Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55597f9d44-zdfhw Total loading time: 0.612 Render date: 2022-08-20T05:54:49.690Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

11 - Orchestration

from Part III - Policy Responses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 April 2020

Frank Biermann
Affiliation:
Universiteit Utrecht, The Netherlands
Rakhyun E. Kim
Affiliation:
Universiteit Utrecht, The Netherlands
Get access

Summary

Orchestration is a soft mode of governance, in which a ‘governor’ enlists the voluntary cooperation of intermediary actors to carry out governance functions that further the governor’s goals. Environmental issues figured prominently in the origin of the orchestration concept, and orchestration has since played a significant role in earth system governance research on architecture and agency. This chapter summarizes key empirical findings of this research, especially on sustainable development and climate change. It also identifies contributions of earth system governance research to orchestration theory: for example, concerning the conditions for successful orchestration, the role of orchestration platforms and orchestration’s role in institutional complexity. The chapter then engages with critiques and normative concerns, particularly relating to power, accountability and legitimacy. The chapter concludes with thoughts on an orchestration research agenda that can support the transformative goals of the new earth system governance science plan.

Type
Chapter
Information
Architectures of Earth System Governance
Institutional Complexity and Structural Transformation
, pp. 233 - 253
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbott, K. W. (2012a). The transnational regime complex for climate change. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 30 (4), 571–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abbott, K. W. (2012b). Engaging the public and the private in global sustainability governance. International Affairs, 88 (3), 543–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abbott, K. W. (2014). Strengthening the transnational regime complex for climate change. Transnational Environmental Law, 3 (1), 5788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abbott, K. W. (2015). Orchestration. In Pattberg, P. H., & Zelli, F (eds.), Encyclopedia of global environmental governance and politics (pp. 487–95). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Abbott, K. W. (2017). Orchestrating experimentation in nonstate environmental commitments. Environmental Politics, 26 (4), 738–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abbott, K. W. (2018). Orchestration: Strategic ordering in polycentric governance. In Jordan, A, Huitema, D, van Asselt, H, & Forster, J (eds.), Governing climate change: Polycentricity in action? (pp. 188209). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abbott, K. W., & Bernstein, S. (2015). The High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development: Orchestration by default and design. Global Policy, 6 (3), 222–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abbott, K. W., & Faude, B. (2019). Choosing low-cost institutions in global governance. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Abbott, K. W., Genschel, P., Snidal, D., & Zangl, B. (2015a). Orchestration: Global governance through intermediaries. In Abbott, K. W., Genschel, P, Snidal, D, & Zangl, B (eds.), International organizations as orchestrators (pp. 336). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Abbott, K. W., Genschel, P., Snidal, D., & Zangl, B. (2015b). Orchestrating global governance: From empirical findings to theoretical implications. In Abbott, K. W., Genschel, P, Snidal, D, & Zangl, B (eds.), International organizations as orchestrators (pp. 349–79). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Abbott, K. W., Genschel, P., Snidal, D., & Zangl, B. (2016). Two logics of indirect governance: Delegation and orchestration. British Journal of Political Science, 46 (4), 719–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abbott, K. W., Genschel, P., Snidal, D., & Zangl, B. (2019). Competence versus control: The governor’s dilemma. Regulation & Governance, in press.Google Scholar
Abbott, K. W., & Hale, T. (2014). Orchestrating global solutions networks: A guide for organizational entrepreneurs. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 9 (1–2), 195212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abbott, K. W., Levi-Faur, D., & Snidal, D. (2017). Theorizing regulatory intermediaries. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 670 (1), 1435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abbott, K. W., & Snidal, D. (2009a). Strengthening international regulation through transnational new governance: Overcoming the orchestration deficit. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 42, 501–78.Google Scholar
Abbott, K. W., & Snidal, D. (2009b). The governance triangle: Regulatory standards institutions and the shadow of the state. In Mattli, W, & Woods, N (eds.), In whose benefit? Explaining regulatory change in global politics (pp. 4984). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Abbott, K. W., & Snidal, D. (2010). International regulation without international government: Improving IO performance through orchestration. Review of International Organizations, 5 (3), 315–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abbott, K. W., & Snidal, D. (2013). Taking responsive regulation transnational: Strategies for international organizations: Taking RR transnational. Regulation & Governance, 7 (1), 95113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bäckstrand, K., & Kuyper, J. W. (2017). The democratic legitimacy of orchestration: The UNFCCC, nonstate actors, and transnational climate governance. Environmental Politics, 26 (4), 764–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bäckstrand, K., Kuyper, J. W., Linnér, B. O., & Lövbrand, E. (2017). Nonstate actors in global climate governance: From Copenhagen to Paris and beyond. Environmental Politics, 26 (4), 561–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bäckstrand, K., & Kylsäter, M. (2014). Old wine in new bottles? The legitimation and delegitimation of UN public–private partnerships for sustainable development from the Johannesburg Summit to the Rio+20 Summit. Globalizations, 11 (3), 331–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, S. (2011). Legitimacy in intergovernmental and nonstate global governance. Review of International Political Economy, 18 (1), 1751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, S. (2005). Legitimacy in global environmental governance. Journal of International Law and International Relations, 1 (1–2), 139–66.Google Scholar
Bernstein, S. (2017). The United Nations and the governance of Sustainable Development Goals. In Kanie, N, & Biermann, F (eds.), Governance through goals: New strategies for global sustainability (pp. 213–39). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Best, J. (2017). The rise of measurement-driven governance: The case of international development. Global Governance, 23 (2), 163–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biermann, F., Betsill, M. M., Gupta, J. et al. (2009). Earth system governance: People, places and the planet. Science and implementation plan of the Earth System Governance Project. Bonn: Earth System Governance Project.Google Scholar
Boas, I., Biermann, F., Kanie, N. (2016). Cross-sectoral strategies in global sustainability governance: Towards a nexus approach. International Environmental Agreements, 16 (3), 449–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broome, A., Homolar, A., & Kranke, M. (2018). Bad science: International organizations and the indirect power of global benchmarking. European Journal of International Relations, 24 (3), 514–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burch, S., Gupta, A., Inoue, C. Y. A. et al. (2019). New directions in earth system governance research. Earth System Governance, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chan, S., van Asselt, H., Hale, T. et al. (2015). Reinvigorating international climate policy: A comprehensive framework for effective nonstate action. Global Policy, 6 (4), 466–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chan, S., Brandi, C., & Bauer, S. (2016). Aligning transnational climate action with international climate governance: The road from Paris. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 25 (2), 238–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chan, S., Ellinger, P., & Widerberg, O. (2018). Exploring national and regional orchestration of nonstate action for a < 1.5 C world. International Environmental Agreements, 18 (1), 135–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chan, S., Falkner, R., Goldberg, M., & van Asselt, H. (2018). Effective and geographically balanced? An output-based assessment of nonstate climate actions. Climate Policy, 18 (1), 2435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chan, S., & Pauw, P. (2014). A global framework for climate action (GFCA): Orchestrating nonstate and subnational initiatives for more effective global climate governance. Bonn: German Development Institute.Google Scholar
Dryzek, J. S. (2017). The meanings of life for nonstate actors in climate politics. Environmental Politics, 26 (4), 789–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earth System Governance (2018). Earth system governance: Science and implementation plan of the Earth System Governance Project. Utrecht: Earth System Governance Project.Google Scholar
Gordon, D. J. (2016). The politics of accountability in networked urban climate governance. Global Environmental Politics, 16 (2), 82100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, D. J., & Johnson, C. A. (2017). The orchestration of global urban climate governance: Conducting power in the post-Paris climate regime. Environmental Politics, 26 (4), 694714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, E. R., & Thompson, A. (2015). Efficient orchestration? In Abbott, K. W., Genschel, P, Snidal, D, & Zangl, B (eds.), International organizations as orchestrators (pp. 114–38). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Green, J. F. (2017). Transnational delegation in global environmental governance: When do non-state actors govern? Regulation & Governance, 12 (2), 263–76.Google Scholar
Hale, T., & Roger, C. (2014). Orchestration and transnational climate governance. Review of International Organizations, 9 (1), 5982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanrieder, T. (2015). WHO orchestrates? Coping with competitors in global health. In Abbott, K. W., Genschel, P, Snidal, D, & Zangl, B (eds.), International organizations as orchestrators (pp. 336). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Henriksen, La. F. (2015). The global network of biofuel sustainability standards-setters. Environmental Politics, 24 (1), 115–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henriksen, L. F., & Ponte, S. (2017). Public orchestration, social networks, and transnational environmental governance: Lessons from the aviation industry: Public orchestration in aviation. Regulation & Governance, 12 (1), 2345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henriksen, L. F., & Seabrooke, L. (2016). Transnational organizing: Issue professionals in environmental sustainability networks. Organization, 23 (5), 722–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hermwille, L. (2018). Making initiatives resonate: How can nonstate initiatives advance national contributions under the UNFCCC? International Environmental Agreements, 18 (3), 447–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hermwille, L., Obergassel, W., Ott, H. E., & Beuermann, C. (2017). UNFCCC before and after Paris: What’s necessary for an effective climate regime? Climate Policy, 17 (2), 150–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hickmann, T. (2016). Rethinking authority in global climate governance: How transnational climate initiatives relate to the international climate regime. Routledge Research in Global Environmental Governance. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hickmann, T., Widerberg, O., Lederer, M., & Pattberg, P. (2019). The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat as an orchestrator in global climate policymaking. International Review of Administrative Sciences, in press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, M. J. (2011). Climate governance at the crossroads: Experimenting with a global response after Kyoto. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsu, A., Höhne, N., Kuramochi, T. et al. (2019). A research roadmap for quantifying nonstate and subnational climate mitigation action. Nature Climate Change, 9 (1), 1117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsu, A., Moffat, A. S., Weinfurter, A. J., & Schwartz, J. D. (2015). Towards a new climate diplomacy. Nature Climate Change, 5 (6), 501–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanie, N., & Biermann, F. (eds.) (2017). Governing through goals: Sustainable Development Goals as governance innovation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuyper, J. W., Linnér, B. O., & Schroeder, H. (2018). Nonstate actors in hybrid global climate governance: Justice, legitimacy, and effectiveness in a post-Paris era: Nonstate actors in hybrid global climate governance. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 9 (1), e497.Google Scholar
Lelieveldt, H. (2018). Out of tune or well tempered? How competition agencies direct the orchestrating state: Directing the orchestrating state. Regulation & Governance, in press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lister, J., Poulsen, R. T., & Ponte, S. (2015). Orchestrating transnational environmental governance in maritime shipping. Global Environmental Change, 34, 185–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCubbins, M. D., Noll, R. G., & Weingast, B. R. (1987). Administrative procedures as instruments of political control. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 3 (2), 243–77.Google Scholar
Ostrom, V. (1991). Polycentricity: The structural basis of self-governing systems. In Ostrom, V (ed.), The meaning of American federalism: Constituting a self-governing society (pp. 233–44). San Francisco: ICS Press.Google Scholar
Pattberg, P. H. (2017). The emergence of carbon disclosure: Exploring the role of governance entrepreneurs. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 35 (8), 1437–55.Google Scholar
Pattberg, P. H., Biermann, F., & Mert, A. (eds.) (2012). Public–private partnerships for sustainable development: Emergence, influence and legitimacy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paulo, S., & Klingebiel, S. (2016). New approaches to development cooperation in middle-income countries: Brokering collective action for global sustainable development. Bonn: German Development Institute.Google Scholar
Pegram, T. (2015). Global human rights governance and orchestration: National human rights institutions as intermediaries. European Journal of International Relations, 21 (3), 595620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rayner, J. M., Buck, A., & Katila, P. (eds.) (2010). Embracing complexity: Meeting the challenges of international forest governance. A global assessment report. Vienna: International Union of Forest Research Organizations.Google Scholar
Ruggie, J. G. (2014). Global governance and ‘New Governance Theory’: Lessons from business and human rights. Global Governance, 20 (1), 517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schleifer, P. (2013). Orchestrating sustainability: The case of European Union biofuel governance: Orchestrating sustainability. Regulation & Governance, 7 (4), 533–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shoji, M. (2019). The UN Global compact for transnational business and peace: A need for orchestration? In Mahmudur Rahim, M (ed.), Code of conduct on transnational corporations: Challenges and opportunities (pp. 89110). Cham: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tallberg, J., Bäckstrand, K., & Scholte, J. A. (eds.) (2018). Legitimacy in global governance: Sources, processes, and consequences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United Nations General Assembly (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. UN Doc. A/RES/70/1.Google Scholar
Van der Lugt, C., & Dingwerth, K. (2015). Governing where focality is low. In Abbott, K. W., Genschel, P, Snidal, D, & Zangl, B (eds.), International organizations as orchestrators (pp. 237–61). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van der Ven, H., Bernstein, S., & Hoffmann, M. (2017). Valuing the contributions of nonstate and subnational actors to climate governance. Global Environmental Politics, 17 (1), 120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widerberg, O. (2017). The ‘black box’ problem of orchestration: How to evaluate the performance of the Lima-Paris action agenda. Environmental Politics, 26 (4), 715–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, O. R. (2002). The institutional dimensions of environmental change: Fit, interplay and scale. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2
Cited by

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×