Scholarship drawing from a wide array of perspectives including field theoretical and functional differentiation approaches has shed increasing light on the sectoral dimensions of world politics. In contrast to dominant approaches emphasizing hierarchy and power in relations between global fields, this article offers a novel interpretive framework for understanding how diverse fields, systems, or sectors may interact and facilitate change in world politics beyond the operation of established hierarchies and power dynamics. Taking forward the previously underutilized concept of symbolically generalized media of communication, this article elucidates two processes of international political change by which different fields, systems, or sectors may transform world politics. The first process, lateral retreat, is illustrated with reference to the case study of the Protestant Reformation, in which internal changes in the religious field facilitated the development of an increasingly autonomous political domain. The second process, lateral penetration, is illustrated with reference to the international political response to the climate change and Covid-19 crises, in which the scientific sector contributed toward transformed political priorities and associated hierarchies, at least in the short term. These diverse cases are used to indicate the broad potential scope of application of the concept of symbolically generalized media of communication to enrich relational theorizing in the study of international relations, and to improve understanding of diverse dynamics of international political change missed in traditional power- (and anarchy-) centric accounts.
{"title":"Lateral Relations in World Politics: Rethinking Interactions and Change among Fields, Systems, and Sectors","authors":"Alejandro M Peña, Thomas Davies","doi":"10.1093/isr/viac048","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viac048","url":null,"abstract":"Scholarship drawing from a wide array of perspectives including field theoretical and functional differentiation approaches has shed increasing light on the sectoral dimensions of world politics. In contrast to dominant approaches emphasizing hierarchy and power in relations between global fields, this article offers a novel interpretive framework for understanding how diverse fields, systems, or sectors may interact and facilitate change in world politics beyond the operation of established hierarchies and power dynamics. Taking forward the previously underutilized concept of symbolically generalized media of communication, this article elucidates two processes of international political change by which different fields, systems, or sectors may transform world politics. The first process, lateral retreat, is illustrated with reference to the case study of the Protestant Reformation, in which internal changes in the religious field facilitated the development of an increasingly autonomous political domain. The second process, lateral penetration, is illustrated with reference to the international political response to the climate change and Covid-19 crises, in which the scientific sector contributed toward transformed political priorities and associated hierarchies, at least in the short term. These diverse cases are used to indicate the broad potential scope of application of the concept of symbolically generalized media of communication to enrich relational theorizing in the study of international relations, and to improve understanding of diverse dynamics of international political change missed in traditional power- (and anarchy-) centric accounts.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"28 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2022-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50166087","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Some norms go through long contested periods, resulting in norm change, rejection, or persisting conflict. Others are adopted quite quickly, with little resistance across diverse societies. An underlying and unanswered theoretical question is why? A foundational characteristic of a norm as a concept, and a key aspect of constructivist scholarship on norms, is the role of values and moral principles in giving norms meaning and in motivating global policy change. For a field placing significant emphasis on the importance of ideas, the limited theorizing around the value-based content of these ideas is a notable shortcoming. Emphasizing the importance of moral values as among the most deeply held beliefs, I outline a theory of how moral values and moral distance can help explain why certain normative processes and outcomes occur. Building from constructivist work on norms and social psychology scholarship on morality, I propose that moral distance, the degree of alignment, overlap, or separation in moral values between actors can help to explain the type of contestation, the intensity and duration of contestation, and what processes or outcomes are more likely to transpire. The shorter the moral distance, the more likely persuasion or adaptations will occur, leading to the eventual adoption of a norm. The greater the moral distance, the more likely prolonged and heated contestation will occur, leading to rejection or enduring contestation. I argue that centering the analysis of moral values and moral distance in research on normative agreement and disagreement can therefore contribute to understanding why or under what circumstances conflict is more or less likely to happen.
{"title":"What's in a Norm? Centering the Study of Moral Values in Scholarship on Norm Interactions","authors":"Kathryn Quissell","doi":"10.1093/isr/viac049","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viac049","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Some norms go through long contested periods, resulting in norm change, rejection, or persisting conflict. Others are adopted quite quickly, with little resistance across diverse societies. An underlying and unanswered theoretical question is why? A foundational characteristic of a norm as a concept, and a key aspect of constructivist scholarship on norms, is the role of values and moral principles in giving norms meaning and in motivating global policy change. For a field placing significant emphasis on the importance of ideas, the limited theorizing around the value-based content of these ideas is a notable shortcoming. Emphasizing the importance of moral values as among the most deeply held beliefs, I outline a theory of how moral values and moral distance can help explain why certain normative processes and outcomes occur. Building from constructivist work on norms and social psychology scholarship on morality, I propose that moral distance, the degree of alignment, overlap, or separation in moral values between actors can help to explain the type of contestation, the intensity and duration of contestation, and what processes or outcomes are more likely to transpire. The shorter the moral distance, the more likely persuasion or adaptations will occur, leading to the eventual adoption of a norm. The greater the moral distance, the more likely prolonged and heated contestation will occur, leading to rejection or enduring contestation. I argue that centering the analysis of moral values and moral distance in research on normative agreement and disagreement can therefore contribute to understanding why or under what circumstances conflict is more or less likely to happen.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2022-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79687280","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
C. Loyle, J. Braithwaite, K. Cunningham, Reyko Huang, R. J. Huddleston, Danielle F. Jung, Michael A. Rubin
Recent work in international relations has problematized state-centric assumptions of governance to explore variations in authority by a range of nonstate actors (e.g., nongovernmental organizations, criminal syndicates, gangs). This forum centers on the phenomenon of rebel group governance during civil wars and leverages the concept to advance our understanding of current theories and conceptualizations of governance. The nature of rebel organizations provides a unique opportunity for researchers to expand the state-centric focus on governance because rebel actors differ from states in their comparative position within the global state system, the contexts in which they operate, and their lack of legitimizing principles that permit consistent membership as a class of political actors. These differences allow for meaningful extensions of how we theorize and conceptualize governance beyond the state. Furthermore, variation across these differences allows our findings in the study rebel governance to speak directly to the broader literature in international relations on governance by state actors. In our introduction to this forum, we detail the ways in which rebel groups have chosen to address the central components of governance through a variety of governance strategies. We then devote three essays in the forum to the concepts of legitimacy, capacity, and territorial control. In each of the three essays, authors discuss the ways in which rebel governance problematizes and advances these concepts for the broader study of governance. In the conclusion, this forum synthesizes extant and emerging work in the field of rebel governance in order to raise new questions of the governance and state building literatures. In this way, we show how investigating governance by rebel groups in particular advances our understanding of governance more broadly.
{"title":"Revolt and Rule: Learning about Governance from Rebel Groups","authors":"C. Loyle, J. Braithwaite, K. Cunningham, Reyko Huang, R. J. Huddleston, Danielle F. Jung, Michael A. Rubin","doi":"10.1093/isr/viac043","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viac043","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Recent work in international relations has problematized state-centric assumptions of governance to explore variations in authority by a range of nonstate actors (e.g., nongovernmental organizations, criminal syndicates, gangs). This forum centers on the phenomenon of rebel group governance during civil wars and leverages the concept to advance our understanding of current theories and conceptualizations of governance. The nature of rebel organizations provides a unique opportunity for researchers to expand the state-centric focus on governance because rebel actors differ from states in their comparative position within the global state system, the contexts in which they operate, and their lack of legitimizing principles that permit consistent membership as a class of political actors. These differences allow for meaningful extensions of how we theorize and conceptualize governance beyond the state. Furthermore, variation across these differences allows our findings in the study rebel governance to speak directly to the broader literature in international relations on governance by state actors. In our introduction to this forum, we detail the ways in which rebel groups have chosen to address the central components of governance through a variety of governance strategies. We then devote three essays in the forum to the concepts of legitimacy, capacity, and territorial control. In each of the three essays, authors discuss the ways in which rebel governance problematizes and advances these concepts for the broader study of governance. In the conclusion, this forum synthesizes extant and emerging work in the field of rebel governance in order to raise new questions of the governance and state building literatures. In this way, we show how investigating governance by rebel groups in particular advances our understanding of governance more broadly.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2022-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73113428","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Diplomats in embassies and permanent representations are increasingly using the messaging application WhatsApp to communicate with their peers. They use WhatsApp groups to coordinate initiatives at multilateral forums, communicate more rapidly with headquarters and stay in touch with organizational developments at home, as well as form more personal working relations among their peers. To make sense of this phenomenon, our analysis looks at adaptation in practice. Instead of separating digital practices from offline/traditional ways of doing things, we build on the practice turn in International Relations and develop a nuanced framework in which improvising agents in a transformed context adapt to new realities while continuously being influenced by past ways of doing things—a phenomenon called “hysteresis” by practice turners. We analyze how traditional practices are supplemented by new technologies (complementarities) as well as how offline and online relationships are shaped by similar practical logics (similarities). We apply these micro-lenses to understand multilateral diplomacy at the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva. Building on twenty-three interviews with practitioners, we find that WhatsApp redefines the meaning of face-to-face interactions among ambassadors and permanent representatives and makes physical meetings between diplomats more—rather than less—important.
{"title":"WhatsApp with Diplomatic Practices in Geneva? Diplomats, Digital Technologies, and Adaptation in Practice","authors":"Jeremie Cornut, Ilan Manor, Corinne Blumenthal","doi":"10.1093/isr/viac047","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viac047","url":null,"abstract":"Diplomats in embassies and permanent representations are increasingly using the messaging application WhatsApp to communicate with their peers. They use WhatsApp groups to coordinate initiatives at multilateral forums, communicate more rapidly with headquarters and stay in touch with organizational developments at home, as well as form more personal working relations among their peers. To make sense of this phenomenon, our analysis looks at adaptation in practice. Instead of separating digital practices from offline/traditional ways of doing things, we build on the practice turn in International Relations and develop a nuanced framework in which improvising agents in a transformed context adapt to new realities while continuously being influenced by past ways of doing things—a phenomenon called “hysteresis” by practice turners. We analyze how traditional practices are supplemented by new technologies (complementarities) as well as how offline and online relationships are shaped by similar practical logics (similarities). We apply these micro-lenses to understand multilateral diplomacy at the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva. Building on twenty-three interviews with practitioners, we find that WhatsApp redefines the meaning of face-to-face interactions among ambassadors and permanent representatives and makes physical meetings between diplomats more—rather than less—important.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"27 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2022-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50166092","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Almost all ceasefires experience violations, yet we know little about how such violations relate to the military and political aspirations of conflict parties. This article builds on ceasefire and bargaining literature to understand why ceasefire violations occur and how they relate to strategic decision-making processes. Building on these theoretical insights, it proposes a typology of four main types of ceasefire violations: strategic violations serve to strengthen the military advantage of a conflict party, retaliatory violations seek to ensure ceasefire compliance, spoiling violations aim to undermine the efforts of leaders, and localized violations are delinked from strategic decision-making processes. A case study of a major ceasefire violation in the Bangsamoro peace process illustrates how we may use informal Bayesian reasoning to empirically distinguish between these different types of violations. Treating ceasefire violations as part of wider military and political processes enables us to better understand the causal conditions under which ceasefire violations occur and identify strategic interests of different actors to carry out these violations. This helps explain the varied responses to ceasefire violations and sharpens our understanding of how to address them.
{"title":"Ceasefire Violations: Why They Occur and How They Relate to Strategic Decision-Making Processes","authors":"Valerie Sticher","doi":"10.1093/isr/viac046","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viac046","url":null,"abstract":"Almost all ceasefires experience violations, yet we know little about how such violations relate to the military and political aspirations of conflict parties. This article builds on ceasefire and bargaining literature to understand why ceasefire violations occur and how they relate to strategic decision-making processes. Building on these theoretical insights, it proposes a typology of four main types of ceasefire violations: strategic violations serve to strengthen the military advantage of a conflict party, retaliatory violations seek to ensure ceasefire compliance, spoiling violations aim to undermine the efforts of leaders, and localized violations are delinked from strategic decision-making processes. A case study of a major ceasefire violation in the Bangsamoro peace process illustrates how we may use informal Bayesian reasoning to empirically distinguish between these different types of violations. Treating ceasefire violations as part of wider military and political processes enables us to better understand the causal conditions under which ceasefire violations occur and identify strategic interests of different actors to carry out these violations. This helps explain the varied responses to ceasefire violations and sharpens our understanding of how to address them.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"27 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2022-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50166094","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Since 9/11, a number of scholars added gender as a new variable to explain how economic, political, and/or social developments in the Middle East have diverged from developments elsewhere. These studies relied almost exclusively on statistical analysis and frequently discounted much of the extant literature, especially the more feminist and historically sensitive and in-depth qualitative works on the subject matter. Almost uniformly, the point of departure for many of these works was the disempowered socioeconomic and/or political status of Arab/Muslim women. Most of the scholars of these works had no gender expertise and had never written on women previously. Regardless, these works spawned an important discussion in the field of comparative politics and their scholarly impact has been noteworthy. Such scholarship, however, is not benign. Accordingly, this article seeks to answer two critical questions: How does the work of non-gender specialists of Middle East and North Africa (MENA) come to have such a significant impact on the study of women and politics in the field of comparative politics? How can we approach these research inquiries differently so that expertise, lived realities, and history matter? The article argues that feminist international relations could serve as a critical corrective to this current trajectory of comparative politics research. This corrective also requires a commitment to feminist scholarship that begins with women's lives and seeks to eliminate gender inequality, as well as greater understanding of the composition and changing structure of our disciplinary communities.
{"title":"Troubled Comparative Trajectories and the Statistical Construction of Disempowered Arab and Muslim Women Subjects","authors":"Manal A Jamal","doi":"10.1093/isr/viac040","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viac040","url":null,"abstract":"Since 9/11, a number of scholars added gender as a new variable to explain how economic, political, and/or social developments in the Middle East have diverged from developments elsewhere. These studies relied almost exclusively on statistical analysis and frequently discounted much of the extant literature, especially the more feminist and historically sensitive and in-depth qualitative works on the subject matter. Almost uniformly, the point of departure for many of these works was the disempowered socioeconomic and/or political status of Arab/Muslim women. Most of the scholars of these works had no gender expertise and had never written on women previously. Regardless, these works spawned an important discussion in the field of comparative politics and their scholarly impact has been noteworthy. Such scholarship, however, is not benign. Accordingly, this article seeks to answer two critical questions: How does the work of non-gender specialists of Middle East and North Africa (MENA) come to have such a significant impact on the study of women and politics in the field of comparative politics? How can we approach these research inquiries differently so that expertise, lived realities, and history matter? The article argues that feminist international relations could serve as a critical corrective to this current trajectory of comparative politics research. This corrective also requires a commitment to feminist scholarship that begins with women's lives and seeks to eliminate gender inequality, as well as greater understanding of the composition and changing structure of our disciplinary communities.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"27 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2022-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50166093","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
English School accounts of international relations always stressed some degree of interaction between political international society and ideational world society. Yet, English School research, relying on agential and structural premises, often misses how and where international society and world society interact. If intermediation between the two societies is identified, it often remains abstract. I argue that identifying agents and the standards defining their practices helps to understand intermediation between international society and world society. I suggest that likely candidates that practice intermediation are rooted in both international society and world society. This is because practices rooted in both realms are also defined by the standards of both realms. I argue that the Pope and the United Nations Secretary-General are likely intermediation instances between international society and world society. Both are equally footed in international society and world society. Given their organizational embedding in international society, both rely on practices informed by international society standards such as diplomacy. Yet, both also rely on world society standards such as their concern for humanity. Focusing on the sanctity of the individual rather than only on state-based interests and agendas of international society marks their concern and caring for refugees. I illustrate this argument with advocacy, an intermediation practice. Deprived of membership in a community, solutions for refugees in international society require political and moral theory from world society, relying on concepts such as humanity. Advocating for refugees on the grounds of world society's common humanity, the Pope and the United Nations Secretary-General are intermediation instances between world society and international society.
{"title":"Intermediation between International Society and World Society: The Pope and the UN Secretary-General on “the Figure of the Refugee”","authors":"Jodok Troy","doi":"10.1093/isr/viac044","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viac044","url":null,"abstract":"English School accounts of international relations always stressed some degree of interaction between political international society and ideational world society. Yet, English School research, relying on agential and structural premises, often misses how and where international society and world society interact. If intermediation between the two societies is identified, it often remains abstract. I argue that identifying agents and the standards defining their practices helps to understand intermediation between international society and world society. I suggest that likely candidates that practice intermediation are rooted in both international society and world society. This is because practices rooted in both realms are also defined by the standards of both realms. I argue that the Pope and the United Nations Secretary-General are likely intermediation instances between international society and world society. Both are equally footed in international society and world society. Given their organizational embedding in international society, both rely on practices informed by international society standards such as diplomacy. Yet, both also rely on world society standards such as their concern for humanity. Focusing on the sanctity of the individual rather than only on state-based interests and agendas of international society marks their concern and caring for refugees. I illustrate this argument with advocacy, an intermediation practice. Deprived of membership in a community, solutions for refugees in international society require political and moral theory from world society, relying on concepts such as humanity. Advocating for refugees on the grounds of world society's common humanity, the Pope and the United Nations Secretary-General are intermediation instances between world society and international society.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"26 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2022-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50166095","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Drones and the Study of Public Opinion: Continuity or Change?","authors":"Jonny Hall","doi":"10.1093/isr/viac045","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viac045","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"52 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2022-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74979246","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
A growing chorus of critics have called upon transnational nongovernmental organizations (TNGOs) from the Global North to “decolonize” their practices, to “shift the power” to the Global South, and to put an end to “white saviorism” by initiating a variety of significant organizational changes. Despite these repeated calls, the TNGO sector still struggles to reform. Explanations for TNGOs’ ongoing struggles from within the field of international relations have generally centered on TNGOs themselves and the ironies and paradoxes of organizational growth and financial success. This article introduces a different argument that TNGOs’ struggles to adapt in response to their critics are the result of TNGOs’ “nonprofitness.” By virtue of being nonprofit, TNGOs are embedded in an architecture consisting of forms and norms that inherently limit the extent to which they are able to change. Using the construct of the architecture, this article provides a novel account for the challenges that TNGOs confront as they attempt to close the gap between the rhetoric and reality of inclusive and transformational socioeconomic, political, or environmental change.
{"title":"Understanding the Limits of Transnational NGO Power: Forms, Norms, and the Architecture","authors":"Hans Peter Schmitz, George E Mitchell","doi":"10.1093/isr/viac042","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viac042","url":null,"abstract":"A growing chorus of critics have called upon transnational nongovernmental organizations (TNGOs) from the Global North to “decolonize” their practices, to “shift the power” to the Global South, and to put an end to “white saviorism” by initiating a variety of significant organizational changes. Despite these repeated calls, the TNGO sector still struggles to reform. Explanations for TNGOs’ ongoing struggles from within the field of international relations have generally centered on TNGOs themselves and the ironies and paradoxes of organizational growth and financial success. This article introduces a different argument that TNGOs’ struggles to adapt in response to their critics are the result of TNGOs’ “nonprofitness.” By virtue of being nonprofit, TNGOs are embedded in an architecture consisting of forms and norms that inherently limit the extent to which they are able to change. Using the construct of the architecture, this article provides a novel account for the challenges that TNGOs confront as they attempt to close the gap between the rhetoric and reality of inclusive and transformational socioeconomic, political, or environmental change.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"57 46","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2022-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50166269","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：