The German Research Foundation’s (DFG) Research Training Group “Standards of Governance” is an interdisciplinary research initiative run jointly by TU Darmstadt and Goethe University Frankfurt. At the midterm conference held in late January in Frankfurt, international experts joined members of the Research Training Group to discuss how standards both shape international politics and themselves become subjects of negotiation and conflict. Prof. Sandra Seubert, a political scientist at Goethe University Frankfurt and co-spokesperson for the Research Training Group, reflects on the conference and on future research questions.
UniReport: Professor Seubert, how would you explain the research field of “Standards of Governance”?
Sandra Seubert: We build on debates that originate in the field of International Relations. Institutions like the World Bank and the UN, for example, have been working for some time on defining the Sustainable Development Goals using so-called standards of good governance. These governance standards come into play when forms of governance beyond the traditional vertical structure of the state are sought through horizontal negotiation processes. Although state structures are not available in certain areas of action – such as climate policy –, specific policy goals, like CO2 reduction, or sustainability, still need to be met. Technical standards, which must be measured and verified during implementation, also play a key role in this process.
The underlying assumption of our research is that standardization, in a certain sense, is a fundamental pattern of modernity. Rationalization and technological innovations always go hand in hand with the establishment of standards aimed at ensuring that systems – both technical and social – are interconnected. Setting standards early in the development of technological innovations creates a market advantage, since others are then required to adapt to them.
The logics of standardization as a form of modern rationality are increasingly being transferred to certain forms of governance. In our Research Training Group, we are interested in what changes when governance is increasingly exercised through quantifiable and measurable standards, including in the field of democracy, where accountability, transparency, and participation are at stake. To manage transnational processes, standards are essential – not only in areas like environmental protection but also when it comes to human rights. Regulations such as the Supply Chain Act seek to ensure that standards are upheld and that producers both manage and verify processes to achieve sustainability goals and address the major transformations ahead. From a postcolonial perspective, it is important to recognize that standard-setting often reflects power imbalances, as standards are typically established by the Global North. However, there is a growing trend towards countries from the Global South interpreting these standards independently or asserting alternatives to Western norms, particularly in the context of green production certifications.
Have standards become more important because politics has grown more complex and international?
Absolutely. The complexity of today’s knowledge presents a significant challenge. First and foremost, various forms of knowledge must be incorporated and processed within political decision-making. While political consulting and a culture of expertise have always existed – one can trace them back to Machiavelli – their importance has increased significantly in recent years. Nowadays, necessary solutions also often need to address issues on a global scale. Expectations of politics have also risen, including the expectation that it can manage challenges during global crises like the COVID-19 pandemic by drawing on the appropriate expert knowledge.
That being said, expert knowledge is never entirely neutral, which is why plurality among experts matters. Where standards were politically established – as was the case with the Green Deal adopted during the last term of the European Commission – many of these are currently being rolled back under pressure from certain member states. The political implications of this are highly controversial, as we then enter a phase of regulatory volatility, where there is no longer clarity about what should guide planning. Advocates of expert-driven, technocratic forms of governance warn against this and argue that it would be much better if such decisions were removed from political debate and effectively set by a neutral government of experts.
What does this mean for democratic processes?
No matter how rational and knowledge-driven political decisions may be, if they fail to resonate with the general public, they fail to create democratic legitimacy for the policies being implemented. This is one of the reasons for the increase in experimentation with democratic innovations, such as citizen assemblies whose participants are randomly selected, thereby creating a representative snapshot of society. These citizen forums are designed to function as a kind of miniature public sphere, where participants can receive information, deliberate, and consult experts. The idea is that this process can foster informed opinion formation, aligning with the ideals of deliberative democracy. However, since citizen forums can only involve a small number of people, the challenge of conveying political legitimacy to the broader public through elections remains.
At present, this transfer remains the greatest challenge. Current climate policy is still the best example in this context: we already know so much, experts can tell us what future developments will look like, and yet policy continues to lag behind. Citizens, for their part, don’t want to simply be told in abstract terms what needs to be done – they want to understand what specific changes this will entail for their daily lives. And they want to be part of the change process. It is therefore essential to bridge the gap between different forms of knowledge: expert knowledge and common sense, that is, the everyday knowledge of citizens. The use of randomly selected citizen forums is complex in this regard. On the one hand, these procedures can be implemented to organize legitimacy “from above.” On the other, they can also be appropriated “from below” as a form of democratic participation, advocating for empowerment. I see citizen participation processes as a great opportunity – not only to generate public awareness of specific issues but also to foster political socialization, explore different perspectives, and seek constructive solutions. Today, these outcomes are no longer guaranteed through political parties or other organizations.
In addition to many empirical research projects, the Research Training Group also includes projects that take a more political-theoretical approach to exploring what standards mean for the future of democracy.
The Research Training Group has a wide thematic scope. While individual studies focus on topics such as monetary, development, and environmental policy, there are also cross-cutting themes that assess and evaluate these processes both empirically and normatively. For example, a group led by my colleague Barbara Brandl is examining how the digital euro is secured through financial market standards. Other projects are more theoretically oriented, such as those exploring the EU as a standard-setter in the digital transformation of public spaces or democratic transformation with regard to spatial expansion – from city-states to nation-states to transnational governance. The topics give you a sense of how interdisciplinary the Research Training Group is: in addition to bringing together sociologists, legal scholars, and political scientists working across fields like international relations and political theory, it also involves two universities. As with all interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary contexts, this is both exciting and challenging. During our first retreat, which we held at Goethe University’s guesthouse in Kleinwalsertal, we formed thematic clusters to ensure discussions could take place in smaller groups with closer thematic connections, rather than always involving everyone. The projects regularly present their findings. With a view to career development, it is important to establish a strong profile in one’s specific area of expertise. The four-year term of the Research Training Group includes an opportunity to integrate a stay abroad, which means our doctoral candidates are quite busy.
What insights did the Research Training Group’s midterm conference generate?
In addition to its focus on substantive discussions, our conference at the end of January also set the goal of introducing doctoral candidates to the organization of an international conference. We wanted to provide them with the opportunity to organize panels with researchers to discuss their dissertation topics. As a political theorist, I found the final panel particularly interesting. Standardization has its downsides, but it always seeks to generate solutions to problems. Setting standards involves a universal claim, which initially requires decontextualization. After all, when standards for sustainability or human rights, for example, are established, they are intended to be universally valid. However, this is always followed by a process of recontextualization, indicating the need for a more nuanced standard-setting as the next step. Some of the anthropologists on the panel emphasized how important it is to examine in detail how standard-setting works: Who initiates the process, with what perspectives and motives? From which problem context does the impetus for standard-setting arise, and who resists the universal application of certain standards? Adopting this perspective often reveals mechanisms of power and counter-power. It is possible, for example, to take a critical view of indices for measuring democracy, which also include standards, by asking what assumptions about liberal democracy are embedded in these indices. The final panel was therefore both insightful for the empirically oriented projects and particularly valuable for identifying future research potential.
What is the collaboration with TU Darmstadt like?
Das ist eine tolle Chance für beide Hochschulen, auch um die spezifischen Neigungen und Traditionen in ein GRK einzubringen. Die beiden Standorte Darmstadt und Frankfurt sind gut erreichbar und wir haben durch unsere gemeinsamen Studiengänge Erfahrung mit der Kooperation. Natürlich kann es an der einen oder anderen Stelle auch mal knirschen, bei Verwaltungsabläufen oder bei der Nutzung unterschiedlicher Informationssysteme. Für die Zusammenarbeit im Graduiertenkolleg nutzen wir z. B. Nextcloud, ein System, auf das alle zugreifen können. Dort werden auch Grundlagentexte gesammelt, die im Kolloquium besprochen wurden, Konferenzbeiträge u.ä.. Das ist für die Dokumentation des Fortschritts und auch für die zweite Kohorte unseres GRK sehr hilfreich. Wir wollen die Promovenden außerdem zum Publizieren motivieren und sie dabei unterstützen. Deshalb hatten wir der Konferenz auch einen Book-Workshop vorgelagert, um unsere gemeinsame Publikation zu besprechen. Es gibt eine Menge im Auge zu behalten, insbesondere mit Blick auf eine, hoffentlich, zweite Förderphase!
Further information at https://standards-of-governance.de/en/start-3/
A feature on the research training group was recently published on TU Darmstadt’s website.
