Non-State Actors in World Affairs (PSC 757.001)
Hans Peter Schmitz, Fall 2007
Three Waves of Transnationalism (in IR theory)
First wave, 1970s-early 1980s (‘transnational relations’)
Definition: “contacts, coalitions, and interactions across state boundaries that are not
controlled by the central foreign policy organs of governments” (Keohane/Nye, 1971: xi)
Important publications:
(Huntington, 1973; Keohane and Nye, 1971; Rosenau, 1980; Willetts, 1982)
Rationale:
The first wave of transnationalist research was motivated by two major trends: 1. The
proliferation and growth of non-state actors such as multinational corporations which
interact across borders without any governmental control. 2. A dissatisfaction of students
of IR with the focus of many scholars on intergovernmental organizations as the only
‘visible’ actors beyond the nation-state.
Core insights:
1. Challenge to a state-centric view of international relations. The expectation was
that transnational relations will constrain state actions (although S. Huntington
early on proposed that transnational relations actually empower states).
2. First-wave transnationalism included all types of transnational interactions,
including the Catholic Church, multinational corporations, and NGOs.
The end:
The transnationalist agenda never gained mainstream recognition in the filed of IR.
Reasons within and outside the academe were responsible for the failure of the research
program. First, the 1975 oil crisis and the détente of the 1970s (Helsinki Accords) as well
as the ‘new Cold War’ of the 1980s between the super powers shifted attention back to
nation states. Second, the transnationalist research agenda was unable to develop a
framework capable of stretching across such diverse actors as multinational corporations
and NGOs. Scholars remained skeptical that transnational relations are a significant
concept in understanding the power of MNCs.
Second Wave, 1990s-early 2000s (‘transnational advocacy networks’)
Definition: “networks of activists distinguishable largely by the centrality of principled
ideas and values in motivating their formation” (Keck/Sikkink, p. 1)
Important publications:
(Boli and Thomas, 1999; Burgerman, 1998; Evangelista, 1999; Florini, 1999; Keck and
Sikkink, 1998; Khagram, Riker and Sikkink, 2002; Lipschutz, 1992; O'Brien et al., 2000;
Peterson, 1992; Price, 1998; Risse-Kappen, 1995; Risse, Ropp and Sikkink, 1999; Smith,
Chatfield and Pagnucco, 1997; Thomas, 2001)
Rationale:
The second wave of transnationalist research was motivated by two major trends: 1. Like
its predecessor, it made much of the proliferation and growth of non-state actors as well
as the emergence of new communication technologies. 2. The end of the Cold War
provided a major boost to the transnationalist agenda by introducing constructivist ideas
to the field of IR.
Core insights (as distinguished from the first wave):
1. The core question focuses on establishing NGOs and networks as equal players in
global affairs.
2. MNCs were dropped from the analysis and the focus was narrowed to NGOs and
transnational advocacy networks.
3. The addition of ideas and norms to IR research offers alternative sources of power
for NGOs.
4. Transnational actors are not necessarily at the mercy of nation-states to get access
to the domestic arena. Instead, NGOs have the power to transform authoritarian
regimes.
5. NGOs use international institutions to create pressure on nation states.
Internationalism and transnationalism are combined.
The end:
The second wave of transnationalist research came to and end in a more productive
manner than the first wave. Instead of fading into the background, transnationalism
research remains a powerful and expanding research agenda. The reason why we may
speak of an end to the second wave is that distinct new perspectives have emerged that
have not been recognized second wave.
Third Wave, 2000s (‘global civil society’?)
Definition: “the sphere of ideas, values, institutions, organizations, networks, and
individuals located between the family, the state and the market, and operating beyond
the confines of national societies, polities, and economies” (Anheier, Glasius, and Kaldor
2001: 17).
Important literature
(Anheier, Glasius and Kaldor, 2001; Bob, 2005; Cooley and Ron, 2002; Hertel, 2006;
Hopgood, 2006; Jordan and Van Tuijl, 2000; Orenstein and Schmitz, 2006; Schmitz,
2006; Singer, 2003; Tarrow, 2005; Wapner, 1996)
Core insights (as distinguished from the second wave)
1. Transnational networks do not just lobby states or create new forms of global
governance (Wapner).
2. There are important political tensions within NGO networks (North-South, etc.;
Hertel, Jordan/can Tujil).
3. We need to move beyond single-case studies that focus on one issue area. To
really understand the domestic effects of transnational mobilization, we need to
bring comparative politics and IR together (Orenstein/Schmitz).
4. If we want to understand what NGOs do, we need to understand who they are.
NGOs can not be reduced to mere carriers of norms (Hopgood).
5. Transnational mobilization can have negative effects (Kennedy, Schmitz), is
biased (Bob), and is much harder to organize than previously assumed (Tarrow).
6. There are violent non-state actors (terrorism) entirely ignored by the research so
far.
Challenges ahead
1. Is there a unifying framework to integrate different types of non-state actors?
2. Do non-state actors function differently than state actors?
3. Is there a ‘global civil society’?
4. Do NGOs undermine democratic accountability?
5. ….?
References
Anheier, Helmut, et al. (ed.) (2001) Global Civil Society 2001, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Bob, Clifford (2005) The Marketing of Rebellion: Insurgents, Media, and International
Activism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Boli, John and George M. Thomas (ed.) (1999) Constructing World Culture.
International Non-Governmental Organizations Since 1875, Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
Burgerman, Susan D. (1998) 'Mobilizing Principles. The Role of Transnational Activists
in Promoting Human Rights Principles', Human Rights Quarterly, 20 (4): 905-923.
Cooley, Alexander and James Ron (2002) 'The NGO Scramble. Organizational Insecurity
and the Political Economy of Transnational Action', International Security, 27 (1): 539.
Evangelista, Matthew (1999) Unarmed Forces. The Transnational Movement to End the
Cold War, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Florini, Ann M. (1999) The Third Force. The Rise of Transnational Civil Society, Tokyo:
Japan Center for International Change and Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace.
Hertel, Shareen (2006) Unexpected Power. Conflict and Change among Transnational
Activists, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Hopgood, Stephen (2006) Keepers of the Flame. Understanding Amnesty Intenrational,
Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Huntington, Samuel P. (1973) 'Transnational Organizations in World Politics', World
Politics, 25 (2): 333-368.
Jordan, Lisa and Peter Van Tuijl (2000) 'Political Responsibility in Transnational NGO
Advocacy', World Development, 28 (12): 2051-2065.
Keck, Margaret E. and Kathryn Sikkink (1998) Activists Beyond Borders. Advocacy
Networks in International Politics, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Keohane, Robert O. and Joseph S. Nye (ed.) (1971) Transnational Relations and World
Politics, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Khagram, Sanjeev, et al. (ed.) (2002) Restructuring World Politics. Transnational Social
Movements, Networks, and Norms, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Lipschutz, Ronnie D. (1992) 'Reconstructing World Politics: The Emergence of Global
Civil Society', Millennium, 21 (3): 389-411.
O'Brien, Robert, et al. (2000) Contesting Global Governance. Multilateral Economic
Institutions and Global Social Movements, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Orenstein, Mitchell A. and Hans Peter Schmitz (2006) 'The New Transnationalism and
Comparative Politics', Comparative Politics:
Peterson, M.J. (1992) 'Transnational Activity, International Society, and World Politics',
Millennium, 21 (3): 371-388.
Price, Richard (1998) 'Reversing the Gun Sights: Transnational Civil Society Targets
Land Mines', International Organization, 52 (3): 613-644.
Risse-Kappen, Thomas (ed.) (1995) Bringing Transnational Relations Back In. Non-State
Actors, Domestic Structures and International Institutions, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Risse, Thomas, et al. (ed.) (1999) The Power of Human Rights. International Norms and
Domestic Change, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rosenau, James N. (1980) The Study of Global Interdependence. Essays on the
Transnationalization of World Affairs, London: Frances Pinter.
Schmitz, Hans Peter (2006) Transnational Mobilization and Domestic Regime Change.
Africa in Comparative Perspective, Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Singer, Peter W. (2003) Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military
Industry, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Smith, Jackie, et al. (1997) Transnational Social Movements and Global Politics:
Solidarity Beyond the State, Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.
Tarrow, Sidney (2005) The New Transnational Activism, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Thomas, Daniel (2001) The Helsinki Effect. International Norms, Human Rights, and the
Demise of Communism, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Wapner, Paul (1996) Environmental Activism and World Civic Politics, Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Willetts, Peter (ed.) (1982) Pressure Groups in the Global System: The Transnational
Relations of Issue-Oriented Non-Governmental Organizations, New York: St. Martin's
Press.