Hypothesis construction

H 1: Non-state actor demand (push) is neither necessary nor sufficient for participation
in IO implementation

H 2: Non-state actor comparative advantage (pull) is necessary and sufficient for
participation in IO implementation

(The non-state actors involved in implementation will not be the largest, or most vocal, or random groups but those that provide tangible or substantive benefits to IOs and states)

H 3: Either non-state actor comparative advantage (pull) or de fact veto (push) is
necessary for decision making participation (voice or appeal, not vote)

(Persuasion of normative reasons for inclusion is not sufficient for inclusion in decision making)

H4: Both non-state actor comparative advantage (pull) and a de facto veto (push) is
necessary for voting rights within an IO.

Alt. H: States and IOs will favor NGO participation across the board for reasons of
normative legitimacy, or because they have been persuaded by NGOs.