational Level 23

2 “A Comment That Might Help Us to Move Along”: Brokers in Negotiation Systems 25 Alejandro Esguerra

3 Let’s Bargain! Setting Standards of Sustainable Biofuels 47 Philip Schleifer

Part 2 Sustainability Governance in Areas of Limited Statehood 75

4 Between Global and Local Governance: The Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund in China 77 Sander Chan , Ayşem Mert , and Philipp Pattberg

vii viii CONTENTS

5 The State in Private Sustainability Governance: Contestation, Limited Statehood and Forest Certifi cation in Russia 105 Olga Malets

6 Governing Health and Safety in the Electronics Industry in Malaysia 127 Gale Raj-Reichert

7 Remnants of Hierarchy: The Limits on New Modes of Biodiversity Governance in the Dominican Republic 157 Casey Stevens

8 Bringing Climate Change Down to Earth: Climate Change Governance from the Bottom Up 179 Cordula Kropp and Jana Türk

9 Conclusion 211 Alejandro Esguerra

Index 225 ABBREVIATIONS

2BSvs Biomass Biofuels Sustainability Voluntary Scheme CEPF Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund CI Conservation International CIPRA International Commission for the Protection of the Alps CWG Certifi cation Working Group DOSH Department of Occupational Safety and Health EPFL École Polytechnique Fédérale EU RED European Union Renewable Energy Directive EU RoHS European Union Directive the Restriction on the Use of Hazardous Substances FoE Friends of the Earth FSB Founding Steering Board FSC Forest Stewardship Council GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade GHG Greenhouse Gas GMOs Genetically Modifi ed Organisms GSPD Global Sustainability Partnerships Database GVCs Global Value Chains INDCs Intended Nationally Determined Contributions IOs International Organizations IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ISCC International Sustainability and Carbon Certifi cation ISEAL International Social and Environmental Accreditation and Labelling ITTO International Tropical Timber Organization

ix x ABBREVIATIONS

MNCs Multinational Corporations MOF Ministry of Finance MSIs Multistakeholder Initiatives MSW ‘The Mountains of Southwest China’ NGOs Non-governmental Organizations OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OHS Occupational Health and Safety OSHA Malaysian Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1994 PCB Printed Circuit Board PEFC Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certifi cation schemes PPPs Public-Private Partnerships RAN Rainforest Action Network RNCFC Russian National Council for Forest Certifi cation RSB Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels SB Steering Board SDGs Sustainable Development Goals SFM Sustainable Forest Management TFAP Tropical Forest Action Plan UNCSD United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change WGs Working Groups WSSD World Summit on Sustainable Development LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Sander Chan is a political scientist at the German Development Institute/ Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE). He is also a steering committee member of Galvanizing the Groundswell of Climate Actions, a series of open dialogues that aims to bring the groundswell of climate actions from cities, regions, companies and other groups to a higher level of scale and ambition. He specializes in global governance instruments applied to sustainable development and global climate change. His research areas include public-private partnerships, non-economic loss and damage, sustainable development, transnational linking frameworks, corporate voluntary environmental behavior and China’s sustainable development. Alejandro Esguerra is a postdoctoral researcher with the research group “Wicked Problems, Contested Administrations: Knowledge, Coordination, Strategy” (WIPCAD) at the University of Potsdam. Before joining WIPCAD, Alejandro was a researcher at the Free University Berlin, and the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Leipzig, a visiting researcher at Cornell University and a fellow at the Centre for Global Cooperation Research at the University Duisburg-Essen. Alejandro holds a PhD in International Relations from the Berlin Graduate School for Transnational Studies (BTS), Free University Berlin. His publications are concerned with the role of knowledge in international relations theory, transnational private governance and epistemic authority in global environmental politics. His most recent research is on a micro-sociology of international relations and an edited volume on translation in world politics.

xi xii LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Nicole Helmerich is a postdoctoral researcher at the Hertie School of Governance in Berlin, Germany. Prior to that, Nicole was a researcher at the Free University Berlin and a visiting researcher at the University of Washington in Seattle. Nicole completed her PhD in International Relations at the Berlin Graduate School for Transnational Studies (BTS), Free University Berlin on The Effectiveness of Transnational Private Governance: Assessing Labor Standards from the Transnational to the Local . Her publications are concerned with the role of business in transnational governance, transnational private regulation, corporate responsibility and transnational workers’ rights. Her most recent research is on workers’ voice in transnational European fi rms and good corporate governance, and a data set project on the same topic. Cordula Kropp is professor in social sciences at the University of Stuttgart in Germany. She is currently engaged in research on regional climate governance socio-technical transformation processes and alternative food networks. Her fi eld of expertise is the analysis of “technology, risk and society” together with a strong interest in conditions of participative and deliberative decision-making. Recently published: Kropp, C. (2015): River Landscaping in Third Modernity – Remaking Cosmopolitics in the Anthropocene. In: Albena Yaneva and Alejandro Zaera-Polo (eds.): What is Cosmopolitical Design? Design, Nature and the Built Environment. (Hampshire/ UK: Ashgate), 113–130. Olga Malets is a senior research associate in the research group Environmental Governance at the Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Germany. She has held permanent and visiting positions at Technische Universität München, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies and Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies. She received her doc- toral degree from the University of Cologne (2009). She has published on forest certifi cation in Russia, transnational governance and the role of civil society in new modes of forest governance in several academic journals, including Forest Policy and Economics , Journal of Civil Society and Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning . Ayşem Mert is an assistant professor of Global Environmental Governance at the Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (VU), the Netherlands. Her research focuses on interpretive and discursive methods, anti-essentialism, hybrid governance mechanisms, unpacking the Global South and democratization of global environmental governance. She is the author of “Environmental Governance LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS xiii through Partnerships: A discourse theoretical study” (2015, Edward Elgar) and numerous articles on environmental politics and governance. Mert is the managing editor of the Earth System Governance Working Paper Series and a research fellow with the Earth System Governance Project. Her current research focuses on fi ction and nar- ratives of democracy and the environment. Philipp Pattberg is professor of Transnational Environmental Governance and Policy at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (VU), the Netherlands. He specializes in the study of global environmental politics, with a focus on climate change governance, biodiversity, forest and marine governance, transnational relations, public-private partnerships, network theory and institutional analysis. Pattberg’s current research scrutinizes institutional complexity, functional overlaps and fragmentation across environmental domains. At VU, Pattberg heads the Department of Environmental Policy Analysis, a team of more than 25 researchers that was evaluated in a 2014 international review as “world leading” and as being “one of the highest-profi le academic research groups involved with sustainability governance from around the world.” Pattberg is Chair of the Board of the Global Environmental Change Section of the German Political Science Association and a senior research fellow of the international Earth System Governance Project. He is also director of the Netherlands Research School for Socio-Economic and Natural Sciences of the Environment (SENSE). Gale Raj-Reichert is currently a British Academy postdoctoral fellow at the Global Development Institute at the University of Manchester. Her current research project focuses on understanding power relations in the global production network of the computer industry and its implications for labor governance, with case studies in Malaysia and China. She has also received additional fi eldwork funding from the Hallsworth Endowment at the University of Manchester to support her research project. Prior to this, Dr. Raj-Reichert completed her PhD, also at the Global Development Institute at the University of Manchester, on Governance in Global Production Networks: Managing environmental health risks in the personal computer production chain . She has published her work in Regulation & Governance, Geoforum , and Competition and Change and contributed to publications for the World Bank and the International Labor Organization. She lectures on globalization, trade and development, and the political economy of development at the University of Manchester. xiv LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Thomas Risse is professor of International Politics at the Otto Suhr Institute of Political Science at the Free University Berlin, as well as coordinator of the Research Center 700 “Governance in Areas of Limited Statehood” and co-director of the Research College “Transformative Power of Europe,” both funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG). He is one of the world’s leading scholars of the international politics of European integration and his publications include “A Community of Europeans? Transnational Identities and Public Spheres” (2010), “The Persistent Power of Human Rights: From Commitment to Compliance” (Cambridge, 2013, co-edited with Stephen C. Ropp and Kathryn Sikkink), “External Actors, State-Building and Service Provision in Areas of Limited Statehood” (2014, with Stephen D. Krasner) and “Handbook of International Relations,” 2nd edition (2013). Philip Schleifer is an assistant professor of Transnational Governance at the University of Amsterdam (UvA). Before joining UvA in January 2016, Philip was a Max Weber Fellow at the European University Institute. His research interests lie in the areas of international political economy, global environmental politics and transnational private governance. Philip holds a PhD in International Relations from the London School of Economics and Political Science. Casey Stevens is an adjunct faculty member in the Department of Political Science at Clark University in Worcester, Massachusetts. His research focuses on global environmental governance with a particular emphasis on biodiversity governance and sustainable development. Research uses multiple methods to explore the ways in which ideas and institutions interact to improve sustainability. Recent publications have dealt with topics related to global biodiversity politics, including fi nancing and implementation in the green economy era and implementation. He is currently working on a book entitled Resilient Governance: Networks for Protecting Changing Ecosystems Across Borders . Jana Türk is a PhD candidate at the Department of Sociology at Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany, and holds a degree in Sociology from Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich (LMU). Her fundamental research focus is on how communities deal with socio-ecological change. She has worked at the Munich University of Applied Sciences on “social transformation processes for climate protection and adaptation” and at the Center for Advanced Studies at LMU Munich. LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 3.1 Composition of the RSB Founding Steering Board (number of seats) 57 Fig. 3.2 Organizational Chart of the RSB 59 Fig. 4.1 Number of partners from different sectors and major groups 81 Fig. 4.2 Percentage of partnerships for sustainable development with at least one partner from 81 Fig. 4.3 Type of lead partners in partnerships for sustainable development 82 Fig. 4.4 Presence of state partners in partnerships implementing in their region 83 Fig. 4.5 Fulfi llment of functions in various regions of the world 83 Fig. 4.6 Function-output fi t with and without a government agency as lead partner 84 Fig. 4.7 Output in Sub-Saharan partnerships with and without a state as lead partner 85 Fig. 4.8 Lead partners—all together (ordered by FOF) 85 Fig. 4.9 Grants in USD by lead partner 92 Fig. 4.10 Grantee project partners by type 93 Fig. 4.11 Funding allocations by function 94 Fig. 6.1 Linkages between fi rms interviewed in the computer industry GVC 130 Fig. 8.1 New modes of governance with different focal points 204

xv LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Deliberation vs. bargaining 53 Table 3.2 World use of food crops for biofuel production 55 Table 6.1 Profi les of second tier suppliers (for the year 2008) 136 Table 6.2 First tier supplier profi les (for the year 2008) 144 Table 6.3 List of the codes and standards for the electronics industry 145 Table 8.1 Comparison of typifi ed case studies in Bavaria and South Tyrol 201

xvii CHAPTER 1

Introduction: Sustainability Politics and Limited Statehood. Contesting New Modes of Governance

Alejandro Esguerra , Nicole Helmerich , and Thomas Risse

‘With a small hammer you can achieve great things’, former French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius pondered after having hit the table in front of him, thereby declaring the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change to be accepted. 1 Indeed, the agreement of the United Nations

A. Esguerra () University of Potsdam, Potsdam , Germany e-mail: [email protected] N. Helmerich () Hertie School of Governance, Berlin, Germany e-mail: [email protected] T. Risse () Free University Berlin, Berlin, Germany e-mail: [email protected]

Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has been her- alded as providing fresh momentum and a return of environmental multilateralism. For the fi rst time, an agreement envisages climate action by all countries, including states such as the USA, China, and India, which were once major antagonists to any binding treaty or agreement. A crucial element for the successful adoption by all countries was a ‘small hammer’, the concept of Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) created at the 2013 Warsaw conference. The INDCs require from all countries alike that they outline how and with what effects they will contribute to reducing emissions limiting global warming to ‘well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels’. The Paris Agreement is indicative for what throughout this book we will examine as the ‘new’ modes of governance. 2 Scholars argue that the Paris Agreement ‘relies on a mechanism of ‘naming and shaming’ to ensure implementation: it creates a reputational risk through the establish- ment of mandatory transparency and review provisions’ (Obergassel et al. 2016 , 3). In this sense, the INDCs are not only a diplomatic compromise, they also refl ect a shift from legally binding commitments and the threat of sanctions toward rather soft mechanisms that may help pave the way to serious climate action. Similar attempts are the public-private partnerships (PPPs) for sustainable development announced at the UN Earth Summit in Johannesburg in 2002 (see Chan et al., this volume), or the private certifi cation scheme for sustainable forestry, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) (see Esguerra; Malets, this volume). Environmental multilateralism nowadays depends highly on such new modes of governance to achieve the implementation and monitoring of lofty goals such as the 1.5 °C target as agreed in Paris. In fact, in the run- up to the 2015 meeting in Paris, a range of research and civil society organizations had already published initial analyses of the INDCs handed in by the governments, thereby providing an informal review process (Van Asselt 2016 ). Next to the agreement in Paris, states have recently adopted the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that entail 17 goals, including ‘zero hunger’ and ‘climate action’. Scholars have argued that for the SDGs to be realized, environmental multilateralism needs to learn how to mobilize multiple and different actors and networks, such as epistemic communities, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), international organizations (IOs), local communities, or municipal entities (Kanie et al. 2013 ). INTRODUCTION: SUSTAINABILITY POLITICS AND LIMITED STATEHOOD.... 3

However, ‘naming and shaming’ campaigns, implementation and monitoring of policies, or orchestrating non-state actors involves politics and contestation. With the proliferation of actors in sustainability governance, we observe an increase of antagonistic views on how to frame the problem at stake, how to construct an appropriate governance structure, and how to measure governance effectiveness. While more fragmented and multiple visions of what is wrong with a socio-environmental issue increase available knowledge, they also require mechanisms for reconciling these views in negotiations (Jasanoff and Martello 2004 ). Yet new modes of sustainability governance vary considerably in the ways in which these contestations are handled in practice, that is to say the participatory quali- ties, the inclusion/exclusion of relevant actors, and the dominant modes of interaction (deliberative, bargaining, or a mix of both). Beyond the procedural aspects, how to fi t new modes of governance into an increasingly fragmented landscape of sustainability governance remains an open question (Gupta et al. 2015 ; Kanie et al. 2013 ; Zelli and van Asselt 2013 ). This book pushes this research agenda further by focusing on new modes of governance in areas of limited statehood (see also Beisheim and Liese 2014 ): in these areas, the state has only limited capacities to make and enforce rules and decisions and/or to sustain the monopoly on the means of violence. To introduce limited statehood as a contextual factor in the analysis of new modes of governance is to refute the often tacit assumption of the Western modern state as the only form of state. Much of the literature on new modes of governance in the area of sustainable development and participatory practices focuses on countries with consolidated statehood (Bäckstrand et al. 2010a ; Bäckstrand and Kronsell 2015 ). There is a research need to comparatively analyze contested sustainability governance in areas of limited statehood, and to assess its functioning and effectiveness (Andonova 2014 ; Beisheim and Liese 2014 ). While national, regional, and local governments are part and parcel of the new governance arrangements in areas of limited statehood, they are not the only ‘governors’ and they lack the ability to enforce central decisions. To investigate sustainability in areas of limited statehood is a timely exercise given the current debate on the future of global governance for sustainable development (Biermann 2014 ; Kanie et al. 2013 ). Moreover, the future of sustainability governance, including the implementation of the Paris Agreement and the SDGs, will be decided at least partly in the Global South for all practical purposes where limited statehood is a defi n- ing characteristic and unlikely to go away. 4 A. ESGUERRA ET AL.

As a result, this volume asks the following questions:

• How and under what conditions do new modes of governance emerge in areas of limited statehood? • How effective are the various modes of governance investigated, and what is the role of the state in all of this?

The fi ndings can be summarized as follows:

1. Areas of limited statehood are not ungoverned or ungovernable spaces. Degrees of statehood as such (consolidated or limited, see below) bear no linear relationship with the overall effectiveness of new modes of sustainability governance. Hierarchical governance attempts in areas of limited statehood can actually seriously hamper the effectiveness of new modes of governance. 2. Inclusiveness of new modes of governance is more likely to increase effectiveness if it is accompanied by strong institutional structures and/or knowledgeable brokers that balance antagonistic forces. Also, there is a possible trade-off between inclusiveness and problem- solving capacity, if and when the issue at stake is strongly contested or structural conditions hinder problem-solving solutions. 3. Various functional equivalents to the shadow of hierarchy cast by consolidated statehood account for the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of new modes of sustainability governance in areas of limited statehood. These functional equivalents include the shadow of the mar- ket and the presence or absence of civil society actors.

The remainder of this chapter contextualizes sustainability governance. Second, we introduce the central concepts of this volume, including our understanding of new modes of governance and of limited statehood. Third, we provide a roadmap of the book and of the various chapters.

CONTEXTUALIZING SUSTAINABILITY POLITICS Sustainability governance has been insuffi cient in fi ghting and solving the most pressing environmental trends in climate change and biodiversity loss with severe implications for social and economic human well-being (Rockström et al. 2009 ). However, after the sobering failure of the climate talks in Copenhagen in 2009, the recent climate change agreement in INTRODUCTION: SUSTAINABILITY POLITICS AND LIMITED STATEHOOD.... 5

Paris on the adoption of the SDGs in 2015, showed that governments are still willing to engage in environmental multilateralism. To turn the hopes associated with the return of environmental multilateralism into political practice, states rely on new modes of governance. With regard to actor constellations, the current literature argues that non- state actors can play complementary roles: for instance, the effectiveness of science advice varies considerably depending on whether scientists work together with intergovernmental organizations, environmental actors, or business actors (Kanie et al. 2013 ). While epistemic communities may ensure that the proper things are monitored during the agenda-setting phase, NGOs are required to make specifi c issues public (see also Esguerra, this volume). The role of states remains ambivalent: much of the recent literature suggests that states are still important for sustainability governance in general and the new modes of governance in particular (Bäckstrand et al. 2010b ; Bäckstrand and Kronsell 2015 ; Kanie et al. 2013 ). Yet the chapters by Chan et al., Stevens, and Malets in this volume also show how states hinder the effective implementation of the new modes of governance in areas of limited statehood. In addition new modes of governance are defi ned by a shift in the mode of social interaction between the various actors. That is, a trend away from classical hierarchical modes of coordination, which are associated with the modern state and its capacity to threaten sanctions, toward non-hierarchical modes. The literature stresses participatory practices that may foster deliberation, transparency, and learning (Siebenhüner 2004 ; Stevenson and Dryzek 2014 ). However, the literature on the intersection of sustainable development and deliberative modes of governance suffers from a major shortcoming that this book aims to address. A core fi nding in the empirical literature is that the shadow of hierarchy—the ability of the state to threaten binding legislation and to enforce the law (Scharpf 1997 )—remains essential for the various participatory approaches in sustainability governance (Barry and Eckersley 2005 ). Recent work on new modes of sustainability governance has recognized the importance of theorizing and systematically studying the role of the state (Bäckstrand et al. 2010c ; Bäckstrand and Kronsell 2015 ; Barry and Eckersley 2005 ). Bengtsson and Klintman examining EU food safety and GMO governance argue that stakeholder deliberations mainly operate within a hierarchical governance mode (Bengtsson and Klintman 2010 ). Case studies in sustainability research suggest that ‘participatory and deliberative mechanisms require the state to take an active 6 A. ESGUERRA ET AL. role as coordinator, facilitator and mediator’ (Bäckstrand et al. 2010c ; see also Fox et al. 2002 ; Giddens 2009 ). Yet most scholarship remains within the realm of consolidated statehood with a functioning shadow of hierarchy. Many studies analyze participatory practices in consolidated states such as the USA or Europe (Bäckstrand et al. 2010b ). Fewer focus on case studies in developing countries where statehood is limited (Beisheim and Liese 2014 ). Thus, a comparative perspective on new modes of sustainability governance in areas of limited statehood focusing on the role of the state and the shadow of hierarchy, as well as functional equivalents, signifi cantly contributes to the reserach agenda. How do new modes of governance unfold when statehood is limited, what does this mean for their effectiveness, and how do states damage or foster these governance arrangements? This book examines these issues by engaging in a conversation with scholars of sustainability governance (Biermann et al. 2012 ; Bulkeley et al. 2014 ; Hoffmann 2011 ) and scholars examining new modes of governance in areas of limited statehood (Beisheim and Liese 2014 ; Krasner and Risse 2014 ; Risse 2011b ).

CONTESTING NEW MODES OF GOVERNANCE ‘Governance’ has become such a widely used concept in the social sciences that it is both essentially contested and in danger of turning into an ‘empty signifi er’ (see for general discussion, e.g., Benz et al. 2007 ; Levy-Faur 2012 ; Schuppert and Zürn 2008 ). 3 In its most general version, governance refers to all modes of coordinating social action in human society. Williamson, for example, distinguished between governance by markets and governance by hierarchy (that is the state); later scholars added governance by networks to this list (see, e.g., Kooiman 1993 ; Rhodes 1997 ; Williamson 1975 ). However, this understanding that identifi es governance with any kind of social ordering appears to be too broad. As a result, this book employs a somewhat narrower concept that is closely linked to politics. By governance , we mean the ‘various institutionalized modes of social coordination to produce and implement collec- tively binding rules, or to provide collective goods’ (Risse 2011a , 9). This conceptualization follows closely the understanding of governance that is widespread within the social sciences (see, e.g., Benz et al. 2007 ; Kohler- Koch 1998 ; Mayntz 2004 , 2008 ; Schuppert 2005 ; Schuppert and Zürn 2008 ). Governance consists of both structural (‘institutionalized’) and INTRODUCTION: SUSTAINABILITY POLITICS AND LIMITED STATEHOOD.... 7 process dimensions (‘modes of social coordination’). Accordingly, governance covers steering by the state (‘governance by government’), governance via cooperative networks of public and private actors (‘governance with government’), and rule-making by non-state actors or self-regulation by civil society (‘governance without government’, see Grande and Pauly 2005 ; Rosenau and Czempiel1992 ; Zürn1998 ). The structural dimension of governance includes a substantial variety of actors and various actor constellations. Researchers have focused on decentralized systems that may respond best to highly complex problems as common in the area of sustainable development (Haas 2004 ; Pattberg et al. 2012 ). States no longer tackle sustainable development issues by themselves, but increasingly rely on interactions with non-state actors (Kanie et al. 2013 ). Hence, research is moving toward the question of which confi guration of actors operates best in which policy fi eld and in which part of the policy cycle (Biermann et al. 2012 ; Kanie et al. 2013 ; Pattberg et al. 2012 ). Therefore, this book focuses on actor constellations involving both state and non-state actors, such as governments, international (inter-state) organizations, companies, and NGOs. The process dimension of governance concerns modes of steering. The modern (Western) nation state has the ability of hierarchical steering, that is, to authoritatively enforce the law, ultimately through policing and ‘top down’ command and control. This book, however, concentrates on what the contemporary social science literature discusses as new modes of governance, namely non-hierarchical modes of social coordination (Cutler et al. 1999 ; Grande and Pauly 2005 ; Hall and Biersteker 2002 ). Non- hierarchical modes of governance are supposed to be participatory (Fischer 2012 ), to include potential stakeholders and to establish the ‘ownership principle’. In our context, this is particularly relevant with regard to non- state actors such as companies and NGOs, but also indigenous groups and local communities. We therefore ask to what degree new modes of sustainability governance actually meet the expectations and are more participatory, and what kind of inclusionary or exclusionary practices emerge. Furthermore, we can distinguish participatory and non-hierarchical modes of governance according to their logic of action. First, bargaining as a mode of governance involves creating and manipulating incentive structures of actors and infl uencing their cost-benefi t calculations as well as utility functions. This might imply the exchange of threats involving sanctions, as well as promises and the creation of positive incentives. The underlying logic is one of consequences and of rational choice assuming 8 A. ESGUERRA ET AL. that actors arrive at the bargaining table with well-defi ned and exoge- nously given interests and preferences (March and Olsen 1989; March and Olsen 1998). A second non-hierarchical mode of coordination is based on the logic of appropriateness and of communicative rationality in a more Habermasian sense (Habermas 1981 ; March and Olsen 1989 ; March and Olsen 1998 ; Müller 2004 ; Risse 2000 ). Here, actors’ interests, preferences, validity claims, and framing of the issue are not assumed to be fi xed, but subject to discursive challenges. Actors seek a communicative consensus about their understanding of a situation and about the appropriate norms and rules for dealing with the problem at hand. Arguing is supposed to include deliberation, persuasion, and learning. However, two caveats are necessary in this context. First, deliberation is not a fair-weather mode of governance. Rather, it intrinsically involves contestation, confl ict, and fi ghts over meanings. Actors may or may not come to an agreement, and they might even agree to disagree. Thus, this book focuses on contestation as an essential part of discursive practices. We then ask to what extent negotiations and the related discourses con- form to the ideals of deliberation and arguing. Second, empirical studies of arguing have demonstrated that true deliberation in which only the ‘unforced force of the better argument’ (Habermas 2002 , 98) counts is extremely rare in political contexts. Nicole Deitelhoff speaks of ‘islands of persuasion’ which can nevertheless have substantial effects on negotiation outcomes (Deitelhoff 2009 ). Moreover, it is a methodologically daunting task to establish to what degree arguing rather than bargaining carried the day in given negotiations which are usually characterized by both discursive practices (Risse and Kleine 2010 ; see also Risse 2013 ). Thus, the contributors to this volume focus on the effects of reason-giving and jus- tifi cations rather than their occurrence; they look at the institutional scope conditions that may facilitate deliberation and embed the interactions in an institutional context (see Esguerra; Schleifer, this volume).

AREAS OF LIMITED STATEHOOD Limited statehood concerns those areas of a country in which central authorities (governments) lack the ability to implement and enforce rules and decisions and/or in which the legitimate monopoly over the means of violence is lacking. We argue that limited statehood is the default condition in the contemporary international system, while consolidated INTRODUCTION: SUSTAINABILITY POLITICS AND LIMITED STATEHOOD.... 9 statehood—the quintessential Weberian state—is the exception. We distinguish between statehood or state capacity on the one hand, and the provision of public goods and services on the other. This understanding allows us to differentiate between statehood as an institutional structure of authority and the services it provides. The latter is an empirical not a defi - nitional question. We follow Max Weber’s conceptualization of statehood as an institutionalized structure with the ability to rule authoritatively (Herrschaftsverband ) and to legitimately control the means of violence (on statehood in general, see Benz et al. 2007 ; Botzem et al. 2009 ; Weber 1921 ). While no state governs hierarchically all the time, consolidated states possess the ability to authoritatively make, implement, and enforce central decisions for a collectivity. In other words, consolidated states command ‘domestic sovereignty’, that is to say ‘the formal organization of political authority within the state and the ability of public authorities to exercise effective control within the borders of their own polity’ (Krasner 1999 , 4). While Western consolidated statehood is undergoing profound transformations (Hurrelmann et al. 2007 ; Leibfried and Zürn 2005 ; Leibfried et al. 2015 ), its ability to ultimately make, implement, and enforce decisions is beyond doubt, even if the modern state privatizes or deregulates previously public services. In other words, the modern state’s ‘shadow of hierarchy’ is rarely in doubt, even in the age of profound (neo- liberal) privatization and deregulation (Börzel 2008 ). These circumstances change profoundly under conditions of limited statehood. However, ‘limited statehood’ must be distinguished from the way in which notions of ‘fragile’, ‘failing’ or ‘failed’ statehood are used in the literature (see Krasner and Risse 2014 , for the following; Risse 2011a ). Most typologies in the literature and datasets on fragile states, as well as ‘states at risk’, reveal a normative orientation toward the Western model (e.g., Fukuyama 2004 ; Rotberg 2003 , 2004 ). The benchmark is usually the democratic and capitalist state governed by the rule of law. This bias toward consolidated statehood is problematic for two reasons. First, it obscures the fact that most states are neither consolidated nor failed. They are characterized by areas of limited statehood. Second, it confuses key research questions including the one investigated here. If we defi ne statehood in terms of the public goods and services, consolidated states are supposed to provide, we can no longer distinguish between state capacity and the provision of services. As a result, we can no longer ask, how degrees of state capacity are related to the provision of collective goods. This is particularly problematic, since there is no linear relationship