It is more than 20 years since 1985, when world climate and atmospheric scientists first issued an authoritative warning of the danger of global warming. In 1988, scientists, environmentalists and politicians from 48 countries endorsed the Toronto Declaration to address global warming that called for a twenty percent worldwide reduction in CO emissions by the year 2005 leading to an eventual fifty percent reduction. Contestation and collaboration in the global climate change public policy process, involving a wide range of actors, has continued since then. Two organisations were founded in 1989 by non-state actors on opposite sides of the climate policy debate. These were the Global Climate Coalition (GCC), which was established by a range of US business interests, and Climate Action Network (CAN) established by a range of environmental and scientific non-governmental organisations. The thesis documents, analyses and compares how each organisation was formed, organised and developed. It reviews how GCC and CAN enabled more effective national and transnational advocacy and how they fostered opposing policy coalitions on climate policy. The respective approaches are assessed, evaluated and contrasted as each sought to gain support for their opposing policy positions in the global climate change policy process. The research uses a neo-Gramscian theoretical perspective and develops and applies an analytical framework focused on policy coalitions of state and non-state actors to investigate the role that non-state actors played in the global climate policy process. GCC and CAN played major roles within opposing policy coalitions that became particularly important in shaping the outcome of the global and national climate policy processes. The thesis focuses on the role of GCC and CAN and their associated policy coalitions in influencing the framing, developing, implementation and review of global climate policy. It examines the global climate change policy process through this analytical lens of contestation between policy coalitions from the creation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1988 to the first Meeting of the Parties of the ratified Kyoto Protocol in 2005. The thesis assesses the analytical framework and concludes by identifying critical issues that the current global public policy processes have encountered in developing and implementing effective global climate change public policy.

It is more than 20 years since 1985, when world climate and atmospheric scientists first issued an authoritative warning of the danger of global warming. In 1988, scientists, environmentalists and politicians from 48 countries endorsed the Toronto Declaration to address global warming that called for a twenty percent worldwide reduction in CO emissions by the year 2005 leading to an eventual fifty percent reduction. Contestation and collaboration in the global climate change public policy process, involving a wide range of actors, has continued since then. Two organisations were founded in 1989 by non-state actors on opposite sides of the climate policy debate. These were the Global Climate Coalition (GCC), which was established by a range of US business interests, and Climate Action Network (CAN) established by a range of environmental and scientific non-governmental organisations. The thesis documents, analyses and compares how each organisation was formed, organised and developed. It reviews how GCC and CAN enabled more effective national and transnational advocacy and how they fostered opposing policy coalitions on climate policy. The respective approaches are assessed, evaluated and contrasted as each sought to gain support for their opposing policy positions in the global climate change policy process. The research uses a neo-Gramscian theoretical perspective and develops and applies an analytical framework focused on policy coalitions of state and non-state actors to investigate the role that non-state actors played in the global climate policy process. GCC and CAN played major roles within opposing policy coalitions that became particularly important in shaping the outcome of the global and national climate policy processes. The thesis focuses on the role of GCC and CAN and their associated policy coalitions in influencing the framing, developing, implementation and review of global climate policy. It examines the global climate change policy process through this analytical lens of contestation between policy coalitions from the creation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1988 to the first Meeting of the Parties of the ratified Kyoto Protocol in 2005. The thesis assesses the analytical framework and concludes by identifying critical issues that the current global public policy processes have encountered in developing and implementing effective global climate change public policy.

It is more than 20 years since 1985, when world climate and atmospheric scientists first issued an authoritative warning of the danger of global warming. In 1988, scientists, environmentalists and politicians from 48 countries endorsed the Toronto Declaration to address global warming that called for a twenty percent worldwide reduction in CO emissions by the year 2005 leading to an eventual fifty percent reduction. Contestation and collaboration in the global climate change public policy process, involving a wide range of actors, has continued since then. Two organisations were founded in 1989 by non-state actors on opposite sides of the climate policy debate. These were the Global Climate Coalition (GCC), which was established by a range of US business interests, and Climate Action Network (CAN) established by a range of environmental and scientific non-governmental organisations. The thesis documents, analyses and compares how each organisation was formed, organised and developed. It reviews how GCC and CAN enabled more effective national and transnational advocacy and how they fostered opposing policy coalitions on climate policy. The respective approaches are assessed, evaluated and contrasted as each sought to gain support for their opposing policy positions in the global climate change policy process. The research uses a neo-Gramscian theoretical perspective and develops and applies an analytical framework focused on policy coalitions of state and non-state actors to investigate the role that non-state actors played in the global climate policy process. GCC and CAN played major roles within opposing policy coalitions that became particularly important in shaping the outcome of the global and national climate policy processes. The thesis focuses on the role of GCC and CAN and their associated policy coalitions in influencing the framing, developing, implementation and review of global climate policy. It examines the global climate change policy process through this analytical lens of contestation between policy coalitions from the creation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1988 to the first Meeting of the Parties of the ratified Kyoto Protocol in 2005. The thesis assesses the analytical framework and concludes by identifying critical issues that the current global public policy processes have encountered in developing and implementing effective global climate change public policy.

This study explores with theoretical and practical challenges surrounding the roles of civil society organizations (CSOs) and participatory approaches in development and democratization processes in contemporary Africa. Through a grounded, contextualized analysis of a coalition of Zambian CSOs, the Oasis Forum, and its (dis)engagement with the ongoing constitution-making process, this thesis interrogates the possibilities and limitations of various conceptions of „popular participation? in efforts to open up potentially transformative spaces for citizen engagement. The case of the Oasis Forum complicates, enriches and challenges both liberal and critical narratives of civil society, and demonstrates that even within superficially liberal language and objectives, there can be efforts to advance, and articulate with, more far-reaching possibilities for social change. Though the constraints of neoliberal globalization fundamentally constrain the scope of Zambian economic and political self-determination, this work reveals the under-acknowledged radical potential of liberal conceptual and policy tools to challenge this hegemonic order. More grounded, nuanced theoretical approaches are required to address the mutually constitutive nature of hegemonic structures and the agential subjects struggling within and against them.

In this thesis, the competing and shifting hegemonic discourses in Turkey-EU relations in the period between 1999 Helsinki European Council and 3 October 2005 are discussed in the framework of neo-Gramscian perspectives. In this study, initially the classic theories of European integration are analyzed and on the basis of the argument that the classic theories of European integration exhausted their potentials in explaining the European integration process, the neo-Gramscian perspectives are presented as an alternative theoretical framework. Deriving from the wavering character of Turkey-EU relations, the turning points in the related time period are defined and competing and shifting hegemonic discourses for both sides are discussed. The main argument of this thesis is that, since the very beginning of Turkey-EU relations, it has a wavering character and these relations are reproduced through the redefinition of competing and shifting hegemonic discourses with the active contribution of social actors in the related time period.

<p>Previously, studies in the intersection of power and development have predominantly concentrated on power as domination; how powerful actors can force recipient countries into embracing specific policies due to economical asymmetries. Yet, with the introduction of the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSP) approach to development employed by the Bretton Woods Institutions (BWI), conditions on certain policies have decreased and it is said that the approach allows for country ownership as development strategies are written by the countries themselves. As a critical response, the conception of power is broadened here through the separate employment of governmentality theory and neo-Gramscian International Relations theory. They share among them a theoretical premise which allows for an understanding of power that extends beyond domination to the realm of discursive practices which, it is argued, allows for influence despite the notions of ownership and without power as domination.</p><p>The object of this thesis is to suggest how the discourses of the PRSP regime can influence subjects whom they addressed. The two theories have different assumptions here. More specifically, the neo-Gramscian theory argue that discursive practice may render ideological issues as common sense why they can come to be embraced by subjects, whereas the governmentality theory assume that discourses can, perhaps without conscious recognition, reshape the very identities of subjects. The theories differences are retained and bracketed when a discourse analysis of the PRSP regime is conducted which concludes that the BWIs require that suitable skills are embraced by subjects appropriate for a good governed market economy. These skills are located to basic capacities in calculating, accounting and social capital accumulation. Thereafter a practical example of discursive practice in a capacity building mission is reviewed to explicate how these skills are actualized through training modules enabling influence towards preferred standards of the BWIs without power as domination. The two theories are brought in for a discussion on how these discursive practices may be understood according to their respective premises, but also to discuss the usefulness of these theories for studies of this kind.</p><p>It is argued, among other conclusions, that the neo-Gramscian understanding of power as operating on the conscious level can fruitfully be coupled with the proposition of governmentality that powers also work on an unconscious level for understanding practises of capacity building. As concerning the weaknesses of the theories it is put forth that the neo- Gramscian theory suffers from an assumption of class identity presented as a “brute fact” before the realm of the political, whereas the governmentality theory suffers from an exclusive focus on discourse and leaves behind how different actor constellations may seek to appropriate discourses. To remedy these weaknesses, the thesis concludes with an argument that a combination of these theories can provide a lucrative foundation for further studies.</p>

<p>Combining insights from critical discourse analysis (CDA) and neo-Gramscian IPE theory, this paper puts forth a cultural political economy (CPE) perspective to analyse the discursive articulation of ‘European subjects’ in the context of the EU’s Lisbon Agenda modernisation strategy. It is suggested here that the transformation proposed in Lisbon to the new economic imaginary of the knowledge based economy (KBE), depends on ‘new subjects’ and thus new discursive constructions of identities to reflect the new economic and social formations it envisions. The citizenship discourses of two of the Lisbon Agenda’s main supporters, specifically European business lobbies (represented by the ERT and LCEC) and the EU Commission, are examined in order to explore the relationship between citizenship rights and responsibilities and the two main goals of the Agenda, namely economic competitiveness/growth and social inclusion/social welfare protection modernisation. The argument is made that the discursive articulation of a ‘neoliberal communitarian’ variant of citizenship, especially evident in the discourses of the EU’s business lobbies and the EU Commission since the ‘shift’ to jobs and growth in early 2005, represents an attempt to further the commodification of the EU polity, and as a result, subordinate the more social goals of the Lisbon Agenda to the perceived imperatives of economic growth and competition. The Lisbon Agenda does not therefore mark a dramatic ‘turning point’ in favour of a more ‘social Europe’ as was speculated early on, but instead works to consolidate the dominance of ‘embedded neoliberalism’ as the socio-economic governance model for the EU. The paper ends with a discussion of the possible counter-hegemonic movements challenging the orthodoxy of embedded neoliberalism and neoliberal communitarian conceptions of citizenship.</p>

Within this thesis, the dominant conceptualisations of the state/market and the national/global within international political economy are put into a critical scrutiny. It is emphasized that within most of the analyses of globalisation and the state, these conceptualisations are built in a dualist manner and that the internal relation between them is ignored. Within this context, it will be focused on three prominent approaches in contemporary international political economy literature, namely regulation approach, neo-Gramscian approach and open Marxism which scrutinise the relation between globalisation and the state. Through an analysis of the methodological and conceptual frameworks of regulation and neo-Gramscian approaches with a particular focus on the relationship they posit between globalisation and the state, the political/ economic and the national/ global conceptualisations of these approaches will be criticised for being dualist. Such a criticism will be developed by deriving insights from open Marxist perspective which provides a relational conception of the political/economic and the global/national and, through emphasizing that globalism is inherent in capitalism and capital is a global social relation which cannot be taken as separate from labour, perceives the state and market as internally related forms of capitalist social relations of production.

Submitted by YUNA FONTOURA (yunareis@gmail.com) on 2015-12-18T14:09:58Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Final Thesis Yuna.pdf: 2767793 bytes, checksum: 75dc946b956c5160ac270cb45e4b4eb1 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by ÁUREA CORRÊA DA FONSECA CORRÊA DA FONSECA (aurea.fonseca@fgv.br) on 2015-12-18T15:27:27Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 Final Thesis Yuna.pdf: 2767793 bytes, checksum: 75dc946b956c5160ac270cb45e4b4eb1 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Marcia Bacha (marcia.bacha@fgv.br) on 2015-12-21T18:21:43Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 Final Thesis Yuna.pdf: 2767793 bytes, checksum: 75dc946b956c5160ac270cb45e4b4eb1 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2015-12-21T18:22:01Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Final Thesis Yuna.pdf: 2767793 bytes, checksum: 75dc946b956c5160ac270cb45e4b4eb1 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015-07-27 / Since the international financial and food crisis that started in 2008, strong emphasis has been made on the importance of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) (or 'transgenics') under the claim that they could contribute to increase food productivity at a global level, as the world population is predicted to reach 9.1 billion in the year 2050 and food demand is predicted to increase by as much as 50% by 2030. GMOs are now at the forefront of the debates and struggles of different actors. Within civil society actors, it is possible to observe multiple, and sometime, conflicting roles. The role of international social movements and international NGOs in the GMO field of struggle is increasingly relevant. However, while many of these international civil society actors oppose this type of technological developments (alleging, for instance, environmental, health and even social harms), others have been reportedly cooperating with multinational corporations, retailers, and the biotechnology industry to promote GMOs. In this thesis research, I focus on analysing the role of 'international civil society' in the GMO field of struggle by asking: 'what are the organizing strategies of international civil society actors, such as NGOs and social movements, in GMO governance as a field of struggle?' To do so, I adopt a neo-Gramscian discourse approach based on the studies of Laclau and Mouffe. This theoretical approach affirms that in a particular hegemonic regime there are contingent alliances and forces that overpass the spheres of the state and the economy, while civil society actors can be seen as a 'glue' to the way hegemony functions. Civil society is then the site where hegemony is consented, reproduced, sustained, channelled, but also where counter-hegemonic and emancipatory forces can emerge. Considering the importance of civil society actors in the construction of hegemony, I also discuss some important theories around them. The research combines, on the one hand, 36 in-depth interviews with a range of key civil society actors and scientists representing the GMO field of struggle in Brazil (19) and the UK (17), and, on the other hand, direct observations of two events: Rio+20 in Rio de Janeiro in 2012, and the first March Against Monsanto in London in 2013. A brief overview of the GMO field of struggle, from its beginning and especially focusing in the 1990s when the process of hegemonic formation became clearer, serves as the basis to map who are the main actors in this field, how resource mobilization works, how political opportunities ('historical contingencies') are discovered and exploited, which are the main discourses ('science' and 'sustainability' - articulated by 'biodiversity preservation', 'food security' and 'ecological agriculture') articulated among the actors to construct a collective identity in order to attract new potential allies around 'GMOs' ('nodal point'), and which are the institutions and international regulations within these processes that enable hegemony to emerge in meaningful and durable hegemonic links. This mapping indicates that that the main strategies applied by the international civil society actors are influenced by two central historical contingencies in the GMO field of struggle: 1) First Multi-stakeholder Historical Contingency; and 2) 'Supposed' Hegemony Stability. These two types of historical contingency in the GMO field of struggle encompass deeper hegemonic articulations and, because of that, they induce international civil society actors to rethink the way they articulate and position themselves within the field. Therefore, depending on one of those moments, they will apply one specific strategy of discourse articulation, such as: introducing a new discourse in hegemony articulation to capture the attention of the public and of institutions; endorsing new plural demands; increasing collective visibility; facilitating material articulations; sharing a common enemy identity; or spreading new ideological elements among the actors in the field of struggle.

Previously, studies in the intersection of power and development have predominantly concentrated on power as domination; how powerful actors can force recipient countries into embracing specific policies due to economical asymmetries. Yet, with the introduction of the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSP) approach to development employed by the Bretton Woods Institutions (BWI), conditions on certain policies have decreased and it is said that the approach allows for country ownership as development strategies are written by the countries themselves. As a critical response, the conception of power is broadened here through the separate employment of governmentality theory and neo-Gramscian International Relations theory. They share among them a theoretical premise which allows for an understanding of power that extends beyond domination to the realm of discursive practices which, it is argued, allows for influence despite the notions of ownership and without power as domination. The object of this thesis is to suggest how the discourses of the PRSP regime can influence subjects whom they addressed. The two theories have different assumptions here. More specifically, the neo-Gramscian theory argue that discursive practice may render ideological issues as common sense why they can come to be embraced by subjects, whereas the governmentality theory assume that discourses can, perhaps without conscious recognition, reshape the very identities of subjects. The theories differences are retained and bracketed when a discourse analysis of the PRSP regime is conducted which concludes that the BWIs require that suitable skills are embraced by subjects appropriate for a good governed market economy. These skills are located to basic capacities in calculating, accounting and social capital accumulation. Thereafter a practical example of discursive practice in a capacity building mission is reviewed to explicate how these skills are actualized through training modules enabling influence towards preferred standards of the BWIs without power as domination. The two theories are brought in for a discussion on how these discursive practices may be understood according to their respective premises, but also to discuss the usefulness of these theories for studies of this kind. It is argued, among other conclusions, that the neo-Gramscian understanding of power as operating on the conscious level can fruitfully be coupled with the proposition of governmentality that powers also work on an unconscious level for understanding practises of capacity building. As concerning the weaknesses of the theories it is put forth that the neo- Gramscian theory suffers from an assumption of class identity presented as a “brute fact” before the realm of the political, whereas the governmentality theory suffers from an exclusive focus on discourse and leaves behind how different actor constellations may seek to appropriate discourses. To remedy these weaknesses, the thesis concludes with an argument that a combination of these theories can provide a lucrative foundation for further studies.