Arts & International Affairs: Volume 2, Issue 1 | Page 129

serves as an active bridge between East and West and is located at the nexus of the Nordic and Baltic regions” (SRG Foundation ����:��). The foregoing begs the question, why do corporations get involved in some of these arrangements? The Deutsche Bank provides perhaps the greatest insight because they partnered with Guggenheim for the Berlin location. Outside of the relationship with Guggenheim, Deutsche Bank has identified the promotion of art as a component of its corporate philanthropy. This sort of corporate social responsibility practice can burnish the bank brand and provide it with an opportunity to forge a distinctive corporate social responsibility policy. Beyond its partnership with the Guggenheim, Deutsche Bank oversees Art Works, its “global art program.” The bank has its own collection of art, some of which it exhibits on its premises. It supports a myriad of projects, including an “Artist of the Year” award and a magazine about art, ostensibly making are more widely accessible. Ultimately, then, the various actors who participate in the transnationalization of the museum do so for their own political, economic, and cultural reasons. � The Museum—What kind of transnational actor? The seeds of the current conversation about transnational actors date to the early ����s when scholars like Keohane and Nye questioned the state centric nature of the international system (Jönsson ����, ��). They saw greater complexity of as well as significant activity by non-state actors. Early versions of this debate asked whether increased influence by transnational actors translated into declining influence for the state. Attention returned to transnational actors again in the ����s with a spate of scholarship on globalization, transnational advocacy networks, and epistemic communities (see Risse ���� for a review of this second wave). Contemporary definitions include the following: transnational actors “operate on a cross-border basis, pursue the same set of goals everywhere, and address a global audience. This does not mean that their national affiliates, subsidiaries, or chapters have no autonomy: but they possess a clear overall image and exist as international, often legal entities, whether as church, corporation, or federation” (Josselin and Wallace ����:�). The term, transnational, “refers to actors, interactions and flows that cross conventional borders, go beyond established patterns, and can be seen as an alternative to state-centric perspectives” (Jönsson ����:��). These definitions seem able to accommodate the museum as a transnational actor, but what kind? � . 128