He mentioned the weaknesses of Global Governance that were highlighted by the recent economic crisis and the strengths of the G20. His pragmatic perspective was informative, interesting and sparked a lively discussing during the question and answer section. It made me remember an essay I wrote in February 2007 on Global Governance. Unsurprisingly, the questions remain the same.....
- What is meant by the term global governance?
- Why is effective global governance difficult to achieve?
Introduction:
Global governance is not an easily definable term. Therefore, to gain an understanding of the concept it is necessary to firstly look briefly at its evolution. It important to note that there is no general consensus on what the term means exactly although different theories and definitions have been presented by political scientists, international organizations and other sources. It has been described as governance without government and I evaluate that concept with reference to Rosenau’s writing on that topic. Global governance is generally associated with international organizations that are symbolized by the United Nations. Therefore, this essay will focus on the United Nations as a practical working model of global governance. Then Cottey’s different dimensions of global governance will be outlined to improve understanding of the term and problems with the concept will be discussed using an example from current world politics. Finally, the reasons why effective global governance is difficult to achieve will be analyzed. It is inescapable that global governance is essential for modern international society; however, the factors preventing effective global governance will have to be firstly overcome. I will conclude that global governance is continually evolving and it is gradually improving but that does not mean that it does not have flaws.
Evolution:
Global governance began to emerge in the 19th Century as a response to the emergence of a world economy and international war. International Relations and then global governance is based on the nation state as its foundation. This is based on the Treaty of Westphalia that was drafted in 1648. The treaty of Westphalia first enshrined two principles that are still central today. These are firstly rex est imperator, that “the king is emperor in his own realm”[1] and “whereby states act so as to prevent any one state dominating”[2]. This means that states are sovereign and interdependent. It also means that global governance has been set up based on principles that prevent hegemonic international domination by one state or actor. Although, in principle these are important and justifiable, in practise they are problematic especially when it comes to civil war, peacekeeping, or potential nuclear warfare.
The peoples of the world were becoming increasingly interconnected and linked. Therefore, many issues and problems strayed beyond individual states such as terrorism, human rights issues, the economy and crime. Since, increasingly the problems that affect one government can affect all governments. A nuclear bomb or biological weapon will not respect a national boundary. Therefore, governments were (and are) forced to acknowledge that states are no longer self-sufficient. This signalled the creation of the Concert of Nations in Europe between the great powers and signalled the beginning of a shift towards diplomacy rather than intimidation or threats and peace rather than war. However, in the 1850s it failed to prevent war and collapsed.
The first formal attempt at global governance followed the First World War and was known as the League of Nations. Due to emerging technological capacities, communication, business, news, transportation and almost all facets of life were being increasingly influenced at an international level. The First World War had also made the international community conscious of the need for a “mediating” “international body.”[3] As a response to this the world powers at the time attempted to create a forum for states to govern global problems, issues and anything that potentially strayed beyond national boundaries. The emergence of the League of Nations among other international organisations signalled the beginning of the need for something more than individual autonomous state government. The withdrawal of the United States and the Second World War made the League of Nations collapse. However, the world wars made critics argue that it was an overly idealistic concept because there was no way to enforce decisions that had been reached[4]. Post World War II saw the creation of the United Nations (UN), The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and a form of what is now known as the World Trade Organisation. These all remain today and with the exception of the United Nations have evolved to cope with a changing global climate. An example of this is the World Trade Organisation which used to be Keynesian (state intervention to manage the economy on all levels) but has evolved to take a neo-liberalist and free market economic approach. As a result governments now take a minimalist role. However, The United Nations is the organisation most frequently associated with global government. Unlike the economic institutions it was not influenced as greatly by the cold war or other events. But this does not mean that it has been completely unaffected by international events.
Recent turning points for the United Nations include the terrorist attacks on September 11th (9/11) in the United States and the Iraq war. After 9/11, the United States stopped working co-operatively and this started undermining the United Nations. The United States was acting unilaterally with no consequences and this became more apparent with the Iraq war.
The United Nations symbolises global governance today. It can be used as a model of global governance in practise. However, it is important to firstly establish what global governance actually is.
SO, WHAT IS GLOBAL GOVERNANCE?
No consensus
“Global governance” is a term that does not have a definition that has achieved an accepted consensus. Interpretations vary greatly depending on individual understandings and expectations. It constantly emerges that it is an international system defined by a need to provide worldwide solutions, norms and a semblance of governance to what otherwise would be unmanaged chaos.
As has been established, global governance is not an easily definable concept. There are numerous definitions, concepts and ideas of what it is or rather what it should be. Lawrence S. Finklestein suggests that the term global governance has become the short hand for “virtually everything”[5].
There is no general agreement on exactly what global governance actually is. The spheres of authority that influence global governance are still changing and will probably continue to change. As a result of this, the habits, relationships and structures that make the foundation for managing the way events are controlled have not yet been created.[6] This can be a problem because it is the world system of governance without government and it is not transparent.
Governance without government—which is better
Global governance is not a tangible structure but rather “governance without government”[7]. Authors like Rosenau use “governance” to “express the regulation of interdependent relations because of the lack of an overarching political authority”[8]. Many different political writers argue that there is an “absence” of a world government. They argue that it is clear that world governance would not be necessary if there was a world government. However, Rosenau argues that governance is not backed by formal authority but rather by the “majority”. He points out that governments can function with huge opposition and can be ineffective while still being considered to exist. He argues that governance without government is preferable than government with governance. According to Rosenau, governments pursue policy goals while governance refers to activities “backed by shared goals.”[9]
Although, Rosenau has a point, he also overlooks cases such as the recent war in Iraq where the majority decision was ignored to follow the objectives of the minority within international politics. He also does not take into account situations where the majority do not always do what is right or care about the minority until it is too late. It is true that the ideal of global governance is better than government but in reality—both are imperfect. Although, the ideal of governance is backed by shared goals, in reality each state and international actor is following their own policy goals and objectives. This shows that global governance does not imply good or bad practise but is rather a descriptive term for the government we have at an international level.
Associated with International Organisations
Generally, global governance is associated with International Organisations and is symbolised by the United Nations. Due to the necessity for management of international processes and in the absence of an international government a form of governance has emerged. States guard their individual autonomy and as long as nations exist there will be a drive toward a form of control of factors that are outside an individual government’s control. Non-governmental Organisations, the World Bank, and even the EU can all fit under global governance.
Governments have legitimate monopolies on the use of force and control the power of enforcement within their states. The political interaction that is required to solve problems that affect more than one state or region when there is no power of enforcing compliance is whan global governance becomes necessary. Currently, the best way to understand global governace is as an “evolving set of institutions for the management of global problems.”
INSTITUTIONS
Global governance is a changing pattern of international institutions. This means that it can potentially include anything from Non Governmental Organisations (NGO’s) to the United Nations. There are numerous different international institutions involved in global governance. This essay will focus on the United Nations because it is the organisation most frequently associated with world governance.
Global governance is multilayered because there cannot be one overall governor for the world. Firstly, there are so many areas of interaction and mutual impact to be considered. There cannot be a single source of governing authority, as states would not agree to give up their autonomy and who rules would become highly controversial. However accountable it might be to a world constituency. Two defining factors of global governance are state interaction and the balance of power. Both are highly problematic. States have private, self-serving agendas. The powers system is also based on an old world order, which makes it controversial in a new world order.
The United Nations and Global Governance.
International governance today encompasses much more than the United Nations. Ideally, the United Nations provides a “forum” for consultation and negotiation, keeps the peace worldwide, aids development and provides humanitarian aid. Ideally it is set up to keep the peace world wide among other tasks. Yet, the United Nations has yet to achieve the ideal necessary for true "global governance" to become a reality. If global governance were fulfilling its role then that would mean that there would be no need for a world government. The United Nations has provided huge improvements but it like many international organisations has been set up to prevent a world government from being necessary.
The role of the United Nations is extensive and multilayered—extensive because it can potentially embrace any challenge facing the global community. The peoples of the world are becoming increasingly interconnected and linked and therefore mutually concerned whether the issue is nuclear power, the environment, the operation of foreign markets, war or terrorism, it is increasingly becoming the case that what effects one can affect all. With increased technological capacities communication, business, news, transportation and all facets of almost all individuals’ lives are being influenced at an international level.
Since its conception in 1945, the United Nations has begun to start providing services directly. Global Governance calls for a reorganisation of world machinery and institutional advancements.
The main flaw of the United Nations is its attempt to do what governments do within their own states at a global level without legitimacy and an ability to suitably enforce rules or regulations. [10] The United Nations actions (like those of an executive branch of government) are limited by their legislation and budget allocations. The defining characteristic of international administrations is that they lack the attribute of sovereignty. The United Nations Charter states that each state is entitled to its own “domestic jurisdiction” which the UN has no right to interfere with.
Improved global problem solving does not need the creation of more powerful formal global institutions. However, it does involve creating consensus on norms and practices that are then complied with internationally.
It is a model of global governance because it does not take over sovereignty or attempt to rule. It is practical insofar as it provides humanitarian aid, attempts to provide worldwide security and peace. It is a global organisation that has legitimacy to a degree and provides a forum for appeal or help. Furthermore, the United Nations has established formal and informal international norms and practises.
The global governance that exists today consists of a limited, fragmentary, and contradictory mixture of public and private sector rules and procedures. This is not however a bad thing. International organisations have been set up as functional and to fulfil the purpose for which they are created. However, to see how much global governance relates to international institutions it is important to look at Cottey’s different dimensions of global governance.
DIMENSIONS OF GLOBAL GOVERNANCE
Since global governance is so multidimensional it encompasses numerous different things not simply institutions. The main dimensions are normative, institutional, cost/ burden sharing and operational.[11]Looking at the different dimensions makes understanding global governance easier and it provides a basis for showing why achieving effective global governance is difficult. I will firstly outline Cottey’s four dimensions of global governance and provide a brief description.
The Normative Dimension
It is logical that if global governance is to reflect “shared” values, principles, standards, laws and promote peace then it is necessary for certain norms to be identified, agreed upon, defined and enforced. I have mentioned norms that international institutions such as those the United Nations have perpetrated.
Formal norms include laws, treaties and charters. This means that there is an established framework that can be used as a legal basis worldwide. Informal norms include everything that is generally accepted worldwide because of the United Nations formal norms. These include human rights, fundamental freedoms, equality and prevention of discrimination. Although, most of these norms are not enforceable, the United Nations legitimacy means that it is expected and that provides informal power of its own.
However, the normative dimension has some problems. The genocides in Rwanda and Burundi establish that the norm of non-interference in state internal affairs clashes with that of peace keeping and human rights. The legacy that it has left behind of generations butchered, Aids victims and two nations’ desecrated shows that the most fundamental norm of global governance is flawed.
The Institutional Dimension
The institutional dimension is one that has been discussed frequently throughout this essay. It involves the organisations that have been set up to make decisions, implement them and attempt to enforce them. It is highly controversial as it revolves around power, influence and authority. The institutional dimension includes structures and frameworks where these decisions implemented or discussed. It is mainly based on equality and consensus.
Its flaws include the fact that the world has changed since many organisations have been created. The global society in which the original Security Council was created with veto powers no longer exists. That means that this potentially powerful branch of the United Nations is controlled by an old world order and this has become highly controversial. Furthermore, agreements on decisions takes time, implementation is problematic and enforcement if very difficult to achieve.
The Cost/Burden Sharing Dimension
Another dimension of global governance are the systems involved in financing and distributing the burden of global governance. An example of this is the European Union, which is funded by contributions from member states based on their wealth and population. However, this causes problems as the richer countries are effectively supporting the poorer ones, which can lead to resentment or anger. Since the whole point of global governance is to “govern without government” there is no direct form of taxation. As a result most major costs are covered by mostly voluntary donations.
Aspects that are covered mainly be donations include development aid, non United Nations peacekeeping, and the cost of dealing with global warming. Aid agencies such as Concern raise money for development but they are often accused of being corrupt, misdirecting funds and spending too much on the operations such as transportation and not enough on actual development.
The Operational Dimension
The operational dimension is a very important facet of any organisation. It involves all the mechanisms that actually make things happen. Without the operational aspect of global governance it would simply be a forum for discussion. However, the more operational it becomes the more it resembles a government.
Furthermore, the operational aspect of global governance means that the lack of real powers become more apparent. The costs increase and therefore member states become more critical of what is happening and urge for greater transparency. The World Bank is an example of this.
In March 2006 the G8 approved a multilateral debt relief scheme, which meant that countries like Tanzania were eligible to have 100% of their debt cancelled. However, previously to this the World Bank and IMF provided Tanzania with $3billion.
In return, Tanzania had to do certain things. This included diverting the Ruaha river in order to flood certain fields so they can be used to grown rice as implementation of the World Banks strategy. However, this resulted in all the villages along this river being left with a hugely decreased (sole) water source, with meant that fishing, watering of crops, brick making and watering of livestock became problematic[12]. This is an example of how the operational dimension of global governance can be accused of being corrupt or adversely affecting change.
So far, I have discussed the different ways that global governance is described and outlined the different dimensions of global government. As has been shown, global governance is not an easily defined term is rather an umbrella term for institution, organisations and any framework that functions at an international level to help with things such as problem solving, burden sharing, peace keeping, security, and the economy. To fully understand global governance, it is important to understand why effective global governance is so difficult to achieve.
WHY IS EFFECTIVE GLOBAL GOVERNANCE DIFFICULT TO ACHIEVE?
Global governance is a very convoluted, complex and changing system. It is trying to govern an entire world that means different (often clashing) systems of government, cultures and states. These generally have their own definite and defined personal agendas. Therefore, effective global governance is difficult to achieve for a large number of reasons. The main one is that what it actually is differs from the expectations that are placed on it. However, why difficult global governance is difficult to achieve is really due to a combination of factors. These include a lack of; collective good, an anarchic system, defined leadership and legitimacy
Furthermore, it is difficult to measure its effectiveness, as that is also dependant on what “effective” is defined as. Drezner used the Kyoto Protocol to provide an example of this[13] and it is quite useful. He basically discusses standards, expectations and shows that effectiveness is a mixture of achievement and compliance.
Factors
The first factor is getting individual actors to work in collective good rather than individual self-interest. The second factor is that the system is anarchic without one central authority and thirdly it lacks legitimacy. The last factor is that is the unequal balance of power.
As I have discussed, there are problems that cannot be solved by one state alone and that is why collective action is necessary but it is much harder to achieve. Every rational actor will realise that acting in global interests will not be the best plan for individual self interest. Generally, this means that it is either a very controversial, threatening or unavoidable problems that get collective action.
Secondly, it has been shown that it is not possible to have one authority controlling the world but at the same time due to state sovereignty there is no international law enforcing body making sure that commitments are fulfilled. States therefore must rely on themselves which means that they will act in self-interest.
Global governance in its current state lacks legitimacy because the nations of the world are not properly represented (as they should be) at a global level. They also do not have the structures to provide legitimacy to the world. This is shown in the Security Council veto powers where five states have the power over world security. Currently, the reasons that it lacks legitimacy are that it is not democratic (although not all governments see this as desirable), not based on world powers (which causes anger in new powers and a refusal to give up powers in the old states) and it is not properly representative.
Finally, the balance of power is unequal and will remain unequal. There are many reasons for the imbalance of power. Monetary, military, political and influence all play a role. Size of population is not always translated into power on the global stage. Furthermore, the institutions that global governance does have are based on former powers and it is unlikely that the countries will willingly give up their power.
The United States also considers itself to be a world superpower and in many ways it is one. It is not accountable on the world stage and follows its own agenda. It has a more developed military capacity and diplomatically it is very influential. This is a reflection of the imbalance of power that characterises global governance.
Standards and expectations
Drezner argued that it is simply a matter of what effectiveness is considered to be. If effectiveness is simply considering whether the regulatory regime affects the issue in question and achieves its aims, then Kyoto Protocol would be considered effective if it stops the current trend of global warming. Regardless, of the levels of compliance or even if there is a total lack of compliance with the treaty it would still be considered successful.
However, if effective global governance implies that actors comply with certain agreed upon commitments then the Kyoto Protocol is effective if all the actors comply with their treaty commitments even if global warming still remains a problem. Consequently, it makes sense that a balanced measure of effectiveness will combine both of these concepts. Drezner shows the logic of defining effectiveness as a combination of achievement and compliance.
Taking domestic governments to a global level
Global governance is also difficult to achieve is because it is using old frameworks of administration and applying them to a different system. Finklestein stated, “Global governance is doing internationally what governments do at home.”[14] This logically cannot be effective. Firstly, global governance is not a form of government. Secondly, scaling up individual governments to a global scale is problematic. When it comes to global issues and problems it is important to have a global view rather than focusing on the self-interest of a states.
Craig N. Murphy’s definition of global governance as “what world government we really have[15]” is valuable when considering the difficulty of effectiveness. Global governance does not provide sufficent answers to the questions and requirements placed on it because it is not a tangible global polity yet. Therefore, it is not accountable, it does not have a clearly defined structure and therefore it is not equipt to effectively deal with the demands placed on it.
Murphy puts it best:
The global polity is not simply a superstructure responding to the interests of an already differentiated ruling class.Global governance is more a site, one of many sites, in which struggles over wealth, power, and knowledge are taking place[16].
Global governance is not just a forum for international dialogue, it is not a structure for world government and it is not clearly definable. Global governance is something different to different people depending on the demands placed on it. This primarily means that although the “majority” must agree they are struggling to gain the most individually and that is why effective global governance is almost impossible to achieve.
Young[17] argues that social scientists have shown that the “gap” between the ideal and the reality with regard to performance of “institutions is sizeable in every social setting”. Global governance cannot be expected to be the exception when it does not work on a smaller scale (domestic). It would be naïve to acknowledge that there are other factors at work such as distribution of power among international members, prevailing systems of ideas and individual also exert an influence on effectiveness at an international level. It will never be effective as by its very nature it is designed to fulfil the function of suiting the majority rather than everyone.
In Conclusion, global governance is a complex system that has been set up to promote governance on a global scale. It can be defined as many different things as it fulfils numerous roles and functions based on international demands placed on it. As has been shown, it is not simply its institutions, member states or a forum for consultation. Global governance represents a different ideal and performs a different function for each individual. It is difficult to effectively achieve. This is because of many factors and reasons. Yet it is important to it is improving. Although it is imperfect it has achieved a lot. It is a constantly evolving system working in a changing world stage. It is perhaps best to describe it as a multilayered system that functions at an international level to manage global problems. It constantly is evolving and changing to remain flexible to achieve whatever demands are placed on it to suit the majority.
Bibliography
Baylis, John and Smith, Steve. The Globalization of World Politics. (Oxford University Press. 2001) p.4
Baylis, John and Smith, Steve. The Globalization of World Politics. (Oxford University Press. 2001) p.43-56
Cottey, Andrew. Lecture Notes October-December 2006. University College Cork. GV4400.
Drake William. Defining ICT Global governance-memo#1 for the social science research council's research network on IT and Governance.
Drezner, Daniel W. “Globalisation and the Substitutability of Governance Structures.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, MA, (August 29-September 1, 2002).
Drezner, Daniel. Ed, Locating the Proper Authorities: The interaction of Domestic and International Institutions. (Ann Arbour: Michigan University Press, 2003).
Goldstein, Kahler, Keohane and Slaughter, eds., Legalisation and World Politics (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2001)
Finkelstein, Lawrence S.. What is Global Governance? Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organisations 1 (1995) p. 369.
Mathiason, John Managing Global Governance Accessed 04/12/2006
http://www.intlmgt.com/portfolio/Mangov.html
Rosenau, James. Along the Domestic-Foreign Frontier: Exploring Global Governance in a turbulent world (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), p11
Young, Oran. The effectiveness of international institutions: hard cases and critical variables. Governance without Government: order and change in world politics. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1997.)
United Nations Charter. Accessed 04/12/2006
World Bank Press Releases. Accessed 07/12/2006
[1] Baylis and Smith 2001.pp43.
[2] Baylis and Smith 2001. pp 4
[3] Baylis and Smith 2001.pp56
[4] Dr Andrew Cottey. Lecture Notes September 2006.
[5] Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organisations (1995) p. 369.
[6] James Rosenau. Along the Domestic-Foreign Frontier: Exploring Global Governance in a turbulent world (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), p11
[7] Dr. Andrew Cottey. Lecture Notes 6. 03 October 2006
[8] Global Trends and Global Governance.
[9] Governance, Order and change in World Politics
[10] Lawrence S. Finklestein, "what is global governance?" Global Governance: A review of Multilateralism and international organisations. 1(1995), p.369.
[11] Andrew Cottey. October 2006 the dimensions of Global Governance. UCC
[12] Personal experience in Tanzania and discussion with aid workers from Concern worldwide, Danida and World Bank consultant.
[13] Global Governance. Fall 2003.Professor Daniel W. Drezner
[14] Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organisations (1995) p. 369.
[15] Rorden Wilkinson, The Global Governance Reader, (Routledge, 2005) pp11.
[16] Rorden Wilkinson, The Global Governance Reader, (Routledge, 2005) pp98.
[17] Oran R. Young. Effective Global Governance.
Global governance is not an easily definable term. Therefore, to gain an understanding of the concept it is necessary to firstly look briefly at its evolution. It important to note that there is no general consensus on what the term means exactly although different theories and definitions have been presented by political scientists, international organizations and other sources. It has been described as governance without government and I evaluate that concept with reference to Rosenau’s writing on that topic. Global governance is generally associated with international organizations that are symbolized by the United Nations. Therefore, this essay will focus on the United Nations as a practical working model of global governance. Then Cottey’s different dimensions of global governance will be outlined to improve understanding of the term and problems with the concept will be discussed using an example from current world politics. Finally, the reasons why effective global governance is difficult to achieve will be analyzed. It is inescapable that global governance is essential for modern international society; however, the factors preventing effective global governance will have to be firstly overcome. I will conclude that global governance is continually evolving and it is gradually improving but that does not mean that it does not have flaws.
Evolution:
Global governance began to emerge in the 19th Century as a response to the emergence of a world economy and international war. International Relations and then global governance is based on the nation state as its foundation. This is based on the Treaty of Westphalia that was drafted in 1648. The treaty of Westphalia first enshrined two principles that are still central today. These are firstly rex est imperator, that “the king is emperor in his own realm”[1] and “whereby states act so as to prevent any one state dominating”[2]. This means that states are sovereign and interdependent. It also means that global governance has been set up based on principles that prevent hegemonic international domination by one state or actor. Although, in principle these are important and justifiable, in practise they are problematic especially when it comes to civil war, peacekeeping, or potential nuclear warfare.
The peoples of the world were becoming increasingly interconnected and linked. Therefore, many issues and problems strayed beyond individual states such as terrorism, human rights issues, the economy and crime. Since, increasingly the problems that affect one government can affect all governments. A nuclear bomb or biological weapon will not respect a national boundary. Therefore, governments were (and are) forced to acknowledge that states are no longer self-sufficient. This signalled the creation of the Concert of Nations in Europe between the great powers and signalled the beginning of a shift towards diplomacy rather than intimidation or threats and peace rather than war. However, in the 1850s it failed to prevent war and collapsed.
Recent turning points for the United Nations include the terrorist attacks on September 11th (9/11) in the United States and the Iraq war. After 9/11, the United States stopped working co-operatively and this started undermining the United Nations. The United States was acting unilaterally with no consequences and this became more apparent with the Iraq war.
The United Nations symbolises global governance today. It can be used as a model of global governance in practise. However, it is important to firstly establish what global governance actually is.
No consensus
“Global governance” is a term that does not have a definition that has achieved an accepted consensus. Interpretations vary greatly depending on individual understandings and expectations. It constantly emerges that it is an international system defined by a need to provide worldwide solutions, norms and a semblance of governance to what otherwise would be unmanaged chaos.
As has been established, global governance is not an easily definable concept. There are numerous definitions, concepts and ideas of what it is or rather what it should be. Lawrence S. Finklestein suggests that the term global governance has become the short hand for “virtually everything”[5].
There is no general agreement on exactly what global governance actually is. The spheres of authority that influence global governance are still changing and will probably continue to change. As a result of this, the habits, relationships and structures that make the foundation for managing the way events are controlled have not yet been created.[6] This can be a problem because it is the world system of governance without government and it is not transparent.
Governance without government—which is better
Global governance is not a tangible structure but rather “governance without government”[7]. Authors like Rosenau use “governance” to “express the regulation of interdependent relations because of the lack of an overarching political authority”[8]. Many different political writers argue that there is an “absence” of a world government. They argue that it is clear that world governance would not be necessary if there was a world government. However, Rosenau argues that governance is not backed by formal authority but rather by the “majority”. He points out that governments can function with huge opposition and can be ineffective while still being considered to exist. He argues that governance without government is preferable than government with governance. According to Rosenau, governments pursue policy goals while governance refers to activities “backed by shared goals.”[9]
Although, Rosenau has a point, he also overlooks cases such as the recent war in Iraq where the majority decision was ignored to follow the objectives of the minority within international politics. He also does not take into account situations where the majority do not always do what is right or care about the minority until it is too late. It is true that the ideal of global governance is better than government but in reality—both are imperfect. Although, the ideal of governance is backed by shared goals, in reality each state and international actor is following their own policy goals and objectives. This shows that global governance does not imply good or bad practise but is rather a descriptive term for the government we have at an international level.
Associated with International Organisations
Generally, global governance is associated with International Organisations and is symbolised by the United Nations. Due to the necessity for management of international processes and in the absence of an international government a form of governance has emerged. States guard their individual autonomy and as long as nations exist there will be a drive toward a form of control of factors that are outside an individual government’s control. Non-governmental Organisations, the World Bank, and even the EU can all fit under global governance.
Governments have legitimate monopolies on the use of force and control the power of enforcement within their states. The political interaction that is required to solve problems that affect more than one state or region when there is no power of enforcing compliance is whan global governance becomes necessary. Currently, the best way to understand global governace is as an “evolving set of institutions for the management of global problems.”
INSTITUTIONS
Global governance is a changing pattern of international institutions. This means that it can potentially include anything from Non Governmental Organisations (NGO’s) to the United Nations. There are numerous different international institutions involved in global governance. This essay will focus on the United Nations because it is the organisation most frequently associated with world governance.
Global governance is multilayered because there cannot be one overall governor for the world. Firstly, there are so many areas of interaction and mutual impact to be considered. There cannot be a single source of governing authority, as states would not agree to give up their autonomy and who rules would become highly controversial. However accountable it might be to a world constituency. Two defining factors of global governance are state interaction and the balance of power. Both are highly problematic. States have private, self-serving agendas. The powers system is also based on an old world order, which makes it controversial in a new world order.
International governance today encompasses much more than the United Nations. Ideally, the United Nations provides a “forum” for consultation and negotiation, keeps the peace worldwide, aids development and provides humanitarian aid. Ideally it is set up to keep the peace world wide among other tasks. Yet, the United Nations has yet to achieve the ideal necessary for true "global governance" to become a reality. If global governance were fulfilling its role then that would mean that there would be no need for a world government. The United Nations has provided huge improvements but it like many international organisations has been set up to prevent a world government from being necessary.
The role of the United Nations is extensive and multilayered—extensive because it can potentially embrace any challenge facing the global community. The peoples of the world are becoming increasingly interconnected and linked and therefore mutually concerned whether the issue is nuclear power, the environment, the operation of foreign markets, war or terrorism, it is increasingly becoming the case that what effects one can affect all. With increased technological capacities communication, business, news, transportation and all facets of almost all individuals’ lives are being influenced at an international level.
Since its conception in 1945, the United Nations has begun to start providing services directly. Global Governance calls for a reorganisation of world machinery and institutional advancements.
The main flaw of the United Nations is its attempt to do what governments do within their own states at a global level without legitimacy and an ability to suitably enforce rules or regulations. [10] The United Nations actions (like those of an executive branch of government) are limited by their legislation and budget allocations. The defining characteristic of international administrations is that they lack the attribute of sovereignty. The United Nations Charter states that each state is entitled to its own “domestic jurisdiction” which the UN has no right to interfere with.
Improved global problem solving does not need the creation of more powerful formal global institutions. However, it does involve creating consensus on norms and practices that are then complied with internationally.
It is a model of global governance because it does not take over sovereignty or attempt to rule. It is practical insofar as it provides humanitarian aid, attempts to provide worldwide security and peace. It is a global organisation that has legitimacy to a degree and provides a forum for appeal or help. Furthermore, the United Nations has established formal and informal international norms and practises.
The global governance that exists today consists of a limited, fragmentary, and contradictory mixture of public and private sector rules and procedures. This is not however a bad thing. International organisations have been set up as functional and to fulfil the purpose for which they are created. However, to see how much global governance relates to international institutions it is important to look at Cottey’s different dimensions of global governance.
DIMENSIONS OF GLOBAL GOVERNANCE
Since global governance is so multidimensional it encompasses numerous different things not simply institutions. The main dimensions are normative, institutional, cost/ burden sharing and operational.[11]Looking at the different dimensions makes understanding global governance easier and it provides a basis for showing why achieving effective global governance is difficult. I will firstly outline Cottey’s four dimensions of global governance and provide a brief description.
The Normative Dimension
It is logical that if global governance is to reflect “shared” values, principles, standards, laws and promote peace then it is necessary for certain norms to be identified, agreed upon, defined and enforced. I have mentioned norms that international institutions such as those the United Nations have perpetrated.
Formal norms include laws, treaties and charters. This means that there is an established framework that can be used as a legal basis worldwide. Informal norms include everything that is generally accepted worldwide because of the United Nations formal norms. These include human rights, fundamental freedoms, equality and prevention of discrimination. Although, most of these norms are not enforceable, the United Nations legitimacy means that it is expected and that provides informal power of its own.
However, the normative dimension has some problems. The genocides in Rwanda and Burundi establish that the norm of non-interference in state internal affairs clashes with that of peace keeping and human rights. The legacy that it has left behind of generations butchered, Aids victims and two nations’ desecrated shows that the most fundamental norm of global governance is flawed.
The Institutional Dimension
The institutional dimension is one that has been discussed frequently throughout this essay. It involves the organisations that have been set up to make decisions, implement them and attempt to enforce them. It is highly controversial as it revolves around power, influence and authority. The institutional dimension includes structures and frameworks where these decisions implemented or discussed. It is mainly based on equality and consensus.
Its flaws include the fact that the world has changed since many organisations have been created. The global society in which the original Security Council was created with veto powers no longer exists. That means that this potentially powerful branch of the United Nations is controlled by an old world order and this has become highly controversial. Furthermore, agreements on decisions takes time, implementation is problematic and enforcement if very difficult to achieve.
The Cost/Burden Sharing Dimension
Another dimension of global governance are the systems involved in financing and distributing the burden of global governance. An example of this is the European Union, which is funded by contributions from member states based on their wealth and population. However, this causes problems as the richer countries are effectively supporting the poorer ones, which can lead to resentment or anger. Since the whole point of global governance is to “govern without government” there is no direct form of taxation. As a result most major costs are covered by mostly voluntary donations.
Aspects that are covered mainly be donations include development aid, non United Nations peacekeeping, and the cost of dealing with global warming. Aid agencies such as Concern raise money for development but they are often accused of being corrupt, misdirecting funds and spending too much on the operations such as transportation and not enough on actual development.
The Operational Dimension
The operational dimension is a very important facet of any organisation. It involves all the mechanisms that actually make things happen. Without the operational aspect of global governance it would simply be a forum for discussion. However, the more operational it becomes the more it resembles a government.
Furthermore, the operational aspect of global governance means that the lack of real powers become more apparent. The costs increase and therefore member states become more critical of what is happening and urge for greater transparency. The World Bank is an example of this.
In March 2006 the G8 approved a multilateral debt relief scheme, which meant that countries like Tanzania were eligible to have 100% of their debt cancelled. However, previously to this the World Bank and IMF provided Tanzania with $3billion.
In return, Tanzania had to do certain things. This included diverting the Ruaha river in order to flood certain fields so they can be used to grown rice as implementation of the World Banks strategy. However, this resulted in all the villages along this river being left with a hugely decreased (sole) water source, with meant that fishing, watering of crops, brick making and watering of livestock became problematic[12]. This is an example of how the operational dimension of global governance can be accused of being corrupt or adversely affecting change.
So far, I have discussed the different ways that global governance is described and outlined the different dimensions of global government. As has been shown, global governance is not an easily defined term is rather an umbrella term for institution, organisations and any framework that functions at an international level to help with things such as problem solving, burden sharing, peace keeping, security, and the economy. To fully understand global governance, it is important to understand why effective global governance is so difficult to achieve.
WHY IS EFFECTIVE GLOBAL GOVERNANCE DIFFICULT TO ACHIEVE?
Global governance is a very convoluted, complex and changing system. It is trying to govern an entire world that means different (often clashing) systems of government, cultures and states. These generally have their own definite and defined personal agendas. Therefore, effective global governance is difficult to achieve for a large number of reasons. The main one is that what it actually is differs from the expectations that are placed on it. However, why difficult global governance is difficult to achieve is really due to a combination of factors. These include a lack of; collective good, an anarchic system, defined leadership and legitimacy
Furthermore, it is difficult to measure its effectiveness, as that is also dependant on what “effective” is defined as. Drezner used the Kyoto Protocol to provide an example of this[13] and it is quite useful. He basically discusses standards, expectations and shows that effectiveness is a mixture of achievement and compliance.
Factors
The first factor is getting individual actors to work in collective good rather than individual self-interest. The second factor is that the system is anarchic without one central authority and thirdly it lacks legitimacy. The last factor is that is the unequal balance of power.
As I have discussed, there are problems that cannot be solved by one state alone and that is why collective action is necessary but it is much harder to achieve. Every rational actor will realise that acting in global interests will not be the best plan for individual self interest. Generally, this means that it is either a very controversial, threatening or unavoidable problems that get collective action.
Secondly, it has been shown that it is not possible to have one authority controlling the world but at the same time due to state sovereignty there is no international law enforcing body making sure that commitments are fulfilled. States therefore must rely on themselves which means that they will act in self-interest.
Global governance in its current state lacks legitimacy because the nations of the world are not properly represented (as they should be) at a global level. They also do not have the structures to provide legitimacy to the world. This is shown in the Security Council veto powers where five states have the power over world security. Currently, the reasons that it lacks legitimacy are that it is not democratic (although not all governments see this as desirable), not based on world powers (which causes anger in new powers and a refusal to give up powers in the old states) and it is not properly representative.
Finally, the balance of power is unequal and will remain unequal. There are many reasons for the imbalance of power. Monetary, military, political and influence all play a role. Size of population is not always translated into power on the global stage. Furthermore, the institutions that global governance does have are based on former powers and it is unlikely that the countries will willingly give up their power.
The United States also considers itself to be a world superpower and in many ways it is one. It is not accountable on the world stage and follows its own agenda. It has a more developed military capacity and diplomatically it is very influential. This is a reflection of the imbalance of power that characterises global governance.
Standards and expectations
Drezner argued that it is simply a matter of what effectiveness is considered to be. If effectiveness is simply considering whether the regulatory regime affects the issue in question and achieves its aims, then Kyoto Protocol would be considered effective if it stops the current trend of global warming. Regardless, of the levels of compliance or even if there is a total lack of compliance with the treaty it would still be considered successful.
However, if effective global governance implies that actors comply with certain agreed upon commitments then the Kyoto Protocol is effective if all the actors comply with their treaty commitments even if global warming still remains a problem. Consequently, it makes sense that a balanced measure of effectiveness will combine both of these concepts. Drezner shows the logic of defining effectiveness as a combination of achievement and compliance.
Taking domestic governments to a global level
Global governance is also difficult to achieve is because it is using old frameworks of administration and applying them to a different system. Finklestein stated, “Global governance is doing internationally what governments do at home.”[14] This logically cannot be effective. Firstly, global governance is not a form of government. Secondly, scaling up individual governments to a global scale is problematic. When it comes to global issues and problems it is important to have a global view rather than focusing on the self-interest of a states.
Craig N. Murphy’s definition of global governance as “what world government we really have[15]” is valuable when considering the difficulty of effectiveness. Global governance does not provide sufficent answers to the questions and requirements placed on it because it is not a tangible global polity yet. Therefore, it is not accountable, it does not have a clearly defined structure and therefore it is not equipt to effectively deal with the demands placed on it.
Murphy puts it best:
The global polity is not simply a superstructure responding to the interests of an already differentiated ruling class.Global governance is more a site, one of many sites, in which struggles over wealth, power, and knowledge are taking place[16].
Global governance is not just a forum for international dialogue, it is not a structure for world government and it is not clearly definable. Global governance is something different to different people depending on the demands placed on it. This primarily means that although the “majority” must agree they are struggling to gain the most individually and that is why effective global governance is almost impossible to achieve.
Young[17] argues that social scientists have shown that the “gap” between the ideal and the reality with regard to performance of “institutions is sizeable in every social setting”. Global governance cannot be expected to be the exception when it does not work on a smaller scale (domestic). It would be naïve to acknowledge that there are other factors at work such as distribution of power among international members, prevailing systems of ideas and individual also exert an influence on effectiveness at an international level. It will never be effective as by its very nature it is designed to fulfil the function of suiting the majority rather than everyone.
In Conclusion, global governance is a complex system that has been set up to promote governance on a global scale. It can be defined as many different things as it fulfils numerous roles and functions based on international demands placed on it. As has been shown, it is not simply its institutions, member states or a forum for consultation. Global governance represents a different ideal and performs a different function for each individual. It is difficult to effectively achieve. This is because of many factors and reasons. Yet it is important to it is improving. Although it is imperfect it has achieved a lot. It is a constantly evolving system working in a changing world stage. It is perhaps best to describe it as a multilayered system that functions at an international level to manage global problems. It constantly is evolving and changing to remain flexible to achieve whatever demands are placed on it to suit the majority.
Bibliography
Baylis, John and Smith, Steve. The Globalization of World Politics. (Oxford University Press. 2001) p.4
Baylis, John and Smith, Steve. The Globalization of World Politics. (Oxford University Press. 2001) p.43-56
Cottey, Andrew. Lecture Notes October-December 2006. University College Cork. GV4400.
Drake William. Defining ICT Global governance-memo#1 for the social science research council's research network on IT and Governance.
Drezner, Daniel W. “Globalisation and the Substitutability of Governance Structures.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, MA, (August 29-September 1, 2002).
Drezner, Daniel. Ed, Locating the Proper Authorities: The interaction of Domestic and International Institutions. (Ann Arbour: Michigan University Press, 2003).
Goldstein, Kahler, Keohane and Slaughter, eds., Legalisation and World Politics (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2001)
Finkelstein, Lawrence S.. What is Global Governance? Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organisations 1 (1995) p. 369.
Mathiason, John Managing Global Governance Accessed 04/12/2006
http://www.intlmgt.com/portfolio/Mangov.html
Rosenau, James. Along the Domestic-Foreign Frontier: Exploring Global Governance in a turbulent world (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), p11
Young, Oran. The effectiveness of international institutions: hard cases and critical variables. Governance without Government: order and change in world politics. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1997.)
United Nations Charter. Accessed 04/12/2006
World Bank Press Releases. Accessed 07/12/2006
[1] Baylis and Smith 2001.pp43.
[2] Baylis and Smith 2001. pp 4
[3] Baylis and Smith 2001.pp56
[4] Dr Andrew Cottey. Lecture Notes September 2006.
[5] Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organisations (1995) p. 369.
[6] James Rosenau. Along the Domestic-Foreign Frontier: Exploring Global Governance in a turbulent world (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), p11
[7] Dr. Andrew Cottey. Lecture Notes 6. 03 October 2006
[8] Global Trends and Global Governance.
[9] Governance, Order and change in World Politics
[10] Lawrence S. Finklestein, "what is global governance?" Global Governance: A review of Multilateralism and international organisations. 1(1995), p.369.
[11] Andrew Cottey. October 2006 the dimensions of Global Governance. UCC
[12] Personal experience in Tanzania and discussion with aid workers from Concern worldwide, Danida and World Bank consultant.
[13] Global Governance. Fall 2003.Professor Daniel W. Drezner
[14] Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organisations (1995) p. 369.
[15] Rorden Wilkinson, The Global Governance Reader, (Routledge, 2005) pp11.
[16] Rorden Wilkinson, The Global Governance Reader, (Routledge, 2005) pp98.
[17] Oran R. Young. Effective Global Governance.
No comments:
Post a Comment