Accountability in Transnational Relations: How Distinctive Is It?

Abstract

In recent years, an increasing number of scholars have used the concept of "accountability" to describe and assess relationships among actors who are primarily based in different state jurisdictions, or involving actors transcending state jurisdictions.Is there something inherently distinctive about accountability in transnational spaces as compared to the more familiar instances of accountability observed in domestic contexts? This article examines the distinctiveness of transnational accountability in relation to: (1) its general meaning and specific forms; (2) its aims and importance; (3) its empirical existence and the relative frequency of its forms; (4) its causes; and (5) its effects. The article cautiously concludes that on most of these dimensions the similarities outweigh the differences and that it would be unfruitful for research on transnational accountability to develop separately from that on domestic accountability.2

The Meaning and Purposes of Transnational Accountability

“…Likewise, professional and peer review occurs through a range of international forums, such as state to state peer review within the OECD, or involving broader policy communities that also encompass non state actors (such as the work of World Health Organisation committees). Transnational market accountability can occur through the mobilization of investors or consumers to hold companies to account for their social and environment practices, or via bond and equity holders calling to account national governments or multilateral agencies whose activities they help to finance (Koenig‐Archibugi ).…”

“…Within proxy or surrogate accountability arrangements, intermediaries play important roles in shaping or endorsing standards, receiving information about compliance, and sanctioning power wielders, nominally ‘on behalf’ of the accountability holders. An important underlying driver of this trend at the transnational level is the presence of significant power differentials between decision makers and those affected, as well as the greater physical and social distance between relevant actors, and the absence of formal institutions mediating these relations (Koenig‐Archibugi ; Goodhart ).…”

“…With a few notable exceptions (e.g. Koenig‐Archibugi ), there is often little direct dialogue and engagement between analyses of accountability approached through a global governance lens, and the huge body of scholarly work addressing concepts and practices of accountability in the context of national public administration and governance. The much‐noted elasticity of this “complex and chameleon like term” (Mulgan : 555) enables discourses of accountability to travel easily across these differing fields of scholarship and practice.…”

“…As (Koenig‐Archibugi : 1142) cautions, “[f]ew fallacies are frowned upon by International Relations scholars more than those related to naïve applications of the so‐called ‘domestic analogy’”. Although both the language and certain institutional practices associated with transnational accountability appear familiar from the national context, any assumption that ‘accountability’ takes an analogous form between the national, supranational and transnational governance levels must therefore be subjected to serious analytical scrutiny.…”

An Anatomy of Accountability at the WTO

“…Citizens cannot easily hold governments directly accountable for their engagement with international organizations, but civil society organizations acting as their delegates can try – a form of vertical or surrogate accountability (Koenig‐Archibugi, ). Civil society organizations attempt to hold international organizations to account by acting in some way on behalf of those affected by decisions (Halle et al., ; Lloyd, ; Pallas and Urpelainen, ).…”