The concept of transparency in International Relations: Towards a critical approach
| DOI | 10.1177/1354066116651688 |
| Date | 01 June 2017 |
| Published date | 01 June 2017 |
| Author | Matthew Fluck,Daniel R. McCarthy |
E
JR
I
https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066116651688
European Journal of
International Relations
2017, Vol. 23(2) 416 –440
© The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1354066116651688
journals.sagepub.com/home/ejt
The concept of transparency
in International Relations:
Towards a critical approach
Daniel R. McCarthy
Lecturer in International Relations, The University of Melbourne, Australia
Matthew Fluck
Lecturer in International Relations, University of Westminster, UK
Abstract
Transparency is an important concept in International Relations. The possibility of
realizing transparency in practice operates as a central analytical axis defining distinct
positions on core theoretical problems within the field, from the security dilemma
to the function of international institutions and beyond. As a political practice, the
pursuit of transparent governance is a dominant feature of global politics, promoted
by a wide range of actors across a vast range of issue areas, from nuclear proliferation,
to internet governance, to the politics of foreign aid. Yet, despite its importance,
precisely what transparency means or how the concept is understood is frequently
ill-defined by academics and policymakers alike. As a result, the epistemological and
ontological underpinnings of approaches to transparency in International Relations
often sit in tension with their wider theoretical commitments. This article will examine
the three primary understandings of transparency used in International Relations in
order to unpack these commitments. It finds that while transparency is often explicitly
conceptualized as a property of information, particularly within rationalist scholarship,
this understanding rests upon an unarticulated set of sociological assumptions. This
analysis suggests that conceptualizing ‘transparency as information’ without a wider
sociology of knowledge production is highly problematic, potentially obscuring our ability
to recognize transparent practices in global governance. Understanding transparency
as dialogue, as a social practice rooted in shared cognitive capacities and epistemic
Corresponding author:
Daniel R. McCarthy, The University of Melbourne, 516 John Medley Building, Melbourne, Victoria, 3010,
Australia.
Email: Daniel.Mccarthy@unimelb.edu.au
651688EJT0010.1177/1354066116651688European Journal of International RelationsMcCarthy and Fluck
research-article2016
Article
McCarthy and Fluck 417
frameworks, provides a firmer analytical ground from which to examine transparency
in International Relations.
Keywords
Critical theory, global governance, International Relations, rational choice,
transparency
Introduction
Transparency is a political condition valued and pursued by countless actors in global
politics, and transparency promotion is central to an extensive range of policy issues.
Development aid practices, internet governance and surveillance, the accountability of
international institutions, democracy promotion, nuclear weapons proliferation, and the
politics of financial regulation are all characterized by the strong positive value attached
to transparency. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) existing solely to encourage
and monitor transparency have thrived in this climate: one estimate places the number of
global ‘transparency advocacy’ organizations at 500 (Sunlight Foundation, 2013). Nor is
transparency subject to promotion by civil society organizations alone. Former Secretary
of State Hilary Clinton, reflecting a broader US foreign policy tradition that promotes
transparency as a common good, stressed that:
Historically, asymmetrical access to information is one of the leading causes of interstate
conflict. When we face serious disputes or dangerous incidents, it’s critical that people on both
sides of the problem have access to the same set of facts and opinions. (Clinton, 2010)
Transparency is portrayed as both necessary and increasingly possible within a globaliz-
ing, information-centric international system.
In this context, transparency seems to offer a realistic means of generating a more
accountable, peaceful or legitimate form of international politics. Assumptions about the
novelty of transparency are misleading, however. The concept lies at the nexus of the
epistemological, political and religious assumptions that have defined the Western politi-
cal tradition and path of modernity (Foucault, 1980: 153; Jay, 1993). From this perspec-
tive, the current policy vogue for transparency is the latest manifestation of a much older
constellation of ideals and practices linking rationality, legitimacy and progress with
transparency.
It is perhaps no surprise, then, to find that even if the discipline of International
Relations (IR) has tended not to share in the optimism of many policymakers, assump-
tions about transparency have played a key role in scholarly attempts to understand the
global political system. The possibility of creating transparency determines positions on
the offence–defence balance (Jervis, 1976), the tractability of the security dilemma (Booth
and Wheeler, 2007; Jervis, 1978; Mearsheimer, 2001) or the avoidance of war (Debs and
Monteiro, 2014; Fearon, 1995), among many other central issues in the field. Linked (but
not antithetical) to the concept of uncertainty, transparency is often portrayed as a way in
which the problems generated by anarchy can be surmounted without the need for global
To continue reading
Request your trial