International institutions are facing a double challenge of effectiveness and legitimacy. Many dissatisfied or disenfranchised governments and groups are deeply affected by global governance yet feel governance is poorly executed and that they themselves are inadequately represented. As global governance expands, few can hold those who exercise power to account. The implications for democracy are profound. Within the boundaries of the state people enjoy at least a potential to hold their governments to account through elections, ombudsmen, court actions, nongovernmental agencies, and the media. Yet increasingly, governments are delegating or ceding control over such decisions to international organizations, networks or other actors. This means that even in democracies, governments cannot be held to account for a widening range of decisions.

The institutions of global governance are mostly intergovernmental. They are constructed to represent member states and to provide a forum for discussion, agreement, and multilateral cooperation. In global governance, no actor can claim to have been directly elected by voters. Nor are many institutions subject to the normal restraints or checks and balances of public office. Multilateral organizations grapple with an unwieldy structure of government representation behind which most decisions are made by a small group of powerful states using a combination of formal and informal influence. As a result, accountability in global governance is complex and difficult to achieve.

The most deeply affected or disenfranchised are peoples in developing countries.