This article examines under what conditions states engage in transnational public–private partnerships for the environment. While there is hardly a disagreement in the literature on the rise of transnational actors and new modes of collaborative governance, their interaction with and impact on state institutions remain debated and insufficiently illuminated by empirical research. Some scholars of globalization interpret transnational partnerships as evidence of state insufficiency and retreat, others emphasize the continued primacy of state power in manipulating old and new institutional arenas, still other scholars anticipate the “rearticulation” of the state to partake in new governance. This study is one of the first to examine theoretically and empirically, using a sample of some 230 partnerships, how domestic capacity, the constituencies of transnational actors, as well as international donors and institutions shape the variable rearticulation of the state to partake in partnerships. A comparative case study of Brazil and Russia provides further detail on the political dynamics that enable or constrain state-society collaborations for the environment.
AbbottK. W.SnidalD. (2009). Strengthening international regulation through transnational governance: Overcoming the orchestration deficit. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 42, 501-578.
2.
AndonovaL. B. (2004). Transnational politics of the environment: The European union and environmental policy in Central and Eastern Europe. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3.
AndonovaL. B. (2008). The climate regime and domestic politics: The case of Russia. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 21, 483-504.
4.
AndonovaL. B. (2010). Public-private partnerships for the Earth: Politics and patterns of hybrid authority in the multilateral system. Global Environmental Politics, 10, 25-53.
5.
AndonovaL. B.AlexievaA. (2012). Continuity and change in Russia’s climate negotiations position and strategy. Climate Policy, 12, 614-629.
6.
AndonovaL. B.LevyM. A. (2003). Franchising global governance: Making sense of the Johannesburg Type II partnerships. In StokkeO. S.ThommessenØ. B. (Eds.), Yearbook of international co-operation on environment and development 2003/2004 (pp. 19-32). London, England: Earthscan.
7.
AndonovaL. B.MansfieldE. D.MilnerH. V. (2007). International trade and environmental policy in the post-communist world. Comparative Political Studies, 40(10), 1-27.
BäckstrandK. (2006). Multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainable development: Rethinking legitimacy, accountability and effectiveness. European Environment, 16, 290-306.
10.
BäckstrandK.KhanJ.KronsellA.LovbrandE. (2010). Environmental politics and deliberative democracy: Examining the promise of new modes of governance. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
11.
BellA. R.EngleN. L.LemosM. (2011). How does diversity matter? The case of Brazilian River Basin Councils. Ecology and Society, 16(1), Article 42.
12.
BernauerT.BöhmeltT.KoubiV. (2013). The democracy—Civil society paradox in global environmental governance. Global Environmental Politics, 13, 88-107.
13.
BetsillM. M.CorellE. (2007). NGO diplomacy. The influence of nongovernmental organizations in international environmental negotiations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14.
BexellM.MörthU. (Eds.). (2010). Democracy and public-private partnerships in global governance. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
15.
BiermannF.ChanM.MertA.PattbergP. (2007). Multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainable development: Does the promise hold? In GlasbergenP.BiermannF.MolA. (Eds.), Partnerships, governance and sustainable development: Reflections on theory and practice (pp. 239-260). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
16.
BorzelT. A.RisseT. (2005). Public-private partnerships: Effective and legitimate tools of international governance? In GrandeE.PaulyL. W. (Eds.), Complex sovereignty: Reconstructing political authority in the twenty first century (pp. 195-216). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
17.
BulkeleyH.AndonovaL.BäckstrandK.BetsillM.CompagnonD.DuffyR.. . .VanDeveerS. (2012). Governing climate change transnationally: Assessing the evidence from a database of sixty initiatives. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 30, 591-612.
18.
BütheT.MattliW. (2011). The new global rulers: The privatization of regulation in the world economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
19.
CarminJ.FaganA. (2010). Environmental mobilization and organizations in post-socialist states. Environmental Politics, 19, 689-707.
20.
CashoreB.GraemeA.NewsomD. (2004). Governing through markets: Forest certification and the emergency of non-state authority. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
CastillejaG. (2009, April). How does an international organization like WWF obtain results: Amazon Regional Protected Areas Programme. Presentation by the Executive Director for Conservation of WWF International, Graduate Institute for International and Development Studies, Geneva, Switzerland.
23.
Center for International Earth Science Information Network. (2003). Environmental treaties and resource indicators (ENTRI). Columbia University. Retrieved from http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/entri/
24.
CIESIN, World Economic Forum and Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy. (2001). Environmental sustainability index 2001. Retrieved from http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/indicators/ESI
25.
CIESIN, World Economic Forum and Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy. (2002). Environmental sustainability index 2002. Retrieved from http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/indicators/ESI
26.
CompagnonD. (2012). Africa’s involvement in partnerships for sustainable development: Holy grail or business as usual? In PattbergP.BiermannF.ChanS.MertA. (Eds.), Public-private partnerships for sustainable development: Emergence, influence and legitimacy (pp. 137-164). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
27.
ConcaK. (1998). “Rethinking the ecology sovereignty debate.” In ConcaK.DabelkoG. (Eds.), In green planet blues: Environmental politics from Stockholm to Kyoto (pp. 85-93). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
28.
ConcaK. (2005). The hybridization of authority. In BarryJ.EckersleyR. (Eds.), The state and the global ecological crisis (pp. 181-206). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
29.
DawsonJ. I. (1996). Eco-nationalism: Anti-nuclear activism and national identity in Russia, Lithuania, and Ukraine. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
30.
DreznerD. W. (2004). The global governance of the internet: Bringing the state back. Political Science Quarterly, 119, 477-498.
31.
EvansP. B. (1997). The eclipse of the state? Reflections on stateness in an era of globalization. World Politics, 50, 62-87.
32.
FoxJ. A.BrownD. L. (1998). The struggle for accountability: The World Bank, NGOs, and Grassroots movements. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
33.
FriedmanE. J.HochstetlerK. (2002). Assessing the “third transition” in Latin American democratization: Civil society in Brazil and Argentina. Comparative Politics, 35, 21-42.
34.
GlasbergenP.BiermannF.MolA. P. J. (Eds.). (2007). Partnerships, governance and sustainable development. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
35.
HaasP. M. (1989). Do regimes matter? Epistemic communities and Mediterranean pollution control. International Organization, 43, 377-403.
36.
HaasP. M.KeohaneR. O.LevyM. A. (1993). Institutions for the Earth. Sources of effective international environmental protection. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
37.
HendersonS. H. (2002). Selling civil society. Western aid and the nongovernmental organization sector in Russia. Comparative Political Studies, 35, 139-167.
38.
HenryL. A. (2010). Between transnationalism and state power: The development of Russia’s post-Soviet environmental movement. Environmental Politics, 19(5), 756-781.
39.
HenryL. A.DouhovnikoffV. (2008). Environmental issues in Russia. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 33, 437-460.
40.
HicksR. L.ParksB. C.RobertsJ. T.TierneyM. J. (2008). Greening aid? Understanding the environmental impact of development assistance. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
41.
HixB. (1996). Environmental politics in Poland: A social movement between regime and opposition. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
42.
HochstetlerK. (2002). After the boomerang: Environmental movements and politics in the La Plata River Basin. Global Environmental Politics, 2(4), 35-57.
43.
HochstetlerK.KeckM. (2007). Greening Brazil: Environmental activism in state and society. DukeUniversity Press.
44.
HoogheL.MarksG. (2003). Unraveling the central state, but how? Types of multi-level governance?The American Political Science Review, 97, 233-243.
45.
KaulI. (2005). Exploring the policy space between markets and states: Global public-private partnerships. In KaulI.ConceicaoP. (Eds.), The new public finance: Responding to global challenges (pp. 91-134). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
46.
KeckM. E.SikkinkK. (1998). Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in international politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
47.
KeohaneR. O.LevyM. A. (Eds.). (1996). Institutions for environmental aid: Pitfalls and promise. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
48.
KeohaneR. O.NyeJ. S. (1971). Transnational relations and world politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
49.
KeohaneR. O.NyeJ. S. (2000). Introduction. In NyeJ. S.Jr.DonahueJ. D. (Eds.), Governance in a globalizing world (pp. 1-44). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
50.
KingB. (2001). The UN global compact: Responsibility for human rights, labor relations, and the environment in developing nations. Cornell International Law Journal, 34, 481-485.
51.
KnillC.LehmhuhlD. (2002). Private actors and the state: Internationalization and changing patterns of governance. Governance, 5, 41-64.
52.
KobrinS. J. (1998). Back to the future: Neomedievalism and the postmodern digital world economy. Journal of International Affairs, 51, 361-386.
53.
KotovV.NikitinaE. (2002). Reorganisation of environmental policy in Russia: The decade of success and failures in implementation and perspective quests. Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei. Retrieved from www.feem.it/userfiles/attach/Publication/NDL2002/NDL2002-057.pdf
54.
KrasnerS. D. (2003). The state is alive and well. In ArtR. J.JervisR. (Eds.), International politics: Enduring concepts and contemporary issues (6th ed., pp. 551-556). New York, NY: Longman.
55.
LemosM. C.RobertsJ. T. (2008). Environmental policy-making networks and the future of the Amazon. Philosophical Transactions, 363, 1897-1902.
56.
LipschutzR. D.ConcaK. (1993). The state and social power in global environmental politics. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
57.
MathewsJ. T. (1997). Power shift. The rise of global civil society. Foreign Affairs, 76, 50-66.
58.
MilnerH. V. (2006). Why multilateralism? Foreign aid and domestic principal-agent problems. In HawkinsD. G.LakeD. A.NielsonD. L.TierneyM. J. (Eds.), Delegation and agency in international organizations (pp. 107-139). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
59.
MolA. P. J. (2007). Bringing the environmental state back in: Partnerships in perspective. In GlasbergenP.BiermannF.MolA. P. J. (Eds.), Partnerships, governance and sustainable development (pp. 214-238). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
OttawayM. (2001). Corporatism goes global: International organizations, nongovernmental organization networks, and transnational business. Global Governance, 7, 265-283.
62.
PattbergP.BiermannF.ChanS.MertA. (Eds.). (2012). Public-private partnerships for sustainable development: Emergence, influence and legitimacy. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
63.
PerkinsR.NeumayerE. (2010). Geographic variations in the early diffusion of corporate voluntary standards: Comparing ISO 14001 and the global compact. Environment and Planning A, 42, 347-365.
64.
PrakashA.HartJ. A. (Eds.). (1999).Globalization and governance. London, England: Routledge.
65.
PrakashA.PotoskiM. (2006). The voluntary environmentalists: Green clubs, ISO 14001 and voluntary environmental regulations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
66.
PrakashA.PotoskiM. (2007). Investing up: FDI and the cross-country diffusion of ISO 14001 management systems1. International Studies Quarterly, 51, 723-744.
67.
ReinickeW. H. (1999). The other world wide web: Global public policy networks. Foreign Policy, 117, 44-57.
68.
RisseT. (2011). Governance without a state? Policies and politics in areas of limited statehood. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
69.
Risse-KappenT. (Eds.). (1995). Bringing transnational relations back in: Non-state actors, domestic structures and international institutions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
70.
RuggieJ. G. (2003). The united nations and globalization. Patterns and limits of institutional adaptation. Global Governance, 9, 301-321.
71.
RuggieJ. G. (2004). Reconstituting the global public domain: Issues, actors and practices. European Journal of International Relations, 10, 499-531.
72.
SchmidtV. A. (1995). The new world order, incorporated: The rise of business and the decline of the nation-state. Deadlus, 124, 75-106.
73.
SendingO. J.NeumannI. B. (2006). Governance to governmentality: Analyzing NGOs, states, and power. International Studies Quarterly, 50, 651-672.
74.
SikkinkK. (2005). Patterns of dynamic multilevel governance and the insider-outsider coalition. In della PortaD.TarrowS. (Eds.), Transnational protest and global activism (pp. 151-173). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
75.
SlaughterA. (2004). A new world order. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
76.
SteinbergP. F. (2001). Transnational relations and biodiversity policy in Costa Rica and Bolivia. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
77.
SternD. I.CommonM. S.BarbierE. B. (1996). Economic growth and environmental degradation: The environmental Kuznets curve and sustainable development. World Development, 42, 1151-1160.
78.
SternN. (2006). The economics of climate change: The stern review. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
79.
StrangeS. (1996). The retreat of the state: The diffusion of power in the world economy. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
80.
SzuleckiK.PattbergP.BiermannF. (2010). The good, the bad, and the even worse: Explaining variation in the performance of energy partnerships (Global governance working paper No. 39). Amsterdam, Netherlands: The Global Governance Project. Available from www.glogov.org
81.
TarrowS. (2001). Transnational politics: Contention and institutions in international politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 4, 1-20.
WardH.CaoX.MukherjeeB. (2013). “State Capacity and the Environmental Investment Gap in Authoritarian States.” Comparative Political Studies, 47, 309-343.
87.
WitteJ. M.StreckC.BennerT. (Eds.). (2003). Progress or peril? Partnerships and networks in global environmental governance. The post-Johannesburg agenda. Berlin, Germany: Global Public Policy Institute.
88.
World Bank. (1994). Environmental action programme for Central and Eastern Europe. Washington, DC: Author.
89.
World Bank. (2002, July18). Project appraisal document: Proposed grant from the Global Environment Facility Trust Fund in the amount of SDR 22.7 Million (US$30 Million Equivalent) to the Fundo Brasileiro Para a Biodiversidade (FUNBIO) for an Amazon Region Protected Areas Project (ARPA). Washington, DC: World Bank.
YoungO. R. (Ed.). (1999). The effectiveness of international environmental regimes: Causal connections and behavioral mechanisms. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
