Читать книгу Speaking Private Authority - Roberto J. Flores - Страница 8
ОглавлениеThis book is aimed at examining and explaining the process by which global political spaces are being regulated by private actors wielding private authority. This emergent phenomenon is becoming increasingly important in the conduct of global governance, and thus broadening our understanding of it will serve the field of international relations. Private actors can govern by what has come to be known as private authority, a process wherein these actors create, implement, and enforce rules that are aimed at managing global problems. Up to this point, private authority has been primarily explained in the literature through materialist, structuralist, and/or rationalist means—all tending to describe private authority as being a derivative feature of an instrumental exchange relationship, or, in other words, as only being able to exist under conditions in which broader material or structural forces create a sufficient incentive structure for more powerful actors to see it in their interest(s) to accept private authority.1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 In the real world, an example would be a large, multinational, logging corporation—rich in capital and well-connected to governments—adapting its internal, corporate regulatory standards to meet Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification requirements only because doing so would increase the price that could be charged to customers and/or because the gain of reputational or efficiency benefits would serve the corporation’s narrow self-interests. Such approaches, while meaningful, ignore the more interesting story taking place at the constitutive level—at the level of identity. This critical part to the story of private authority needs to be explained in order to broaden our understanding.
I argue in this book that while the previously discussed traditional approaches are illuminating, greater consideration needs to be given to the social processes underlying private authority. Private actors are not simply outgrowths of incentive structures or certain material conditions; rather, they are purposive actors that can shape social structures through their actions. Going back to the FSC example, is the FSC capable of purposively shaping the behavior of a more materially powerful corporation in the absence of a clear incentive structure that serves that corporation’s narrow self-interests? Or does the FSC perhaps have a social toolkit that can be leveraged to grant them the requisite authority to shape behavior—even in the absence a clear incentive structure? Such questions will be explored in this book, with the focus being on expanding on current explanations of private authority by examining the constitutive elements that underlie this social phenomenon.
Before moving forward, it is important to note that the novel approach to explaining private authority adopted by this book focuses primarily on a newly emergent actor identified as a network connector—argued to be the most successful private governor in the international system. In an increasingly networked world, power and authority are becoming more decentralized.12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19 Under such conditions, actors that can bridge two networks are playing increasingly critical roles. By focusing the project on these specific actors—through two case studies—these newly emergent actors can be introduced and explained, and the examination of their role in between networks will shed light on the social processes driving private authority.
Much has been said about private authority under the general banner of global governance, including discussions on (a) the emergence of private actors; (b) the ways they shape contemporary global politics; and (c) the emergent phenomenon that is private authority.20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30 Previous literature has demonstrated many of the forms by which non-state actors moved into the political terrain that was once dominated by states and by which they established themselves in this territory in select positions of authority. What these explanations do not fully explain are the socially constitutive variables that lead to private authority and support it once it is established. The issue identified in this book is that structural, materialist, and rationalist approaches treat actors as “bounded groups in hierarchical structures,” where actors operate within neat and hierarchically organized sectors.31 Within these sectors, private actors seeking to govern are able to do so by wielding what are considered ideal-type forms of authority (legal-rational, expertise, moral, etc.).32,33,34,35,36,37,38 Approaching the subject in this way treats private authority as a finished good or commodity that is exchanged among actors based on utility calculations. In other words, it treats private authority as only being viable in circumstances where actors find a clear benefit in adapting their practices to meet the guidelines established by private authority schemes. While this approach can do well at explaining private authority under clearly delineated structures of power, at set points in time where decision-making calculations are evident, it does not do well at explaining the phenomenon in a complex and dynamic world where power flows dynamically and remains in constant flux. As I argue that global power is increasingly becoming more dynamic and fluid, as its flows across global networks, I find it essential then to relook at how private authority is explained within such a context.
I argue that private authority in the contemporary world is an outgrowth of what Manuel Castells calls network society.39 Network society is a social structure that is based on networks that rely on advanced communication technologies for organization and operation.40 These networks constitute the new “social morphology” of the current era, as they are based on a “networking logic that substantially modifies the operation and outcomes in processes of production, experience, power and culture.”41 Furthermore, for Castells, “networks are open structures, able to expand without limits, integrating new nodes as long as they are able to communicate within the network, namely as long as they share the same communication codes.”42 Thus, in dynamic societies that revolve around information flows—as does modern society today—switches connecting the networks are privileged instruments because they serve as key facilitators of the flow of power. In their role as switches, wherein they translate interoperating codes between networks, they become the “fundamental sources in shaping, guiding and misguiding societies.”43 This is because in network society—unlike in societies based on bounded groups in hierarchical structures—power and authority are dynamic. They are in constant flux, based in transmission flows rather than in the traditional forms that tend to be used to frame contemporary problems of global governance.44 Therefore, as the global political system continues to disperse power across the system—away from the traditional forms—studying it within this updated context is important. Here, then, I study private authority in the context of networks.45
This book aims to make three specific contributions by adopting this approach. First, it offers an updated framework for contextualizing private authority: a framework that considers more closely the multidirectional flow of power across hubs, spokes, and nodes, in parallel with the strictly vertical movement of power that has been the focus of most other studies on the topic of private authority. The approach adopted in this book allows for a more expansive conceptualization of power flows, which in turn opens up a more analytical space within which to examine social processes. However, in order to examine private authority in such a way—through its constituent social parts—it is important to properly dissect the network into digestible components. This can be difficult because of the constant contestation of meanings that takes place within political spaces. As meanings are never fixed but are constantly evolving, it is, therefore, particularly difficult to place actors within fixed locations in order to study them. Therefore, to get at the logics that drive distinct sectors and fields, and to place actors within them, this book maps out certain political spaces by taking a historical look at how competing actors emerged and socially constructed these spaces through the strategic leveraging of distinct discourses. The key element will be to show how certain actors were able to define key sectoral concepts that other actors then used as a standard to identify and position themselves within that respective sector. However, in order to define a complex and contested political space effectively, one needs a methodological tool that is versatile and that can disentangle the social variables that underlie the problem set. This book adopts discourse analysis as the primary tool for achieving this objective. Discourse analysis allows the investigator to organize political spaces by positioning actors around important discursive concepts and demonstrate relational changes between actors over time—as information flows changed meanings and, by extension, identities, actors’ positions also changed.
Second, and following from the first, this book introduces a newly conceptualized type of private actor—a governing body apart from the states—identified as a network connector. Network connectors are private governors that have actively sought out a subject position that situates them as nodes in between networks. These actors are granted distinct forms of authority based on their ability to position themselves to connect networks, and through this, be able to transfer distinct forms of power across those networks. In placing themselves there, positionally, they are able to retain certain elements of that power for their own use. However, in order to tap into this power these actors must construct interoperating codes, or key concepts that others can then organize themselves around without disassociating themselves from their adapted identity. For it is only through these codes (or concepts) that actors across distinct networks can be connected, and through which authority can then flow. Upon successfully constructing such codes, these actors come to operate as nodes. Yet, from in between networks, these private actors are operating apart from any clear source of traditional, hierarchical authority, and thus are ideal subjects of inquiry. It is difficult to conceive of how private actors could possibly exert true authority under the traditional, hierarchical construct. Relying on explanations limited to the manipulation of incentive structures excessively narrows down the scope of explanation. By considering the network perspective, it opens the door to better understanding and explaining private authority, through analysis of the struggles private actors undergo to gain and maintain authority by way of their social positions; particularly those operating in between networks. While private governors are often granted distinct forms of authority, they are not granted any authority without stipulation. As a result, they are constantly forced to balance networks (or coalitions) in order to maintain whatever authority they may possess. Focusing on network connectors—as they have explicitly staked out positions in between networks—will bring visibility to the mechanics underlying this social process. After all, it is their ability to connect distinct networks that garners them the authority to govern. Examining social interactions within these spaces will reveal a more nuanced understanding of the messy politics that is private governance in networked society. It will also provide insight into the full spectrum of strategic possibilities for private governors, and the interplay of different sources of authority.
Third, it leverages the tools of discourse analysis in order to unlock the social foundations of the phenomenon that is private authority. The discourse approach adopted here aims at explaining how actors respond to changing meaning in the world through a thick description that “encompasses not only things said but also things done, that is, practices envisaged as meaningful actions.”46 Also, this thick discourse approach provides a way for understanding how actors “construct the world around them, the possibilities for acting within it, and their own identities.”47 As discussed in Castells (2000), in an increasingly globalized world of interconnecting networks, identity becomes the source of social meaning. Actors organize their meaning “not around what they do but on the basis of what they are, or believe they are.”48 Yet operating within the seams of competing networks requires identity balancing or maintaining the integrity of one’s own identity while trying to mold others toward a common purpose. Thus, a more thorough investigation of identity will be a critical component of this book’s contribution. Doing so moves it beyond imposing assumed meaning on material facts and allows for a more thorough examination of how private actors navigate between competing discourses in strategic pursuit of authority.
Approaching the book in this way allows for an explanation of not only the multiple loci of authority that exist in environmental politics (and global politics more generally) but also how that authority dynamically flows. While the focus of the book will be on network connectors, it considers actors that operate in other parts of the network as well. Thus, while focused on one particular type of actor, it also considers the experiences of a broad array of actors dispersed across networks and their interactions in both the private and the public realm.
Framing the Concept of Private Authority
In order to examine the nature of private authority in environmental governance, it is important to first understand what private authority is. Therefore, the first part of this section will trace the evolving definition of private authority as it has emerged in the body of literature on the topic. Second, because private authority is exercised by a diversity of actors, operating within and across networks, it is important to examine network society as it has been explained in the literature. Third, and finally, in order to make the case for the importance of this novel type of private governor deemed a network connector, and for its positioning within a discursive terrain as key to its authority, the section will conclude with a brief discussion on the discourse approach that will be utilized by this book.
Private Governors
There is a large bulk of literature on the topic of private governance that is generally subsumed under the broader category of global governance. This private governance literature predominantly focuses on how non-state actors adapt themselves to power structures in world politics that exist apart from them.49,50,51,52,53,54,55 Susan Strange (1996) was one of the first to examine the phenomenon of private governance and found that agents other than states are increasingly exercising authority in society. While her focus tended toward transnational corporations, and their use of markets to leverage authority away from states in international politics, her overall point was that non-state actors can exercise what she calls “parallel authority.”56 This form of authority takes place alongside that of states and is tapped by using the potential power of markets. Avant, Finnemore, and Sell (2010) take this argument a bit further by contending that authority relationships constitute the basic building blocks of global politics and can be exercised by non-state agents as much as those attached to states. This is identifiable in the ways by which non-state agents behave in a manner that mirrors states—they strategize, compete, and cooperate in order to achieve desired political outcomes. Yet, although private actors do, indeed, operate much like states in order to achieve outcomes, they operate apart from the governance mandate that states have (based in the social contract).57 Therefore, they have different bases of authority, and in order to determine those, a broader social approach is needed. Private governors do not just accrue authority by proving their instrumental utility to other actors. The social process is deeper than that, and therefore conceptualizing private governance and the exercise of private authority in this way is problematic. It treats the exercise of private authority as a static phenomenon that takes place in a hierarchical, well-organized sector, wherein the simple act of consent by the governed is the prerequisite for authority, and where markets become forums between non-state actors and states to compete over the seeming commodity that is authority. Thinking about this phenomenon along these terms leads to the conclusion that private governors are those that compete (with states as well as with other actors) in order to make rules and/or standards that other relevant actors in world politics can voluntarily choose to adopt and abide by because it provides them some valued commodity in return.58 Private authority, according to the current body of literature, is thus the equivalent of making rules and having them supported and followed by others only insofar as they provide some instrumental benefit. 59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66
While conceptualizing private authority in this way is a useful heuristic tool, it does not appreciate the complexity of this social phenomenon, particularly not as it takes place within network society. These frames do not take into consideration the process of emergence of private governors from within power structures, into positions of authority, by actively shaping discourse. I argue in this book that private governors, through the process of defining the very meaning or perception of standards in private governance (within the respective political sectors they emerge into), constrain the behaviors of other actors they seek to regulate—at the level of identity. Private governors create rules that are abided by, not due to judgments of instrumentality (although those undoubtedly play a part) but more so by framing key concepts within the field and then placing themselves in subject positions, in relation to those concepts, from where they can exert authority. Thus, traditional approaches miss the deeper social dynamics that compose private governance relationships. This is an important point to make because the works herein discussed are foundational and inform those that preceded them. Therefore, an expansion of the current understanding of private authority is needed.
Private Authority
Private authority is defined by Rodney Hall and Thomas Biersteker (2002) as “institutionalized forms or expressions of power” that are legitimate because “there is some form of normative, un-coerced consent or recognition of authority on the part of the regulated or governed.”67 Green (2014) elaborates on this conception by stating that private authority is a “social relationship between authority and subject because it is mutually constituted, requiring the subject acknowledge the consent to the claim of authority.”68 There are three key components to these popular conceptions/definitions of private authority. First, compliance with the rules and standards developed by these private governance institutions is not coerced but rather derives from consent. Second, in these forms of governance, legitimacy is the glue that binds, or, in other words, it is the bedrock of support for private governors. For, if the private governor is not legitimated by those operating within the targeted domain, consent is not granted. If consent is not granted, then authority is not granted, and the governor is incapable of governing. But as these private governors provide viable governance solutions to relevant actors, they are legitimated by these actors as authorities. Third, this is a social process wherein an aspiring governor must accumulate the social/material capital necessary to elicit the consent of the targeted subject of authority.
In the literature, it seems as if the first two components of this definition are taken seriously but not the third (the social process of accumulating the power necessary to govern). It is important to emphasize here that private authority consists of dynamic relationships, and that it is not a static condition. For example, Barnett and Finnemore (2004) use the case of international organizations to argue that they acquire authority through their bureaucratic functionalities. They create standards that can be followed, constructed through the application of their expertise. Additionally, their support brings with it moral credence, as they can advance shared values toward social and political objectives. Yet in spite of the essential “socialness” of this type of authority (i.e., moral credence, development of agreed upon standards among conflicting groups, and acknowledgment of expertise), the explanations provided by Barnett and Finnemore assume away this part. They attribute these qualities to these actors and argue authority without exploring the social processes by which these qualities came about. Structuring their argument in such a way forgoes any deep explanation of private authority, which would need to include an examination of the social process by which these actors arrived at different forms of authority. But what is the social process that underlies the accumulation of moral authority? Who defines the actions of these networks as moral, or for the “common good”? How are the concepts organized within the discursive terrain that makes articulations from these groups “moral,” or representative of the common purpose? Such explanations, again, require a deeper sociological component in order to be explained properly.
The more sociological approaches are those of Avant, Finnemore, and Sell (2010) and Sending (2015). The former, however, use authority as a generic category by referencing particular types of authority—be it expert, delegated, or institutional. They treat these forms of authority as endogenous to specific types of actors. Yet these forms of authority are rarely so clear cut; as they usually take multiple forms. Additionally, these sources of authority must be socially constructed in order to be leveraged. The process by which this takes place changes the nature of governance so that meanings that once held influence are changed to accommodate new meanings constructed by private governors. As stated in Friedman (1990), “the distinction between statement and speaker such that the latter can endow the former with its appeal,” and takes it further in stating that “[t]he concept of authority can thus have an application only within the context of certain socially accepted criteria which serve to identify the person(s) whose utterances are to count as authoritative.”69 This process not only affects meanings of concepts to different actors but also affects identities. Therefore, the authors cannot explain it fully unless such is taken into consideration. Accordingly, a deeper analysis of the process by which actors come to construct and maintain such forms of authority is needed. Such an analysis would need analytical tools that can identify the social criteria by which articulations are evaluated and authority is then conceded, as well as ones that consider this process within the realities of network society.
In Sending (2015), the most socially oriented of those discussed, the author seeks to explain the phenomenon of governance authority by explaining the emergence of governors within hierarchically organized domains, or between superordinate/subordinate actors. The emphasis in this work is on the ability to garner recognition by actors operating in politically contentious spaces. While insightful and illuminating, this work assumes actor intentionality as being based in the quest for recognition. Yet, this assumes that a structure and specific logic presuppose the actors under examination. That structure is competition within hierarchically structured social spaces, and the quest for recognition within these spaces then drives certain, seemingly intuitive, behaviors based in rational choice decision-making.
This book seeks an alternative means that assumes nothing other than that private governors seek to be legitimated as rule makers, so that their rules are followed, and their agenda promoted. However, operating apart from state authority removes hierarchical logics from the equation and replaces them with asymmetric logics. The process by which power is generated thus transcends just instrumental exchange relationships based on clear power structures. Rather, it is replaced by dynamic social flows and the construction of meaning that emanates from strategic employment of discourse. Taking the social approach also takes the second element of the definition of private authority—legitimacy—more seriously. The current literature acknowledges the key role of legitimacy in private governance but simply attributes this “condition” to certain actors without theorizing the process by which this condition arises. Legitimacy, after all, is a struggle over values. Therefore, it would seem that a central role would be given to examining not just the values themselves but also the process through which they develop and are adopted, and/or how they shape possibilities. This book inquires about the role of ideas, identities, and practices in constructing and maintaining private authority. Avoiding these components of private authority forgoes a certain depth/thickness of description, leaving it short in its explanatory power. Thus, rather than contributing to the current body of literature that captures the static components of private authority by pre-assuming attributes, this book looks to analyze and explain the process by which actors arrive at private authority. Further, it aims to explore how, by navigating distinct discourses, private actors position themselves strategically among a diverse array of actors to construct, leverage, and maintain private authority. Such an approach requires a theoretical frame that considers more seriously the social component of private authority as it takes place in network society.
A Theory of Private Authority—the Centrality of Discourse
Before moving forward, it is important to first frame the process by which the book will explain how private authority functions. To tap into this sociological approach, this book will use discourse analysis. It will do so because it aims to understand “how, under what conditions, and for what reasons discourses are constructed, contested and changed,” and then the political effects of such on matters of private authority.70 Discourses give meaning to a social and physical reality, and it is thus through them that sense is made of the world. In other words, things encountered in the world have no meaning other than the meaning given to them through the process of social construction. This does not mean that the world only exists in peoples’ heads, but rather means that meaning is not fixed.71 It is fluid and variable, and thus relationships oftentimes change between actors and objects, as well as among actors, as distinct concepts and meanings evolve. This process results from fluctuating meanings that affect identities and interests.
In order to explain the emergence of actors into select social positions, then, it is necessary to understand discursive practices, as they “systematically form the identities of subjects and objects by articulating together a series of contingent signifying elements available in a discursive field.”72 Actors navigate a discursive field by constructing and molding concepts that then serve to place them in positions of authority, as discursive fields form around nodal points that serve as reference points wherein discourses bind together to form a coherent system of meaning.73 For an example that may bring clarity to this concept, one could look at the 1970s Save the Whales campaign undertaken by the nongovernmental organization (NGO) Greenpeace. Through their campaign, Greenpeace was able to shape how the viewing public thought about whales and the practice of hunting whale, that is, whales as intelligent and worth saving and the practices of hunting them as inhumane, as well as what species should be considered whales, and so on.74 Greenpeace’s ability to develop a nodal point of whales as needing saving forced other actors operating in the whaling space to reorient their behaviors in relation to this concept. Greenpeace was outside of the whale industry, and broader society had little visibility over whaling practices. However, Greenpeace was able to navigate into a social position from which they could wield authority through the construction of a discourse that forced change in the industry. They connected the whaling industry and the regulatory bodies overseeing the industry with the environmental movement and concerned citizen networks to effect the change they desired.75 In such a capacity, network connectors operate between networks and draw authority from their ability to build connecting nodal points between social networks. To do this, network connectors must synthesize the operating codes of divergent discourses into a unifying discourse wherein they hold a position of authority.
Within networks, codes must be adaptable in order for connections to be made. Network connectors provide this service by connecting nodal points through discourse. However, as they do so, particularly those entering into a new discursive terrain, they begin to encounter challenges to their identity. As these actors try to make sense of these challenges, and adjust action accordingly, other actors who interpret and judge their actions evaluate them. Oftentimes, this brings into confrontation contending ideas and actions, which threaten the identity constructed by others operating within the same discursive terrain.76 This translates into issues of legitimacy. Returning to the example of Greenpeace, their tactics in bringing attention to whaling—for example, confronting and/or ramming whaling ships—proved controversial and forced supporting environmental groups to decide whether they would side with such tactics, and, thereby, risk isolating themselves from their support base, or condemn such tactics as extreme. Their legitimacy was in many ways tied to their decision on this matter.
As aspiring private governors operate apart from hierarchical state authority, they require the broadest support base possible—across networks. Thus, they must construct a discourse that is widely acceptable across networks. Yet, because this process inevitably challenges the identity of others (as it tries to connect wholly distinct actors operating on distinct codes), this process involves a great deal of complexity. Actors operating within discursive spaces that have their identity challenged by others are put in a position where delegitimating the other actors becomes essential for identity protection.77 Navigating this process—in order to construct a discourse that has broad appeal—is thus the most critical component of private authority. This book seeks to explain such by applying a discourse approach. The interpretive narrative gleaned through discourse analysis will serve as the descriptive background from which a causal story can then be told. Causal mechanisms will be identified via process tracing.78,79 The ideas and social structures constructed by network connectors, based on the movement of actors within the discursive terrain, have causal effects. These effects will be evaluated against empirical evidence. The theoretical approach presented here can generate additional hypotheses regarding private environmental governance, and the findings are generalizable enough to be useful to future studies examining private environmental governors across sectors.
Why Focus on the Environmental Sector?
The contours of any political sector are individually unique because they are patterned on the basis of relationships between actors operating within these sectors.80 Thus, to understand any particular development within a particular sector, it must be understood as a distinct social space—a space whose boundaries are in constant flux, as they are determined by the unique positions occupied by distinct actors, each with their own separate agendas and striving to achieve specific objectives.81 Therefore, to get at the logics that drive private governance, one must first map out the environmental sector by taking a historical look at how distinct actors emerged and came to structure the field they operate in. This constructive process evolved through the development of categories that ordered the boundaries of their social worlds.82 In order to conduct such an analysis, and keep the scope manageable and focused, it is necessary to focus on an individual sector. Doing so will allow a more precise and thorough look at the social processes underlying actor emergence and the various strategies actors used within this distinct political terrain. Additionally, it allows for better control of macro-level factors that can have distinct effects within distinct sectors. The macro-level factors that will be considered in this book are the networking of society as the result of the logics of a neoliberal discourse paralleled with the advancement in technology. Each of these had a significant impact on the environmental sector, yet one distinct from other political sectors. Therefore, by focusing on the environment, the nature of private governance and political authority can be examined with greater control.
The selection of the environment, among other political sectors, is not arbitrary. It is a calculated decision for a few particular reasons: First, the environmental sector is intrinsically important. Beyond the obvious physical importance to humanity, politically it is a salient and increasingly important topic. Issues affecting the environment have been advancing up the policy agenda as the negative effects of environmental degradation become more apparent. Second, and related to the first, as well as to issues of research design, private environmental governance is rapidly increasing. The multitude of actors operating in this space thus presents a rich space within which to analyze private authority as it evolves. Third, the environment can be broken down into several sectors that represent separate fields within one overarching sector. This provides an opportunity for analyzing within-sector differentiation (i.e., forests, fisheries, climate change, oceans). The environmental sector has an overarching logic that applies to these fields individually, yet each field has its own set of actors. This presents the opportunity to examine differences between fields (forests and fisheries in this study), within one sector (environment), and this provides for control of variation. Fourth, and finally, the environmental sector exemplifies well the transition to network governance that is taking place across political sectors—beyond just the environment. This is the case for several reasons: One, governance of the environment takes place primarily among the developed countries of the world, which leverage the power of modern communication and information processing technologies to achieve their objectives. Understanding the complexities of environmental systems degradation requires advanced information processing techniques, intensive knowledge accumulation, and the technology to support such. Thus, the effects of the networking of governance are very prominent within the environmental sector. This is not to say that the networking of power is not taking place in the developing world, but rather just that it is more prominent in the developed world—and thus more suited to analysis. Two, governance in the environmental sector is not, in its current form, ordered hierarchically. Rather, it is more horizontally oriented as non-state actors play a significant role in the ordering and governing of the sector. This is particularly the case considering the unwillingness of states to enact authoritative legislation to protect the environment. Three, there exist in the environmental sector distinguishable networks that operate, for the most part, independent of one another, for example, the industrial network and the network of environmental NGOs (ENGOs). Both sides consist of diverse collections of actors plugged into different networks along different nodes. Some of these networks plug into state authority at different points but mainly operate apart from the hierarchical structures of state authority. Four, power and authority dynamics flow between actors dynamically in this space. This can be witnessed in the rise and fall of actors attempting to leverage all forms of authority in this space to achieve outcomes. ENGOs are constantly at odds with industry and government over environmental conservation strategies. They engage in push-and-pull power struggles aimed at achieving desired objectives, and leverage intermediaries in order to further their cause. Thus, the space provides rich empirical grounds for studying the social phenomenon that is private authority. Five, information is the currency of power in this space. While material productivity is of obvious relevance and importance to those actors in the industrial networks, the ability to convey their operations as being considered sustainable is critical to remaining profitable. Conveying this data requires both the accumulation of vast metrics, measured against standards created by environmental experts using advanced scientific tools of measurement, and a firm definition of what sustainable means. Thus, it requires not just advanced scientific instrumentation to measure the effects; it also requires the technical means by which to convey and inform such broad audiences.
Structure of the Book
This book has two main parts: a theoretical component and an empirical component. Chapter 1 presents a theory of private governance authority in networked society. It will begin with an in-depth discussion on the nature of networked society, with a focus on private governance within such. This section will include an in-depth look at the constituent elements of private authority, how it flows across networks through network connectors, and why some are better able to shape the discourse than others. The purpose is to present a more robust, explanatory, and socially accurate framework for understanding private governance in the environmental sector specifically, but about the social processes involved in global governance, more generally.
As the book aims to ground private governance within its broader discursive context, the focus of chapter 2 will be on outlining the discursive structures of the environmental sector. In order to properly analyze how authority transits social networks, and the key role network connectors play, it is essential that the network architecture be accurately mapped out and clearly presented. Therefore, the discursive structure of the overarching environmental sector will be presented so that in the empirical chapters the process of construction, re-construction, and navigation of subject positions can be more accurately described. Through extensive content analysis, and secondary source research, three distinct discourses were identified within the environmental sector: the preservation discourse, the sustainable development discourse, and the environmental economism discourse. These discourses were adopted, and adapted, in varying ways, by actors and networks across varying environmental sectors. Framing the project in this way will allow for a detailed examination of how actors navigated different subject positions within this domain and how, from these subject positions, they were able to enforce rules.
Chapter 2 will briefly present the analytical framework utilized for conducting the research undertaken in this book. Due to the many variables under consideration in this work, and the complexity of the argument, it seemed appropriate to dedicate a brief chapter to explaining the process used for framing and exploring the research problem under investigation. As the book aims to ground private governance within its broader discursive context, the focus of chapter 3 will be on outlining the discursive structures of the environmental sector. In order to properly analyze how authority transits social networks, and the key role network connectors play, it is essential that the network architecture be accurately mapped out and clearly presented.
Chapters 4, 5, 6, and 7 are the empirical chapters and will focus on the FSC in the forestry sector and the MSC in the fisheries sector. The first chapter of each case study (i.e., chapters 4 and 6, respectively) will focus on how the FSC/MSC emerged into the subject position of a network connector through their construction and manipulation of discourse. The second chapter of each case study (i.e., chapters 5 and 7, respectively) will then focus on how the FSC/MSC then used such a subject position to wield authority, looking not just at the relationship between the FSC/MSC and those they sought to govern, but also on the role competing networks played in the process. Through a network analysis, complemented by a focus on discourse, it becomes evident that the FSC/MSC constructed an adapted form of the sustainable development discourse that could resonate to both the preservationists and the environmental economism actors. Through strategies of identity balancing and identity transference the FSC/MSC were able to gain legitimacy over their competitors. Such an approach is distinct from those that use either moral authority or instrumental value as the key factors propelling weaker actors to gain legitimation and power over stronger actors. Rather, I argue that it is because weaker actors are able to establish themselves as conduits between competing networks that they are able to become legitimated as authorities. Fundamentally, the FSC/MSC were able to first establish themselves in an authoritative position through their construction of a key nodal point. Second, they were able to stabilize and expand their authority through their ability to transfer the identity of the ENGO network, seen as protectors of the environment, to the industry network via their eco-label. This was a key goal of industry: to be seen by consumers as protectors of the environment as well. In return, by supporting the FSC/MSC, ENGOs were seen as being effective in effecting change toward sustainable management of forests and fisheries. While these actions may be premised on perceived calculations of interest, the interest was based in social identity that was measured only in any given actor’s relation to the FSC/MSC, not simply bottom line profitability or simple material gain. This claim will be explored using extensive content analysis of public statements made by key actors within the networks involved. A direct comparison will be made between the FSC/MSC and competitor programs in order to show that their ability to define what sustainable management meant, and the practices that accompanied it, in a way that was amenable across networks (although not ideal to either), is the main cause of their ability to elicit private authority.
Chapter 8 synthesizes the findings of the book and discusses the theoretical implications—namely, appropriate and more fruitful ways by which to evaluate the nature of private authority in environmental politics. It also presents future channels for inquiry, situating the work within a much broader set of issues and questions relating to institutional complexity in a networked society, and the effects of such on all forms of authority over time.
Conclusion
The findings of this book are significant for four reasons: One, although this book is focused on the FSC/MSC in particular, it has a more general aim of expanding understandings of how private governance unfolds in general. The strategic interactions among actors in the forestry and fisheries sectors very much reflect those taking place within various other global political sectors. Thus, the hypotheses generated by the theory expounded here, along with the findings that follow from the empirical sections, are in many ways generalizable across political sectors.
Two, private authority does not occur in a vacuum. Rather, it is polycentric. The rational bureaucratic model of the industrial-era state is not an accurate reflection of the more contemporary developments within network society. The latter takes place in a decentralized social structure with many centers that are interconnected by nodes. It is important to emphasize that this structure is social in nature. It reflects a diverse array of actors competing across multiple levels of the international system for authority and influence. Therefore, answering the questions posed by this book should be of interest not just to scholars of private authority but also to those of international relations more generally. Understanding this process should shed light on the evolving forms of global governance, and not just on the role of non-state actors in it, but on the role of the state as well. This book purposely avoids entering into the argument that the traditional nation-state is losing ground to non-state actors, or that state power is necessarily being weakened or challenged by these actors. This book only argues that the nature of global governance is changing in form and this is forcing the state and non-state actors to adapt to these newer realities. It then examines the process by which this phenomenon operates under this form. The state in this book is considered to be a hub in the global network, a particularly powerful one at that, to which non-state actors can connect and disconnect contingent upon dynamically evolving circumstances. Additionally, the study of international relations has tended to focus on international law and international organizations as the vehicles by which global governance is carried out.83 However, the arguments and evidence presented by this book will demonstrate another form of governance that needs to be considered—private governance. Private governance, and the authority wielded by those that engage in it, is an intimate part of the process of global governance.
Three, focusing research efforts on the environmental sector is useful because the environment is critically important. There are countless scientific assessments that speak of the looming threats of environmental degradation and the need to mitigate these. There have been several high-level international conferences held in order to discuss the topic. Collectively, these realities reflect a growing consensus that the future of human life on this planet depends on taking appropriate action. Therefore, any effort at better understanding how the environment is managed is a worthy endeavor. As private governance measures gain increasing support and popularity, while at the same time being accused of greenwashing and taking natural pressure off states to exercise their power within the domain, the topic of private governance, in particular, is critical for the future.84,85
Four, and finally, private governance in the environmental domain is growing exponentially. The vast array of actors and interests that are operating within this domain is dense and thus provides a rich base by which to examine private governance. Although the focus of this book is the FSC and the MSC, it also considers a variety of actors operating within the same domain (ENGOs), each with distinct tactical approaches. The dense richness of the domain allows for a more nuanced look at this political development.
NOTES
1. Risse-Kappen, T. Bringing Transnational Relations Back In: Non-State Actors, Domestic Structures and International Institutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
2. Keck, M. E. and Sikkink, K. Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1998.
3. Raustiala, K. “States, NGOs and International Environmental Institutions.” International Studies Quarterly 41, no. 4 (1997): 719–740.
4. Cutler, A. C., Haufler, V., and Porter, T. Private Authority and International Affairs. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999.
5. Strange, S. The Retreat of the State: The Diffusion of Power in the World Economy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
6. Hall, R. B. and Biersteker, T. J. The Emergence of Private Authority in Global Governance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
7. Cashore, B., Auld, G., and Newsom, D. Governing through Markets: Forest Certification and the Emergence of Non-state Authority. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004.
8. Pattberg, P.H. “The Institutionalization of Private Governance: How Business and Nonprofit Organizations Agree on Transnational Rules.” Governance 18, no. 4 (October 01, 2005): 589–610.
9. Avant, D. D., Finnemore, M., and Sell, S. K. Who Governs the Globe? Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
10. Green, J. F. Rethinking Private Authority: Agents and Entrepreneurs in Global Environmental Governance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2013.
11. Auld, G. Constructing Private Governance: The Rise and Evolution of Forest, Coffee, and Fisheries Certification. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2014.
12. Bovaird, T. “Public Governance: Balancing Stakeholder Power in a Network Society.” International Review of Administrative Sciences 71, no. 2 (2005): 217–228; Strange. The Retreat of the State.
13. Castells, M. The Rise of the Network Society: The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture. Vol. I, Malden: Blackwell Publishers, 1996.
14. Barney, D. The Network Society. Vol. 2. Polity, 2004.
15. Castells, M. and Cardoso, G., eds. The Network Society: From Knowledge to Policy. Washington, DC: Johns Hopkins Center for Transatlantic Relations, 2006.
16. Knoke, D. Economic Networks. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2012.
17. Hajer, M. A. and Hendrick, W. Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society. Cambridge University Press, 2003.
18. Young, O.R. and Levy, M. The Effectiveness of International Environmental Regimes: Causal Connections and Behavioral Mechanisms. MIT Press, 1999.
19. Van Dijk, J. The Network Society. Sage Publications, 2012.
20. Risse-Kappen. Bringing Transnational Relations Back In.
21. Strange. The Retreat of the State.
22. Raustiala. “States, NGOs and International Environmental Institutions,” 719–740.
23. Keck and Sikkink. Activists Beyond Borders.
24. Cutler, Haufler, and Porter. Private Authority and International Affairs.
25. Young and Levy. The Effectiveness of International Environmental Regimes.
26. Hall and Biersteker. The Emergence of Private Authority in Global Governance.
27. Auld. Constructing Private Governance.
28. Cashore, Auld, and Newsom. Governing through Markets.
29. Auld. Constructing Private Governance.
30. Green. Rethinking Private Authority.
31. Craven, P. and Wellman, B. “The Network City.” Sociological Inquiry 43 (1973): 57–88.
32. Risse-Kappen. Bringing Transnational Relations Back In.
33. Strange. The Retreat of the State.
34. Raustiala. “States, NGOs and International Environmental Institutions,” 719–740.
35. Keck and Sikkink. Activists Beyond Borders.
36. Cutler, Haufler, and Porter. Private Authority and International Affairs.
37. Hall and Biersteker. The Emergence of Private Authority in Global Governance.
38. Pattberg, P. H. Private Institutions and Global Governance: The New Politics of Environmental Sustainability. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2007.
39. Castells, M. The Rise of the Network Society. Blackwell Publishers Inc., 2011.
40. In defining social structures in this work, I borrow from Crothers 2013 (p. 4) who defined it as “relations among people, between groups or institutions, and backwards and forwards between people and groups.” This definition is indicative of the mutually constitutive nature of social structure, as Crothers goes on to make the claim that “[h]uman action in turn, feeds back to affect the operation of social structures: there is an ongoing, reciprocal process of shaping and feedback between participants and social structures.”
41. Castells. The Rise of the Network Society, 1996: 470.
42. Ibid.
43. Ibid.
44. The traditional forms here are primarily dependent on static power transference (i.e., re-organization of bureaucracies, creation of new bureaucracies, greater budget allocations).
45. It is important to note that this book is not aimed at furthering Castell’s full theory of the network society. It only adopts the theory as it applies to private governance authority in the environmental sector. Castell’s theory is vast and wide-ranging, encompassing the whole of global society, as he sees history moving into the information age. His broader assumptions are far beyond the scope of this book. However, Castell’s explanation of the social processes that drive the movement toward network society can be seen operating within specific sectors that are being governed by private actors organized in networks. These networks thrive on the processing of complex and high-volume information that is transmitted rapidly across the networks via modern communications technologies. Thus, Castells’s theory of networks provides a critical frame by which to expand understanding.
46. Epstein, C. The Power of Words in International Relations: Birth of an Anti-whaling Siscourse. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008: 186.
47. Abdelal, R., Blyth, M., and Parsons, C. Constructing the International Economy. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2010: 175.
48. Castells, M. The Rise of the Network Society: End of Millennium. Vol. III, Malden: Blackwell Publishers, 2000: 3.
49. Haas, P.M. “Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination.” International Organization 46, no. 01 (1992): 1–35.
50. Strange. The Retreat of the State.
51. Keck and Sikkink. Activists Beyond Borders.
52. Barnett, M. N. and Finnemore, M. Rules for the World: International Organizations in Global Politics. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2004.
53. Bernstein, S. and Cashore, B. “Non-state Global Governance: Is Forest Certification a Legitimate Alternative to a Global Forest Convention?” in Kirton, J. and Trebilcock, M. eds., Hard Choices, Soft Law: Combining Trade, Environment and Social Cohesion in Global Governance. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2004: 33–63.
54. Lake, D. Hierarchy in International Relations. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2009.
55. Green. Rethinking Private Authority.
56. Strange. The Retreat of the State, 65.
57. Contractual right here is an allusion to Rousseau’s social contract theory—expressed in his 1762 work The Social Contract—where he states, “Let us then admit that force does not create right, and that we are obliged to obey only legitimate powers” (Penguin Edition 1968, p. 168).
58. Green. Rethinking Private Authority, 35.
59. Risse-Kappen. Bringing Transnational Relations Back In.
60. Strange. The Retreat of the State, 1996.
61. Raustiala. “States, NGOs and International Environmental Institutions,” 719–740.
62. Raustiala. “States, NGOs and International Environmental Institutions,” 719–740.
63. Cutler, Haufler, and Porter. Private Authority and International Affairs.
64. Young and Levy. The Effectiveness of International Environmental Regimes.
65. Pattberg. “The Institutionalization of Private Governance.”
66. Auld. Constructing Private Governance.
67. Hall and Biersteker. The Emergence of Private Authority in Global Governance, 5.
68. Green. Rethinking Private Authority, 6.
69. Friedman, R.B. “On the Concept of Authority in Political Philosophy.” In Joseph Raz, ed., Authority . New York: New York University Press, 1990: 69–71.
70. Howarth, D. R., Norval, A. J., and Stavrakakis, Y. Discourse Theory and Political Analysis: Identities, Hegemonies, and Social Change. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2000: 131.
71. Wendt, A. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1999: 164.
72. Howarth, Norval, and Stavrakakis. Discourse Theory and Political Analysis, 7.
73. Laclau, E. and Mouffe, C. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London: Verso, 1985 (as found in Howarth, Norval, and Stavrakakis. Discourse Theory and Political Analysis, 7).
74. Epstein, C. The power of words in international relations: Birth of an anti-whaling discourse. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2008.
75. Ibid.
76. Howarth, Norval, and Stavrakakis. Discourse Theory and Political Analysis.
77. Epstein. The Power of Words in International Relations (as found in Abdelal, 2010: 175–193).
78. George, A. L. and Bennett, A. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005.
79. Bennett, A. and Checkel, J. T. Process Tracing: From Metaphor to Analytic Tool. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.
80. Laclau and Mouffe. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy.
81. Sending, O. J. The Politics of Expertise: Competing for Authority in Global Governance. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2015: 22.
82. Sending. The Politics of Expertise, 23.
83. Green. Rethinking Private Authority.
84. For additional information on greenwashing see: Bowen, Frances. After Greenwashing: Symbolic Corporate Environmentalism and Society. Cambridge University Press, 2014.
85. For additional information on the withdrawal of state responsibility see: Smith, J. Social Movements for Global Democracy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007.
