Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Social and Behavioral Sciences
Reflexive Governance Dynamics Operative Within Round One Of The World Religious Leaders' Dialogue With The G8 (2005-2013), Sherrie Steiner
Reflexive Governance Dynamics Operative Within Round One Of The World Religious Leaders' Dialogue With The G8 (2005-2013), Sherrie Steiner
Sherrie M Steiner
No abstract provided.
Faith-Based Accountability Mechanism Typology: The 2011 Interfaith Summit As Soft Power In Global Governance, Sherrie Steiner
Faith-Based Accountability Mechanism Typology: The 2011 Interfaith Summit As Soft Power In Global Governance, Sherrie Steiner
Sherrie M Steiner
The conditions associated with the stability of democratic global governance have been a leading concern of political sociology. Globalization, a situation of ‘governance without government,’ has accountability gaps that International Non-Governmental Organizations—religious and secular—bridge with activism. They strengthen democratic norms by exercising soft power as accountability mechanisms in international relations. Religious and secular accountability mechanisms differ in both structure and function. This paper presents a Faith-Based Accountability Mechanism typology that outlines a set of attributes for an exercise of religious soft power that might strengthen the democratic process in global governance. A coalition service model that preserves the public trust …
Religious Soft Power As Accountability Mechanism For Power In World Politics, Sherrie Steiner
Religious Soft Power As Accountability Mechanism For Power In World Politics, Sherrie Steiner
Sherrie M Steiner
This case study of the Interfaith Leaders’ Summit(s) from 2005-2010 expands the concept of ‘soft power’ as an accountability mechanism to include religious soft power. The Interfaith Leaders exercise public reputational and peer accountability in relation to the G8/G20 leaders. The value of the dialogue process is not contingent upon political leader responsiveness. The significance of the religious accountability mechanism is ascertained by using a complex theoretical standard for assessing the legitimacy of global governance institutions against which observations are then gauged. The InterFaith Dialogue Mechanism shows increasing compliance with the complex standard between 2005 and 2010. The ongoing value …