Scinovex
articleTop 1% cited

Accountability and Abuses of Power in World Politics

American Political Science Review · 2005 · Vol. 99(1) · pp. 29–43
Ruth W. GrantRobert O. Keohane

Abstract

Debates about globalization have centered on calls to improve accountability to limit abuses of power in world politics. How should we think about global accountability in the absence of global democracy? Who should hold whom to account and according to what standards? Thinking clearly about these questions requires recognizing a distinction, evident in theories of accountability at the nation-state level, between “participation” and “delegation” models of accountability. The distinction helps to explain why accountability is so problematic at the global level and to clarify alternative possibilities for pragmatic improvements in accountability mechanisms globally. We identify seven types of accountability mechanisms and consider their applicability to states, NGOs, multilateral organizations, multinational corporations, and transgovernmental networks. By disaggregating the problem in this way, we hope to identify opportunities for improving protections against abuses of power at the global level.

European Union Policy and GovernanceInternational Development and AidPolitical Influence and Corporate StrategiesAccountabilityDelegationPoliticsMultinational corporationPolitical sciencePower (physics)GlobalizationDemocracyLaw and economicsState (computer science)
Citations
1,582
FWCI
179.38
field-weighted impact
References
59
Percentile
100%
vs. same field & year
Citations per year
References
Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics
Foreign Affairs · 2004 · 5,066 citations
A Preface to Democratic Theory.
American Sociological Review · 1957 · 2,210 citations
Citation Network

How this paper connects to the literature. Drag to explore, click any node to open that paper.

Accountability and Abuses of Power in World Politics · Scinovex