Over the past few decades, international organizations have increasingly granted transnational actors access to monitor and participate in their proceedings. Some observers have argued that stronger involvement of civil society may be a cure for the perceived democratic deficit in international political institutions. However, simply measuring levels of formal access tells us nothing about the degree to which access translates into participation. This article therefore examines the stability, or volatility, of two populations of transnational actors over a period of three decades. It finds significant differences in volatility between the two populations that levels of formal access do not seem to explain.
AndersonJenniferNewmarkAdamGrayVirginiaLoweryDavid (2004) Mayflies and Old Bulls: Organization persistence in state interest communities. State Politics and Policy Quarterly4(2): 140–160.
2.
ArtsBas (1998) The Political Influence of Global NGOs. Case Studies on the Climate and Biodiversity Conventions. Utrecht: International Books.
3.
BerkhoutJoostLoweryDavid (2011) Short-term Volatility in the EU Interest Community. Journal of European Public Policy18(1): 1–16.
4.
BloodgoodElisabeth (2010) The Interest Group Analogy: International non-governmental advocacy organizations in international politics. Review of International Studies37(1): 93–120.
5.
BouwenPieter (2004) Exchanging Access Goods for Access: A comparative study of business lobbying in the European Union institutions. European Journal of Political Research43(3): 337–369.
6.
BroscheidAndreasCoenDavid (2007) Lobbying Activity and Fora Creation in the EU: Empirically exploring the nature of the policy good. Journal of European Public Policy14(3): 346–365.
7.
CBD Secretariat (2010) Guidelines for the Participation of Representatives of Observer Organizations at Meetings of the Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity and its Subsidiary Bodies. Available at: https://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/cop-11/other/cop-11-guidelines-observer-en.pdf, accessed October 12, 2019.
8.
Ecologic (2002) Participation of Non-Governmental Organizations in International Environmental Governance: Legal Basis and Practical Experience. Berlin: Ecologic.
9.
FøllesdalAndreasHixSimon (2006) Why There is a Democratic Deficit in the EU: A response to Majone and Moravcsik. Journal of Common Market Studies44(3): 533–562.
10.
GerekeMarikaBrühlTanja (2019) Unpacking the unequal representation of northern and southern NGOs in international climate change politics. Third World Quarterly. DOI: 10.108001436597.2019.1596023
11.
HanegraaffMarcelPolettiArlo (2017) How Participatory is Global Governance of Trade and Environment? The Cases of WTO and UN Climate Summits. In MarchettiRaffaele (ed.) Partnerships in International Policy-Making. International Series on Public Policy. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 51–69.
12.
HanegraaffMarcelBeyersJanBraunCaelesta (2011) Open the Door to More of the Same? The development of interest group representation at the WTO. World Trade Review10(4): 447–472.
13.
HanegraaffMarcelVergauwenJorikBeyersJan (2019) Should I Stay or Should I Go? Explaining variation in nonstate actor advocacy over time in global governance. Governance. DOI: 10.1111/gove.12427
14.
HeldDanielMcGrewAnthony D (2002) Governing Globalization: Power, Authority and Global Governance. Cambridge: Polity Press.
15.
JönssonChrister (2010) Capturing the Transnational. In JönssonChristerTallbergJonas (eds) Transnational Actors in Global Governance – Patterns, Explanations and Implications. London: Palgrave MacMillan, 22–44.
16.
KeckMargaret ESikkinkKathryn (1998) Activists Beyond Borders. London: Cornell University Press.
17.
KisslingClaudiaSteffekJens (2008) CSOs and the Democratization of International Governance: Prospects and Problems. In JensSteffekKisslingClaudiaPatriziaNanz (eds) Civil Society Participation in European and Global Governance: A Cure for the Democratic Deficit?London: Palgrave MacMillan, 208–218.
18.
MesserAnneBerkhoutJoostLoweryDavid (2010) The Density of the EU Interest System: A test of the ESA model. British Journal of Political Science41(1): 161–190.
19.
PfefferJeffreySalancikGerald R (1978) The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. New York/London: Harper & Row.
20.
RisseThomas (2002) Transnational Governance and Legitimacy. In BenzArthurPapadopoulosIoannis (eds) Governance and Democracy: Comparing National, European and International Experiences. Oxon: Routledge, 179–199.
21.
RosenauJames NCzempielErnst-Otto (1992) Governance Without Government: Order and Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22.
SteffekJens (2010) Explaining Patterns of Transnational Participation: The Role of Policy Fields. In JönssonChristerTallbergJonas (eds) Transnational Actors in Global Governance – Patterns, Explanations and Implications. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
23.
SteffekJensNanzPatrizia (2008) Emergent Patterns of Civil Society Participation in Global and European Governance. In JensSteffekClaudiaKisslingPatriziaNanz (eds) Global Civil Society Participation in European and Global Governance: A Cure for the Democratic Deficit?Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, 1–29.
24.
TallbergJonasSommererThomasSquatritoTheresaJönssonChrister (2013) Opening Up: International Organizations and Transnational Actors. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25.
TallbergJonasJönssonChrister (2010) Transnational Access: Findings and Future Research. In JönssonChristerTallbergJonas (eds) Transnational Actors in Global Governance – Patterns, Explanations and Implication. London: Palgrave MacMillan, 237–252.
26.
TortajadaCecilia (2016) Nongovernmental organizations and influence on global public policy. Asia & The Pacific Policy Studies3(2): 266–274.
27.
UhreAndreas Nordang (2014) Exploring the diversity of transnational actors in global environmental governance. Interest Groups & Advocacy3(1): 59–78.
28.
UhreAndreas Nordang (2013) On Transnational Actor Participation in Global Environmental Governance. Doctoral Thesis, Stockholm University, Stockholm.
29.
UNFCCC Secretariat (2004) FCCC/SBI/2004/5: Promoting Effective Participation in the Convention Process. Note by the Secretariat. Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI), Twentieth Session, 16–25 June 2004, Bonn, Germany.
30.
United Nations (1992a) Convention on Biological Diversity. New York: United Nations.
31.
United Nations (1992b) United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. New York: United Nations.
32.
WillettsPeter (2006) The Cardoso Report on the UN and Civil Society: Functionalism, global corporatism, or global democracy?Global Governance12(3): 305–324.
33.
WiserGlenn M (2000) Transparency in 21st Century Fisheries Management. Options for Public Participation to Enhance Conservation and Management of International Fish Stocks. Paper prepared for The World Wildlife Fund-US. Washington, DC: Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL). Available at: http://www.ciel.org/Publications/trans21cenfisheriesmgmt.pdf, accessed March 18, 2019.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
