Suchergebnisse

Some of the most exciting controversies about transnational interest group politics revolve around the United Nations (UN), a major incuba- tor of ideas and a hub in global governance. This article foregrounds interest groups in the UN as private voluntary organizations pursuing political advocacy. Anchored in political science, this def- inition views interest groups as a subset of "trans- national actors," which are typically more broadly referred to as any type of individual or collective "non-state actor" that is transnationally active and neither a state nor composed of states. Interest- ingly, a growing number of comparative politicsand international relations scholars have highlighted the overlap between "interest groups" and "international non-governmental organiza- tions (INGOs)," as both types of organizations typically seek to balance self-interested advocacy and normative aims. Drawing from both interest group and INGO research, this article discusses three core topics: political opportunity struc- tures, interest group strategies, and effects of inter- est groups. It discusses some evidence from the UN, identifies knowledge gaps, and pro- blematizes imbalances in interest group involve- ment and effects in the UN. Understanding the academic debate in interest group and INGO research around these themes is timely and impor- tant amidst UN reform debates on the occasion of the organization's 75th anniversary in 2020.

Sustainability scientists have long studied what drives effective marine management. This chapter provides an assessment of a largely understudied factor that can alleviate compliance problems in marine management: the legitimacy of marine institutions, defined as stakeholder beliefs in the appropriate use of power by these institutions. This chapter describes the legitimacy of 19 international institutions dealing with marine issues, including the Arctic Council, European Union, and United Nations Environment, in the eyes of different types of stakeholders. The chapter then discusses how challenges arising from these legitimacy patterns could be managed to effectively address compliance problems. Insights from political science help understand that legitimacy can contribute to compliance among stakeholders, but that increased legitimacy may also entail the risk of declining public scrutiny and interest group capture. Based on this assessment, the chapter outlines a research agenda on legitimacy and effectiveness for sustainability scholars. ; This chapter was partially funded by Mistra Geopolitics - Navigating towards a Secure and Sustainable Future; and the Nippon Foundation Nereus Program, a collaborative initiative by the Nippon Foundation and partners including Stockholm University and the University of British Columbia.

This chapter examines individual-level factors that may influence legitimacy beliefs towards global governance institutions. The chapter surveys the full breadth of existing political science research in order to chart a forward course for empirical studies of individual-level sources of legitimacy beliefs. The chapter's threefold core argument maintains, first, that global governance scholarship needs to build on previous insights on legitimacy beliefs from comparative politics and social psychology. Second, research on beliefs in the legitimacy of global governance institutions needs to look comparatively across countries, institutions, issue areas, social groups, and time. Third, future research on sources of legitimacy in global governance can acquire better measures through the use of large-scale surveys and survey experiments. ; Mistra Geopolitics ; Legitimacy in Global Governance

AbstractThe past decades have seen a significant expansion in the scope and authority of international organisations (IOs), raising questions about who participates and is represented in the public contestation of IOs. An important precondition for citizens to become critically involved in the public debate about an IO is that they are aware of the politics of that IO. This article sheds light on this largely unexplored issue, asking why some citizens are more aware of IOs than others. This question is examined in the context of a powerful international organisation, the United Nations Security Council. Using a multilevel analysis of citizens in 17 Asian and European countries, this article argues that citizen knowledge about the Council is shaped by economic conditions and cosmopolitan identity. Higher levels of knowledge are found among the wealthier, and there is some evidence that income inequality depresses knowledge among poorer citizens. Furthermore, citizens identifying with groups or individuals across nation-state borders are more likely to know more about the Council. The article sketches broader implications for the study of the politicisation of IOs and citizen representation in the public contestation of IOs.

The past decades have seen a significant expansion in the scope and authority of international organisations (IOs), raising questions about who participates and is represented in the public contestation of IOs. An important precondition for citizens to become critically involved in the public debate about an IO is that they are aware of the politics of that IO. This article sheds light on this largely unexplored issue, asking why some citizens are more aware of IOs than others. This question is examined in the context of a powerful international organization, the United Nations Security Council. A multilevel analysis of citizens in seventeen Asian and European countries suggests that citizen knowledge about the Council is shaped by citizens' individual income, cosmopolitan identity, and income inequality. Higher levels of knowledge are found among the wealthier, and there is some evidence that income inequality depresses knowledge among poorer citizens. Furthermore, citizens identifying with groups or individuals across nation-state borders are more likely to be aware of the Council. The article sketches broader implications for the study of the politicization of IOs and citizen representation in the public contestation of IOs.

Policy Paper prepared at the request of Dr. Franziska Brantner, MEP ; "European structural, agricultural and environmental spending in Germany: Challenges and problems during the allocation and implementation of EU resources

To promote economic and social cohesion, the European Union (EU) structural funds part-finance public investment programmes in European regions with about E30 billion per year. This article develops an explanation for the apportionment of structural funds across EU regions. It is argued that the Commission's decisions on regional transfer levels reflect its bureaucratic interest and potentially undermine EU goals. Using a new data set on regional transfer payments in the EU-15 from 2000 to 2006, and qualitative interviews with decision-makers, this argument is tested and corroborated. In doing so, it is shown that the recipient regions' level of economic affluence is necessary, but no sufficient explanatory factor for regional transfer levels. In contrast to previous findings in the literature, the empirical record does not suggest that regional partisan politics has an effect on the size of regional transfer levels.