Nico Krisch (Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies) has posted The Structure of Postnational Authority on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
Analyses of authority in the global realm have risen to greater prominence in recent years but many of them employ a model of ‘solid’ authority borrowed from the domestic context that focuses primarily on commands issued by single institutions. This paper argues that such approaches tend to underestimate the presence of authority in global governance and to misunderstand its nature, leading to skewed accounts of the emergence of authority and the challenges it poses. The paper develops a broader conception of authority which also includes ‘liquid’ forms – forms characterized by informality, substantive groundings, multiplicity, and significant dynamism. It outlines how such a broader account can help us to reframe the problématique of postnational governance, especially by leading us away from statist frames when confronted with the particular difficulties of authority structures which often have pervasive effects but are hard to locate and grasp.
And from the paper:
Broadening our conception of authority beyond the solid model brings into view a range of otherwise excluded practices and structures – many of which reflect the more peculiar features of global ‘governance’ – the ones that actually distinguish it from ‘government’ (Rosenau and Czempiel 1992). Softer forms enter the picture; authority can more easily be understood as coming in degrees, rather than in absolutes; and we can better grasp sources of recognition that are not based on formal legal empowerment. Inevitably, the resulting picture of authority is far more complex than in classical accounts – apart from the few solid structures that exist in the global realm, it will also include ‘liquid’ ones – liquid in the sense that they are able to flow and are thus more difficult to grasp, though not for that matter necessarily less weighty or impacting (“Liquid” 2014).
Liquidity, as I understand it here, is characterized by four main features: (1) the use of informal rather than formal and binding means; (2( the reliance on substantive rather than formal resources as grounds of authority; (3) a multiplicity of actors instead of a unitary or focal authority; and (4) a dynamic rather than stable nature of authority constellations. The more these elements are present in a given governance context, the more we can understand the authority structure as liquid. This implies that solidity and liquidity are ideal types and best conceived as endpoints on a continuum – the character of most authority will lie somewhere between the poles. Yet the contrast between both ideal types should provide us with an instrumentarium to account for variation and to structure inquiries into the factors behind, and implications of, different degrees of solidity/liquidity.
Fascinating! Highly recommended.