Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-lrf7s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-29T20:31:49.975Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Defining Accountability Up: the Global Economic Multilaterals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2014

Miles Kahler
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Critics of the global economic multilaterals (GEMs) – the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization – allege that these organizations fail the test of democratic accountability. Two distinct measures of democratic accountability have been applied to the GEMs. To the degree that these organizations display ‘accountability deficits’, those deficiencies are the result of choices by the most influential national governments. Three techniques have been deployed to enhance the accountability of the GEMs: transparency (more information for those outside the institution), competition (imitation of democratic accountability) and changes in rules of representation (accountability to stakeholders rather than shareholders). Each of these may impose costs, however, and may conflict with other valued aims of the organizations.

Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 39 , Issue 2 , 2004 , pp. 132 - 158
Copyright
Copyright © Government and Opposition Ltd 2004

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

2 Bernard Manin, Adam Przeworski and Susan C. Stokes, ‘Elections and Representation’, in Adam Przeworski, Susan C. Stokes and Bernard Manin (eds), Democracy, Accountability, and Representation, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1999, p. 50.

3 Pollack, Mark A., ‘Learning from the Americanists (Again): Theory and Method in the Study of Delegation’, West European Politics, 25: 1 (2002), pp. 200–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Arend Lijphart, Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1999; Arend Lijphart, ‘The Pros and Cons – But Mainly Pros – of Consensus Democracy’, Acta Politica (2001–2), pp. 129–39.

5 David Held, ‘The Transformation of Political Community: Rethinking Democracy in the Context of Globalization’, in Ian Shapiro and Casiano Hacker-Cordón (eds), Democracy's Edges, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1999, p. 103.

6 Michael Zürn, ‘Democratic Governance beyond the Nation-State’, in Michael T. Greven and Louis W. Pauly (eds), Democracy Beyond the State? The European Dilemma and the Emerging Global Order, Lanham, MD, Rowman & Littlefield, 2000, p. 91.

7 Michael T. Greven, ‘Can the European Union Finally Become a Democracy?’, in Greven and Pauly, Democracy Beyond the State?, op. cit., pp. 36, 55–6. On democratic public law, see Held, ‘The Transformation of Political Community’, op. cit., p. 105; on constitutionalism, see Neil Walker, ‘The EU and the WTO: Constitutionalism in a New Key’, in Gráinne de Búrca and Joanne Scott (eds), The EU and the WTO: Legal and Constitutional Issues, Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2001, pp. 31–57 and Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann, ‘European and International Constitutional Law: Time for Promoting “Cosmopolitan Democracy” in the WTO’, in Búrca and Scott, The EU and the WTO, op. cit., pp. 81–110.

8 Robert A. Dahl, ‘Can International Organizations Be Democratic? A Skeptic's View’, in Ian Shapiro and Casiano Hacker-Cordón (eds), Democracy's Edges, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1999, pp. 19–36.

9 Will Kymlicka, ‘Citizenship in an Era of Globalization: Commentary on Held’, in Shapiro and Hacker-Cordón, Democracy's Edges, op. cit., pp. 112–26.

10 Sol Picciotto, ‘Democratizing Globalism’, in Daniel Drache (ed.), The Market or the Public Domain?: Global Governance and the Asymmetry of Power, London, Routledge, 2001, pp. 335–59.

11 Robert O. Keohane and Joseph Nye, ‘Redefining Accountability for Global Governance’, in Miles Kahler and David A. Lake (eds), Governance in a Global Economy: Political Authority in Transition, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2003.

12 Fiona McGillivray, Democratizing the World Trade Organization, Stanford, Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace, Stanford University, 2000, p. 2.

13 Picciotto, ‘Democratizing Globalism’, op. cit., p. 339.

14 On the distinction between these forms of legitimacy, see Fritz W. Scharpf, Governing in Europe: Effective and Democratic?, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1999.

15 Martin Wolf, ‘What the World Needs from the Multilateral Trading System’, in Gary P. Sampson (ed.), The Role of the World Trade Organization in Global Governance, Tokyo, United Nations University Press, 2001, p. 196.

16 For a review of conditionality and the conditions under which it is likely to be effective, see Miles Kahler, ‘External Actors, Conditionality, and the Politics of Adjustment’, in Stephan Haggard and Robert Kaufman (eds), The Politics of Economic Adjustment: International Constraints, Distributive Conflicts, and the State, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1992, pp. 89–136.

17 Miles Kahler, ‘Modeling Races to the Bottom’, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, September 1998, pp. 3–6; David Vogel, Trading Up: Consumer and Environmental Regulation in a Global Economy, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1995.

18 Belén Balanyá, Ann Doherty, Olivier Hoedeman, Adam Ma’anit and Erik Wesselius, Europe Inc.: Regional and Global Restructuring and the Rise of Corporate Power, London, Pluto Press, 2000.

19 For an excellent examination of agency autonomy in the IMF, see Lisa Martin, ‘Agency and Delegation in IMF Conditionality’, unpublished paper, Department of Government, Harvard University, 2002.

20 On decision rules and practices, see Miles Kahler, Leadership Selection in the Major Multilaterals, Washington, DC, Institute for International Economics, 2001, pp. 20–4, 53–5.

21 On the importance of outside options in principal–agent relationships, see John Ferejohn, ‘Accountability and Authority: Toward a Theory of Political Accountability’, in Przeworski, Stokes and Manin, Democracy, Accountability, and Representation, op. cit., pp. 131–53.

22 Figures from the mid-1990s in David Henderson, ‘International Agencies and Cross-Border Liberalization: The WTO in Context’, in Anne O. Krueger (ed.), The WTO as an International Organization, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, Table 3.1 and pp. 102–6.

23 McGillivray, Democratizing the World Trade Organization, op. cit.

24 On the relationship of representation, responsiveness, and accountability, see Manin, Przeworski and Stokes, ‘Election and Representation’, op. cit.

25 Barry Eichengreen, Toward a New International Financial Architecture, Washington, DC, Institute for International Economics, 1999; Miles Kahler, ‘The New International Financial Architecture and Its Limits’, in Gregory W. Noble and John Ravenhill (eds), The Asian Financial Crisis and the Structure of Global Finance, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2000, pp. 235–60.

26 Ferejohn, ‘Accountability and Authority’, op. cit., pp. 148–9; Eichengreen, Toward a New International Financial Architecture, op. cit., p. 114.

27 José De Gregorio, Barry Eichengreen, Takatoshi Ito and Charles Wyplosz, An Independent and Accountable IMF, Geneva, International Centre for Monetary and Banking Studies, 1999; Woods, Ngaire, ‘The Challenge of Good Governance for the IMF and the World Bank Themselves’, World Development, 28: 5 (2000), pp. 823–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

28 Current IMF transparency policy is described in International Monetary Fund, ‘The Fund's Transparency Policy – Review of the Experience and Next Steps’, Washington, DC, 24 May 2002.

29 Eichengreen, Toward a New International Financial Architecture, op. cit., p. 114; Kahler, ‘The New International Financial Architecture’, op. cit.

30 Information on the IEO can be found at .

31 ‘Independent Evaluations Should Put IMF on a Faster Learning Track’, IMF Survey, 31: 1 (14 January 2002), p. 3.

32 (29 April 2001).

33 Frank Loy, ‘Public Participation in the World Trade Organization’, in Sampson, The World Trade Organization in Global Governance, op. cit., pp. 126–7.

34 This account is based on Kahler, Leadership Selection, op. cit.

35 Robert O. Keohane, ‘Global Governance and Democratic Accountability’, in David Held and Mathias Koenig-Archibugi (eds), Taming Globalization: Frontiers of Governance, Cambridge, Polity Press, 2003, p. 140.

36 Robert O’Brien, Anne Marie Goetz, Jan Aart Scholte and Marc Williams, Contesting Global Governance: Multilateral Economic Institutions and Global Social Movements, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2000, p. 207; Keohane and Nye, ‘Redefining Accountability for Global Governance’, op. cit. O’Brien et al. provides an excellent series of case studies of NGO involvement with the GEMs.

37 Loy, ‘Public Participation in the World Trade Organization’, op. cit., p. 116. The designers of the ITO may have had in mind the quasi-corporatist model of the International Labour Organization (ILO), founded immediately after the First World War.

38 Ibid., p. 128.

39 Wolf, ‘What the World Needs’, op. cit., p. 199.

40 Ibid., pp. 197–8; O’Brien et al., Contesting Global Governance, op. cit., pp. 200–1.

41 Margaret E. Keck and Kathryn Sikkink, Activists Beyond Border: Advocacy Networks in International Politics, Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 1998.

42 Claude E. Barfield, Free Trade, Sovereignty, Democracy: The Future of the World Trade Organization, Washington, DC, AEI Press, 2001, p. 88.

43 Loy, ‘Public Participation in the World Trade Organization’, op. cit., p. 124.

44 McGillivray, Democratizing the World Trade Organization, op. cit., p. 3; Rubens Ricupero, ‘Rebuilding Confidence in the Multilateral Trading System: Closing the “Legitimacy Gap” ’, in Sampson, The World Trade Organization in Global Governance, op. cit., pp. 47–9.

45 WTO, ‘United States – Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products: Report of the Appellate Body’, AB-1998-4, 12 October 1998.

46 Philippe Schmitter, How to Democratize the European Union … and Why Bother?, Lanham, MD, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2000, p. 116.