ABSTRACT
At the turn of the twenty-first century, a new generation of international organizations started to emerge in response to the changing character of the international system and demands for a more representative, effective and responsive governance system. These new and innovative “hybrid” international organizations vary widely in size, composition and functional capacity and go by a variety of namesglobal public policy networks, inter-organizational networks, publicprivate partnerships, and (ad hoc) global alliances and coalitions. They represent a new approach to solving or managing the complex issues and problems currently on the global agenda and a significant departure from the traditional form of international organizations and conventional understanding of their role(s) in the governance of the international system. This new generation of international organizations differs in a
number of ways from organizations established in the latter half of the twentieth century. In particular, they are designed to be inclusive of all relevant “stakeholders” of the international system, not just states and governments, to institutionalize the participation of non-state actors such as nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and transnational corporations (TNCs) in authoritative decision-making, and are imbued with the capabilities or capacity of self-directed action on a range of global issues and problems. Predominantly structured as public-private partnerships (PPPs), these multistakeholder arrangements “emerged at
the beginning of the 1990s as the preferred form to organize crosssectoral alliances that could build on the comparative advantages of NGOs, governments, and corporate actors” (Forman and Segaar 2006: 215). They reflect a shift from the traditional “top-down” or hierarchical structures of governance to “bottom-up” or horizontal forms of collective decision-making and global policy-making. As “hybrid governance forms” these partnership arrangements are a
relatively new phenomenon and range “from loose forms of cooperation to legally binding contracts for the implementation of specific projects” (Schäferhoff et al. 2009: 453). Many global PPPs are set up to address specific problems or development needs and/or to implement “intergovernmental commitments, such as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation” (Schäferhoff et al. 2009: 459), and operate through the policies and procedures of existing international organizations. Others are set up as private nonprofit corporations with their own offices, staffs and budgets and have decision-making and policy-making procedures and processes largely independent of existing intergovernmental organizations (Forman and Segaar 2006: 220). What institutional design or organizational form they take varies according to the situation structure, the complexity of the issue or problem, and/or governance need that is being addressed. In many if not most cases, these factors lead to largely informal structures that supplement or enhance the ability or capacity of existing international organizations to manage and/or solve complex international issues, such as development or humanitarian crises. However, there are a few instances of new formal organizations being created, particularly in issue areas that arise from new technologies such as the Internet, which do not comport with traditional intergovernmental structures or processes (Fukuyama and Wagner 2000; Kruck and Rittberger 2010). There is a lively debate on the effectiveness, legitimacy and
accountability of this new generation of international organizations, particularly legally independent partnership entities like the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative or the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. As relatively new governance mechanisms, many of these organizations are still evolving in terms of their authority, purpose or function, and independence, and still developing the organizational resources and institutional competence that is considered necessary to fulfil governance tasks or to provide public goods. As Tanja Börzel points out:
The collective self-organization of society has been discussed as an alternative to the provision of common goods by government. Yet,
like governments, non-governmental actors must have the necessary action capacity and autonomy to engage in governance with/out government. On the one hand, they need sufficient personnel, information, expertise, money and organizational resources to make strategic decisions, to act as reliable negotiation partners and to offer each other and/or government something in exchange for becoming involved in the policy process. On the other hand, nongovernmental actors have to have the necessary autonomy to act free from political control.
