Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Governing the Provision of Ecosystem Services pp 47–65Cite as

Partnerships in Global Governance: The Growth of a Procedural Norm Without Substance?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Studies in Ecological Economics ((SEEC,volume 4))

Abstract

Public-private partnerships have become a favourite policy tool of most international organizations. In this chapter, I argue that partnerships have become entrenched as procedural or constitutive norms in some issue areas and institutional settings. Yet, their substantive or regulative contribution requires deeper investigation. I provide a brief introduction to the theoretical lens of norms in international relations and trace the growth of the partnership norm at the World Bank. I distil from this history three substantive goals the Bank envisioned achieving through partnerships: policy innovation, democracy and additional financing. Using biodiversity conservation as an issue area well suited for this kind of analysis, I suggest how we might frame a substantive evaluation of partnerships’ contributions to global environmental governance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Richter is critical of this view, but highlights the degree to which PPPs are taken for granted as optimal arrangements.

  2. 2.

    “Some 60% of the ecosystem services examined in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment—including fisheries and fresh water—are being degraded or used in ways that cannot be sustained” (Island Press 2007, p. 3).

  3. 3.

    There are exceptions to this functional driven trend. For example, see Börzel and Risse (2005).

  4. 4.

    The dynamic interaction between these two types of norms in environmental governance requires greater theoretical analysis, but is beyond the boundaries of this chapter.

  5. 5.

    Stephen Linder (1999) offers a helpful review of the multiplicity of meanings of partnerships in contemporary discussions. His taxonomy reveals usages that vary from privatization disguised as partnering to actual power sharing structures.

  6. 6.

    For example, the UN’s definition of a UN-business partnership shows the vagueness with which the concept is used: “a mutually beneficial agreement between one or more UN bodies and one or more corporate partners to work towards common objectives based on the comparative advantage of each, with a clear understanding of respective responsibilities and the expectation of due credit for every contribution” (Tesner and Kell 2000, p. 72).

  7. 7.

    A public good is non-rivalrous and non-excludable in consumption. As Inge Kaul et al. (1999) have stated, there are very few pure global public goods. Impure public goods such as club goods and common pool resources are the more prevalent cases in the global commons. In either case, the market alone does not provide for their sustainable consumption, and states have to coordinate to ensure it is not over consumed and depleted. This is the case of many environmental issues including biodiversity. As Kaul has argued, global public goods have the added concern of providing equally for all beneficiaries. To qualify as a true global public good, provision must be quasi universal: across generations, state borders, socio-economic groups and gender. This definition is a demanding one for state coordination and suggests an important role for international organizations that can facilitate consultations, negotiations, monitoring and follow-up operations in countries (Kaul et al. 1999).

  8. 8.

    It is important to note at this point that the growth of global partnerships within the Bank has not been uncontested. The Committee on Development Effectiveness, one of the five standing committees of the Board of Executive Directors, stated that some directors believe the Bank is involved in too many global partnerships and “may be spreading its resources too thinly and losing the focus on its main mission” (World Bank 2004, p. 248).

  9. 9.

    It may be reasonable to expect that framing the biodiversity problem and attempting to address it in new ways through transparent, accountable and participatory processes with additional financing may be inputs for potentially effective partnerships. However, this research is not directly focused on partnership effectiveness but on the substance of policies, norms and processes that partnerships promote and the financial sources and volume they add to multilateral interventions for biodiversity protection.

  10. 10.

    There is a deep divide in the domestic, public administration literature between authors who question whether public and private spheres should ever be combined in mixed governance arrangements, or if their respective values, goals and motivations ought to keep them always functioning separately (Box 1999).

References

  • Abbott, K., Genschel, P., Snidal, D., & Zangl, B. (2010). IOs as orchestrators. SGIR 7th Pan-European International Relations Conference, Stockholm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adler, E. (2002). Constructivism and international relations. In T. R.-K. Walter Carlsnaes (Ed.), Handbook of international relations (pp. 95–118). London: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal, A., & Gibson, C. (1999). Enchantment and disenchantment: The role of community in natural resource conservation. World Development, 27(4), 629–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andonova, L. (2010). Public-private partnerships for the earth politics and patterns of hybrid authority in the multilateral system. Global Environmental politics, 10(2), 25–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andonova, L., Betsill, M., & Bulkeley, M. (2009). Transnational climate governance. Global Environmental Politics, 9(2), 52–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Backstrand, K. (2006). Multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainable development: Rethinking legitimacy, accountability and effectiveness. European Environment, 16(5), 290–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, M., & Finnemore, M. (2004). Rules for the world international organizations in global politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beisheim, M. (forthcoming). Transnational public private partnerships: Design and management matters. In M. B. Liese (Ed.), Transnational public private partnerships for development – Explaining effectiveness by institutional design.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benner, T. R., Reinicke, W. H., & Witte, J. M. (2003). Global public policy networks: Lessons learned and challenges ahead. The Brookings Review, 21(2), 18–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, S. (2001). The compromise of liberal environmentalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biermann, F., Chan, M. S., Mert, A., & Pattberg, P. (2007). Multistakeholder partnerships for sustainable development: Does the promise hold? In P. Glasbergen, F. Biermann, & A. Mol (Eds.), Partnerships, governance and sustainable development: Reflections on theory and practice (pp. 239–260). Cheltenham: Edward Edgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Börzel, T., & Risse, T. (2005). Public private partnerships. Effective and legitimate tools for transnational governance? In E. P. Grande (Ed.), Complex sovereignty. Reconstituting political authority in the twenty first century. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Box, R. (1999). Running government like a business: Implications for public administration theory and practice. The American Review of Public Administration, 29(1), 19–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brinkerhoff, J. (2002). Assessing and improving partnership relationships and outcomes: A proposed framework. Evaluation and Program Planning, 25(3), 215–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broadwater, I., & Kaul, I. (2005). Global public-private partnerships: The current landscape (study outline). New York: United Nations Development Programme.

    Google Scholar 

  • Claude, I. (1966). Collective legitimization as a political function of the United Nations. International Organization, 20(3), 367–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conca, K. (2006). Global regime formation or complex institution building? The principled content of international river agreements. International Studies Quarterly, 50(2), 263–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Domask, J. (2003). From boycotts to global partnership: NGOs, the private sector, and the struggle to protect the world’s forests. In J. Doh & T. Hildy (Eds.), Globalization and NGOs: Transforming business, governments, and society (pp. 157–186). Westport: Praeger Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowie, M. (2006, January 25). Conservation refugees: When conservation means kicking people out. Seedling, 6–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elsig, M., & Amaric, F. (2008). Business and public-private partnerships for sustainability: Beyond corporate social responsibility? Global society, 22(3), 387–404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finnemore, M. (1993). International organizations as teachers of norms: The United Nations educational, scientific, and cultural organization and science policy. International Organization, 47(4), 567–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finnemore, M. (1996). National interest in international society. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization, 52(4), 887–917.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Girishankar, N. (2009). Innovating development finance. From financing sources to financial solutions. Washington, DC: World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helleiner, G. (2000). Towards balance in aid relationships. Cooperation South, 2, 21–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heywood, V. H. (1995). Global biodiversity assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Financial Facility for Immunization. (2011). IFFIM – supporting GAVI. Retrieved June 22, 2010, from http://www.iff-immunisation.org

  • Island Press. (2007). Ecosystem assessment: A toolkit for understanding and action. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakobeit, C. (1999). The World Bank and ‘human development’ – Washington’s new strategic approach. Development and Cooperation, 6, 4–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaul, I. (2006). Exploring the policy space between markets and states global public-private partnerships. In I. Kaul & P. Conceicao (Eds.), The new public finance: Responding to global challenges (pp. 91–140). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaul, I., Grunberg, I., & Stern, M. A. (Eds.). (1999). Global public goods; international cooperation in the 21st century. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keck, M. E., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists beyond borders: Transnational advocacy networks in international politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenney, D. S. (2000). Examining the case against western watershed initiatives and other collaborative groups active in natural resources management. Boulder: Natural Resources Law Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, K., & Mc Grath, S. (2004). Knowledge for development? Comparing British, Japanese Swedish and World Bank aid. London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramarz, T. (2008). International organizations and public-private partnerships for biodiversity conservation: From policy entrepreneurs to norm entrepreneurs? Globalization Working Paper Series, 8(2), 29–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leach, W. D. (2006). Collaborative public management and democracy: Evidence from western watershed partnerships. Public Administration Review, 66(S1), 100–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, M. A., & Andonova, L. (2003). Franchising global governance: Making sense of the Johannesburg type II partnerships. In O. S. Thommessen (Ed.), Yearbook of international cooperation on environment and development 2003/2004. London: Earthscan Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, M. (2003). Inventing global ecology: Tracking the biodiversity ideal in India, 1945–1997. Delhi: Orient Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linder, S. (1999). Coming to terms with the public-private partnership, a grammar of multiple meanings. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(1), 35–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAfee, K. (1999). Selling nature to save it? Biodiversity and green developmentalism. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 17(2), 133–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melber, H. (2002). The New partnership for Africa’s development (NEPAD) – Old wine in new bottles? Forum for Development Studies, 21(1), 184–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mittermeier, R. R. (2004). Hotspots revisited: Earth’s biologically richest and most endangered ecoregions. Mexico City: CEMEX.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molnar, A., Scherr, S., & Khare, A. (2007). Community stewardship of biodiversity. In S. Scherr & J. McNeely (Eds.), Farming with nature: The art and practice of ecoagriculture. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Momani, B., & Kramarz, T. (forthcoming). Testing the knowledge bank. In A. Bhattacharya & D. Lombardi (Eds.), Global economic development and the World Bank. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, J. (2002). Building partnerships: Cooperation between the United Nations system and the private sector. New York: United Nations Department of Public Information.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. G. (1994). Rules, games and common pool resources. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, S. (2009). Socialization, the World Bank group and global environmental governance. In F. Biermann, B. Siebenhuner, & A. Schreyogg (Eds.), International organizations in global environmental governance. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, L. B. (1969). Partners in development, report of the commission on international develop­ment. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Redford, K. H., Coppolollo, P., Sanderson, E. W., & da Fonseca, G. A. (2003). Mapping the conservation landscape. Conservation Biology, 17(1), 116–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinicke, W., & Deng, F. (2000). Critical choices: The United Nations, networks, and the future of global governance. Ottawa: International Development Research Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ribot, J. (2004). Waiting for democracy: The politics of choice in natural resource decentralization. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richter, J. (2004). Public–private partnerships for health: A trend with no alternatives? Development, 47(2), 43–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, R., Veríssimo, D., Leader-Williams, N., Cowling, R., & Knight, A. T. (2009). Let the locals lead. Nature, 463, 280–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tesner, S., & Kell, G. (2000). The United Nations and business: A partnership recovered. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toly, N. (2004). Globalization and the capitalization of nature: A political ecology of biodiversity in Mesoamerica. Bulletin of Science, Technology, and Society, 24(1), 47–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United States Congress. (1964, September 3). The Wilderness Act Pub. L. No. 88–577. Washington, DC: United States Congress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Western, D., Wright, M., & Strum, S. (1994). Natural connections: Communities in community-based conservation. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilshusen, P., Brechin, S., Fortwangler, C., & West, P. (2002). Reinventing a square wheel: A critique of a resurgent protection paradigm in international biodiversity conservation. Society and Natural Resources, 15, 17–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfensohn, J. (1995). New directions and new partnerships address to the board of governors. Annual Meetings Address. Washington, DC: World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfensohn, J. (2000a). Building an equitable world. Washington, DC: World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfensohn, J. (2000b). Speech at the multi-sectoral conference on partnerships for governance and development. Washington, DC: World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfensohn, J. (2001). Unleashing the power of partnerships. Washington, DC: World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfensohn, J., & Kircher, A. (2005). Voice for the world’s poor. Washington, DC: World Bank.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfowitz, P. (2007). Financing clean energy: A framework for public private partnerships to address climate change. Washington, DC: World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. (1999). Code of professional ethics. Washington, DC: World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. (2002). The World Bank’s approach to global programs: An independent evaluation phase 1 report. Washington, DC: World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. (2003). Pages from World Bank history: The Pearson Commission. Retrieved April 9, 2010, from http://go.worldbank.org/JYCU8GEWA0

  • World Bank. (2004). Addressing the challenges of globalization: An independent evaluation of the World Bank’s approach to global programs. Washington, DC: World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. (2005). A strategic framework for the World Bank’s global programs and partnerships. Washington, DC: World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. (2008). Biodiversity, climate change and adaptation: Nature-based solutions from the World Bank portfolio. Washington, DC: World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. (2010). Global collective action and partnership programs: Presentation to World Bank communications network. 13. Washington, DC: World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank/WWF Alliance. (1999). Annual report. Washington, DC: World Bank/WWF Alliance.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zedillo, E. (2001). Report of the high-level panel on financing for development. New York: United Nations General Assembly.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zoellick, R. (2008). New development challenges and new development partnerships – The relevance and urgency of aid reform. Washington, DC: World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zoellick, R. (2010a). Democratizing development economics. Washington, DC: World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zoellick, R. B. (2010b). The end of the third world? Modernizing multilateralism for a multipolar world. Washington, DC: World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lecturer and Program Coordinator, Woodsworth One, University of Toronto, Woodsworth College, University of Toronto, 119 St. George Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5S 3G3

    Teresa Kramarz

Authors
  1. Teresa Kramarz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Teresa Kramarz .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Cultural Anthropology and Development St, Radboud University Nijmegen, Thomas van Aquinostraat 4, Nijmegen, 6525 GD, Netherlands

    Roldan Muradian

  2. , Institute of Social and Cultural Anthrop, University of Oxford, Banbury Road 51/53, Oxford, 0X2 6PE, United Kingdom

    Laura Rival

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kramarz, T. (2013). Partnerships in Global Governance: The Growth of a Procedural Norm Without Substance?. In: Muradian, R., Rival, L. (eds) Governing the Provision of Ecosystem Services. Studies in Ecological Economics, vol 4. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5176-7_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation