IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/zbw/iprjir/214046.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Contested meanings of inclusiveness, accountability and transparency in trade policymaking

Author

Listed:
  • Malcolm, Jeremy

Abstract

Inclusiveness, accountability and transparency carry different meanings in the context of different public policy processes, and for different stakeholder groups engaged in those processes. In particular, civil society has had a substantial role in conceptualising these meanings in internet governance policy spaces, but a much reduced rule in their explication in trade policymaking. It will be argued that greater support for trade policymaking could arise from a project to reconcile civil society's expectations of the inclusiveness, accountability and transparency of trade negotiations with the political realities of the trade negotiator, while at the same time enhancing negotiators' appreciation of the metrics that civil society stakeholders will use in assessing trade negotiations, especially those that relate to the internet.

Suggested Citation

  • Malcolm, Jeremy, 2017. "Contested meanings of inclusiveness, accountability and transparency in trade policymaking," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 6(4), pages 1-18.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:iprjir:214046
    DOI: 10.14763/2017.4.772
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/214046/1/IntPolRev-2017-4-772.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.14763/2017.4.772?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Steffek, Jens & Kissling, Claudia, 2006. "Civil society participation in international governance: the UN and the WTO compared," TranState Working Papers 42, University of Bremen, Collaborative Research Center 597: Transformations of the State.
    2. Julio Lacarte, 2004. "Transparency, Public Debate And Participation By Ngos In The Wto: A Wto Perspective," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 7(3), pages 683-686, September.
    3. Malcolm, Jeremy, 2015. "Criteria of meaningful stakeholder inclusion in internet governance," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 4(4), pages 1-14.
    4. Sandra Moog & André Spicer & Steffen Böhm, 2015. "The Politics of Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives: The Crisis of the Forest Stewardship Council," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 128(3), pages 469-493, May.
    5. Cutler,A. Claire, 2003. "Private Power and Global Authority," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521533973.
    6. Cutler,A. Claire, 2003. "Private Power and Global Authority," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521826600.
    7. Mena, Sébastien & Palazzo, Guido, 2012. "Input and Output Legitimacy of Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(3), pages 527-556, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tanja Börzel, 2010. "European Governance: Negotiation and Competition in the Shadow of Hierarchy," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(2), pages 191-219, March.
    2. Grahame Thompson, 2007. "Tracking Global Corporate Citizenship: Some Reflections on ‘Lovesick' Companies," The Institute for International Integration Studies Discussion Paper Series iiisdp192, IIIS.
    3. Bärbel R. Dorbeck‐Jung & Mirjan J. Oude Vrielink & Jordy F. Gosselt & Joris J. Van Hoof & Menno D. T. De Jong, 2010. "Contested hybridization of regulation: Failure of the Dutch regulatory system to protect minors from harmful media," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(2), pages 154-174, June.
    4. Peter T. Leeson, 2008. "How Important is State Enforcement for Trade?," American Law and Economics Review, American Law and Economics Association, vol. 10(1), pages 61-89.
    5. Angelika Zimmermann & Nora Albers & Jasper O. Kenter, 2022. "Deliberating Our Frames: How Members of Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives Use Shared Frames to Tackle Within-Frame Conflicts Over Sustainability Issues," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 178(3), pages 757-782, July.
    6. Sandrine Brachotte, 2021. "The Limits of Arbitration Law in Addressing Cultural Diversity: The Example of Ismaili Arbitration in the United Kingdom," Laws, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-24, June.
    7. Terry Macdonald, 2008. "What's So Special about States? Liberal Legitimacy in a Globalising World," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 56(3), pages 544-565, October.
    8. João Paulo Cândia Veiga & Fausto Makishi & Murilo Alves Zacareli & Thiago Augusto Hiromitsu Terada, 2016. "Corporate Leadership, Multilevel Enforcement and Biodiversity Regulation," Journal of Business, LAR Center Press, vol. 1(3), pages 43-53, July.
    9. Anna-Lena Maier & Dirk Ulrich Gilbert, 2023. "Deliberating with the Autocrats? A Case Study on the Limitations and Potential of Political CSR in a Non-Democratic Context," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 184(1), pages 11-32, April.
    10. Richard W. Carney & Sadok El Ghoul & Omrane Guedhami & Jane W. Lu & He Wang, 2022. "Political corporate social responsibility: The role of deliberative capacity," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 53(8), pages 1766-1784, October.
    11. Fabrizio Cafaggi & Katharina Pistor, 2015. "Regulatory capabilities: A normative framework for assessing the distributional effects of regulation," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(2), pages 95-107, June.
    12. Mende, Janne, 2020. "Business authority in global governance: Beyond public and private," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Global Governance SP IV 2020-103, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    13. Rob Barlow, 2022. "Deliberation Without Democracy in Multi-stakeholder Initiatives: A Pragmatic Way Forward," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 181(3), pages 543-561, December.
    14. Parent, Milena M. & Rouillard, Christian & Naraine, Michael L., 2017. "Network governance of a multi-level, multi-sectoral sport event: Differences in coordinating ties and actors," Sport Management Review, Elsevier, vol. 20(5), pages 497-509.
    15. Whytock Christopher A., 2010. "Private-Public Interaction in Global Governance: The Case of Transnational Commercial Arbitration," Business and Politics, De Gruyter, vol. 12(3), pages 1-29, October.
    16. Verena Bitzer & Alessia Marazzi, 2021. "Southern sustainability initiatives in agricultural value chains: a question of enhanced inclusiveness? The case of Trustea in India," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(2), pages 381-395, June.
    17. Stephen, Matthew D., 2014. "Rising powers, global capitalism and liberal global governance: A historical materialist account of the BRICs challenge," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 20(4), pages 912-938.
    18. Heydebrand, Wolf, 2009. "Accounting for great expectations: Lessons from the new media surge for critical management theory," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 418-444.
    19. Joseph P Garske, 2020. "Anglophone and Civilian Convergence: Law, Values, Culture, and Learning in the Global Age," Academicus International Scientific Journal, Entrepreneurship Training Center Albania, issue 21, pages 20-37, January.
    20. Maria Ehrnström-Fuentes & Steffen Böhm, 2023. "The Political Ontology of Corporate Social Responsibility: Obscuring the Pluriverse in Place," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 185(2), pages 245-261, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:iprjir:214046. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://policyreview.info/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.