Speaking Private Authority. Roberto J. Flores

hierarchical bureaucracies.¹³ While both of these approaches are compelling, they tend to focus on how nodes within the network are shaped by the position, namely, how constraint and opportunity structures of the network shape the behavior of the node. Little consideration is given to how nodes can shape networks, and even less is given to how actors can link separate networks and, in the process, shape political sectors and outcomes. There is literature that does address the former (i.e., how nodes can shape networks); however, it remains in the minority.^{14,15,16,17,18} Nonetheless, it is important to address the critical contributions made by it. Emanating from this literature is the notion of the “political entrepreneur,” or agents able to affect political change through leveraging the social relations they have built within a network. Most prominently, they are able to do so by filling “structural holes” that exist within network structures.¹⁹ They do so through the development of innovative ideas that can reframe agendas and connect distinct nodes of the network.²⁰ While these approaches take agency more seriously than the others previously discussed, they maintain their analytical gaze within networks. Yet, I argue that by remaining within networks such approaches do not promote agency enough. Networks function based on common operational codes (i.e., symbols, knowledge, language), and thus there tends to exist a general compatibility of goals and interests among actors within networks. Therefore, staying within networks limits the entrepreneurial actor to “within network” change. Approaching it as such omits the possibilities for change across entire sectors by actors that can bridge gaps or “structural holes” that exist in between completely separate networks. This book distinguishes itself then by attempting to examine and explain the possibilities for affecting political outcomes open to actors linking separate networks. While it will use the tools and concepts of social network analysis that have been built up through this rich literature, it will focus on actors operating in between networks. In these political spaces there is no common denominator in terms of language, function, and/or objectives between actors. Nor is there an established political order per se. Rather, the actors that operate in these spaces compete to define the norms and practices of these spaces through the development of discourses. By constructing discourses around which actors across networks can converge, they come to regulate the behavior of the actors surrounding them. This is regularized through the creation of rules that are then adopted by other actors, or, in other words, exercising private authority. Thus, these actors, and their discourses, become the focus of this book. As these actors strategically position themselves in these spaces in between powerful networks—unbound by either end—they can leverage this flow of power to translate social capital into authority. This book seeks to show how this process allows these actors to play an outsized role through their shaping of the identities of powerful players across networks—doing so in ways that seem, at least intuitively, beyond their capacity (particularly, in comparison of their resource bases to those of the networks they operate in between).

      To explain this further, an apt starting point would be a discussion on networked governance. As previously discussed, private authority is an outgrowth of the increased networking of society. Therefore, before delving into a discussion on the social processes surrounding private authority, it is important to first expand upon the explanation of network society provided in the previous chapter.

      Networked Governance

      Barney (2004) aptly describes the process of properly contextualizing any social phenomenon as “gather[ing] the particularities of the historical situation and abstract from them a concept that would articulate the principle animating human practices and relationships.”²¹ That concept here is that of networks. In basic terms network society manifests when “the constitutive principles of networks . . . become the animating force of individual, social, economic and political life.”²² Manuel Castells (1996) describes the networked nature of society as “a historical trend [where] dominant functions and processes are increasingly organized around networks. Networks constitute the new social morphology of our societies, and the diffusion of networking logic substantially modifies the operation and outcomes in processes of production, experience, power and culture.”²³

      The idea of a society coming to adopt the structure of a network speaks of three interrelated trends (which emanate from a vast array of sources): a move toward decentralizing power, the expansion of markets, and the rapid advancement of communication technology.²⁴ There are several historical events and factors that have driven these trends and institutionalized their logics across society, including, most importantly: (1) the spread of global capitalism; (2) increasing globalization; (3) the end of the Cold War; (4) the increasing importance of information in the modern economy; (5) the rapid development of advanced technological processing capabilities; and so on. However, by no means does this insinuate determinism. Actors have agential qualities that they can employ to manipulate and shape these technological innovations as they see best fit. The point to be made here is simply that in a socially constructed society, agents and structures are mutually constituted, and uncovering the process by which these historical developments evolve, and the political outcomes that result, requires an understanding of the social forces driving the process. Yet, because explaining the process by which network society historically developed is beyond the scope of this book, I will rely on the work of other scholars who have argued extensively, clearly, and convincingly that the networking of society is taking place across political sectors.^{25,26,27,28,29,30,31}

      I will proceed through the remainder of this section by first providing a general overview of the fundamentals of network governance, as represented by the cited scholars. I will then show how these fundamentals are manifest within the environmental sector. After developing the social framework that guides this book, I will discuss the sources of authority within this networked sector, and further how network connectors can arise within this frame to generate private authority. The chapter will conclude with a brief discussion on the special role played by identity.

      Overview of Network Governance in Contemporary Global Politics

      At the base of network society has been the economic transition from an industrial goods economy based on production to an economy based on knowledge and information. According to the OECD, “economies are increasingly based on knowledge and information. Knowledge is now recognized as the driver of productivity and economic growth, leading to a new focus on the role of information and technology.”³² They go on to explain that “[t]he existence of information technology and communications infrastructures gives a strong impetus to the process of codifying certain types of knowledge. All knowledge which can be codified and reduced to information can now be transmitted over long distances, across vast networks, at minimal cost.”³³ This puts a premium on the control and management of information, as profit margins are becoming based more on efficiency and know-how, and less on control over physical/material resources. The economy is thus increasingly driven by information flows, across advanced communication technologies, rather than by mere material production capacity.³⁴

      The political transitions of network society mirror the economic transitions just discussed. However, instead of material production, it is political power that is transitioning to information and knowledge as opposed to material capacities. Within networks, power is a function of access to networks and inserting oneself in the pipeline of flows. Castells writes that “networks also act as gatekeepers. Inside the networks, new possibilities are relentlessly created—outside the networks, survival is increasingly difficult.”³⁵ Thus, those actors that can insert themselves in between networks carve out a special place within the network society. Access to significant networks is crucial, and therefore nodes that can connect powerful networks hold special value. This is because nodes within (and in between) networks can hold different levels of power based on their function within the network.

      These processes have led to a trend toward a decrease in states’ insistence on exercising authority both exclusively and hierarchically, even within their own borders, and even more particularly in the international arena. As a result, international institutions and organizations (or non-state actors more broadly) have grown exponentially to deal with the host of transnational