000			01722naa a2200193uu 4500
001			6041114492021
003			OSt
005			20230830183509.0
008			060411s2006 xx ||||gr |0|| 0 eng d
100	1		_aGRANT, Ruth W. _924418
245	1	0	_aAccountability and abuses of power in world politics
260			_aNew York, NY : _bAmerican Political Science Association, _cFebruary 2005
520	3		_aDebates about globalization have centered on calls to improve accountability to limit abuses of power in world politics. How should we think about global accountability in the absence of global democracy? Who should hold whom to account and according to what standards? Thinking clearly about these questions requires recognizing a distinction, evident in theories of accountability at the nation-state level, between “participation” and “delegation” models of accountability. The distinction helps to explain why accountability is so problematic at the global level and to clarify alternative possibilities for pragmatic improvements in accountability mechanisms globally. We identify seven types of accountability mechanisms and consider their applicability to states, NGOs, multilateral organizations, multinational corporations, and transgovernmental networks. By disaggregating the problem in this way, we hope to identify opportunities for improving protections against abuses of power at the global level.
700	1		_95509 _a Keohane, Robert O.
773	0	8	_tAmerican Political Science Review _g99, 1, p. 29-44 _dNew York, NY : American Political Science Association, February 2005 _xISSN 0003-0554 _w
942			_cS
998			_a20060411 _b1449^b _cNatália
998			_a20060411 _b1522^b _cNatália
999			_aConvertido do Formato PHL _bPHL2MARC21 1.1 _c15515 _d15515
041			_aeng