Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T10:22:24.710Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The politicization of world politics and its effects: Eight propositions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2012

Michael Zürn
Michael Zürn*
Affiliation:
Social Science Research Center Berlin, Transnational Conflicts and International Institutions, Berlin, Germany
*
E-mail: zuern@wzb.eu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

World politics is no longer a matter of executive multilateralism and technocratic expert decisions. What we see instead is the politicization of international institutions – a twofold process of growing resistance to and the more intensive utilization of these institutions. After providing evidence for this claim, this article develops propositions on the effects of politicization of world politics on the quality of decision making and the content of policies on both the international and national level. On the one hand, the politicization of international institutions arguably heralds a reflexive stage of global governance. The increased participation of societal actors leads to a new mode of decision making in world politics, which includes a notion of global common goods in conjunction with elements of public deliberation. By the same token, increased politicization of international institutions contradicts lamentations about the hollowing-out of national democracies and shows that political participation is in fact partly emigrating to the international level. While politicization has the inherent potential for initiating the democratization of international institutions and making new types of global policies possible, there are on the other hand several dangers associated to this process. First, it may perpetuate existing inequalities between North and South in terms of representation on the global level. Second, the politicization of world politics puts pressure on national democracy, since it moves attention away from national political matters and skews national policies towards universalist positions. Moreover, it arguably provokes the constitution of a new political cleavage, cosmopolitanism vs. communitarianism, which may possibly restructure politics in the 21st century to a large extent. These propositions on the effects of politicization will be developed with the help of empirical illustrations. However, they will not be systematically tested – the purpose of this contribution is to elaborate the analytical potential of a new concept and identify broad trends.

Keywords

international institutionsdemocracydomestic politicscleavages
Type
Research Article
Information
European Political Science Review , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , February 2014 , pp. 47 - 71
Copyright
Copyright © European Consortium for Political Research 2012 

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

Albert, M., Buzan, B. (2010), ‘Differentiation theory: a sociological approach to international relations theory’, European Journal of International Relations 16(3): 315–337.Google Scholar
Alexander, J.C. (1990), ‘Differentiation theory: problems and prospects’, in J.C. Alexander and P. Colomy (eds), Differentiation Theory and Social Change. Comparative and Historical Perspectives, New York, NY: Columbia University Press, pp. 1–15.Google Scholar
Archibugi, D. (2004), ‘Cosmopolitan democracy and its critics: a review’, European Journal of International Relations 10(3): 437–473.Google Scholar
Bachrach, P. Baratz, M.S. (1962), ‘Two faces of power’, American Political Science Review 56(4): 947–952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartolini, S. (2007), ‘The class cleavage: conceptual and methodological framework’, in S. Bartolini (ed.), The Political Mobilization of the European Left, 1860–1980: The Class Cleavage, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 9–53.Google Scholar
Beck, U. (2004), Der kosmopolitische Blick oder: Krieg ist Frieden, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Beck, U. Grande, E. (2007), Das kosmopolitische Europa, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Bedoyan, I., Van Aelst, P. Walgrave, S. (2004), ‘Limitations and possibilities of transnational mobilization: the case of EU summit protesters in Brussels 2001’, Mobilization 9(1): 39–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binder, M. (2012), ‘Die Politisierung internationaler Sicherheitsinstitutionen? Der UN-Sicherheitsrat und NGOs’, in M. Zürn and M. Ecker-Ehrhardt (eds), Die Politisierung der Weltpolitik. Umkämpfte internationale Institutionen, Berlin: Suhrkamp, pp. 134–157.Google Scholar
Brühl, T. (2010), ‘Representing the people? NGOs in international negotiations’, in J. Steffek and K. Hahn (eds), Evaluating Transnational NGOs. Legitimacy, Acountability and Representation, Houndsmills: Palgrave, pp. 181–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buzan, B., Waever, O. De Wilde, J. (1997), Security: A New Framework For Analysis, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
Calhoun, C. (2003), ‘The class consciousness of frequent travellers: towards a critique of actually existing cosmopolitanism’, in D. Archibugi (ed.), Debating Cosmopolitics, London: Verso, pp. 86–116.Google Scholar
Cooper, A.F. (2007), Celebrity Diplomacy, Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publisher.Google Scholar
Cooper, A.F., English, J. Thakur, R. (eds) (2002), Enhancing Global Governance: Towards a New Diplomacy, Tokyo, New York, NY, Paris: United Nations University Press.Google Scholar
Crouch, C. (2004), Post-democracy, London: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Dahlgren, P. (2005), ‘The internet, public spheres, and political communication: dispersion and deliberation’, Political Communication 22(2): 147–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Wilde, P. (2010), How Politicisation Affects European Integration. Contesting the EU Budget in the Media and Parliaments of the Netherlands, Denmark and Ireland. PhD Dissertation. Oslo: Unipub.Google Scholar
de Wilde, P. Zürn, M. (2012), ‘Can the politicization of European integration be reversed?’, Journal of Common Market Studies 50(1): 139–153.Google Scholar
Deitelhoff, N. (2006), Überzeugung in der Politik. Grundzüge einer Diskurstheorie internationalen Regierens, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Deitelhoff, N. (2009), ‘The discursive process of legalization: charting islands of persuasion in the ICC case’, International Organization 63(1): 33–65.Google Scholar
della Porta, D. (2012), ‘Transnational social movements and the politicization of international politics’. WZB Discussion Paper, Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung.Google Scholar
della Porta, D. Caiani, M. (2009), Social Movements and Europeanization, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Easton, D. (1965), A Systems Analysis of Political Life, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Ecker-Ehrhardt, M. Weßels, B. (2012), ‘Input- oder Output-Politisierung internationaler Organisationen? Der kritische Blick der Bürger auf Demokratie und Leistung’, in M. Zürn and M. Ecker-Ehrhardt (eds), Die Politisierung der Weltpolitik. Umkämpfte internationale Institutionen, Berlin: Suhrkamp, pp. 36–60.Google Scholar
Ecker-Ehrhardt, M., Merkel, W., Weßels, B. Zürn, M. (2008), Denationalisierung von Problemwahrnehmungen. Repräsentative Bevölkerungsumfrage, Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung.Google Scholar
Eising, R. (2009), The Political Economy of State-Business Relations in Europe: Interest Mediation, Capitalism and EU Policy Making, London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finnemore, M. Sikkink, K. (1998), ‘International norm dynamics and political change’, International Organization 52(4): 887–917.Google Scholar
Fligstein, N. (2009), ‘Who are the Europeans and how does this matter for politics?’, in J.T. Checkel and P.J. Katzenstein (eds), European Identity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 132–166.Google Scholar
Forst, R. (2010), ‘The justification of human rights and the basic right to justification: a reflexive approach’, Ethics 120(4): 711–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furia, P.A. (2005), ‘Global citizenship, anyone? Cosmopolitanism, privilege and public opinion’, Global Society 19(4): 331–359.Google Scholar
Geddes, B. (2003), Paradigms and Sand Castles. Theory Building and Research Design in Comparative Politics, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Genschel, P. Zangl, B. (2008), ‘Metamorphosen des Staates – vom Herrschaftsmonopolisten zum Herrschaftsmanager’, Leviathan 36(3): 430–454.Google Scholar
Gerhards, J., Roose, J. Offerhaus, A. (2012), ‘Die Rekonfiguration von politischer Verantwortungszuschreibung im Rahmen staatlichen Wandels’, in M. Zürn and M. Ecker-Ehrhardt (eds), Die Politisierung der Weltpolitik. Umkämpfte internationale Institutionen, Berlin: Suhrkamp, pp. 109–133.Google Scholar
Grande, E. Kriesi, H. (2012), ‘Das Doppelgesicht der Politisierung. Zur Transformation politischer Konfliktstrukturen im Prozess der Globalisierung’, in M. Zürn and M. Ecker-Ehrhardt (eds), Die Politisierung der Weltpolitik. Umkämpfte internationale Institutionen, Berlin: Suhrkamp, pp. 84–108.Google Scholar
Grant, R.W. Keohane, R.O. (2005), ‘Accountability and abuses of power in world politics’, American Political Science Review 99(1): 29–43.Google Scholar
Greenwood, J. (2007), Interest Representation in the European Union, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Grigorescu, A. (2007), ‘Transparency of intergovernmental organizations: the roles of member states, international bureaucracies and nongovernmental organizations’, International Studies Quarterly 51(3): 625–648.Google Scholar
Gronau, J., Nonhoff, M., Schneider, S. Nullmeier, F. (2009), ‘Spiele ohne Brot? Die Legitimationskrise der G8’, Leviathan 37(1): 117–143.Google Scholar
Gschwend, T. Schimmelfennig, F. (eds) (2007), Research Design in Political Science. How to Practice what they Preach, Houndmills: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1985), The Theory of Communicative Action. Reason and the Rationalization of Society, Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Hay, C. (2007), Why We Hate Politics, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Held, D. (1995), Democracy and the Global Order. From the Modern State to Cosmopolitical Governance, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Hix, S. (2006), ‘Why the EU needs (Left-Right) politics: policy reform and accountability are impossible without it’. Notre Europe Policy Paper No. 19, Paris: Notre Europe Etudes & Recherches.Google Scholar
Hooghe, L. Marks, G. (2006), ‘Europe's blues: theoretical soul-searching after the rejection of a European Constitution’, PS: Political Science & Politics 39(2): 247–250.Google Scholar
Hooghe, L. Marks, G. (2009), ‘A postfunctionalist theory of European integration: from permissive consensus to constraining dissensus’, British Journal of Political Science 39(1): 1–23.Google Scholar
Inglehart, R. (1970), ‘Cognitive mobilization and European identity’, Comparative Politics 3(1): 47–70.Google Scholar
Jäger, H.M. (2007), ‘ “Global Civil Society” and the political depoliticization of global governance’, International Political Sociology 1(3): 257–277.Google Scholar
Kahler, M. (2004), ‘Defining accountability up: the global economic multilaterals’, Government and Opposition 39(2): 132–158.Google Scholar
Keck, M.E. Sikkink, K. (1998), Activists Beyond Borders. Advocacy Networks in International Politics, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
King, G., Keohane, R.O. Verba, S. (1994), Designing Social Inquiry. Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kissinger, H.A. (1957), A World Restored: Metternich, Castlereagh and the Problems of Peace 1812–22, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Koopmans, R. Statham, P. (eds) (2010), The Making of a European Public Sphere Media Discourse and Political Contention, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koopmans, R., Merkel, W. Zürn, M. (2010), The Political Sociology of Cosmopolitanism and Communitarianism, mimeo, Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung.Google Scholar
Kriesi, H., Grande, E., Lachat, R., Dolezal, M., Bornschier, S., Frey, T. (2008), West European Politics in the Age of Globalization, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Liese, A. (2006), Staaten am Pranger. Zur Wirkung internationaler Regime auf innerstaatliche Menschenrechtspolitik, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
Lipset, S.M. Rokkan, S. (1967), ‘Cleavage structures, party systems and voter alignments: an introduction’, in S.M. Lipset and S. Rokkan (eds), Party Systems and Voter Alignments. Cross-national Perspectives, New York, NY: Free Press, pp. 1–64.Google Scholar
Llyod, R., Warren, S. Hammer, M. (2008), 2008 Global Accountability Report, London: One World Trust.Google Scholar
Lu, C. (2000), ‘The one and many faces of cosmopolitanism’, The Journal of Political Philosophy 8(2): 244–267.Google Scholar
Luhmann, N. (1997), Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Mair, P. (2006), ‘Cleavages’, in R.S. Katz and W. Crotty (eds), Handbook of Party Politics, London: Sage, pp. 371–375.Google Scholar
Marks, G. Steenbergen, M.R. (eds) (2004), European Integration and Political Conflict, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattli, W. Woods, N. (eds) (2009), The Politics of Global Regulation, Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mau, S. (2007), Transnationale Vergesellschaftung. Die Entgrenzung sozialer Lebenswelten, Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verlag.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J.D., McPhail, C. Smith, J. (1996), ‘Images of protest: dimensions of selection bias in media coverage of Washington demonstrations, 1982 and 1991’, American Sociological Review 61(3): 478–499.Google Scholar
Metzges, G. (2006), NGO-Kampagnen und ihr Einfluss auf internationale Verhandlungen, Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, A. (1994), ‘Why the European community strengthens the state: domestic politics and international cooperation’. Center for European Studies Working Paper Series No. 52, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, A. (2006), ‘Is there a ‘Democratic Deficit’ in world politics? A framework for analysis’, Government and Opposition 39(2): 336–363.Google Scholar
Mouffe, C. (2005), On the Political, Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Norris, P. (2000), ‘Global governance & cosmopolitan citizens’, in J.S. Nye, Jr. and J.D. Donahue (eds), Governance in a Globalizing World, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, pp. 155–177.Google Scholar
Norris, P. (2001), Digital divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Norris, P. (2011), Democratic Deficit: Critical Citizens Revisited, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nullmeier, F., Biegón, D., Gronau, J., Nonhoff, M., Schmidtke, H., Schneider, S. (eds) (2010), Prekäre Legitimitäten: Rechtfertigung von Herrschaft in der postnationalen Konstellation, Frankfurt am Main: Campus.Google Scholar
Offe, C. (1972), ‘Klassenherrschaft und politisches System. Die Selektivität politischer Institutionen’, in C. Offe (ed.), Strukturprobleme des kapitalistischen Staates, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, pp. 95–126.Google Scholar
Olsen, M. (1965), The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pew Research Center (2007), ‘47-Nation Survey conducted April 2–May 28, 2007’. Retrieved 25 September 2010 from http://pewglobal.org/category/data-sets/.Google Scholar
Pew Research Center (2009), ‘Most Muslim publics not so easily moved: confidence in Obama lifts U.S. image around the world’. 25-Nation Pew Global Attitudes Survey. Retrieved 10 September 2009 from http://pewglobal.org/reports/pdf/264.pdf.Google Scholar
Putnam, R.D. (2007), ‘E Pluribus Unum: diversity and community in the twenty-first century – the 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture’, Scandinavian Political Studies 30(2): 137–174.Google Scholar
Rauh, C. (2011), Politicisation, issue salience, and consumer policies of the European Commission: does public awareness and contestation of supranational matters increase the responsiveness of Europe's central agenda-setter? Dissertation, Berlin: Free University of Berlin.Google Scholar
Risse, T., Ropp, S.C. Sikkink, K. (eds) (1999), The Power of Human Rights. International Norms and Domestic Change, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rixen, T., Zangl, B. (2010), ‘The politicization of international institutions: empirical evidence from global economic governance’. SGIR – 7th Pan-European Conference, 9–10 September 2010, Stockholm.Google Scholar
Rosenau, J.N. (1990), Turbulence in World Politics. A Theory of Change and Continuity, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rucht, D. (2012), ‘Globalisierungskritische Proteste als Herausforderung an die internationale Politik’, in M. Zürn and M. Ecker-Ehrhardt (eds), Die Politisierung der Weltpolitik. Umkämpfte internationale Institutionen, Berlin: Suhrkamp, pp. 61–83.Google Scholar
Ruggie, J.G. (2004), ‘Reconstituting the global public domain – issues, actors, and practices’, European Journal of International Relations 10(4): 499–531.Google Scholar
Scharpf, F.W. (2009), ‘The double asymmetry of European integration or: why the EU cannot be a social market economy’. MPIfG Working Paper 09/12, Köln: Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung.Google Scholar
Schedler, A. (2011), ‘Concept formation’, in B. Badie, D. Berg-Schlosser and L. Morlino (eds), International Encyclopedia of Political Science, Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
Schmitter, P.C. (1969), ‘Three neo-functionalist hypotheses about international integration’, International Organization 23(1): 161–166.Google Scholar
Steffek, J. (2012), ‘Mandatskonflikte, Liberalismuskritik und die Politisierung von GATT und WTO’, in M. Zürn and M. Ecker-Ehrhardt (eds), Die Politisierung der Weltpolitik. Umkämpfte internationale Institutionen, Berlin: Suhrkamp, pp. 213–239.Google Scholar
Streeck, W. (1995), ‘From market making to state building? Reflections on the political economy of European social policy’, in S. Leibfried and P. Pierson (eds), European Social Policy: Between Fragmentation and Integration, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, pp. 389–431.Google Scholar
Tallberg, J., Sommerer, T., Squatrito, T. (2011), ‘Transnational access to international organizations: change and continuity, 1950–2010’. Workshop of the Institutional Dynamics in World Politics: Explaining Variation in the Scope, Pace, and Direction of International Institutional Change, 7 April 2011, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung.Google Scholar
Tallberg, J., Sommerer, T., Squatrito, T., Jönsson, C. (2012a), ‘Opening up: international organizations and transnational actors’, unpublished book manuscript.Google Scholar
Tallberg, J., Sommerer, T., Squatrito, T., Jönsson, C. (2012b), ‘The transnational design of international organizations’. Paper prepared for presentation at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, August 30–September 2, 2012, New Orleans.Google Scholar
Tarrow, S. (2001), ‘Transnational politics: contention and institutions in international politics’, Annual Review of Political Science 4(1): 1–20.Google Scholar
Tarrow, S. (2005), The New Transnational Activism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2009), ‘Introduction to ECOSOC consultative status’. Retrieved 19 July 2011 from http://esango.un.org/paperless/Web?page=static&content=intro.Google Scholar
Viola, L. (2012), ‘Institutioneller Wandel durch Wettbewerb: Wie die Zivilgesellschaft die Weltgesundheitsorganisation verändert hat’, in M. Zürn and M. Ecker-Ehrhardt (eds), Die Politisierung der Weltpolitik. Umkämpfte internationale Institutionen, Berlin: Suhrkamp, pp. 287–311.Google Scholar
Weidner, H. (2012), ‘Politisierung als Prozess und Ergebnis: Weltbank, Bergbausektor und Nachhaltigkeit’, in M. Zürn and M. Ecker-Ehrhardt (eds), Die Politisierung der Weltpolitik. Umkämpfte internationale Institutionen, Berlin: Suhrkamp, pp. 312–334.Google Scholar
Wolf, K.D. (2000), ‘The new Raison D'Etat: international cooperation against societies?’, in M. Albert, L. Brock and K.D. Wolf (eds), Civilizing World Politics. Society and Community Beyond the State, Lanham, MD, USA: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 119–132.Google Scholar
Woods, N. Narlikar, A. (2001), ‘Governance and the limits of accountability: the WTO, the IMF and the World Bank’, International Social Science Journal 53(170): 569–583.Google Scholar
World Values Survey Association (2005), ‘World Values Survey 1981–2008 Official Aggregate v.20090901, 2009’. Retrieved 25 September 2010 from http://www.wvsevsdb.com/wvs/WVSData.jsp?Idioma=I.Google Scholar
WorldPublicOpinion.org (2007), ‘World publics favor new powers for the UN’. Retrieved 25 September 2010 from http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/may07/CCGA+_UN_article.pdf.Google Scholar
Zürn, M. (2004), ‘Global governance under legitimacy pressure’, Government and Opposition 39(2): 260–287.Google Scholar
Zürn, M. (2006), ‘Zur Politisierung der Europäischen Union’, Politische Vierteljahresschrift 47(2): 242–251.Google Scholar
Zürn, M. Walter, G. (eds) (2005), Globalizing Interests. Pressure Groups and Denationalization, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Zürn, M. Ecker-Ehrhardt, M. (eds) (2012), Die Politisierung der Weltpolitik. Umkämpfte internationale Institutionen, Berlin: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Zürn, M. Stephen, M. (2010), ‘The View of old and new powers on the legitimacy of international institutions’, Politics 30(S1): 91–101.Google Scholar
Zürn, M., Binder, M. Ecker-Ehrhardt, M. (2012), ‘International authority and its politicization’, International Theory 4(1): 69–106.Google Scholar
Zürn, M., Binder, M., Ecker-Ehrhardt, M. Radtke, K. (2007), ‘Politische Ordnungsbildung wider Willen’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 14(1): 129–164.Google Scholar