This book opened with a puzzle. It was noted that human society has in recent times become qualitatively more global. More global relations have elicited more global governance. For that transplanetary regulation to be effective and legitimate it must, amongst other things, be democratically accountable. Such accountability is not available through states alone. Analysts and activists have often suggested that civil society could substantially correct the accountability shortfalls in contemporary global governance. But is this proposition tenable? In what ways and to what extents have civil society activities made global regulatory institutions more answerable to the people whose lives and livelihoods are affected?

Prior to this book, no conceptually systematic and empirically wide-ranging research had focused on this important question of global politics in the twenty-first century. To address the gap the book has: (a) elaborated a conceptualisation of ‘global governance’, ‘accountability’ and ‘civil society’; and (b) related that analytical framework to thirteen diverse arrangements for transplanetary regulation. Now, in this Conclusion to the book, it is possible to return with firmer grounding to the overarching question of the study.

So, how far is civil society engagement an answer to accountability deficits in contemporary global governance? The following pages first consider, in the light of the thirteen case studies, the merits or otherwise of the conceptual approach set out in Chapter 1.