IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v1y2011i3p2158244011428085.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Religious Soft Power as Accountability Mechanism for Power in World Politics

Author

Listed:
  • Sherrie Steiner

Abstract

This case study of the InterFaith Leaders’ Summit(s) from 2005 to 2010 expands the concept of “soft power†as an accountability mechanism to include religious soft power. This article explores the theoretical validity of a Faith-Based Accountability Mechanism (FAM) as a macro-level explanatory unit. The interfaith leaders exercise public reputational and peer accountability among their constituents in relation to the G8/G20 leaders. The theoretical validity of the dialogue process is not contingent on political leader responsiveness but is ascertained using a complex theoretical standard for assessing the legitimacy of global governance institutions against which observations are then gauged. The InterFaith Dialogue Mechanism is a specific illustration of a FAM that shows increasing compliance with the complex standard between 2005 and 2010. The Dialogue Mechanism FAM is a form of religious soft power that combines soft institution with soft technique. The next stage in the research is to identify specific characteristics of the FAM ideal type.

Suggested Citation

  • Sherrie Steiner, 2011. "Religious Soft Power as Accountability Mechanism for Power in World Politics," SAGE Open, , vol. 1(3), pages 21582440114, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:1:y:2011:i:3:p:2158244011428085
    DOI: 10.1177/2158244011428085
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244011428085
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2158244011428085?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. Aarti Gupta, 2008. "Transparency Under Scrutiny: Information Disclosure in Global Environmental Governance," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 8(2), pages 1-7, May.
    2. Stasavage, David, 2004. "Open-Door or Closed-Door? Transparency in Domestic and International Bargaining," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 58(4), pages 667-703, October.
    3. Grant, Ruth W. & Keohane, Robert O., 2005. "Accountability and Abuses of Power in World Politics," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 99(1), pages 29-43, February.
    4. Hurd, Ian, 1999. "Legitimacy and Authority in International Politics," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 53(2), pages 379-408, April.
    5. Peter Newell, 2008. "Civil Society, Corporate Accountability and the Politics of Climate Change," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 8(3), pages 122-153, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sherrie Steiner, 2012. "Faith-Based Accountability Mechanism Typology," SAGE Open, , vol. 2(2), pages 21582440124, June.
    2. Sherrie Steiner, 2013. "Reflexive Governance Dynamics Operative Within Round One of World Religious Leaders’ Dialogue With the G8 (2005-2013)," SAGE Open, , vol. 3(4), pages 21582440135, October.

    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. Johannes Urpelainen, 2012. "How Does Democratic Accountability Shape International Cooperation?," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 29(1), pages 28-55, February.
    2. Terrence L. Chapman, 2007. "International Security Institutions, Domestic Politics, and Institutional Legitimacy," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 51(1), pages 134-166, February.
    3. Jonathan W. Kuyper & Karin Bäckstrand, 2016. "Accountability and Representation: Nonstate Actors in UN Climate Diplomacy," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 16(2), pages 61-81, May.
    4. Manfred Elsig, 2010. "The World Trade Organization at work: Performance in a member-driven milieu," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 5(3), pages 345-363, September.
    5. Axel Dreher & Katharina Michaelowa, 2008. "The political economy of international organizations," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 3(4), pages 331-334, December.
    6. Ecker-Ehrhardt, Matthias, 2007. "Neue Autoritäten? Ein kommunikationstheoretischer Blick auf die Deutungsmacht inter- und transnationaler Akteure in der Darfurkrise [New Authorities? A Communication-Theoretical View of the Symboli," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Global Governance SP IV 2007-303, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    7. Alan Richardson & Burkard Eberlein, 2011. "Legitimating Transnational Standard-Setting: The Case of the International Accounting Standards Board," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 98(2), pages 217-245, January.
    8. Christine Moser & Sina Leipold, 2021. "Toward “hardened” accountability? Analyzing the European Union's hybrid transnational governance in timber and biofuel supply chains," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(1), pages 115-132, January.
    9. Sherrie Steiner, 2013. "Reflexivity in External Religious Leaders’ Summit Communication Sequences (2005-2012) to G8 Political Leaders," SAGE Open, , vol. 3(4), pages 21582440135, December.
    10. Spagnuolo, Francesca, 2011. "Diversity and pluralism in earth system governance: Contemplating the role for global administrative law," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1875-1881, September.
    11. Daniel L. Nielson & Susan D. Hyde & Judith Kelley, 2019. "The elusive sources of legitimacy beliefs: Civil society views of international election observers," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 685-715, December.
    12. Georgios Dimitropoulos, 2022. "The use of blockchain by international organizations: effectiveness and legitimacy [The governance of blockchain dispute resolution]," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 41(3), pages 328-342.
    13. Aarti Gupta & Harro van Asselt, 2019. "Transparency in multilateral climate politics: Furthering (or distracting from) accountability?," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(1), pages 18-34, March.
    14. Vegard Tørstad, 2024. "Can transparency strengthen the legitimacy of international institutions? Evidence from the UN Security Council," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 61(2), pages 228-245, March.
    15. Terrence L Chapman & Johannes Urpelainen & Scott Wolford, 2013. "International bargaining, endogenous domestic constraints, and democratic accountability," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 25(2), pages 260-283, April.
    16. Tana Johnson, 2015. "Information revelation and structural supremacy: The World Trade Organization’s incorporation of environmental policy," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 207-229, June.
    17. Andrew Chapman & Timothy Fraser & Melanie Dennis, 2019. "Investigating Ties between Energy Policy and Social Equity Research: A Citation Network Analysis," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-18, April.
    18. Marco Grasso & J. David Tàbara, 2019. "Towards a Moral Compass to Guide Sustainability Transformations in a High-End Climate Change World," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-16, May.
    19. David Monciardini & Guido Conaldi, 2019. "The European regulation of corporate social responsibility: The role of beneficiaries' intermediaries," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(2), pages 240-259, June.
    20. Carsten Hefeker & Michael Neugart, 2016. "Policy deviations, uncertainty, and the European Court of Justice," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 42(3), pages 547-567, December.

    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:sae:sagope:v:1:y:2011:i:3:p:2158244011428085. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.