contemporary global governance essay

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Review Article
• Open access
• Published: 19 January 2016

Global governance: present and future

• Jinseop Jang 1 ,
• Jason McSparren 1 &
• Yuliya Rashchupkina 1  

Palgrave Communications volume  2 , Article number:  15045 ( 2016 ) Cite this article

140k Accesses

23 Citations

34 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Politics and international relations

Globalization, the end of the Cold War and increased involvement of non-state actors in global affairs represent fundamentally shifting relations of power, speeding up national economies’ integration and contributing to the convergence of policies in different issue domains. This review considers the state of global governance by presenting a variety of global governance arrangements, key challenges facing governance in an increasingly globalized context and possibilities for the future governance. Current global governance arrangements favour flexibility over rigidity, prefer voluntary measures to binding rules and privilege partnerships over individual actions. This synopsis of the state of global governance examines the evolving role that sovereignty and the enduring human struggles for power and equity are playing in shaping international relations and governance. This contribution argues that individual empowerment, increasing awareness of human security, institutional complexity, international power shifts and the liberal world political paradigm will define the future of global governance. This article is published as part of a thematic collection dedicated to global governance.

Similar content being viewed by others

Asia’s four regionalisms (Southeast Asia, South Asia, Central Asia and East Asia): a view from multilateral treaties of the United Nations

Lien Thi Quynh Le, Dung Quoc Ho & Takashi Inoguchi

Scientific evidence on the political impact of the Sustainable Development Goals

Frank Biermann, Thomas Hickmann, … Birka Wicke

Global governance and the Global Green New Deal: the G7’s role

Injy Johnstone

Introduction

Global governance is a product of neo-liberal paradigm shifts in international political and economic relations. The privileging of capital and market mechanisms over state authority created governance gaps that have encouraged actors from private and civil society sectors to assume authoritative roles previously considered the purview of the State. This reinforces the divergence of views about how to define the concept of global governance, issues that are of the utmost importance and priority. Some scholars argue that global governance as it is practiced is not working ( Coen and Pegram, 2015 : 417), while others believe that global governance is constantly adapting by readjusting strategies and approaches to solutions and developing new tools and measures to deal with issues that impact communities throughout the world ( Held and Hale, 2011 ). Rather than judging current global governance, this contribution seeks to provide an overview of the current state of global governance by discussing its present state vis à vis the challenges that it faces and its future.

The perspective employed here presents global governance as a tool to identify solutions to problems created by neo-liberal globalization ( Biermann and Pattberg, 2008 : 279). As such, the concept of global governance relates to the interaction of myriad collective or individual entities emanating from various societal and professional orientations, which form networks that engage to address issues that threaten local and global communities. Global governance is concerned with issues that have become too complex for a single state to address alone. Humanitarian crises, military conflicts between and within states, climate change and economic volatility pose serious threats to human security in all societies; therefore, a variety of actors and expertise is necessary to properly frame threats, devise pertinent policy, implement effectively and evaluate results accurately to alleviate such threats.

Structure and actors: stakeholders of global governance

The proliferation of networked global markets, revolution in global communications technologies, the end of the Cold War and increased involvement of non-state actors in global affairs all contribute to “globalization”. Increased interconnection among nations has advanced the exchange of knowledge by bringing peoples, cultures, communities and states closer in an era in which issues call for increased international collaboration ( Bhagwati, 2004 ; McGrew, 2008 ). The scope of modern issues has become “global”, beyond the capacity for state governments alone to address such issues. The former United Nations (UN) Secretary-General, Kofi Annan acknowledged that “no State, however powerful, can protect itself on its own” ( Annan, 2005 : 7) and that “the threats we face are interconnected” ( Annan, 2005 : 25). As a result, we witness broad strands of cooperative and competitive interdependency among sovereign nations, transnational corporations (TNCs), networks of experts and civil societies.

The current phenomenon of global governance is well captured by Biermann and Pattberg in their overview of global environmental governance for the Annual Review of Environmental Resources of 2008. They describe contemporary governance through the following features: (1) the emergence of new types of agency and of actors in addition to national governments; (2) the emergence of new mechanisms and institutions of global governance that go beyond traditional forms of state-led, treaty-based regimes; and (3) increasing segmentation and fragmentation of the overall governance system across levels and functional spheres ( Biermann and Pattberg, 2008 : 280).

A multitude of actors define and shape the current structure of global governance. States, international organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), multinational corporations, scientific experts, civil society groups, networks, partnerships, private military and security companies, as well as transnational criminal and drug-trafficking networks provide world politics with multi-actor perspectives and take part in steering the political system ( Dingwerth and Pattberg, 2006 ; Biermann and Pattberg, 2012 ; Karns and Mingst, 2015 ). Global governance actors broaden the scope of activities in which they are involved and they also change the patterns of interaction and cooperation in tackling current issues on a global level. Current global governance arrangements favour flexibility over rigidity, prefer voluntary measures to binding rules, choose partnerships over individual actions, and give rise to new initiatives and ideas.

While the modes of global governance vary widely, four general structures can be identified: International Governmental Organizations (IGOs), Public–Private Partnerships (PPPs), Private governance and tripartite governance mechanisms. IGOs such as the World Trade Organization and the UN system are examples of existing state-centered governance mechanisms. IGOs, however, utilize partnerships with non-state actors that have expertise and resources concentrated in service sectors and environments that IGOs may lack. Such arrangements maximize efficiency. Abbott and Snidal (2010) use the term “Transnational New Governance” to recognize the way IGOs expand capacity and access to resources by including private and non-governmental actors and institutions. This formulates global collaborative networks in which IGOs shape and support the operations of NGOs and certain private enterprises. Such governance structures are considered to be PPPs. The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) utilize the PPP strategy across all aspects of implementation of the SDGs.

The UN Global Compact is another example of an international PPP. The UN Global Compact is a forum that encourages TNCs to share case studies that illustrate the ways a firm is implementing the SDGs in host communities where they operate. The objective is to formulate a digital record of best practices in Corporate Social Responsibility for public, private and civil society stakeholders located at all levels of governance—the local, state and transnational—to engage in discourse and form collaborative efforts for the purpose of accomplishing what the SDGs identify as expected outcomes. In addition, an increasing trend of private governance exists that sets sector-specific standards; and, there are alternative forms of governance that are considered as tripartite arrangements among state, private and civil society actors. Tripartite arrangements among state, private and civil society actors exemplify alternative, public–private or private governance arrangements. Tripartite governance such as the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, Publish What You Pay and the African Peer Review Mechanism, while categorized as PPPs, “are located in the policy space between states and markets” ( Carbonnier et al., 2011 : 250). PPP-type arrangements empower civil society actors to not only coordinate with state and corporate entities, but also to monitor state–corporate activities. Often such mechanisms are “voluntary, horizontal, multi-actor and participatory, and address global issues” (Ibid.).

In some areas of business, private governance has supplanted state authority to regulate industry, showcasing the work of private governance. Examples of private governance include international accounting standards; the private bond-rating agencies (for example, Moody’s Investors Service and Standard and Poor’s Rating Groups); International Chamber of Commerce rules and actions; private industry governance such as the Worldwide Responsible Apparel Manufacturing Principles and the Forest Stewardship Council ( Karns and Mingst, 2015 : 34); Equator Principles ( Wright and Rwabizambuga, 2006 ). Global corporations also actively develop, promote and implement their own codes of conduct that concern issues of labour, environment and health. Those voluntary codes are usually adopted as a response to NGO campaigns, and primarily target developed country consumers, rather than tackle the problems faced by a diverse set of vulnerable worker groups. However, the processes through which codes have been developed enables better representation of hitherto excluded groups of workers (women export workers, homeworkers, casual workers) in social policy and labour regulation debates ( Pearson and Seyfang, 2001 ).

Multi-actor configurations in global governance broaden the scope of policy solutions that, combined with current capacities for information sharing and learning, advance policy changes. Yet this also increases fragmentation and segmentation of different layers and clusters of rule-making and rule-implementing ( Biermann and Pattberg, 2008 : 289). The result is increased competition over resources that may lead to paralysis in cooperative efforts. On the other hand, this competition may produce innovative solutions. In the subsequent sections, we offer an overview of the current challenges to global governance concluding with a discussion on the role that it may play in the future.

Present challenges of global governance

A growing number of emerging global governance actors aim to contribute to the solution of interdependent issues supplementing, and sometimes clashing, with already established regimes designed to address certain international problems separately from other issues. Hale et al. (2013) define the situation when current international institutions fail to provide a coordinated response to current agendas challenges as “gridlock”. Through the examples of sovereignty, and by discussing the questions of power and equality we will show how new developments in international relations affect and reshape collaborative responses to the most pressing issues.

Various global governance actors coalesce around the ideas and norms of human rights and human security; however, the principle of sovereignty continues to challenge the practical application of those ideas internationally. Huge and severe violations of peoples’ rights and freedoms during inter- or intra-state wars or conflicts continue to erode human security in different parts of the world. However, governance actors working for the maintenance of peace, security, justice and the protection of human rights have limited capacity to improve situations because of complicated approval procedures of humanitarian intervention or authorization of peacekeeping operations. For example, political divisions and partisan interests within the Security Council (particularly the use of veto power by some of its permanent members) blocked any international response to the mass atrocities committed in Syria, thus strengthening impunity and encouraging the expansion of war crimes and crimes against humanity ( Adams, 2015 ). A rise of nationalist sentiments and movements in Russia and some European countries also continues to erode international cooperation in response to challenges such as the huge influx of refugees, and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. All of these threaten the international security, and order in general, that was created during the post-Cold War period. Yet, even as the principle of the responsibility to protect has gained political support and international legitimacy since it was introduced about a decade ago, its contribution to preventing mass atrocities and protection population remains low. As Luck (2015) points out, policy practitioners and scholars need to think in a more nuanced way about sovereignty. Both decision-making sovereignty, when governments choose to independently determine whether a particular course of action for the cause of human rights protection is in their national interest and erosion of sovereignty open the door to more atrocities within and across states’ boundaries. This scholar, for instance, argues that the ineffective exercise of sovereignty by a number of states over their own territory becomes a significant barrier to exercising protection responsibilities in other places ( Luck, 2015 : 504).

Power in the current system of global governance has become more diffused. The power shift accompanying the rise of Brazil, Russia, India, China (the BRICs) and other so-called “rising powers” pose questions about the possible reordering or shifts in the current state of global governance. While advocating for better representation in institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the UN Security Council, the governments of China, India, Brazil and other emerging economies have started to develop and maintain alternative institutions for economic and political collaboration. The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the New Development Bank are products of these efforts. While rising powers’ behaviours are shaped by the structural features of global capitalism, “the differing contours of BRICs’ state-society relations provide the foundations for conflicts with Western powers over the most liberal aspects of global governance” ( Stephen, 2014 ). The Western ideas of privatization, autonomous markets and open capital accounts are challenged by state-controlled approaches to development in the countries of so-called Global South. The proliferation of Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWFs), and national development banks in BRICs challenge an autonomous status of private capital in current global economic affairs. Those developments have led to the conclusion, by some scholars, that the most liberal features of global governance order are being contested by rising powers ( Stephen, 2014 ). In addition, a small group of big and influential countries such as India and China gain more negotiating power ( Barkin, 2013 ), as their non-participation in international treaties and policies (for example, climate change) might substantially diminish the effects of other countries’ efforts to solve these global issues. The shifting global power configuration challenges each type of multilateral setting whether it concerns international institutions that have a selective Western-based membership (for example, OECD, NATO, G7/G8); international institutions that shape the state of international policies but do not provide rising powers with equal membership and power in their governing bodies (the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the UN Security Council); or multilateral settings in which rising and established powers interact more or less on an equal footing (the World Trade Organization, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change) ( Lesage and Van De Graaf, 2015 ).

Economic and political inequality have long-lasting implications for governance both within and between states. Inequality in either form contributes to a rise in extremism and social unrest, and it also raises the questions of what responsibility the international community should bear for human development beyond just satisfying basic needs, that is, security, food and shelter. While the SDGs agenda of 2015 prioritizes the goal to “(e)nd poverty in all its forms everywhere” (United Nations, 2015), questions still remain about exactly who will fund this eradication of poverty and which actions are best suited to this fight. Global governance actors, for example, focus more on intervention measures in poor countries, as they are primarily guided by a “narrow” understanding of security rather than thinking of more long-term development issues, or the “everyday” insecurities experienced by individuals in different parts of the world. A huge diversification of financial sources of development aid complicates the task of applying a common framework, based on individuals’ needs and development interests approach. In addition, the supply of development resources including official development assistance is also moving away from the old North towards the BRICs and other new official donors such as South Korea and Turkey, plus private foundations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, faith-based organizations, remittances from diasporas, heterogeneous SWFs and a plethora of Exchange-Traded Funds as well as novel sources of finance such as taxes on carbon, emissions, financial transactions and so forth ( Shaw, 2015 ).

Thus, the observed changes in socio-economic and political aspects of the current world pose new questions and create new challenges for previously active participants of global policy processes, as well as for new actors of global governance. Global governance actors will need to critically reflect on the relevance of earlier policy tools to rapidly changing conditions in the current world.

The future of global governance

Global governance is arguably inevitable for the survival of the human race in present and future generations. Although global governance sometimes appears fragile and ineffective in response to current challenges, the trend of globalization and the demand for global governance approaches have already passed the point of no return. The future of global governance will be mainly shaped by the following five factors: individual empowerment, increasing awareness of human security, institutional complexity, international power shift and liberal world political paradigm. We draw this conclusion by applying the findings and observations from different field of studies including security studies, international political economy, global governance field and communications studies.

First, because of information technology and mass/social media, individual citizens—especially in developed countries—have acquired much more information power than a half century ago. Individuals can attain higher awareness of situations related to national and international affairs. Compared with humans in the twentieth century, a majority of those in the twenty-first century can more easily access international security information, thanks to the Internet and media exposure. Therefore, individual citizens of the world are more likely to understand the importance and the impact of international security on their personal lives. Digital media played a major role in the Arab Spring of 2011 in Egypt and Tunisia: social networks allowed communities to unite around shared grievances and nurture transportable strategies for mobilizing against dictators ( Howard and Hussain, 2011 ). Globalization of the new media illustrates how communities throughout the world can be mobilized for collaborative response as well signals a new trend in the intersection of new media and conventional media such as television, radio and mobile phone ( Khondker, 2011 ). The US National Intelligence Council also identified individual issues and the decreasing influence of the state as one of the main global trends for the twenty-first century, arguing that the potential political power of individuals has significantly increased since the end of the Cold War because of the proliferation of information and transportation technologies ( National Intelligence Council, 2012 ). This trend will strengthen the convergence between domestic and international politics, constraining state behavior ( Putnam, 1988 ) and continue to produce many transnational actors. Considering the dramatic increase of individuals’ capabilities in information gathering, analysis and political projection, the trend of individual empowerment is logically supposed to pave a wider road towards cooperative global governance, because peace is generally preferred over war by individual humans.

Second, as the trend towards “individual empowerment” continues, global society through global governance architecture will need to pay high attention to human security, which protects individual humans from fatal threats to physical safety, and human dignity, whether human-made or of natural origin. Human security is an innovative concept for security in response to horizontal (such as military, economic and political) and vertical (such as individual, state and global) threats, which traditional security concepts cannot effectively control ( Grayson, 2008 ). The focal point of state security is too narrow to encompass the myriad threats that challenge societies today. The threat of sovereign states engaging in large-scale war is less probable today than at any time in modern history. War has not been eliminated, rather its form has shifted from sovereign versus sovereign to substate wars between differing identity groups or insurgencies against the state. Beyond war, the concept of human security is concerned with varieties of security: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political security ( UNDP 1994 ). Human security provides an excellent compatible conceptual paradigm to global governance regimes in the future, which must respond to transnational, multi-dimensional threats that a single country cannot manage. For example, a number of national security analysts have already begun to recognize environmental degradation and natural disasters such as epidemics, floods, earthquakes, poverty and droughts as national security threats similar to military disasters ( King and Murray, 2001–2002 ).

Third, we must additionally consider “institutional complexity” ( Held and Hale, 2011 ) as another direction for future global governance development. As the trend of individual empowerment gains more momentum, the influence of civil society is expected to grow in terms of authority and resources. Various non-state actors will not only affect their national governments’ behavior more significantly, but will also engage in networks of transnational relations more actively. International institutions in global governance will likely keep expanding to “regime complex”, a concept defined as “an array of partially overlapping and nonhierarchical institutions governing a particular issue area” ( Raustiala and Victor, 2004 ).

Fourth, global governance in the future will be also be shaped by power shifts in international relations. Almost all the traditional institutions of global governance were initiated by Western countries, and their pluralistic political culture and influential civil societies have shaped the political context of global governance. States of the Global South, especially China, have improved their relative power in relation to the Global North. As a result, the voice of actors originating from the Global South is expected to become more prominent in global governance regimes and institutions traditionally dominated by a small number of the Global North states. Therefore, an increase in multilateralism will further complicate the face of global governance.

Fifth, the future of global governance is also rooted in liberal paradigms of world politics. States and non-state or transnational actors tend to be more cooperative with global governance when a liberal world order is maintained. Global governance regimes to date have evolved with liberal paradigms such as democracy, bottom-up orientations and human rights promotion. While the advancement of democratic practices in the states without strong traditions of following liberal values remain a challenge, democracy has near-universal appeal among people of every ethnic group, every religion, and every region of the world and democracy is embraced as an international norm by more states, transnational organizations and international networks ( McFaul, 2004 ). Liberal approaches challenge the traditional concept of the state as a unified unitary actor that lacks adverse interpretation of national interest. Accordingly, even in traditional security areas, there are more spaces for international cooperation. Global security governance through intergovernmental institutions such as the UN, International Atomic Energy Agency and International Criminal Court has made considerable progresses and gained more influence. If the realist paradigm dominates national security, however, the world would have to overcome deep uncertainty and doubt about the effectiveness of global governance. As a result, global governance today and in the future will be in the face of such serious threats as US–China hegemony rivalry, US–Russia military confrontation and Middle East conflicts. Nevertheless, as long as global society retains liberal paradigms powerful enough to offset the negative effects of mutually suspicious realist paradigms, global governance will continue to generate into effective hybrid regimes that hold the potential of creating a future world that is more cooperative, sustainable and secure.

Data availability

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Additional information

How to cite this article : Rashchupkina Y (2016) Global governance: present and future. Palgrave Communications . 2:15045 doi: 10.1057/palcomms.2015.45.

Abbott K and Snidal D (2010) International regulation without international government: Improving IO performance through orchestration. The Review of International Organizations ; 5 (3): 315–344.

Article   Google Scholar  

Adams S (2015) Failure to Protect: Syria and the UN Security Council . Global Center for the Responsibility to Protect, http://www.globalr2p.org/media/files/syriapaper_final.pdf , accessed 15 October 2015.

Annan K (2005) In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security, Human Rights for All . UN General Assembly, http://www.un.org/en/events/pastevents/in_larger_freedom.shtml , accessed 3 October 2015.

Barkin S (2013) International Organization: Theories and Institutions . Palgrave Macmillan: New York.

Book   Google Scholar  

Bhagwati J (2004) In Defense of Globalization . Oxford University Press: New York.

Google Scholar  

Biermann F and Pattberg P (2008) Global environmental governance: Taking stock, moving forward. Annual Review of Environment and Resources ; 33 , 277–294.

Biermann F and Pattberg P (2012) Global Environmental Governance Reconsidered . MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.

Carbonnier G, Brugger F and Krause J (2011) Global and local policy responses to the resource trap. Global Governance ; 17 , 247–264.

Coen D and Pegram T (2015) Wanted: A third generation of global governance research. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions ; 28 (4): 417–420.

Dingwerth K and Pattberg P (2006) Global governance as a perspective on world politics. Global Governance ; 12 (2): 185–203.

Grayson K (2008) Human security as power/knowledge: The biopolitics of a definitional debate. Cambridge Review of International Affairs ; 21 (3): 383–401.

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Held D and Hale T (eds.) (2011) Editors’ introduction: Mapping change in transnational governance. In: Handbook of Transnational Governance: New Institutions and Innovations . Polity Press: Cambridge, UK, pp 1–36.

Hale T, Held D and Young K (2013) Gridlock: Why Global Cooperation is Failing When We Need It Most . Polity Press: Oxford.

Howard P and Hussain M (2011) The upheavals in Egypt and Tunisia: The role of digital media. Journal of Democracy ; 22 (3): 35–48.

Karns M and Mingst K (2015) International Organizations: The Politics and Processes of Global Governance . Lynne Rienner Publishers: Boulder, CO.

Khondker H (2011) Special forum on the Arab revolutions: Role of the new media in the Arab Spring. Globalizations ; 8 (5): 675–679.

King G and Murray C (2001–2002) Rethinking human security. Political Science Quarterly ; 116 (4): 585–610.

Lesage D and Van de Graaf T (2015) Rising Powers and Multilateral Institutions . Palgrave Macmillan: London.

Luck E (2015) R2P at ten: A new mindset for a new era? Global Governance ; 21 (4): 499–504.

McFaul. (2004) Democracy promotion as a world value. The Washington Quarterly ; 28 (1): 147–163.

McGrew A (2008) Globalization and global politics In: Baylis J, Smith S and Owens P (eds) The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations , 4th edn., Oxford University Press: New York, pp 16–33.

National Intelligence Council. (2012) Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds, https://globaltrends2030.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/global-trends-2030-november2012.pdf , accessed 12 September 2015.

Pearson R and Seyfang G (2001) New hope or false dawn? Voluntary codes of conduct, labour regulation and social policy in a globalizing world. Global Social Policy ; 1 (1): 49–78.

Putnam R (1988) Diplomacy and domestic politics: The logic of two-level games. International Organization ; 42 (3): 427–460.

Raustiala K and Victor D (2004) The regime complex for plant genetic resources. International Organizations ; 58 , 277–309.

Shaw T (2015) From post-BRICS’ decade to post-2015: Insights from global governance and comparative regionalisms. Palgrave Communications ; 1 , 14004. doi: 10.1057/palcomms.2014.4.

Stephen P (2014) Rising powers, global capitalism and liberal global governance: A historical materialist account of the BRICs challenge, European Journal of International Relations ; 20 (4): 912–938.

UNDP. (1994) Human development report 1994, http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/reports/255/hdr_1994_en_complete_nostats.pdf , accessed 18 September 2015.

United Nations. (2015a) Sustainable development knowledge platform, https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/ , accessed 18 September 2015.

United Nations. (2015b) Sustainable development goals, https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?page=view&nr=181&type=230&menu=2059 , accessed 3 October 2015.

Wright C and Rwabizambuga A (2006) Institutional pressures, corporate reputation, and voluntary codes of conduct: An examination of the Equator principles. Business and Society Review ; 111 (1): 89–117.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, USA

Jinseop Jang, Jason McSparren & Yuliya Rashchupkina

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Jang, J., McSparren, J. & Rashchupkina, Y. Global governance: present and future. Palgrave Commun 2 , 15045 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2015.45

Download citation

Received : 20 October 2015

Accepted : 09 December 2015

Published : 19 January 2016

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2015.45

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

International relations challenges and sustainable development in developing countries after 2022: conceptualization of the risk assessment model.

• Miroslav Stevanović
• Predrag Pavlićević
• Mirjana Radovanović

Energy, Sustainability and Society (2023)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Conflict Studies
• Development
• Environment
• Foreign Policy
• Human Rights
• International Law
• Organization
• International Relations Theory
• Political Communication
• Political Economy
• Political Geography
• Political Sociology
• Politics and Sexuality and Gender
• Qualitative Political Methodology
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Security Studies
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Global governance.

• Roberto Domínguez Roberto Domínguez Department of Government, Suffolk University
•  and  Rafael Velázquez Flores Rafael Velázquez Flores Faculty of Economics and International Relations (FEyRI), University of Baja California
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.508
• Published online: 30 July 2018

The goal of this article is to provide an overview of the literature on global governance, key elements for understanding its conceptualization, and a gateway to capture its multidimensionality. From this perspective, global governance is conceived as a framework of analysis or intellectual device to study the complexity of global processes involving multiple actors that interact at different levels of interest aggregation. The article is divided into four parts. The first section describes the origins, definitions, and characteristics of global governance. The second categorizes global governance based on different thematic areas where there is a confluence of governance practices, on the one hand, and the inclusion of a global level of interaction, on the other. The third discusses the different conceptual inquiries and innovations that have been developed around the term. Finally, the last part maps the different academic institutions that have focused their research on global governance and offer programs on this subject.

• global governance
• globalization
• international system
• institutions
• global actors
• global civil society
• international organizations
• global security
• global economic governance
• global environment

This article aims at explaining the development of the literature on global governance by providing a guide to understanding the evolution of its definitions, thematic applications, conceptual debates, and institutional developments. As the primary audience is scholars wishing to familiarize themselves with debates surrounding the topic, the article offers a gateway to capturing the multidimensionality of global governance. From this perspective and following its discussions, global governance is conceived as a framework of analysis or intellectual device for studying the complexity of global processes involving multiple actors that interact at different levels of interest aggregation.

The primary challenge of this article is to review a term that is amorphous (Zurn, 2012 ) and ubiquitous (Bevir, 2011 ). Global governance emerged as a practice and disciplinary field of inquiry as a product of the end of the Cold War, even though some early debates can be traced back to the late 1970s. The subsequent literature review is organized under the rationale that global governance is an analytical hub helping researchers and policymakers to explain and suggest new avenues of action in an increasingly interconnected world. A defining characteristic is that such interconnection blurs the distinction between public authority and private initiative, and steadily transforms the role of state and nonstate actors operating at different levels of analysis. Understanding global governance as an analytical hub allows grouping its extensive literature and interpreting the various adjectives that have been added to global governance over the years to adapt it to specific areas of human activity at the global level.

The unstructured and pervasive nature of global governance provides the potential for adopting a variety of forms to study it. This article begins with the identification of the main definitions and characteristics of global governance. The second section categorizes global governance based on different thematic areas where there is a confluence of governance practices, on the one hand, and the inclusion of a global level of interaction, on the other. The thematic criteria permit including an interdisciplinary perspective that enriches international relations in light of the evidence that governance practices at the global level operate in a wide range of areas. Later, the paper follows with the identification of some of the conceptual debates and innovations around global governance. The final section presents a survey of the institutions promoting the study of global governance.

Definitions and Characteristics: A New Framework For a Complex World

Globalization, technological change, and transformations in the international order have produced a puzzle that policymakers and scholars have been trying to disentangle since the end of the Cold War. While change is an inherent characteristic of the global system, each historical period experiences a particular articulation of dominant actors and prevailing environment. The arrival of global governance to the debates in international relations is not an exception. While global governance is associated with the transformations of the international system at the end of the 20th century , its roots are traced back to the gradual transformation that has taken place since the early 1970s, which includes the development of the consciousness about global environment, the increasing number of nonstate actors, and the enhancement of the UN system.

Some of the earliest scholarly references to global governance appeared in the mid-1970s. The journal Social Sciences Quarterly included several articles related to the scarcity of global resources and the creation of mechanisms to manage them in 1976 . Nelson and Honnold ( 1976 ) studied the possibility of severe global resource scarcity. They argued that the aggregate individual sacrifice, long-term planning, and global governance are commonly the social responses, but they also require the systematic application of social sanctions to make them consistent with organizational regularities and reinforcement principles (Nelson & Honnold, 1976 ). By the end of the 1970s, Onuf ( 1979 ) made some references to the concept of global governance in his discussion of the absence of an international legal regime, noting the state of global anarchy while emphasizing the lack of scholarly explanation. In a semantic reflection on the nature of authority and order, and how it relates to sovereignty, Onuf asserted that such a dichotomy does not preclude the existence of some order in the global arena (Onuf, 1979 ).

During the 1980s and early 1990s, global governance was increasingly used to relate to a more complex international system, but it was not the central concept of analysis. Dator ( 1981 , 2009 ) developed forecasting methods about alternative futures, archetypes, or images (continued growth, transformation, collapse, conserver/disciplined society) to help scholars and policymakers to explore the drivers, identify the emerging issues, and deconstruct/reconstruct models of development and power in global governance. Branscomb ( 1983 ) focused his research on the growing unregulated flow of data across borders and framed global governance as a mechanism which would contribute to regulating these data flows. After explaining the role of data in liberal societies, he provided some ideas about the role of global governance to develop regulatory data bodies. Senghaas ( 1993 ) also contributed to the analysis of global governance by exploring globalized problems such as climate conventions, responses to epidemics such as HIV/AIDS, and development regimes; his research lead him to explore the concept of a “world domestic policy” capable of addressing the global issues that the “sum of uncoordinated national policies” was no longer adequate to manage and ameliorate.

Incentivized by the uncertainties derived from the end of the Cold War, the theoretical mainstream in international relations gradually shifted away from the study of intergovernmental organizations, law, and world studies, which was seen as top-down and static, toward global governance (Weiss & Wilkinson, 2014 ). Alerted by the mismatch between new international challenges and lack of consistent responses from state and state oriented actors, James Rosenau and Ernst-Otto Czempiel sparked the debate on global governance after the publication of their theoretical collection of essays Governance without Government in 1992 (Rosenau & Czempiel, 1992 ). Global governance debates and studies experienced significant progress in 1995 . The policy-oriented Commission on Global Governance, co-chaired by Swedish Prime Minister Ingvar Carlsson and former Commonwealth Secretary-General Shridath Ramphal, published the report Our Global Neighborhood (Commission on Global Governance, 1995 ). Later, in the winter 1995–1996 , the Academic Council on the United Nations System (ACNUS) and the United Nations University sponsored the launch of the journal Global Governance , which has pursued nonpartisan, intellectually challenging, and academically sound debates about global governance (Coate & Murphy, 1995 ).

The transformations of the international context sparked a vivid and active scholarly conversation about the definitions and characteristics of global governance. Like other complex phenomena, global governance has been defined in a variety of ways. Two of the definitions related in this article observe the role of international institutions. Thakur and Van Langenhove ( 2006 ) defined global governance as “The complex of formal and informal institutions, mechanisms, relationships, and processes between and among states, markets, citizens, and organizations—both intergovernmental and nongovernmental—through which collective interests are articulated, rights and obligations are established, and differences are mediated” ( 2006 , p. 233). Rittberger ( 2002 ) presents a shorter definition stating that global governance “is the output of a nonhierarchical network of international and transnational institutions: not only IGOs and international regimes but also transnational regimes are regulating actors’ behavior” ( 2002 , p. 2).

Definitions of global governance have also emphasized the role of collective goods. Risse defines governance as “the various institutionalized modes of social coordination to produce and implement collectively binding rules, or to provide collective goods” (Risse, 2012 , p. 700), arguing that while the debate about global governance is focusing on governance without government and the rise of private authority in world politics, it is also based on the assumption that functioning states are capable of implementing and enforcing global norms and rules (Risse, 2011 ). Building on this, Zurn ( 2012 ) incorporates the element of regulations for transnational common goods. He states: “Global governance refers to the entirety of regulations [substantial norms, rules, and programs, the process by which they are adapted, monitored, and enforced, as well as the structures/institutions that house them] put forward with reference to solving specific denationalized and deregionalized problems or providing transnational common goods” (Zurn, 2012 , p. 731).

Other definitions interoperate global governance as a mechanism for addressing and managing conflicts. Miller ( 2007 ) perceives global governance as “the resolution of conflicts over divergent interpretations of evidence constraining the exercise of power and authority” ( 2007 , p. 327), while Castells ( 2005 ) briefly defines it as “the ability to manage the problems and issues of a world in turmoil” ( 2005 , p. 12). From a different angle, Ikenberry’s definition considers the general orientation of global governance as a process: “It is the collective effort of people to facilitate the upside of openness and exchange in the global system, while working together to manage the downside. Thus global governance is, in effect, the management of liberal internationalism” (Ikenberry, 2014 , p.18).

The previous definitions contribute to understanding the plasticity of the complex phenomenon that is global governance. Turning attention towards the characteristics, expressions, and elements of global governance provides a different perspective of analysis, which unpacks the essence of definitions. For the Commission on Global Security, Justice & Governance, the institutions of global governance are the “mechanisms for steering” states and societies toward the goals of global public policy, as expressed in the UN Charter and other key documents for global governance. These mechanisms of global governance encompass international, national, subnational and local actors, existing to provide public goods, which one can neither diminish availability to others through use, nor be excluded from using (Albright & Gambari, 2015 ).

Rittberger makes an important distinction between international and global governance. In his view, international governance is “the output of a non-hierarchical network of interlocking international (predominantly, but not exclusively, governmental) institutions which regulate the behavior of states and other international actors in different issue areas of world politics” (Rittberger, 2002 , p. 2). In contrast to international governance, global governance is characterized by the decreased salience of states as well as the increased involvement of nonstate actors in the processes of establishing norms and rules, including compliance, monitoring, and contributing at multiple levels of policymaking (Rittberger, 2002 ). Weiss and Wilkinson ( 2014 ) have also identified some significant elements that describe global governance:

It refers to collective efforts to identify, understand, or address worldwide problems that transcend the capacities of individual states.

It reflects the capacity of the international system at any moment in time to provide government-like services in the absence of world government.

It encompasses a wide variety of cooperative problem-solving arrangements that are visible but informal (practices or guidelines) or were temporary formations (coalitions of the willing).

It also entails more formalized problem-solving arrangements and mechanisms, such as hard rules (laws and treaties) or institutions with administrative structures and established practices to manage collective affairs by a variety of actors—including state authorities, intergovernmental organizations, nongovernmental organizations, private sector entities, and other civil society actors (Weiss & Wilkinson, 2014 ).

Krahmann ( 2005 ) has expanded the explanations about the characteristics of global governance. She indicates that the shift from “government” to “governance” denotes the increasing fragmentation and reintegration of political authority among state and nonstate actors across levels of analysis along seven dimensions: geographical scope, functional scope, the distribution of resources, interests, norms, decision-making, and policy implementation (Krahmann, 2003 ). Particularly interesting is the reorientation characterized geographical fragmentation and integration away from the state as the central unit, which takes three forms: “downward” to local bodies, “upward” to international organizations, and “sideways” to private and voluntary actors.

As Krahmann ( 2005 ) indicates, one of the main characteristics of global governance is that it operates at different levels of political activity. Zurn ( 2012 ) specifically advances the understanding of global governance as a form of multilevel governance. Gary Marks initially characterized Multilevel Governance as the result of a “centrifugal process in which decision-making is spun away from member states in two directions,” namely, subnational and supranational (Marks, 1993 , pp. 401–402). Reflecting on these different contexts within which the multilevel governance concept is discussed, Liesbet Hooghe and Gary Marks ( 2010 ) have proposed distinguishing different “types” of multilevel governance. The first type of governance conceives the dispersion of authority to jurisdictions at a limited number of levels (international, national, regional, meso, local). A second vision of governance is task-specific jurisdictions, intersecting memberships, and no limit to a number of jurisdictional levels (Hooghe & Marks, 2010 ).

Another perspective from which to observe different forms of global governance is based on a combination of unidirectional and multidirectional flows of authority, in conjunction with formal, informal, and mixed structures, as Kacowicz ( 2012 ) suggests. The combination of both axes produces six types of governance. Under the axis of unidirectional flows of authority, Kacowicz ( 2012 ) suggests top-down or hierarchical, in which institutions contract and outsource activities; bottom-up governance, where civil society and networks of advocacy develop positive incentives and bargaining; and market-type governance, which is a public-private network/partnership. Under the axis of multidirectional flow of governance, the other three types of governance are the following: network governance, which is hierarchical with governments/nation states at the top and NGOs and businesses at the bottom; side-by-side governance, with all levels working in tandem together; and finally web-network governance, which is a public-private network/partnership that is nonhierarchical and combines efforts from all parts of society, including the people (Kacowicz, 2012 ).

The variety of definitions provided above conveys some of the dimensions of global governance. To enrich its understanding, Weiss and Wilkinson ( 2014 ) have framed three different angles of the challenging nature of global governance by arguing that it (a) is ubiquitous and omnipresent; (b) is used and abused by academics and policymakers (3.1 million hits in a Google search at the end of 2012 ); and (c) remains notoriously slippery. While the broadness of global governance may produce a lack of conceptual rigor, it also offers a wide avenue to bring a diversity of disciplines interested in improving the current transformations of the global system through more pluralist and comprehensive approaches.

Thematic Areas of Global Governance

The explanation of global governance is a daunting task, because there are multiples structures of interaction among different actors and processes. The word “governance” appears in diverse disciplines, each one acting sometimes within its own rationale and barely connecting with other disciplines. How to make sense to the multiple forms of global governance? Bevir suggests a starting point when he argues that “governance refers to theories and issues of social coordination and the nature of all patterns of rule” (Bevir, 2011 , p. 1). From the perspective of this article, global governance focuses on social coordination at the international level; in other words, global governance is based on different areas of human activity where there is a confluence of governance practices at the global level of interaction. This social coordination at the international level varies across the respective areas of human activity and hence sets different patterns of rule.

When attempting to systematically articulate and evaluate the concept of global governance, the mainstream thematic categorization for studying international relations offers a helpful starting point. Manuals and textbooks on international relations have been organized by either geographical or theoretical categories. The vast literature on international relations has produced several debates utilizing categories such as concepts, images, perspectives, understandings, and paradigms. From the theoretical perspective, images (realism, liberalism, economic structuralism, and English School) and interpretative understandings (constructivism, critical, postmodern, and gender studies) have shaped competing explanations about how the world works. However, the literature on global governance has emerged from several different areas, and hence a strict theoretical IR categorization would leave numerous contributions out of the analysis. From the thematic angle, however, the extensive literature in international relations is disaggregated in various topics such as politics (international law and organizations), security, international political economy, and more recently environment and civil society (Viotti & Kauppi, 2012 ). This approach allows broader inclusion of global governance contributions. Based on IR thematic traditions as well as the current literature on global governance, this section organizes the information in six main areas: politics, security, economic, environmental, civil society/human rights, and other emerging themes. The next section informs and completes the overview with a description of conceptual debates and global governance.

Global Governance and International Organizations

The United Nations has been one of the catalysts of global governance. While it has been subject to numerous criticisms due to the anachronism of the Security Council, the UN system is by far the most comprehensive global organization that has demonstrated the capacity to trigger and underpin mechanisms of cooperation on matters such as health, culture, refugees, and civil society, to name a few, for more than seven decades. Regardless of the positive or negative assessment of the performance of United Nations, the world after 1945 embarked on a journey of no return where global norms, laws, and customs matter more than in any other historical period. The contribution of global governance is indeed one of the multiple causes in the transformations of the behavior of international actors. Pierre ( 2013 ) has correctly argued that institutional changes in domestic governance over the past two decades are overwhelmingly driven by endogenous agents and changes related to international influences tend to be adaptations to globalization rather than globalization in itself.

The UN’s reform and performance have been at the center of the debates of global governance. Weiss and Thakur ( 2010 ) have identified five gaps between the nature of many current global challenges and the available inadequate solutions. The first is the knowledge gap, which contributes to developing a broad consensus on global problems such as climate change; the second is the normative gap, which can be defined as a pattern of behavior in international society; the third is the policy gap, which is the interlinked set of governing principles and goals in addition to the agreed programs of action to implement those principles and achieve those goals; the fourth is the institutional gap, including formal and informal institutions; the fifth and final is the compliance gap, which has three facets: implementation, monitoring, and enforcement. Another important dimension of global governance and international organizations is the regional level. While the global level of political aggregation is partially able to contribute to the amelioration of problems, it also requires the inclusion of regional organizations in order to galvanize the interest of regional actors in cooperating (Weiss & Thakur, 2010 ). All in all, the assumption is that regional organizations are more sensitive to cultural and political regional preferences and hence may contribute to implementing norms of good global governance (Rabe, 2007 ).

Global Security Governance

Explaining the mechanisms of provision of international security has been one of the essential driving forces in the discipline of international relations since the end of World War II and the rise of global governance following the Cold War. Concepts and debates produced within the umbrella of global security governance offer a variety of analytical schemes while revealing new avenues of research. The development of global security governance has been oriented to a large extent by the contributions, limitations, and performance of international and regional organizations as security providers, in addition to state and substate actors. As the number and scope of regional organizations have expanded since the end of the Cold War, the way regional organizations conceptualize security and practice their collective duties has become a focus of attention of scholars. The prolific literature on global governance and regional organizations has shed some light on the institutional mechanisms and autonomy (Acharya & Johnston, 2007 ; Tavares, 2010 ), the variety of security governance policies (Kirchner & Sperling, 2010 ; Kirchner & Dominguez, 2011 ), the conditions of becoming a significant actor in regional and global governance, and the capacity of member states to enable regional organizations to produce collective security goods, particularly in the cases of NATO and the EU.

While the research agenda of global security governance and regional organizations has produced significant contributions, some scholars, such as Christou and Croft ( 2011 ), rightly argue that it is still necessary to advance systematic comparisons and to strengthen the methodological foundations of security research in the analysis of security governance. Ceccorulli and Lucarelli ( 2014 ) have also argued that in order to make the concept of security governance more useful for assessing current security dynamics, four main challenges must be addressed. First, there is a need to expand the research agenda with regard to how security is understood and perceived by the actors involved in the governance system. Second, as the literature is divided into two main branches (one looking at governmental organizations and one dealing with nonstate actors), attempts should be made to impart a sense of coordination concerning efforts among different actors and layers of governance, even when focusing predominantly on one type of actor (e.g., regional state powers). Third, the literature (with notable exceptions) has predominantly focused on Europe and the transatlantic area, which is particularly limited in light of the emergence of new actors. Fourth, the literature on security governance has been too often detached from reflections on regionalism, limiting the understanding of the different dynamics and security arrangements around the world (Ceccorulli & Lucarelli, 2014 ).

Another dimension of global security governance is the case of nuclear security and US hegemony. Chung argues that given the increased threat of nuclear terrorism by nonstate actors, the current global mechanisms addressing nuclear security have revealed serious limitations, prompting a demand for developing new arrangements of global nuclear security governance (Chung, 2012 ). With regard to global security governance and US hegemony, Krahmann ( 2005 ) argues that the emergence of security governance appears to explain the changing strategies of America’s allies. Her argument suggests that major powers, including the United States, are increasingly collaborating through flexible coalitions of the willing. Crucially, these flexible coalitions do not constitute a new form of balance of power; they respond to differences in interests and capabilities within overlapping structures of regional and global security governance. The concept of security governance thus highlights and informs the complexities in the policies of the United States and these other states. It points to evidence showing that US imperialist strategy relies to a considerable degree on the cooperation of both state and nonstate actors and that its interests and reach may be more specific than frequently suggested in the current debate (Krahmann, 2005 ).

Due to the diversity of dimensions involving the area of security, the concept of global security governance has been used to understand more specific aspects of human activity capable of producing regional or global situations of instability such as food security and climate change. Following the 2007–2008 global food crisis, Margulis examined the Government of Canada’s efforts of promoting global food security governance behavior at meetings of the G-8 and the United Nations Committee on World Food Security (CFS). While the global influence of Canada is to some extent marginal, Margulis underscored that the CFS has emerged as a key institution for agenda-setting, norm-building, and rule-making in global food security governance (Margulis, 2015 ). In the area of climate change, Floyd has advanced the argument that while institutional fragmentation of global climate security governance is not automatically problematic, the phenomenon of ideational fragmentation that often goes with it is highly disadvantageous to achieving climate security for people, particularly in light of the diverse and competing preferences and agendas of states and international organizations (Floyd, 2015 ).

Global Economic Governance

Global economic governance has been defined as “governing, without sovereign authority, economic relationships that transcend national borders” (Madhur, 2012 , p. 18). While this definition encapsulates a large range of elements comprehended within economic relations, more challenging has been the implementation of global economic policy coordination. After the economic turmoil of the 1929 crisis and the interwar period, the Bretton Woods system was put in place, but it insufficiently addressed the financial instability of the 1970s. The disillusion with the neoliberal order continued to grow through the 1990s, paving the way for experimenting with alternative economic practices, particularly in Latin America. In addition, the 2008 financial crisis and the emergence of economic powerhouses such as India and China have also contributed to shaping the debates around global economic governance, which aims to “set formal and informal rules that regulate the global economy and the collection of authority relationships that promulgate, coordinate, monitor, or enforce said rules” (Drezner, 2014 , p. 124).

While the demands for producing global collective forms of action are increasing, the capacity of global economic arrangements to respond to secular stagnation, recession, or inequality has proven to be decidedly lacking. Nonetheless, the progress made in the construction of global economic governance should not be underestimated. Drezner argues that despite the failure of institutions of global governance to avert the 2008 crisis, international institutions and governance frameworks performed contrary to expectations, and on the whole “the system worked and the open global economy survived” (Drezner, 2014 , p. 124, 2012 ). This line of argument is predicated on the reforms in the US financial system, the coordination of the G-20, and the slow transformations of the triad of economic institutions. From a more skeptical position, Quinlan ( 2011 ) contends that globalization is in retreat after 2008 and the only solution is to find commonalities while subsuming national interest for the global good by expanding global governance, which will depend on how well the so-called G-2 (United States and China) gets along in conjunction with to what degree developing nations feel they are actual stakeholders in the global economy, among other factors.

The debate on global governance calls for revisiting the architecture of global economic institutions, with particular focus on the changes wrought in three major international institutions: the transformation of the IMF, the marginalization of the World Bank, and the creation of the Financial Stability Board. Woods ( 2014 ) identifies six core principles to be strengthened for producing good economic global governance: legitimacy, representation, responsiveness, flexibility, transparency and accountability, and effectiveness. The reform of the global economic architecture has also been studied from the angle of soft law, particularly through the study of the G-20, which strives to build a new economic and financial regime better suited to the global economy. The use of soft law is based on legal instruments such as G-20 communiqués and declarations (Filipovic & Buncic, 2015 ). The broader inclusiveness of emerging economies in shaping the global architecture has been largely advocated for as a way to strengthen global governance (Martin, 2007 ). From a more comprehensive perspective, Madhur ( 2012 ) advocates the concept of hybrid architecture, in which the rise of multilateralism in the past 20 years has produced a hybrid system with two interrelated yet distinct layers: a set of formal institutions (WTO, IMF, WB, and FSB) forming its four pillars, and the G-20 as an informal, yet prominently presiding, multilateral forum setting the overall agenda and guiding the formal institutions.

Global Environmental Governance

Environment is an area inherently conducive to global governance, because it involves numerous individuals and institutions operating at different levels of spatial activity. As there is no global government and environmental degradation is not confined to borders, the concept of global environmental governance has been helpful to explain this phenomenon that typically involves a broad range of actors, including states as well as regional and international organizations. John Vogler has defined global environmental governance as follows: “At a formal level it is virtually a synonym for international environmental cooperation; for the network of international environmental organizations and conventions and the spaces between them” (Vogler, 2005 , p. 835). While studies of global environmental regimes have allowed a better understanding of who, why, and how our ecosystems are affected, a more daunting analytical area is whether political actors are willing to adapt to sustainable practices. Nongovernmental actors, in concert with corporations, governments, and international organizations, have established new standard-setting bodies to guide and regulate behavior. Scholars have begun to document the rise of these new forms of private governance and hybridized public–private governance as a means of promoting environmental protection (OHCHR et al., 2013 ).

Another area that demands inclusive policies at different levels of government is sustainable development. Jeffrey Sachs ( 2012 ) has argued that the most effective way to reach the global goals of strengthening sustainable development is by focusing on three broad categories, economic development, environmental sustainability, and social inclusion, which will depend on a fourth condition: good governance at all levels, local, national, regional, and global. However, implementing the environmental regime is complex, because international agreements must operate at the domestic policy level, where there is often still a gap between broad international goals and local engagement for implementation (Busby, 2010 ).

Global Civil Society and Human Rights

The inclusion of the rights of individuals in international processes has been an inherent part of the genesis of global governance. From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1949 as a nonbinding document to the creation of the International Criminal Court in 1998 , the governance of global human rights has been evolving as normative framework and as common practice. The UN-led proliferation of national human rights institutions, whose purported aims are to implement international norms domestically, has expanded considerably since the early 1990s; such institutions have quadrupled in number and exist in almost 100 countries (Cardenas, 2003 ). However, despite overall advancements in advancing rights, applying them consistently remains an outstanding governance issue (Thompson, 2010 ). These mechanisms are far from consistent. Generally, when they are effective, they change a state’s conduct by publicizing abuses rather than by providing technical advice or applying punitive measures (Kaye, 2011 ). The protection of human rights in the global agenda has also advanced the debate for more proactive mechanisms to enhance the rights of people (Ruggie, 2014 ). However, challenges to implement full-fledged human rights protections worldwide still surpass the capacity of global governance actors to provide them.

The development of networks has been an important element in incentivizing the creation of global civil societies protecting human rights. The roots of global civil society have been the subject of debate. Two approaches have been adopted. The first suggests that global civil society has been developing rationally over a long period of time, continuous and parallel with the development of domestic civil society in democracies. The second postulates global civil society to be a relatively new phenomenon, one that has emerged in response to unprecedented challenges to democracy as a result of globalization (Coleman & Wayland, 2005 ).

National civil societies embark on developing links with peers around the world in multiple ways, producing a myriad of forms of interaction. Following Mor’s analysis ( 2013 ) and based on the approaches to exerting leverage on global society, four clusters of GSC are emblematic of the complexity of the phenomena of this emerging global society from below. The first is the GCS that aims to some extent to replace statist features of the international system; several networks have been developed along these lines, from global student protests to social groups working against globalization. The second frames GCS as being in opposition to the state system; social movements in Latin America and Eastern Europe working to promote an active citizenship outside and beyond the national borders are emblematic of this group. Nongovernmental organization (NGO) activism concerning the arms trade is emblematic of the significant and emancipatory role attributed to civil society in post–Cold War international politics. A distinctively liberal understanding of civil society as an increasingly global sphere marks discussions of NGOs’ efforts separately from the state and market, promoting progressive and nonviolent social relations. The final strand of GCS is mostly focused on advancing the rights of religions and ethnic movements, which in recent years have encouraged a new agenda to develop the fourth world, which includes indigenous peoples, refugees, and migrants, mainly.

The third GCS has been studied as a subsidiary organ to international society, in which, under a neoliberal perspective, civil society organizations become institutionalized and professionalized so that they can fit into the global political framework as partners rather than as opponents. First, liberal accounts underplay the mutual interdependence between the state, the market, and civil society. NGO agency is constrained as well as enabled by its historical structural grounding. Second, a more ambivalent understanding of NGOs’ progressive political value is needed. While some NGOs may play a role in counter-hegemonic struggles, overall they are more likely to contribute to hegemonic social formations. Third, liberal accounts of a global civil society inadequately capture the reproduction of hierarchies in international relations, downplaying ongoing, systemic patterns of North-South asymmetry. Fourth, the emphasis on the nonviolent nature of global civil society sidelines the violence of capitalism and the state system while serving as a means of disciplining dissent and activism (Stavrianakis, 2012 ).

Other Emerging Areas of Global Governance

As global governance studies have reached a prominent role in the agenda of IR research, numerous intersections have been developed between global governance and other policy domains. These intersections are the results of specific areas of policy action that have elevated their sphere of action to the global level and experienced the phenomenon of being affected by multiple actors and various levels of analysis. These are the cases of global governance in labor, migration, health, sustainable development, and water.

Global governance has been used as a frame for studying labor relations. Based on the analysis of International Labor Organization (ILO) standards and the setup of the UN Global Compact, Hassel ( 2008 ) argues that there is a plethora of voluntarist initiatives that converge over time toward a shared understanding of labor standards, which is part of the transformation of global labor governance institutions. Nonetheless, there are several problems for a full-fledged convergence of global norms on labor standards, such as the lack of governmental commitment in implementing labor standards in some countries in addition to the lack of coordination and the existence of collective action problems pertaining to various decentralized activities. In this regard, the strongest incentives for monitoring compliance, mostly advocated by the victims of noncompliance, as well as the development of a cognitive frame of unacceptable corporate behavior are essentials steps toward actualizing a “harder” institutional setting (Hassel, 2008 ).

Barnett ( 2002 ) has linked global governance with migration and refugees. She argues that the recent influx of internally displaced peoples (IDPs) has caused the UNHCR to rethink its governance model even further, as it does not accommodate the needs of all displaced people, especially IDPs, who are not strictly defined by borders. The UNHCR has been pushed to adapt their current state-centered global governance model toward a democratic governance model whereby a possible solution would be for the UN General Assembly to expand UNHCR’s mandate to include IDPs. However, the UNHCR remains unresponsive to this proposal (Barnett, 2002 ).

In the case of global health governance, Lee ( 2010 ) argues that the bulk of scholarship on international organization and health continues to be produced from outside the formal disciplinary boundaries of international relations. This literature, primarily from the perspective of public health, is concerned with improving the contemporary institutional mechanisms for addressing collective health problems. From such analyses, the broader question of what international organizations and health tell us about emerging forms of global governance can be raised. For example, what do innovations in international health cooperation tell us about the shifting boundaries between the state, the market, and civil society? What is the quality of global governance as provided by these diverse institutional actors? While a recent shift in the literature explores how international organizations matter in addition to the role of delegation and agency, more analysis is required beyond the study of the World Health Organization (Lee, 2010 ).

Particularly as a result of the post- 2015 development framework, global sustainable development governance provides an opportunity to address these global economic, social, and environmental issues in a coordinated, coherent, and collaborative manner. In this context, the global partnership can promote a more effective, coherent, representative, and accountable global governance regime, which should ultimately translate into better national and regional governance, the realization of human rights, and sustainable development (Madhur, 2012 ). Within the umbrella of environment and development, global water governance remains in its initial stages in spite of increasing awareness of the scarcity of this vital resource. Pahl-Wostl, Gupta, and Petry ( 2008 ) have argued that although a global discourse about water issues has evolved over the last five decades, unlike governance of many other environmental and resource issues, a clear global governance framework has still not emerged. They have advanced their studies on global water governance by compiling 86 international river basin organizations and advocating the discussion of the vital importance of water as it relates to global governance.

Conceptual Debates on Global Governance

Thematic categorizations provide an overview of the main areas where the literature on global governance has proliferated. However, scholars have also embarked on conceptual, rather than thematic, debates or have derived interesting conceptual discussions from their thematic research. Social scientists have studied global governance from a variety of angles, producing numerous analytical innovations which improve its comprehension. While debates on global governance are perpetually evolving and the related conceptual list is extensive, this section incorporates some emblematic concepts that have paved the way for debates enriching the understanding of global governance. These include common goods, good governance, power, legitimacy, authority, global governors, governmentality, governance in areas of limited statehood, and policy-centric systems of governance. These concepts have triggered the need of adopting global governance as a framework for analysis.

The perception of sharing a common milieu has been crucial for understanding the interconnections that global governance aims to study and explain. One of the main concepts that explicitly and implicitly remain in the debates on global governance is related to the preservation and enhancement of global common goods and, more importantly, the need to develop mechanisms for collective actions. Keohane ( 2010 ) has explained the complexity of dealing with common-pool resources and collective action in the context that they are subject to the challenge of underprovision or overuse because no individual actor has an interest in unilaterally preserving them. The link between common-pool resources and collective action varies from sector to sector of political action, and hence the concept of global commons has advanced at different paces in distinct areas of international activity. While the rationale of international security is still rooted in various levels of security dilemmas, the perception of a global commons has found better conditions to flourish in areas such as global environmental policy, because the stewardship of the global commons cannot be executed without global governance. This is the case of those parts of the planet that fall outside national jurisdictions and to which all nations have access (the high seas, the atmosphere, Antarctica, and outer space), and these resource domains are guided by the principle of the common heritage of mankind (OHCHR et al., 2013 ).

The concern about the depletion of common goods leads to the conception of global governance not only as a heuristic device to understand multiple and complex relations but also as a mechanism to suggest policy prescriptions to manage and ameliorate global problems. Central to this assumption is the concept of good governance. While postmodern critical theories and Gramscian cultural hegemony scholars contest the intentions of global good governance as conventional mechanism of domination, a substantial share of scholars working with the concept of global governance to some degree acknowledge the need for global good governance. Weiss’ definition of good governance entails the following elements: participation and empowerment with respect to public policies, choices, and offices; rule of law secured by an independent judiciary to which the executive and legislative branches of government are subject, along with citizens as well as other actors and entities; and standards of probity and incorruptibility, transparency, accountability, and responsibility (Weiss, 2013 ).

The fact that good global governance advocates a more comprehensive and inclusive agenda is not dissociated from the debates surrounding power and international relations. Barnett and Duvall ( 2005 ) argue that scholarly literature surrounding global governance largely dismisses the role of power. As power remains one of the most significant concepts in most international relations theories, from its relevance in realism to its relative contestation in social constructivism, two different lines of reasoning provide some elements acknowledging the pertinence of linking global governance and power.

The first is the understanding that power has been disaggregated in the past few decades. Based on IR debates on hard (military and economic) and soft (cultural) power and from the perspective of global governance, power has been embedded in two types of global governance, hard and soft. The former refers to formal rules, norms, and institutions that have been established to regulate the behavior of states and other actors in the international system. In this context, international law, treaties, conventions, and other juridical tools are capable of providing governance. But it also means that legitimate power can be used to produce world order in the absence of a global government. In this line of thought, the balance of power plays a significant role in reducing global anarchy. Soft governance includes informal rules, norms, and institutions that can also provide governance. In this perspective, persuasion and influence are key elements in the search for world stability (Kröger, 2008 ). From a different angle, Weiss ( 2013 ) rightly contends that it is often forgotten that power is not confined to states and that nonstate actors play an increasingly significant role in international relations. Along the same lines, while the increasing role of civil societies and political parties have underpinned the process of democratization around the world, some other subversive and opportunistic forces, such as criminal organizations, have taken control of areas where the state is fragile or absent, resulting in the weakening of the rule of law and the negative fragmentation of state power (Naím, 2013 ).

The second dimension of power that affects the architecture of global governance is its polarization. From the bipolar order that prevailed in the Cold War to the current multipolar system, global collective action assumes different forms. While hegemonic transition theories have been largely studied in international relations, some scholars have linked the US decline and global governance. Chase-Dunn, Kwon, Lawrence, and Inoue ( 2011 ) have argued that while the rise of another hegemon that could replace the United States is unlikely, there are clearly challenges to be addressed. Newly emergent national economies such as India and China need to be fitted into the global structure of power, while the unilateral use of military force by the declining hegemon (the United States) has further delegitimized the institutions of global governance and has provoked resistance and challenges (Chase-Dunn et al., 2011 ).

Barnett and Duval broaden the definition of power from the perspective of global governance, stating that power is “the production, in and through social relations, of effects on actors that shape their capacity to control their fate” (Barnett & Duvall, 2005 , p. 45). In other words, power is a means to govern people’s lives, or even international orders. The authors develop a taxonomy of power based on two analytical dimensions: the kinds of social relations through which power is exerted, and the specificity of social relations through which effects on actors’ capacities are produced. These two dimensions generate a fourfold taxonomy of power: compulsory, institutional, structural, and productive. But when it comes to the international system, it is structural power that specifically and directly affects global governance and its varying capacities. However, it is productive power, defined as the socially diffuse production of subjectivity in systems of meaning and signification, which will combat the negative view of power and will contribute to effectively analyzing global governance (Barnett & Duvall, 2005 ).

Associated with power, the concept of legitimacy has also been included in the debates on global governance. The main challenge, as Castells ( 2005 ) indicates, is that there is a credibility crisis as a result of the nation-state’s inability to adequately represent its citizens in the global governance era, where local and national governance has caved in and given way to global issues resolution, serving as a platform for the emergence of a global civil society. Another dimension of legitimacy in global governance is the case of compliance with international norms. The internationalization of norms leads to legitimized forms of behavior in which there is less need of coercion and calculation of interests. In other words, as Weiss has pointed out, “legitimacy is driven by the logic of appropriateness, whereby compliance can result from self-imposed obligation to do what is perceived as right” (Weiss, 2013 , p. 38). Despite the silver lining logic of appropriateness, three major global governance gaps still undermine legitimacy. The first is the jurisdictional gap, in which public policymaking is by nature predominantly national in both focus as well as scope. The second is the operational gap, wherein public institutions lack the policy-relevant information and policy instruments necessary to respond to the daunting complexity of global policy issues. The third is the incentive gap, in which the compliance problem makes it difficult for international governance systems to contribute effectively to the attainment of governance goals, since that remains contingent on the willingness of individual states to implement international regulations (Brüh & Rittberger, 2003 ).

The discussion on power and legitimacy in global governance has also provided the background for the discussion on global authority. Finnemore ( 2014 ) has underscored the challenges that global governance is facing with regard to global authority because while power can be an attribute of an actor in isolation, “authority is always conferred by others in some form, however distant. . . this conferral is central to the legitimation of many aspects of global governance” (Finnemore, 2014 , p. 221). For example, while the UN is authorized to exert power through established institutional procedures, its authority can increase or decrease based on performance and the response by others to UN actions. Based on this premise on global authority, Finnemore ( 2014 ) has pointed out the benefits of shifting the focus of global governance from actors to the relationships among actors involved in the making of global processes. From that perspective, Finnemore ( 2014 ) argues that it is hard to think of a policy area where a single “global governor” is acting alone and suggests that the nature of relationships among these potential governors can vary greatly, which in turn has diverse effects on policies and outcomes: “Global governors compete, conflict, cooperate, delegate, and divide labor in a host of ways we have not always examined systematically, but should” (Finnemore, 2014 , p. 223). Her emphasis on relationships rather than on single actors contributes to the understanding that the interactions among global governors vary enormously, shaping dynamics and outcomes of global governance (Finnemore, 2014 ).

Alexandria Jayne Innes and Brent Steele have developed the analysis of global governance through the lens of governmentality. They argue that practices and tactics of actors (such as states, individuals, NGOs, and for-profit agencies) produce a field of power where influences strategically oppose/coincide with one another to produce governmentality. In essence, their view is that governance is too narrow and, more specifically, “governmentality. . . offers insight into a concept of global governance that does not prioritize the state. Rather, it situates the state within a network of governance, representing an actor that governs itself and others” (Jayne Innes & Steele, 2012 , p. 717). Moreover, governmentality serves broadly as a regulatory factor/mechanism that promotes self-governance. In this case, sovereignty and governmentality coexist, with the latter allowing states to have sovereignty and control over disciplinary power over their people as well as the capacity to act as a “unitary cohesive agent in the global system” (Jayne Innes & Steele, 2012 , p. 724). Overall, the authors proclaim that global actors will be compelled to act a certain way because the chaos can be avoided in a nonhierarchical world where each state/actor works together under the wide-spread efforts of global governance and tactics of governmentality (Jayne Innes & Steele, 2012 ).

One of the conceptual innovations that has put in perspective the Western roots of global governance and the implementation limits of good governance is the debate around governance in areas of limited statehood (Risse, 2011 ). Risse argues that the governance discourse remains centered on an ideal type of modern statehood, with full internal and external sovereignty, a legitimate monopoly on the use of force, and checks and balances that constrain political rule and authority. This approach is very state-centric and mainly western-driven and is utilized in state building and development strategies. However, from the global as well as historical perspective, “the modern nation-state is the exception rather than the rule. . . areas of limited statehood lack the capacity to implement and enforce central decisions and the monopoly on the use of force” (Risse, 2011 , p. 2). In other words, in areas of limited statehood, from developing and transitioning countries to failing states, international sovereignty remains intact, while domestic sovereignty is lacking. Risse argues that governance in areas of limited statehood rests on the systematic involvement of nonstate actors and on nonhierarchical modes of political steering, yet these “modes of governance do not complement hierarchical steering by a well-functioning state but have to provide functional equivalents to develop statehood. . . in a multilevel governance which links local, national, regional and global” (Risse, 2011 , p. 3).

Along the same lines of observing the limits of global governance, Ostrom and Janssen analyze the differences between “high modernism” and “polycentric” systems of governance with regard to development and natural resource management. High modernism is characterized by situations where governments attempt to suppress complexity through the design of unitary governments, which rely on experts to dictate or optimize preferred desirable goals. These systems tend to fail due to their separation from local accountability. Polycentric systems, on the other hand, are those where many actors are capable of making mutual adjustments for ordering their relationships with one another within a general system of rules where each element acts with independence of other elements (Ostrom & Janssen, 2002 ).

Mapping Institutional Sources

Institutions play a significant role in supporting, deepening, and widening research on global governance. For decades, education and policymaking institutions prioritized IR studies focused on Cold War tensions and Soviet studies; later, in the 1990s, globalization became not only a buzzword of politicians to justify decisions, but also a priority in the research agenda of IR departments. By the early 2000s, governance and global governance were incorporated into the IR intellectual debate and institutions started supporting its study. The relationship and correlations between transformations in the international system and how IR departments, universities, and think tanks allocate resources to study the leading topics of a generation is quite straightforward. This section identifies the leading institutional sources for studying global governance, particularly from regional and national perspectives. While a detailed survey of institutions surpasses the limits of this article, this section examines two types of institutions that have led the debate and intellectual production regarding global governance: centers or programs focusing on conducting studies on global governance, and education programs at the graduate level where global governance plays a central role.

Centers For the Study of Global Governance

The United States and Europe remain the predominant places where the debates and allocation of resources for the study of international relations are taking place. The creation of centers for the study of global governance does not deviate from this general trend. In New York, Columbia University opened the Global Governance Center at the Columbia Law School in 2003 . The center addresses globalization’s legal dimensions through diverse interdisciplinary research and scholarship in addition to supporting public policy-oriented projects with other Columbia University centers and programs, including the Earth Institute, the Initiative for Policy Dialogue, and the Institute for Human Rights, as well as maintaining joint programs with international organizations such as the United Nations (Columbia University, 2015 ).

Also in New York, the Lublin School of Business at Pace University sponsors the Center for Global Governance, Reporting, and Regulation (Pace University, 2015 ). In New Jersey, the Niehaus Center for Globalization and Governance (CGG) at Princeton University started operations in 2004 . As part of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, the Niehaus Center is one of the few centers that combines globalization and governance under its research program (Princeton University, 2015 ). In North Carolina, the Global Value Chains Center at Duke University is built around the use of global value chains methodology to study the effects of globalization worldwide (Duke University, 2015 ).

In Europe, centers for studying global governance have also been created since the early 2000s, particularly in Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, and Belgium. The Hertie School of Governance together with the Freie Universität Berlin and the Social Science Centre Berlin (WZB) established the Berlin School of Transnational Studies in 2008 , which includes a cluster on European Global Governance in its PhD program. This research cluster focuses on the analysis of the postnational constellation in its multiple dimensions and studies the implications of the increasingly blurred boundaries of the political space for communities and forms of belonging as it relates to the rise of global civil society, and especially for the structures of governance beyond the state (Hertie School of Governance, 2015 ).

In the United Kingdom, the London School of Economics (LSE) opened the Global Governance program in 2003 with a grant from the Ford Foundation. The program aimed to establish a rigorous conception and typology of global governance as well as construct an account of emergent international and transnational authority structures. While the LSE Global Governance closed as a formal research center in July 2011 as a result of a shift in research priorities, global governance has remained in the agenda of its scholars in other parts of LSE (London School of Economics, 2011 ). Also in London, the Global Governance Institute at University College of London undertakes cross-disciplinary study of crucial governance “deficits” in order to explore the nature of the problem and the processes, structures, and institutions involved, as well as identifying and postulating potential solutions. The Institute’s research activities coalesce around the following five thematic tracks: global governance, global security, global environmental sustainability, global justice and equity, and global economy (University College of London, 2015 ).

In Italy, the European University Institute in Florence launched the Global Governance Program (GGP) in 2010 , which is one of the flagship programs of the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies. It aims to build a community of outstanding professors and scholars, produce high-quality research, engage with the world of practice through policy dialogue, and contribute to the fostering of present and future generations of policy- and decision-makers through its executive training. With its three dimensions (Research, Policy, and Training), the GGP aims to serve as a bridge between research and policymaking (European University Institute, 2015 ). In Belgium, the Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies was set up in 2007 , linking governance processes and multilateralism with a particular focus on the European Union’s role in global governance. With more than 60 senior and junior members, the Centre hosts a seven-year research program ( 2010–2017 ) on Global Governance and Democratic Government (Leuven University, 2015 ).

Global governance centers worldwide have followed the American and European trends, with the added value of focusing on their own specific regional agenda priorities. In East Asia, Waseda University Organization for Japan-US Studies (WOJUSS) was established in Japan in 2007 as a new type of research institution providing a platform for collaborative, interdisciplinary research on Japan-US relations. Later, in 2012 , WOJUSS renewed research programs and teams to further promote policy-oriented research on the current state of global governance studies (Waseda University, 2015 ). In Korea, the Hills Governance Center at Yonsei University in Seoul became the second Hills Governance Center worldwide when it opened in 2003 . The Center focuses on analysis, research, and dissemination of findings on governance-related issues and pursues specific projects such as regionally relevant case studies, the development of methodologies to measure the cost of poor governance, and identifying the best practices of successful firms in the country. Also in Korea, the Asian Institute for Policy Studies hosts the Center for Global Governance in order to offer policy recommendations which improve international relations and politics by making them more effective. With an office in Washington, DC, the center itself tries to bring forth traditional ways of thinking that focus on state actors and national security as well as recommending policies that account for nontraditional security factors such as human security (Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2015 ).

In South Asia, Jindal University created the Centre for Global Governance and Policy (CGGP) in the late 2000s in Delhi, India. The distinctive feature of the CGGP is that it emphasizes a Global South perspective and probes the possibility for more a balanced and even-handed structure for global governance. It also focuses on an agenda that goes beyond India’s regional priorities (Pakistan, China, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, etc.) or relations with Europe and the United States, incorporating multidisciplinary and non-state-driven debates taking place in Latin America, Africa, and the rest of Asia. Emblematic of this approach is the CGGP report entitled Rethinking International Institutions: A Global South Agenda released in 2011 (Jindal University, 2015 ). In Africa, the Centre for the Study of Governance Innovation (GovInn) is the first research institution in Africa dedicated entirely to governance innovation. With a strong orientation on African topics in the context of global governance, GovInn prioritizes producing cutting-edge research capable of generating new thinking about governance and development as well as attracting innovators from all over the world. GovInn focuses on new economic governance, governance of the commons, transboundary governance, and security governance (University of Pretoria, 2015 ).

Education Programs on Global Governance

Education programs underpin developing a better understanding of global governance. At the doctoral level, three programs on Global Governance are salient. University of Massachusetts in Boston offers a PhD program in Global Governance and Human Security which aims to develop skills in topics such as emerging nonstate actors, norms, conflict resolution, and geopolitical competence (University of Massachusetts Boston, 2015 ). In Canada, a PhD in Global Governance, offered jointly by Wilfrid Laurier University and the University of Waterloo, examines power and authority in the global arena and aims to examine and re-evaluate concepts, tools, and assumptions that have served scholars in the past and assesses new approaches for addressing contemporary and future challenges in six areas: global political economy, global environment, conflict and security, global justice and human rights, multilateral institutions and diplomacy, and global social governance (Balsillie School of International Studies, 2015 ). In Germany, the University of Bremen and Jacobs University Bremen founded the Bremen International Graduate School of Social Sciences (BIGSSS), which offers a PhD program focused on three thematic fields, one of which is Global Governance and Regional Integration (Bremen International Graduate School of Social Sciences, 2015 ).

More focused on training and specialization than on research, a variety of Masters programs are offered in several parts of the world. Florida International University offers an MA program in Global Governance featuring two tracks: globalization and security, and corporate citizenship (Florida International University, 2015 ). In Canada, the University of Waterloo opened an MA in Global Governance that goes beyond the rigidities and formalities of established academic boundaries by drawing on a variety of disciplines (Balsillie School of International Studies, 2015 ). In Europe, among other institutions, Sussex University offers an MA in Global Governance and the University of Kent offers an MA in European and Global Governance in the United Kingdom. In Italy, the University of Siena opened an MA in Global Governance Studies and Cultural Diplomacy. One example in South Asia is Jindal University, which has offered an MA in Global Governance since 2012 , in which students are encouraged to raise awareness and analytical depth in India about academically neglected regions such as Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean (Jindal University, 2015 ).

Future Directions of Global Governance

This article has provided an extensive review of the literature on global governance. However, the significant scholarly development of the concept in the last decades still demands further analytical tools to explain the permanent transformations of international relations and the problems derived from the lack of global governance. In this regard, the current literature on global governance offers a platform where theories and concepts are adaptable and versatile, providing the research agenda of global governance with conditions conducive to expand its explanation about an increasingly more complex reality.

Some future areas of research around the global governance agenda include the exploration of areas conducive to reducing anarchy in the international system through several policy instruments. Cooperation and multilateral approaches are pillars for the creation of more effective global public policies considering the limited capacity of states to resolve simultaneously every local or international problem. As a consequence of globalization, the nature of problems is increasingly defined by multiple domestic and international factors. Therefore, governments have to resort to creating schemes of coordination with other actors to confront contemporary challenges, and more research is required to decipher and better understand how to create and protect collective global goods. International organizations, private actors, civil society, and even individuals are necessary to promoting global governance. Since there is not a central global government to cope with international conflicts and problems, norms and institutions are needed to provide legitimacy for—and protect the stability of—the international system.

Global governance is also an important framework of analysis that incentivizes ontological and epistemological approaches to study how the international system works. Not only governmental officials but also scholars and nonstate actors are deeply concerned with understanding the mechanisms to promote global governance, which include legitimate authority to solve international conflict and enhance mutual cooperation. The recent emergence of academic institutions and programs to address such topics is integral to this process. It is probable that in the near future more think tanks and universities will facilitate further research on global governance.

A current and future challenge pending in the global governance agenda is to develop further interconnections between different areas of human activity which also percolate at the global level. Economic interactions need a framework of rules, norms, and institutions to avoid financial crisis, facilitate cooperation, and promote global development. Global economic disparities will not be reduced if states, transnational companies, international organizations, and civil society do not establish cooperative schemes. For a more secure world, the international community must seek the creation of instruments to promote global security governance. These kinds of institutions will be necessary to diminish international terrorism, wars, organized crime, and other global threats. Global governance is also a key element for reducing ecological degradation, climate change, and other environmental challenges the world is facing today. States and international organization are not able to solve those problems without the participation of civil society and individuals. For the conservation of natural resources and the creation of new energy sources, global public policy will be required as well. Health and food issues are also a primary concern of global governance studies. As this article has illustrated, the future of international relations will benefit from developing the concept of global governance, debating better practices, and implementing effective global policies.

• Acharya, A. , & Johnston, A. I. (2007). Crafting cooperation: Regional international institutions in comparative perspective . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Albright, M. K. , & Gambari, I. A. (2015). The report of the Commission on Global Security, Justice & Governance . The Hague, The Netherlands: Hague Institute for Global Justice-Stimson Center.
• Balsillie School of International Studies . (2015). PhD in global governance .
• Barnett, L. (2002). Global governance and the evolution of the international refugee regime, International Journal of Refugee Law , 1 (2/3), 238–262.
• Barnett, M. , & Duvall, R. (2005). Power in international politics. International Organization , 59 , 39–75.
• Bevir, M. (2011). Governance as theory, practice, and dilemma. In M. Bevir (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of governance (pp. 1–17). London, UK: SAGE.
• Branscomb, A. W. (1983). Global governance of global networks: A survey of transborder data flow in transition. Vanderbilt Law Review , 26 (4), 985–1044.
• Bremen International Graduate School of Social Sciences . (2015). Ph.D. Fellowship Competition .
• Brüh, T. , & Rittberger, V. (2003). From international to global governance: Actors, collective decision-making, and the United Nations in the world of the twenty-first century. In V. Rittberger (Ed.), Global governance and the United Nations system (pp. 1–47). Tokyo, Japan: United Nations University.
• Busby, J. W. (2010). International organization and environmental governance. In R. A. Denemark (Ed.), The international studies encyclopedia . Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Cardenas, S. (2003). Emerging global actors: The United Nations and national human rights institutions. Global Governance , 9 (1), 23–42.
• Castells, M. (2005). Global governance and global politics. PS: Political Science and Politics , 38 (1), 9–16.
• Ceccorulli, M. , & Lucarelli, S. (2014). Security governance: Making the concept fit for the analysis of a multipolar, global and regionalized world . EUI Working Paper RSCAS 2014/41, April. Florence: European University Institute/Robert Schuman Centre of Advanced Studies.
• Center for Strategic and International Studies . (2015). The Hills Governance Center at Yonsei University in Seoul .
• Chase-Dunn, C. , Kwon, R. , Lawrence, K. , & Inoue, H. (2011). Last of the hegemons: U. S. decline and global governance. International Review of Modern Sociology , 37 (1), 1–29.
• Christou, G. , & Croft, S. (2011). European security governance . London, UK: Routledge.
• Chung, S. (2012). Global nuclear security governance building through the Nuclear Security Summit. Korean Journal of Defense Analysis , 24 (1), 1–16.
• Coate, R. A. , & Murphy, C. (1995). Editor’s note. Global Governance , 1 (1), 1–2.
• Coleman, W. D. , & Wayland, S. (2005). The origins of global civil society and non-territorial governance: Some empirical reflections. Institute on Globalization and the Human Condition GHC 05/1, February. Hamilton, ON: McMaster University.
• Columbia University . (2015). Center on Global Governance .
• Commission on Global Governance . (1995). Towards the global neighbourhood: The report of the Commission on Global Governance . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Dator, J. A. (1981, December). Three images of global governance. The Futurist .
• Dator, J. A. (2009). Alternative futures at the Manoa School. Journal of Futures Studies , 14 , 1–18.
• Drezner, D. (2014). The system worked: Global economic governance during the Great Recession. World Politics , 66 (1), 123–164.
• Drezner, D. W. (2012). The irony of global economic governance . Washington, DC: Council on Foreign Relations.
• Duke University . (2015). Global Value Chains Center .
• European University Institute . (2015). Global Governance Programme .
• Filipovic, M. , & Buncic, S. (2015). Global economic governance: A new regime through soft law? International Relations , 11 (44), 101–115.
• Finnemore, M. (2014). Dynamics of global governance: Building on what we know? International Studies Quarterly , 58 , 221–224.
• Florida International University . (2015). Professional MA in Global Affairs: About the program .
• Floyd, R. (2015). Global climate security governance: A case of institutional and ideational fragmentation. Conflict, Security & Development , 15 (2), 119–146.
• Hassel, A. (2008). The evolution of a global labor governance regime. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions , 21 (2), 231–251.
• Hertie School of Governance . (2015). European and global governance .
• Hooghe, L. , & Marks, G. (2010). Types of multi-level governance. In H. Enderlein , S. Walti , & M. Zurn (Eds.), Handbook on multi-level governance (pp. 17–31). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
• Ikenberry, J. (2014). The quest for global governance. Current History , 113 (759), 16–18.
• Jayne Innes, A. , & Steele, B. J. (2012) Governmentality in global governance. In D. Levi-Faur (Ed.), Oxford handbook of governance (pp. 716–729). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Jindal University . (2015). Global Governance and Policy .
• Kacowicz, A. M. (2012). Global governance, international order, and world order. In D. Levi-Faur (Ed.), Oxford handbook of governance (pp. 686–697). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Kaye, D. (2011). Justice beyond The Hague: Supporting the prosecution of international crimes in national courts . Washington, DC: Council on Foreign Relations Press.
• Keohane, R. (2010). Beyond the tragedy of the commons. Perspectives on Politics , 8 (2), 577–580.
• Kirchner, E. J. , & Dominguez, R. (2011). The security governance of regional organizations . London, UK: Routledge.
• Kirchner, E. J. , & Sperling, J. (2010). National security cultures: Patterns of global governance . London, UK: Routledge.
• Krahmann, E. (2003). National, regional, and global governance: One phenomenon or many? Global Governance , 9 (3), 323–346.
• Krahmann, E. (2005). American hegemony or global governance? Competing visions of international security. International Studies Review , 7 , 531–545.
• Kröger, S. (2008). Soft governance in hard politics: European coordination of anti-poverty policies in France and Germany . Wiesbaden, Germany: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
• Lee, K. (2010). International organization and health/disease. In R. A. Denemark (Ed.), The international studies encyclopedia (pp. 1–26). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Leuven University . (2015). Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies .
• London School of Economics . (2011, July 20). LSE Global Governance to close on 31 July 2011 .
• Madhur, S. (2012). Asia’s role in twenty-first-century global economic governance. International Affairs , 88 (4), 817–833.
• Margulis, M. (2015). Canada at the G8 and UN Committee on World Food Security: Forum-shifting in global food security governance. Canadian Foreign Policy (CFP) , 21 (2), 164–178.
• Marks, G. (1993). Structural policy and multilevel governance in the EC. In A. Cafruny & G. Rosenthal (Eds.), The state of the European Community (pp. 391–410). New York, NY: Lynne Rienner.
• Martin, P. (2007). Breaking deadlocks in global governance: The L-20 Proposal. Global Governance , 13 (3), 301–305.
• Miller, C. A. (2007). Democratization, international knowledge, institutions, and global governance. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions , 20 (2), 325–357.
• Mor, M. (2013). Global civil society and international society: Compete or complete? Alternatives: Global, Local, Political , 38 (2), 172–188.
• Naím, M. (2013). The end of power: From boardrooms to battlefields and churches to states, why being in charge isn’t what it used to be . New York, NY: Basic Books.
• Nelson, L. D. , & Honnold, J. (1976). Planning for resource scarcity: A critique of prevalent proposals. Social Science Quarterly , 57 (2), 339–349.
• OHCHR , OHRLLS , UNDESA , UNEP , & UNFPA . (2013). Global governance and governance of the global commons in the global partnership for development beyond 2015 . New York, NY: United Nations.
• Onuf, N. (1979). International legal order as an idea. American Journal of International Law , 73 (2), 244–266.
• Ostrom, E. , & Janssen, M. A. (2002). Beliefs, multi-level governance, and development . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, Massachusetts, August 29–September 1.
• Pace University . (2015). Center for Global Governance, Reporting, and Regulation .
• Pahl-Wostl, C. , Gupta, J. & Petry, D. (2008). Global governance of water: Trends, processes, and ideas for the future. Global Governance , 14 (4), 405–407.
• Pierre, J. (2013). Globalization and governance . Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
• Princeton University . (2015). About NCGG .
• Quinlan, J. P. (2011). The last economic superpower . New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
• Rabe, B. G. (2007). Beyond Kyoto: Climate change policy in multilevel governance systems. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions , 20 (3), 423–444.
• Risse, T. (2011). Governance in areas of limited statehood. In T. Risse (Ed.), Governance without a state? Policies and politics in areas of limited statehood (pp. 1–35). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
• Risse, T. (2012). Governance in areas of limited statehood. In D. Levi-Faur (Ed.), Oxford handbook of governance (pp. 716–729). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Rittberger, V. (2002). Global governance and the United Nations system . New York, NY: United Nations University.
• Rosenau, J. N. , & Czempiel, E.-O. (1992). Governance without government: Order and change in world politics . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Ruggie, J. G. (2014). Global governance and “New Governance Theory”: Lessons from business and human rights. Global Governance , 20 , 5–17.
• Sachs, J. (2012). From millennium development goals to sustainable development goals. Lancet , 379 (June), 2206–2211.
• Senghaas, D. (1993). Global governance: How could it be conceived? Security Dialogue , 24 (3), 247–256.
• Stavrianakis, A. (2012). Missing the target: NGOs, global civil society and the arms trade. Journal of International Relations and Development , 15 (2), 224–249.
• Tavares, R. (2010). Regional security: The capacity of international organizations . New York, NY: Routledge.
• Thakur, R. , & Van Langenhove, L. (2006). Enhancing global governance through regional integration. Global Governance , 12 (3), 233–240.
• Thompson, A. (2010). In defence of principles: NGOs and human rights norms in Canada . Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
• University College of London . (2015). Global Governance Institute .
• University of Massachusetts Boston . (2015). Global Governance and Human Security, PhD .
• University of Pretoria . (2015). Centre for the Study of Governance Innovation .
• Viotti, P. , & Kauppi, M. (2012). International relations theory . Boston, MA: Longman.
• Vogler, J. (2005). The European contribution to global environmental governance. International Affairs , 81 (4), 835–850.
• Waseda University . (2015). Waseda Institute for Global Governance .
• Weiss, T. G. (2013). Global governance: Why? What? Whither? Malden, MA: Polity.
• Weiss, T. G. , & Thakur, R. (2010). Global governance and the UN: An unfinished journey . Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
• Weiss, T. G. , & Wilkinson, R. (2014). Rethinking global governance? Complexity, authority, power, change. International Studies Quarterly , 58 , 207–215.
• Woods, N. (2014). Global economic governance after the 2008 crisis: A new action plan for the reform of global economic governance . GEG Working Paper 2014/89, September. Oxford, UK: University of Oxford.
• Zurn, M. (2012). Global governance as multi-level governance. In D. Levi-Faur (Ed.), Oxford handbook of governance (pp. 730–743). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Related Articles

• International Organization and Environmental Governance
• Gender and Governance
• Global Indigenous Rights and Responses
• Intergovernmental Organizations and International Governance of Migration and Ethnic Politics
• International Organization and Cybergovernance
• International Organizations and Economic Governance
• Internet Governance
• Regional Governance and Environmental Problems
• The Millennium Development Goals and the Politics of Global Poverty
• Transnational Corporations and the Global Environment

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, International Studies. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 18 April 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|162.248.224.4]
• 162.248.224.4

Character limit 500 /500

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Language Acquisition
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Media
• Music and Culture
• Music and Religion
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Society
• Law and Politics
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Ethics
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Games
• Computer Security
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Ethics
• Business History
• Business Strategy
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic History
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Systems
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Theory
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Politics and Law
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

27 Global Law and Global Governance: The UN’s Role in Filling Gaps

• Published: August 2013
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

This chapter makes a case for global governance, i.e. collective problem-solving arrangements for challenges and threats that are beyond the capacity of a single state to address. It begins by examining the notion of global governance before parsing five “gaps” (knowledge, normative, policy, institutional, and compliance) in contemporary global governance that are the most insightful way to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the UN's past, present, and future roles. It then discusses the 2004 tsunami and global climate change to illustrate how this analytical lens works when examining a specific event and an issue-area.

Signed in as

Institutional accounts.

• GoogleCrawler [DO NOT DELETE]
• Google Scholar Indexing

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code

Institutional access

• Sign in with a library card Sign in with username/password Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Sign in through your institution

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Sign in with a library card

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Social Sciences

© 2024 Inquiries Journal/Student Pulse LLC . All rights reserved. ISSN: 2153-5760.

Disclaimer: content on this website is for informational purposes only. It is not intended to provide medical or other professional advice. Moreover, the views expressed here do not necessarily represent the views of Inquiries Journal or Student Pulse, its owners, staff, contributors, or affiliates.

Home | Current Issue | Blog | Archives | About The Journal | Submissions Terms of Use :: Privacy Policy :: Contact

Need an Account?

Forgot password? Reset your password »

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Can neo-realism explain contemporary global governance and international politics?

This essay covers the main characteristics of two main schools of thought in international relations theory: classical realism and neo-realism. The essay attempts to give contemporary politics examples in order to enhance the idea that neo-realism, in fact, serves as the best representation of how modern states behave in the field of international affairs. This paper implies that state-actors have a desire for power stronger that their will to cooperate with other state-actors. This theory is seen to hold since the US left the Paris Agreement due to reasons of self-interest. In addition, countries continue to invest considerable amount of funds into their military and defence sectors in order to maintain their positions in politics. The concepts of unipolarity and bipolarity are examined and are then compared with the current US-China relations. By reviewing theory and examples, this paper concludes that, indeed, neo-realism gives a credible account of contemporary state governance.

Related Papers

The Rest: Journal of Politics and Development

Since the end of the Cold War, old-fashioned power plays have been back in international relations, as confirmed by recent events and trends. Despite the growth of interdependence among states, borders are not crumbled and international actors continue to pursue their interests through the use of all the necessary means. Paradoxically, the liberal order has strengthened some realist principles and confirmed realism as a practical theory that has not necessarily a state-centric vision and does not deny any progress in international cooperation and change resulting from interdependence. The ability of governments to pursue domestic policies effectively is increasingly influenced by developments in the international system. Moreover, the return of geopolitics and power politics supports the (neo)realist postulate according to which the system tends towards the balance of power between the declining hegemon (U.S.) and the rising powers (etc), given the fact that every rising power is used to seeking to revise the status quo. This article provides an empirical explanation of the (proto)multipolar order in the light of the assumptions of political realism in its neoclassical declination.

Jacob Lucas Samoraj

This paper will assess the alleged relevance of the realist thinking in International Relations by answering the question whether Realism still dominates the theory and practice of International Relations. Examination of some core theoretical assumptions of Realism and assessment of the continuing significance of the realist thinking during the Cold War period and after will be undertaken with regard to both theory and practice. To answer the key research question whether Realism is still dominant, arguments against and in favour of the claim will be presented. Based on evidence, the line of argument establishes that although the realist depiction of International Relations, with its stress upon the distribution of power, provides an important departure and continuous insight, not to mention the ‘timeless wisdom’ into the understanding of the behaviour of states, it is not in itself definitive as Realism has some noticeable weaknesses. This paper begins from the premise that although Realism alone is insufficient for understanding of contemporary international relations, its insights remain necessary to that enterprise. The method adopted is Toulmin model of argument, which serves as a basis for structure and organization. The big idea is an elucidation on ‘an enlightened Realism’, which confirms the continuing validity of Realist principles throughout history. It is explained through a juxtaposition between statecraft by Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski. Despite arguments questioning the relevance of the classical paradigm Realism is nowhere near becoming irrelevant in the practice of some states. Whereas the discipline has witnessed an astounding flourishing of numerous post-classical theories of International Relations. Despite emergence of such new theories, it is reasonable to suggest that Realism has not become obsolete. Undeniably, Realism produces numerous prolific critics, perhaps deservedly, because in its power political mode, it provides instrumental interpretation of the international system. Some would argue even, immoral examination of international politics, as opposed to a normative one, unlocked by the study of alternative International Relations theories, such as the English School, Constructivism, Feminism, Green theories or Global Environmentalism. It will be argued, however, that scholars of international politics cannot totally discard the Realist paradigm since security, rather than economic development, still remains the most important concern for many states in the developing world (although emancipation concerns are coming to the fore as well). Realism’s applicability and ability to explain the current international politics remains unparalleled. Although the world is changing (45% of the world is democratic), in certain fundamentals, it has not changed as much as many contemporary International Relations theorists believe. To a large extent, it remains characterised by anarchy, and its attendant logic of self-help and struggle for survival. The world is still decentralised, the key political actors are states which are competitive. This confirms Realist analyses of power politics with states compelled by their anarchic environment to act in a ‘functionally undifferentiated’ manner while using capability advantages to gain more influence over outcomes based on power accumulation, as timeless. In other words, Realism as one of not many theoretical paradigms remains relevant despite the passing of history, in other words, it aspires to explain events even beyond history as it is the longest tradition of thinking about international political reality. Thus, Realism remains essential to understanding states’ choices and actions. Consequently, despite the emergence of postpositivist approaches, it would be incorrect, some would argue even naïve, to state that Realism is not dominant. However pessimistically it may sound, based on data and evidence of states' practice Realism persists. Realism is far from being an exhaustive theory though, neither has it existed without evident limitations, nor has it remained universally applicable to all times and epochs (despite claims for it being beyond history, i.e. being relevant in all epochs), but its savage, simplistic variant is still evident in the world. Whether in brutal acts of war, acts of avenge, revanchism, competition and breaking of human rights, Realism is still unrivalled when it comes to the conduct of states in the non-democratic world. However, Realism's influence is not monolithic when it comes to theory. Realism persists in acts of states only when weak leaders sacrificing integrity and objectivity decide to allow so, for example, by not disarming an aggressor in time, or by turning a blind eye to unlawful military interventions, or by not being guided by ethics. Hard military power counts for more in the context of international politics than it does in democratic domestic politics. In international relations, conquest, or pure coercion, is not leadership, but mere dictation. In other words, 'offensive' Realism exists, as long as, weak leaders who are on top of states follow the realist precepts and its attendant logic of competition, rivalry, carnal revenge and retort to war. In so doing though dictators put whole societies as well as liberal order in danger. In contrast, strong leaders help groups create and achieve shared goals. Successful transformational leadership is about change. When strong leaders allow for the possibility of transformation of the structure towards security community, then the realist logic no longer holds true and is not accurate. Realism and neo-realism are unable to explain structural change in world order. In line with the evidence, although Realism is not definitive (i.e. even weak leaders have alternatives and societies have democracy to choose strong leaders), it is alive and well, and it looks like it is not likely to disappear anytime soon from both theory and practice of International Relations. Primitive, savage and brutal elements are unfortunately still visible in 21st century civilized world. What can IR scholars do to make Realism less dominant in both IR theory and practice of states? The relationship between theory and practice is that of mutual, dual causality. If Realism persists on top echelons of power, it persists also in the practice of states. To change this, scholars have to initiate a theoretical innovation among the top most powerful statesmen. Realism persists unless IR scholars are actively engaged in innovative refinement and eclectic creation of new theories which could then be, in turn, readily applied by strong, transformational leaders, i.e. leaders who believe in change and bring about real, multiple social change. In principle, good theories lead to good policies since policy problems inspire theoretical innovation. Theories inform policy although policy makers pay relatively little attention to the vast theoretical literature in International Relations. If this trend could be reversed, if more scholars would become more interested in doing policy-relevant work and if more policy makers started to listen to IR scholars, then this would enable more effective bridging of the gap between theory and policy. If it is accepted that the point of IR theory is to enable a convergence in which political theory meets practice. Then, such an analytic activity could be, thereby leading to a smoother and swifter transfer of new, well crafted, fine-tuned, and more innovative theories strengthening 'transmission belt' from theory to policy. This would be followed by implementation of effective, successful policies to enable peaceful change though within the system, in actual reality, leading to the innovative and technological transformation of the whole system. Perhaps, even civilizing the International Society in the way that some of the English School scholars have long time ago envisaged. Creative, original ideas exist, but they are rarely applied by policy makers and statesmen who often discard eco-movements, feminist, postmodernist, pospositivist theories. Thus, if scholars and academics produce useful knowledge, as for example with the theory of 'an enlightened Realism', such constructive ideas could be implemented into the practice of statecraft. When successful, research for policy’s sake could perform an enlightenment function of social sciences (this metaphor illustrates the role of a theory in understanding the world of IR - we can only shed light on what is known, and even then, we cannot be 100% certain about the activity of theorising, for what is unknown remains in the darkness) making the discipline more diverse and the world a better place. Reminding at the same time that each of the theories whether classical or post-classical, reveal only part of truth about contemporary international political reality, and thus, from this standpoint, none is sufficiently satisfactory.

Keith Topper

In recent years a number of writers have defended and attacked various features of structural, or neorealist theories of international politics. Few, however, have quarrelled with one of the most foundational features of neorealist theory: its assumptions about the nature of science and scientific theories. In this essay I assess the views of science underlying much neorealist theory, especially as they are articulated in the work of Kenneth Waltz. I argue not only that neorealist theories rest on assumptions about science and theory that have been questioned by postpositivist philosophers and historians of science, but also that the failure to consider the work of these writers yields theories of international politics that are deficient in several respects: they are “weak” theories in the sense that they cannot illuminate crucial features of international politics, they presuppose and sustain a narrow view of power and power relations, they reify practices and relations in the international arena and they offer little promise of producing the sort of “Copernican Revolution” for which Waltz called (or, more modestly, even a minimally satisfactory theory of international politics). In light of these shortcomings, I sketch an alternative approach to the study of international affairs, one that has been termed “prototype studies.” I contend that such an approach provides scholars with a rigorous way of studying international politics, without being a theoretical science.

Michelle Toscano

Classical Realism vs. Neo-realism: Who wins?

Astiitah Faddy

Vikash Chandra, PhD

Strategic Analysis

David Nwogbaga

Theories are generalizations that help analyze and understand specifics. In international relations, several theories abound that help us understand international events and outcomes. Such theories are different and occasionally, share similar elements. In other words, some of them complement each other for a better understanding and analysis of international issues. In this research effort, realism and constructivism are juxtaposed to examine their compatibility in the study of international relations. The work argues that both theories are almost similar, with constructivism being an off shoot of realism, neo-realism. Hence, both complement each other especially when it affects the real essence of world happenings. From the world of imagination, image, idea, identity, et cetera, one moves to the real world where one acquires and uses power to one's advantage and interest, conditioning one's choices of allies and enemies. The result is that for a better understanding of international relations, a better grasp of the formation of national interest should be seen in the identity, norms, etc of states being mindful of the realities of the international system; anarchy and self-help.

Lukas Lausen

RELATED PAPERS

supplierpenumbuh rambutbotak

MATEC Web of Conferences

ZANARIAH ABD RAHMAN

Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine

Thomas O Clanton

World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, International Journal of Chemical, Molecular, Nuclear, Materials and Metallurgical Engineering

Ura Pancharoen

Cytoskeleton

Ritsu Kamiya

Historisk Tidskrift

Åsa Bergenheim

RNA Biology

Nilay Vaidya

Jorgelina Ambrosino

Eukaryotic Cell

YAOPING LIU

Estudios de Teoría Literaria

Marcela Coringrato

Silvia Sordella

Current Pharmaceutical Design

S N Schiffmann

European Urology Supplements

G. Carmignani

Cara Pembuatan Besek Bambu

nada tusonggama

AGRIVITA Journal of Agricultural Science

Ersan yuda Ersan

International journal of scientific and research publications

Janet Kipsanai

Matthew Elliott

John Chesworth

International Journal of Community Medicine and Public Health

Dr Sana Afrin

Suwardi Suwardi

Graciela Castellano Bentancur

hjhds jyuttgf

Faraday Discussions

Tamás Rozgonyi

Isabel Vilaseca

Robert Blecker

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Contemporary Agendas and Shifts in the Global Governance of Education

• First Online: 23 September 2023

Cite this chapter

• Maren Elfert   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2560-0064 24 &
• Christian Ydesen   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7804-6821 25  

Part of the book series: Educational Governance Research ((EGTU,volume 24))

436 Accesses

This concluding chapter reiterates and ties together the key arguments from the previous chapters and expands our main findings by relating them to contemporary developments and initiatives pursued by UNESCO, the OECD and the World Bank, as well as to the main theoretical perspectives we have outlined in Chap. 1 . The chapter also addresses contemporary shifts in the global governance of education, in particular the rising influence of the corporate sector and the shift from multilateralism to multistakeholderism. Finally, we offer some speculative reflections on its future trajectories, dynamics and agendas.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Josef Konvitz joined the OECD’s Urban Affairs Division as Principal Administrator in 1992, and became Head of Division in 1996. From 2003 to 2011, Konvitz was head of the OECD’s programme on regulatory policies.

Among many other positions, education expert Peter Williams worked as planning adviser in the Ministries of Education of Kenya and Ghana (1966–72); Lecturer at the University of London Institute of Education (1973–84), and Director of Education, Commonwealth Secretariat (1984–94).

Jacques Hallak spent most of his professional career at UNESCO and the IIEP, from 1988 in the position of Director. From 1987 to 1988, he did a brief stint at the World Bank. Between 1998 to 2000, Hallak was also Director of UNESCO’s International Bureau of Education (IBE), and in 2000, he served as UNESCO’s interim Assistant Director-General for Education.

Nicholas Burnett served as Director of the EFA Global Monitoring Report (2004–2007), UNESCO’s Assistant Director-General for Education (2007–2009) and Chair of the Governing Board of the IIEP (2016–21) with a background in the World Bank, where he was human development sector manager (1983–2000).

William Thorn is a former Senior Analyst in the Directorate for Education and Skills at the OECD. Among other tasks, he was in charge of the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC).

Given the current tensions between the United States and China, the return of the US may mean a challenging balancing act for UNESCO.

Richard Sack has worked for many decades as a consultant for international organizations in the field of education for development, including the World Bank and UNESCO. From 1995–2001 he was Executive Secretary of the Association for the Development of Education in Africa (ADEA), which was, then, hosted by the IIEP.

On the point of “country ownership”, see also Cammack, 2002 .

Anton de Grauwe is an independent consultant and former Senior Programme Specialist at the IIEP (where he worked for 26 years).

Ron Gass joined the OEEC in 1958 and worked for the OECD until his retirement in 1989. He was the first director of the OECD’s Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI).

Albert Tuijnman was Principal Administrator in the Education and Training Division at the OECD from 1992 to 1998. He was the main OECD contact for IALS and led one of the networks that conducted the INES project. He was the lead author of the first three Education at a Glance reports, published since 1992.

Stan Jones is a statistical expert who was involved in the development of the International Adult Literacy Survey (IALS) and other large-scale assessment surveys.

Addey, C. (2016). PISA for development and the sacrifice of policy-relevant data. Educacão & Sociedade, 37 (136), 685–706.

Article   Google Scholar  

Addey, C. (2017). Golden relics & historical standards: How the OECD is expanding global education governance through PISA for development. Critical Studies in Education, 58 (3), 311–325.

Auld, E., Rappleye, J., & Morris, P. (2018). PISA for development: How the OECD and World Bank shaped education governance post-2015. Comparative Education, 55 (2), 197–219.

Beeharry, G. (2019). Reducing learning poverty through a country-led approach. World Bank Blogs. https://blogs.worldbank.org/education/reducing-learning-poverty-through-country-led-approach

Benavot, A., & Smith, W. (2019). Reshaping quality and equity: Global learning metrics as a ready-made solution to a manufactured crisis. In A. Wulff (Ed.), Grading goal 4. Tensions, threats, and opportunities in the sustainable development goal on quality education (pp. 238–261). Brill Sense.

Google Scholar  

Bourdieu, P. (1989). Social space and symbolic power. Sociological Theory, 7 (1), 14–25.

Bryan, A. (2022). From the ‘conscience of humanity’ to the conscious human brain: UNESCO and the emergence of a global consensus on social and emotional learning. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education . https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2022.2129956 . (ahead of print).

Cammack, P. (2002). The mother of all governments: The World Bank’s matrix for global governance. In R. Wilkinson & S. Hughes (Eds.), Global governance: Critical perspectives (pp. 35–52). Routledge.

Cammack, P. (2022). The politics of global competitiveness . Oxford University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Candido, H. H. D., Granskog, A., & Tung, L. C. (2020). Fabricating education through PISA? An analysis of the distinct participation of China in PISA. European Education, 52 (2), 146–165.

Costin, C. (2015). Education 2030 and the road ahead. World Bank Blogs . https://blogs.worldbank.org/education/education-2030-and-road-ahead .

Cox, R. W. (with M. Schechter) (2002). The political economy of a plural world. Critical reflections on power, morals and civilisation. Routledge.

Deuel, R. P. (2021). Governing higher education toward neoliberal governmentality: A Foucauldian discourse analysis of global policy agendas. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 20 (3), 310–323.

Draxler, A. (2019). Education for all open for business? Public goods vs. private profits. In A. Wulff (Ed.), Grading goal 4. Tensions, threats, and opportunities in the sustainable development goal on quality education (pp. 156–169). Brill Sense.

Elfert, M. (2018). UNESCO’s utopia of lifelong learning: An intellectual history . Routledge Research in Education Series . Routledge.

Elfert, M. (2020). The OECD, American power, and the rise of the “economics of education”. In C. Ydesen (Ed.), The OECD’s historical rise in education: The formation of a global governing complex (pp. 39–62). Palgrave Macmillan.

Elfert, M. (2021). The power struggle over education in developing countries: The case of the UNESCO-World Bank co-operative program, 1964–1989. International Journal of Educational Development, 81 , 1–18.

Fontdevila, C. (2021). Global governance as promise-making. Negotiating and monitoring learning goals in the time of SDGs. Doctoral dissertation. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.

Fontdevila, C. (2023). The politics of good enough data. Developments, dilemmas and deadlocks in the production of global learning metrics. International Journal of Educational Development . (ahead of print).

Fukuda-Parr, S., & McNeill, D. (2019). Knowledge and politics in setting and measuring the SDGs: Introduction to special issue. Global Policy, 10 (1), 5–15.

Gleckman, H. (2018). Multistakeholder governance and democracy. A global challenge . Routledge.

Gorur, R. (2015). Producing calculable worlds: Education at a glance. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 36 (4), 578–595.

Gorur, R. (2016). Seeing like PISA: A cautionary tale about the performativity of international assessments. European Educational Research Journal, 15 (5), 598–616.

Grek, S. (2020). Prophets, saviours and saints: Symbolic governance and the rise of a transnational metrological field. International Review of Education, 66 (2–3), 139–166.

Henry, M., Lingard, B., Rizvi, F., & Taylor, S. (2001). The OECD, globalisation and education policy . Issues in Higher Education (Series Ed. Guy Neave). International Association of Universities and Elsevier Science.

Hüfner, K. (2015). What can save UNESCO? Frank & Timme.

Jankowicz, M. (2023, June 13). Worried about Chinese influence, the US is undoing Trump’s decision to quit UNESCO. It will probably cost $600 million. Businessinsider.com . https://www.businessinsider.com/us-rejoining-unesco-china-undoing-trump-decision-600-million-cost-2023-6?op=1&r=US&IR=T

Jessop, B. (2003). Globalization: It’s about time too! (Political science series, 85). Institute for Advanced Studies.

Kellow, A., & Carroll, P. (2022). The organization for economic cooperation and development and education. In D. A. Turner, H. Yolcu, & S. P. Hüsrevşahi (Eds.), The role of international organizations in education (pp. 135–154). Brill.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Kim, M. J. (2022). Happiness, politics and education reform in South Korea: Building ‘happy human capital’ for the future. Comparative Education . https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2022.2147633 . (ahead of print).

King, A. (2006). Let the cat turn around. One man’s traverse of the twentieth century . CPTM.

Komatsu, H., & Rappleye, J. (2017). A new global policy regime founded on invalid statistics? Hanushek, Woessmann, PISA, and economic growth. Comparative Education, 53 (2), 166–191.

Kranke, M. (2022). Exclusive expertise: The boundary work of international organizations. Review of International Political Economy, 29 (2), 453–476.

Lewis, S. (2020). PISA, policy and the OECD: Respatialising global educational governance through PISA for schools . Springer.

Lewis, S., & Lingard, B. (2023). Platforms, profits and PISA for schools: New actors, by-passes and topological spaces in global educational governance. Comparative Education, 59 (1), 99–117.

Li, T. M. (2007). The will to improve. Governmentality, development, and the practice of politics . Duke University Press.

Li, X. (2021). PISA and PISA for “development”: An inquiry into the OECD’s expansion into low-and middle-income countries. Doctoral thesis. Institute of Education, University College London.

Li, X., & Auld, E. (2020). A historical perspective on the OECD’s ‘humanitarian turn’: PISA for development and the learning framework 2030. Comparative Education, 56 (4), 503–521.

Li, X., & Morris, P. (2022). Generating and managing legitimacy: How the OECD established its role in monitoring sustainable development goal 4. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education . (ahead of print).

Lockheed, M., Prokic-Bruer, T., & Shadrova, A. (2015). The experience of middle-income countries participating in PISA 2000–2015 . World Bank/OECD Publishing.

Lynch, C., & Groll, E. (2017, October 6). As U.S. retreats from world organizations, China steps in to fill the void. Foreign Policy https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/10/06/as-u-s-retreats-from-world-organizations-china-steps-in-the-fill-the-void/

McBrian, J. (2022). Social and emotional learning (SEL) of newcomer and refugee students: Beliefs, practices and implications for policies across OECD countries (OECD Education Working Paper No. 266). https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/social-and-emotional-learning-sel-of-newcomer-and-refugee-students_a4a0f635-en

McMichael, P. (1996). Development and social change: A global perspective . Pine Forge Press.

Menashy, F. (2016). Understanding the roles of non-state actors in global governance: Evidence from the global Partnership for Education. Journal of Education Policy, 31 (1), 98–118.

Menashy, F. (2019). International aid to education. Power dynamics in an era of partnership . Teachers College Press.

Ministry of Education. (2023, May 23). The People’s Republic of China. UNESCO passes resolution on setting up category 1 institute in Shanghai. Press Release. http://en.moe.gov.cn/news/press_releases/202305/t20230524_1061137.html

Mundy, K. (2019, October 20). The new learning targets – Redux. Karen Mundy’s blog: Global governance and educational change . https://karenmundydotcom.wordpress.com/blog/

Mundy, K. (2021, May 21). Why do we keep failing to universalize literacy. A rejoindre to Girin Beeharry and an invitation to the Gates Foundation. Karen Mundy’s blog: Global governance and educational change . https://karenmundydotcom.wordpress.com/blog/

OECD. (1965). Problems of human resources planning in Latin America and in the Mediterranean regional project countries. Long-term Forecasts of Manpower Requirements and Educational Policies (Report on the Seminar held at Lima in March 1965 and complementary documents). OECD Archives.

OECD. (2019). The future of education and skills 2030: OECD learning compass 2030 . A series of concept notes. http://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/teaching-and-learning/learning/learning-compass-2030/OECD_Learning_Compass_2030_Concept_Note_Series.pdf

Pettersson, D., & Popkewitz, T. (2019). A chimera of quantifications and comparisons. In C. E. Mølstad & D. Pettersson (Eds.), New practices of comparison, quantification and expertise in education: Conducting empirically based research (pp. 18–36). Routledge.

Ravitch, D. (2014). Reign of error: The hoax of the privatization movement and the danger to America’s public schools . Vintage.

Ridge, N., & Kippels, S. (2019). UNESCO, education, and the private sector: A relationship on whose terms? In M. P. do Amaral, G. Steiner-Khamsi, & C. Thompson (Eds.), Researching the global education industry: Commodification, the market and business involvement (pp. 87–113). Palgrave Macmillan.

Robertson, S. L. (2021). Provincializing the OECD-PISA global competences project. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 19 (2), 167–182.

Saffari, S. (2016). Can the subaltern be heard? Knowledge production, representation, and responsibility in international development. Transcience, 7 (1), 36–46.

Saith, A. (2006). From universal values to millennium development goals: Lost in translation. Development and Change, 37 (6), 1167–1199.

Schleicher, A. (2022, June 7). The assessment regime of the future. The Royal Society Blog. https://royalsociety.org/blog/2022/06/envision-andreas-schleicher/

Seitz, K., & Martens, J. (2017). Philanthrolateralism: Private funding and corporate influence in the United Nations. Global Policy, 8 (5), 46–50.

Seitzer, H., Baek, C., & Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2023). Instruments of lesson-drawing: Comparing the knowledge brokerage of the OECD and the World Bank. Policy Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2023.2220282 . (ahead of print).

Sellar, S., & Lingard, B. (2013). Looking east: Shanghai, PISA 2009 and the reconstitution of reference societies in the global education policy field. Comparative Education, 49 (4), 464–485.

Shultz, L., & Viczko, M. (2021). What are we saving? Tracing governing knowledge and truth discourse in global COVID-19 policy responses. International Review of Education, 67 , 219–239.

Sklair, L. (1999). Competing conceptions of globalization. Journal of World Systems Research, V(2) , 143–163.

Sorensen, T. B., Ydesen, C., & Robertson, S. L. (2021). Rereading the OECD and education: The emergence of a global governing complex – An introduction. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 19 (2), 99–107.

Srnicek, N. (2013). Representing complexity: The material construction of world politics. Doctoral thesis. The London School of Economics and Political Science.

Táíwò, O. (2022). Against decolonisation. Taking African agency seriously . Hurst.

Tamatea, L. (2005). The Dakar framework: Constructing and deconstructing the global neoliberal matrix. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 3 (3), 311–334.

Tröhler, D., Piattoeva, N., & Pinar, W. F. (Eds.). (2021). World yearbook of education 2022: Education, schooling and the global universalization of nationalism (1st ed.). Routledge.

UIL (UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning) and Shanghai Open University. (2023). International trends of lifelong learning in higher education. Research report. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000385339

UNESCO. (2021). Reimagining our futures together: A new social contract for education . https://en.unesco.org/futuresofeducation/

UNESCO. (2022a). International forum on artificial intelligence and education 2022. Steering AI to empower teachers and transform learning. https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/international-forum-artificial-intelligence-and-education-2022

UNESCO. (2022b). UNESCO and the Qatar Fund for Development sign agreement with Education Above All Foundation to support the UN Transforming Education Summit. https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/unesco-and-qatar-fund-development-sign-agreement-education-above-all-foundation-support-un

UNESCO. (2022c). What you need to know about leading SDG4 – Education 2030. https://www.unesco.org/en/education/education2030-sdg4/need-know

UNESCO. (2022d). UNESCO signs new partnership with Asia Society to advance Global Citizenship Education. https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/unesco-signs-new-partnership-asia-society-advance-global-citizenship-education

UNESCO. (2023). An ed-tech tragedy? Educational technologies and school closures in the time of COVID-19 . UNESCO.

UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) (2021). SDG 4 Data Digest 2021. National SDG 4 benchmarks: Fulfilling our neglected commitment. UIS and UNESCO Global Education Monitoring Report. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000380387

UNESCO MGIEP. (2022). Reimagining education. The international science and evidence based education assessment. https://mgiep.unesco.org/iseeareport

United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A/RES/70/1. https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda

Vickers, E. (2022). Rebranding Gandhi for the 21st century: Science, ideology and politics at UNESCO’s Mahatma Gandhi Institute (MGIEP). Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education . https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2022.2108374 . (ahead of print).

Viseu, S. (2022). New philanthropy and policy networks in global education governance: The case of OECD’s netFWD. International Journal of Educational Research, 114 , 102001.

Williamson, B. (2021). Psychodata: Disassembling the psychological, economic, and statistical infrastructure of social-emotional learning. Journal of Education Policy, 36 (1), 129–154.

Williamson, B., & Piattoeva, N. (2019). Objectivity as standardization in data-scientific education policy, technology and governance. Learning, Media & Technology, 44 (1), 64–76.

World Bank. (2003). Lifelong learning in the global knowledge economy. Challenges for developing countries. .

World Bank. (2012). World Bank education sector strategy 2020: Learning for all. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/972031468149089763/world-bank-education-sector-strategy-2020-learning-for-all

World Bank. (2019). Ending learning poverty: What will it take? https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/32553

Wulff, A. (2019a). The twists and turns in negotiating a global education goal: A civil society perspective. In A. Wulff (Ed.), Grading goal 4. Tensions, threats, and opportunities in the sustainable development goal on quality education (pp. 28–64). Brill Sense.

Wulff, A. (2019b). Introduction: Bringing out the tensions, challenges, and opportunities within sustainable development goal 4. In A. Wulff (Ed.), Grading goal 4. Tensions, threats, and opportunities in the sustainable development goal on quality education (pp. 1–27). Brill Sense.

Ydesen, C. (2021). Journeying into the engine room of contemporary global education formation. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 20 (3), 414–417.

Zhao, Y. (2020). Two decades of havoc: A synthesis of criticism against PISA. Journal of Educational Change, 21 , 245–266.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Education, Communication & Society, King’s College London, London, UK

Maren Elfert

Department of Culture and Learning, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark

Christian Ydesen

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Elfert, M., Ydesen, C. (2023). Contemporary Agendas and Shifts in the Global Governance of Education. In: Global Governance of Education. Educational Governance Research, vol 24. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-40411-5_8

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-40411-5_8

Published : 23 September 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-40410-8

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-40411-5

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Homework Help
• Essay Examples
• Citation Generator
• Writing Guides
• Essay Title Generator
• Essay Topic Generator
• Essay Outline Generator
• Flashcard Generator
• Plagiarism Checker
• Paraphrasing Tool
• Conclusion Generator
• Thesis Statement Generator
• Introduction Generator
• Literature Review Generator
• Hypothesis Generator
• Global Governance Essays

Global Governance Essays (Examples)

1000+ documents containing “global governance” .

Filter by Keywords:(add comma between each)

Global governance an analysis of.

The peace (essentially established in estphalia) merely provided a pretext for liberty. As free market enterprises adapted to new ideas of liberty, the very security that the former liberty promised gave way to a new threat of domination through war. Putin is quite correct to assert that international law is being flouted by America: American corporate interests have larger concerns that the maintenance of international law: their business is business -- not peace. Such, of course, is problematic for any continuation of global governance, unless hegemony of a single governor takes the reigns. Lynn Miller states as much when she says "that the peace of the international community can be maintained [only] through a binding, predetermined agreement to take collective action to preserve it. It says that any illegal threat or use of force by any sovereign member of the international community against any other…should trigger the combined force of….

Works Cited

Brand, Ulrich. "Order and regulation: Global Governance as a hegemonic discourse of international politics?"

Cutler, A. Claire. "Global Governance."

Miller, Lynn H. "The Idea and the Reality of Collective Security."

"Putin Warns Against Flouting International Law For Own Interests." Spacewar. 2007.

Global Governance Global Civil Society

In these constructs, the nation-state is seen as the outgrowth of global political arrangements, as global desires for money and power shape the globalizing world (Meyer et al., 1999). But the primary weakness in this paradigm is the fact that a globalized world constructed through political means would be just that, a globalized world, but not necessarily a global civil society. Indeed, such an organization would fail to meet the requirements of an idealized global civil society. In addition, models that stress politics as the driving force of the global civil society forget that the contemporary driving forces of the global civil society are issues that all the world has an interest in, such as global climate change and emissions, terrorism, and the development of nuclear weapons. Further, those models forget the importance of culture and shared cultural values in the world system. Evidence of this is the degree….

Global Governance United Nations & Regional Organizations

GLOBAL GOVENANCE UNITED NATIONS & EGIONAL OGANIZATIONS The foundations and basic ideas of Global Governance are examined in the book 'International Organizations: The Politics and Processes of Global Governance' (Karns & Mingst, 2009). In the report below, three chapters from this text are first summarized, and then subsequently analyzed and discussed. Sections addressed are Chapter 3 - 'Foundation of the Pieces of Global Governance'; Chapter 4 - 'The United Nations: Centerpiece of Global Governance'; and Chapter 5 - 'egional Organizations'. For Chapter 3, a historical basis, beginning with Confucius, is developed for inter-national cooperation; this then leads to a discussion of the 'state' system (Karns and Mingst, 2009, 64). The current complexity of international organizations developed out of first the state system and then from international rules, in a slow development from early recorded history to the present (Karns and Mingst, 2009). As the authors state, Pierre Dubois proposed political alliances….

1) Karns, Margaret P, and Karen A Mingst. International Organizations: The Politics and Processes of Global Governance. 2nd ed.: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2009.

2) Dwivedi, Sangit. International Organizations And Global Governance. International Journal of Social Science & Interdisciplinary Research 1, no. 12 (2012). Accessed December 27, 2014.  http://www.indianresearchjournals.com/pdf/IJSSIR/2012/December/18.pdf .

3) Nobel Peace Prize, 2001.  http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2001 . Accessed December 27. 2014

globalization global governance and INGOs

1. Global governance refers to the shifting of political and economic institutions to transnational agents or organizations. A feature of globalization, global governance theoretically ensures collaboration and cooperation between sovereign nation-states as well as private sector enterprises. Global governance often includes participation by transnational or international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) as well as para-governmental organizations like the United Nations. Global governance recognizes the inevitability of interdependence for achieving mutually beneficial economic, political, and social goals. The goals of global governance vary depending on regional differences and differential needs. International economics organizations like the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization, and the World Bank have become fully integrated into global economic strategies. Global governance groups do form policies and follow protocols, which are enforced mainly with sanctions and censure rather than through military pressure. Global governance often has a regional focus, but is occasionally truly international in scope. Some of the international issues….

Evolution of Global Governance

21st century experienced many changes. Some of which related to political and civil unrest and terrorist attacks. The issues surrounding global governance and the outcomes of such problems in the present day have sparked the interests of researchers and analysts. They have come to a better understanding. With closer integration of nations worldwide through globalization, greater need for collective action arises. Although globalization increased within the last decade, it is greater in terms of economic globalization vs. political globalization. Even in most recent years, development of an international rule of law has not truly formed. Instead, certain rules, like the WTO rules governing worldwide trade, are extremely unfair. "…they have been designed to benefit the developed countries, partly at the expense of the developing countries" (Stiglitz, 2004, p. 2). In order to address specific issues when it comes to global governance, it is important to approach international problems in a….

Dingwerth, K. (2014). Global democracy and the democratic minimum: Why a procedural account alone is insufficient. European Journal Of International Relations, 20(4), 1124-1147. doi:10.1177/1354066113509116

Gray, K., & Murphy, C. (2013). Introduction: rising powers and the future of global governance. Third World Quarterly, 34(2), 183-193. doi:10.1080/01436597.2013.775778

Stiglitz, J. (2004). The Future of Global Governance. Columbia.edu. Retrieved 16 January 2015, from  http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac%3A126569

Global Governance Networks

EDD+ Threaten to ecentralize Forest Governance" by Phelps and colleagues examines the phenomenon of the educing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (EDD+) movement and how this trend might lead to a disturbing tendency of decentralized forest management. Ultimately Phelps and associates argue that in order for the proper balance to be achieved, communities need to have the ultimate control over the design of EDD+ and the exact manner in which it is implemented. Keeping control at the local level will ensure that the integrity of the environment is maintained in the present and in the years to come. Furthermore, Phelps and company are pushing for the optimization of EDD+ policies through more intensified research. Finding a sense of harmony is the ultimate option. "There is a tension between the urgency to reduce emissions and science-based EDD+ governance that could benefit millions of forest-dependent people and could reduce forest….

Betsill, M., & Bulkeley. (2004). Transnational Networks and Global Environmental Governance. International Studies Quarterly, 471 -- 493.

Busheley, B. (2012). Seeing the Communities for the Carbon:. Re-Considering Development.

Huppe, G., H., C., & Knoblach, D. (2012). The Frontiers of Networked Governance. The International Institute for Sustainable Development, 1-36.

Khan, J. (2012). What role for network governance in urban low carbon transitions? Journal of Cleaner Production, 133 -- 139.

Emerging Global Governance

Globalization The UN Convention on the ights of the Child was first signed in 1989. According to the primary document, the underlying principles of the convention are in the "inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family." In that sense, the Convention on the ights of the Child builds upon the Universal Declaration of Human ights, where the UN declared that childhood is entitled to special and assistance. The objectives of the document are to provide a framework for provisions for the welfare of children. So for example, it is stated in the convention that "the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration" in courts of law, and in social welfare institutions. State parties should also "ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child." The Convention then details other elements of protecting children, which is the….

References:

Cohen, L. & DeBenedet, A. (2012). Why is the U.S. against children's rights? Time. Retrieved October 5, 2013 from  http://ideas.time.com/2012/01/24/why-is-the-us-against-childrens-rights/ 

UHCHR.org (2013). Committee on the rights of the child. UHCHR.org. Retrieved October 5, 2013 from  http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/crc/ 

UHCHR.org. (2013). Convention on the rights of the child. UHCHR.org. Retrieved October 5, 2013 from  http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx

Global Governance Human Security

.....pursuing graduate studies for professional and personal advancement. A graduate program for professional improvement will prime me for a profession in business, civil service, and nonprofit settings. The programs merge discipline-specific and complex coursework with competence such as critical thinking, multitasking/time management, and analytical thinking that are carried over even with change of profession. Moreover, completing a graduate degree signifies steadfastness, purpose, strength of mind and resilience, and individuals who possess these notable qualities are in great demand to fill innumerable positions. According to NYU (2015), my advancement within an organization lies in my ability to prove success in a long-term state requiring strength, discipline, and the willingness to work cooperatively with others. On the personal level, earning a graduate degree will not only expand and strengthen my education, but it will also instill significant skills and fresh knowledge to become a successful frontrunner and innovator at the conclusion of the….

Global Governmentality Governing International Spaces

In this order of ideas then, he strives to come up with a theory that explains the construction of global networks, as well as the systems they use to grow and prosper. In order to make his case, Kendall looks at global structures constructed in various domains, including society and technology. He comes to the realization that global peace and order can only be achieved with the full cooperation and collaboration of all structures in the international system. Additionally, there must exist a will and a way in order for the mentioned goals to be achieved. While he recognizes that his arguments address a certain kind of economists and politicians who promoted the idea of a uniform and powerful globalization, he hopes that his points will the least make for an interesting reading. inally, in the last chapter of the book's first part, The Security of Governance, author Michael Dillon starts….

Finally, in the last chapter of the book's first part, The Security of Governance, author Michael Dillon starts at the premise that there exists a direct connection between the three components of population, government and security. This conclusion was found throughout a previous study, which came to raise new questions that are answered in the current analysis. In a perfect world, peace would be achieved through fruitful partnerships between private and public players and would ensure the safety of all populations and all classes. Yet, this is not the case and Dillon argues that while governmentality is the collection of cooperations and collaborations, it represents more of a "technological ontology that proceeds through reflexive epistemologies."

In other words, there is a direct connection between technology and ontology as they validate each other and support each other in reaching the pre-established goals. "Here the dialogical interplay of the ontological and the technological is in evidence. If it takes a metaphysic to imagine a technic, it takes a technic to realize a metaphysic. But even that rendition fails to do justice to the co-evolutionary dynamic that exists in the power relations between technology and ontology. This is a mutually disclosive relationship in which each seems propelled by independent dynamics as well: the technologist continuously to interrogate and refine systems, the ontologist to secure the meaning of being.

Larner, W., Walters, W., 2004, Global Governmentality: Governing International Spaces, Routledge

Global Refugee Regime Seems to Be Veering

Global Refugee Regime eems to Be Veering Away From Traditional Rules As the threat of war looms large, the situation of those displaced because of violence and fights is becoming the focal point of talks amidst humanitarian groups. Many wrote about the situation in Afghanistan. The last many years have brought about quite a lot of enormous "refugee movements and humanitarian emergencies." More than 50 million people have been displaced by conflicts, war and other disasters and things may get worse. The many organizations that offer aid to those who are forced to flee from their native lands are trying their level best to reach out and help each one of them. But nations all over seem to be hesitant to take in refugees who do not have any place else to go. What is the solution? How can humanitarian agencies cope with the increasing number of refugees? A book report from….

Agamben, Giorgio (1995). We refugees.(Section 2: Issuing Identity) Symposium v49, n2 (Summer):114

Appling, Cathy (1995). United Nations Involvement in Haiti from a Humanitarian Perspective. Current World Leaders 38, 4, Aug, 83-98.

Copeland, Emily (1992). Global refugee policy: an agenda for the 1990s. (Conference Reports) International Migration Review v26, n3 (Fall):992

Deng, Francis M. (1995). Dealing with the Displaced: A Challenge to the International Community. Global Governance 1, 1, winter, 45-57.

Global Business Analysis - India

This behavio is not consideed dishonest; in fact, and Indian peson would be consideed ude if he o she did not ty to attempt to give a peson what has been equested. Anothe vey impotant aspect of business cultue in India is the meeting etiquette. Meeting Etiquette is influenced by all sots of cultual elements descibed above, including social class. Fo example, in India, one must geet the eldest o moe senio fist, and when leaving a goup each peson must bid faewell individually. Though shaking hands is common, this is only in big cities, whee the natives ae accustomed to Westenes. Men and women, howeve, do not usually shake hands. The next pat of the business cultue is knowing Indian names, and whee they oiginate. Accoding to one aticle, names ae based upon "eligion, social class, and egion of the county." Fo Hindus fo example, in the noth, people ae….

references taken from "India: Language, Culture, Customs and Etiquette." (2011). Kwintesential. Retrieved August 13, 2011, from .

List provided by Shukla, M. (2011). "Guide to India." Executive Planet: Wiki. Retrieved August 13, 2011, from .

Jayaganesh, M & Shanks, G. (2009). "A cultural analysis of Business Process Management governance in Indian organizations." Department of Information Systems, University of Melbourne. Retrieved August 13, 2011, from .

Jayaganesh, M & Shanks, G. (2009). "A cultural analysis of Business Process Management governance in Indian organizations." Department of Information Systems, University of Melbourne. Retrieved August 13, 2011, from . s

McKnight, D., Stokes, P., Vilmenay, J. (2003). "India - A Market Analysis: For Staples Incorporated." University of Maryland. Retrieved August 13, 2011, from .

Global Financial Strategy

Global Financial Strategy Critical assessment of the proposal to raise capital locally rather than in the UK In the analysis of the proposal of raising capital locally rather than in the UK, it is essential to consider four critical aspects: costs, risks, benefits/advantages, and limitations/disadvantages. In the presentation of this critical assessment, the focus will be on the four factors or aspect in order to offer reliable analysis of the situation. Costs In the process of raising capital locally rather than in the UK, the organization must incur several costs. One of the essential costs is the professional cost. This refers to the amount of money or financial resources paid to the legal advisors, auditors, and reporting accountants in order to execute the process of raising the capital effectively and appropriately. Another important aspect of cost is the trading cost. These are direct costs including the brokerage commissions and financial resources paid by investors….

Burnham, P 2010, 'Class, Capital and Crisis: A Return to Fundamentals', Political Studies Review, 8, 1, pp. 27-39,

Carvalhal, A, & Camara Leal, R 2013, 'The World Financial Crisis and the International Financing of Brazilian Companies', Brazilian Administration Review (BAR), 10, 1, pp. 18-39,

'Chad' 2013, Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6Th Edition, pp. 1-3,

Chana Kok, T, & Yap Voon, C 2011, 'Risk Factors of Commercial Banks in Malaysia', Journal Of Modern Accounting & Auditing, 7, 6, pp. 578-587,

Global Leaders as the 21st Century Unfolds

Global Leaders As the 21st century unfolds, we are told that the world is embracing globalism -- a key change in the economic, political and cultural movements that, broadly speaking, move the various countries of the world closer together. This idea refers to a number of theories that see the complexities of modern life such that events and actions are tied together, regardless of the geographic location of a specific country (political unit). The idea of globalism has become popular in economic and cultural terms with the advent of a number of macro-trade agreements combined with the ease of communication brought about with the Internet and cellular communication. Would we not logically think, then, that countries in the developing world would be doing their upmost to encourage global thinking? That these same countries would embrace the chance to forge a nation of entrepreneurs and move into a position of self-sustaining economic growth?….

Committee For Economic Development. (2006). Education for Global Leadership: The

Importance of International Studies and Foreign Language Education for U.S. Economic

And National Security. CED. Retrieved from: http://www.ced.org/images/library/reports/education/report_foreignlanguages.pdf

Graham, J.P. (2005). The Globalization of the Small Enterprise. Going Global. Retrieved from:

Global Financing and Exchange Rate

That is supposed to have become one market which does not entail any tariff distinctions between the nations. But it should be noted that some of the analysts feel that it will never become a single entity market, but will remain separated into different varying national markets. The reason is being ascribed to "cultural, informational, logistic barriers and perhaps remaining discriminatory barriers all of which imply an incurable tendency to award contracts to local suppliers." (Is Culture a Major Barrier to a Single European Market? The Case of Public Purchasing) The general aim of free trade has however changed and it is now not limited any more to the removal of barriers in being able to sell the products made in one country to other countries of the world. This is considered to be even more important for that of the developing countries wherein their progress in development made however….

Madsen, Poul Thois. "Is Culture a Major Barrier to a Single European Market? The Case of Public Purchasing" Retrieved at  http://www.ihis.aau.dk/~pmadsen/purchase.htm . Accessed 18 September, 2005

Market Access and Protocol Commitments" Retrieved at  http://www.uschina.org/public/wto/ch-memo.html . Accessed 18 September, 2005

Non-tariff Barriers to Imports" Retrieved at  http://www.wright.edu/~tran.dung/Chapter8_Pugel.htm . Accessed 18 September, 2005

Tariff" Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved at  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TariffAccessed  18 September, 2005

Global Corporate Governance and Social Responsibility

Global Corporate Governance and Social Responsibility Microsoft Corporation An in-depth analysis of all possible factors responsible for the Social efforts Socio-Economic, Cultural, Technological and Legal Factors Strategic ideas involved in addressing corporate social responsibility issues The Unique Composition of Microsoft Creating etter-Quality Products Using Conventional and Contemporary Resources Political acumen In recent years, augmented degree of interest has been shown on the subject of "Corporate Social Responsibility," also known as "CSR." This interest has been shown, both in the international/national business and academic circles, because almost all the current studies indicate that "Corporate Social Responsibility" increases the credibility of the business in the eyes of the stakeholders, both within and outside the organization (Isabelle and David, 2002). Another reason for the increased interest being shown in the direction of "Corporate Social Responsibility," both by international/national business and academic circles, is because of the constant emphasis by the global society towards the business community to play a more positive and constructive….

Bibliography

Bill Gates. Business @ the Speed of Thought: Succeeding in the Digital Economy. Warner Business Books; 2001

Christine L. Smith. Corporate Social Responsibility: A Dutch Approach. International Labor Review, 2002.

Doug Dayton. Selling Microsoft: Sales Secrets from Inside the World's Most Successful Company. Adams Media Corporation. 1999.

David Thielen, Shirley Thielen. The 12 Simple Secrets of Microsoft Management: How to Think and Act Like a Microsoft Manager and Take Your Company to the Top. McGraw-Hill. 1999.

Need help generating essay topics related to Artificial Intelligence. Can you help?

The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Human Society The Ethical Implications of AI: Balancing Progress with Human Well-being The Economic Impact of AI: Transforming Industries and Empowering Efficiency AI and Social Inequality: Addressing the Potential Divide The Future of Education in the Age of AI: Empowering Personalized Learning The Transformative Potential of AI in Medicine: Enhancing Diagnosis, Treatment, and Care Technical and Philosophical Aspects of AI The Turing Test and the Nature of Consciousness in AI Machine Learning Algorithms: Exploring Techniques and Applications Bias and Fairness in AI: Mitigating Unintended Consequences The Singularity Hypothesis: Exploring the Future of AI and its....

Can you provide guidance on how to outline an essay focusing on The relevance of the state and globalization

I. Introduction A. Definition of the state B. Definition of globalization C. Importance of understanding the relationship between the state and globalization II. The Role of the State in a Globalized World A. Discuss how the state is the traditional unit of governance B. Explain how the state retains power despite globalization C. Analyze the state's role in global governance III. Globalization and its Impact on the State A. Discuss how globalization has eroded state sovereignty B. Explain how states have adapted to globalization C. Analyze the changing role of the state in a globalized world IV. The Relevance of the State in....

I\'m not very familiar with global south in international security p. Could you suggest some essay topics to help me learn more?

Essay Topics on the Global South in International Security The Global South refers to developing countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and Oceania. The Global South has a unique perspective on international security, which is often overlooked in mainstream discourses. This essay will explore the Global South's perspective on international security and its implications for global governance. Topic 1: The Global South's Concept of Security How do Global South countries define security? What are the key threats to security in the Global South? How does the Global South's concept of security differ from that of the Global North? Topic 2: The Global South's....

Business - Law

The peace (essentially established in estphalia) merely provided a pretext for liberty. As free market enterprises adapted to new ideas of liberty, the very security that the former…

In these constructs, the nation-state is seen as the outgrowth of global political arrangements, as global desires for money and power shape the globalizing world (Meyer et al.,…

GLOBAL GOVENANCE UNITED NATIONS & EGIONAL OGANIZATIONS The foundations and basic ideas of Global Governance are examined in the book 'International Organizations: The Politics and Processes of Global Governance'…

Global Politics

1. Global governance refers to the shifting of political and economic institutions to transnational agents or organizations. A feature of globalization, global governance theoretically ensures collaboration and cooperation between…

21st century experienced many changes. Some of which related to political and civil unrest and terrorist attacks. The issues surrounding global governance and the outcomes of such problems…

Article Review

Business - Management

EDD+ Threaten to ecentralize Forest Governance" by Phelps and colleagues examines the phenomenon of the educing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (EDD+) movement and how this trend…

Research Paper

Globalization The UN Convention on the ights of the Child was first signed in 1989. According to the primary document, the underlying principles of the convention are in the "inherent…

.....pursuing graduate studies for professional and personal advancement. A graduate program for professional improvement will prime me for a profession in business, civil service, and nonprofit settings. The programs…

Research Proposal

In this order of ideas then, he strives to come up with a theory that explains the construction of global networks, as well as the systems they use to…

Global Refugee Regime eems to Be Veering Away From Traditional Rules As the threat of war looms large, the situation of those displaced because of violence and fights is becoming…

History - Asian

This behavio is not consideed dishonest; in fact, and Indian peson would be consideed ude if he o she did not ty to attempt to give a peson…

Global Financial Strategy Critical assessment of the proposal to raise capital locally rather than in the UK In the analysis of the proposal of raising capital locally rather than in the…

Global Leaders As the 21st century unfolds, we are told that the world is embracing globalism -- a key change in the economic, political and cultural movements that, broadly speaking,…

That is supposed to have become one market which does not entail any tariff distinctions between the nations. But it should be noted that some of the analysts…

Global Corporate Governance and Social Responsibility Microsoft Corporation An in-depth analysis of all possible factors responsible for the Social efforts Socio-Economic, Cultural, Technological and Legal Factors Strategic ideas involved in addressing corporate social…

TCW 101: Global Governance and the Role of the UN

This document discusses global governance and the role of the United Nations. It defines global governance as the sum of laws, norms, policies and institutions that define, constitute and mediate trans-border relations without a world government. The United Nations plays an essential role in global governance by managing knowledge, developing norms through conferences, formulating recommendations by convening groups, and institutionalizing ideas through its organizations that work on solutions. Significant international treaties that shape global governance include the UN Charter (1945), GATT (1947), Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (1979), Kyoto Protocol (2005), and Rome Statute (1988). Read less

Recommended

More related content, what's hot, what's hot ( 20 ), similar to tcw 101: global governance and the role of the un, similar to tcw 101: global governance and the role of the un ( 20 ), recently uploaded, recently uploaded ( 20 ).

• 1. TCW 101 CONTEMPORARY GLOBAL GOVERNANCE Presentation by Wu, Ashley T.
• 2. TODAY'S TOPICS WHAT WE'LL DISCUSS Define Global Governance Identify The Roles & Functions Of United Nations Determine The Challenges To Global Governance In The 21st Century
• 3. 20% apply their lessons to other fields
• 4. How is the world governed in the absence of a world government ?
• 5. INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS are treaties signed by a number of states that establish global rules of conduct. States that break these rules are called rogue states (North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Syria) INTERNATIONAL LAW is the collection of rules and regulations that define the rights and obligations of states
• 6. SIGNIFICANT INTERNATIONAL TREATIES United Nations Charter (1945) Created the united nations GATT (1947) Greatly reduced tariffs & boosted trade Convention On The Elimination Of All Forms Of Discrimination Against (1979) International bill of rights for women Rome Statute (1988) Established the international criminal court Kyoto Protocol (2005) Regulates greenhouse emissions to reduce global warming
• 7. INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS Some international agreements create international organizations that set rules for nations and provide venues for diplomacy
• 8. GLOBAL GOVERNANCE • The sum of laws, norms, policies and institutions that define , constitute and mediate trans-border relations between states, cultures, citizens, intergovernmental and nongovernmental organization and the market. • There is no central authority • THERE IS NO GLOBAL GOVERNMENT
• 9. To examine the essential/ ideational role of UN in the 21st century THE UNITED NATIONS : AS A GLOBAL GOVERNANCE ACTOR
• 10. ESSENTIAL/ IDEATIONAL ROLE OF UN IN THE 21ST CENTURY MANAGING KNOWLEDGE Addressing a problem that goes beyond the capacity of the state DEVELOPING NORMS Helps to solidify new norm of behavior, often through summit, conferences and international panels and commissions FORMULATING RECOMMENDATIONS A policy actor because of its ability to convene and consult INSTITUTIONALIZING IDEAS Every problem has several global institutions working on significant aspects of solutions
• 11. QUIZ ¼ Sheet Yellow Paper “1/4 Po?” Yes 1/4
• 13. ME FEELING IMMUNE TO CORONAVIRUS AFTER EATING 3 OVALTINE TABLETS
• 14. 1. What do you call the treaties signed by a number of states that establish global rules of conduct?
• 15. 2. What is the sum of laws, norms, policies and institutions that define , constitute and mediate trans-border relations between states
• 16. 3. What do you call the collection of rules and regulations that define the rights and obligations of states?
• 17. 4. Give an example of international organization
• 18. 5. An international treaty that is defined as the international bill of rights for women and its year
• 19. 6. Give an example of essential role of un in the 21st century
• 20. 6. Give an example of essential role of un in the 21st century
• 21. 7-10. Give three examples of significant international treaties and the date it was signed

Editor's Notes

• In order to make the global system less chaotic and unpredictable, states often make agreements with one another to modify their behavior
• Offers loans to more than 100 states promote peace - eu
• 2. Ex. HIV – AIDS Awareness Campaign, Anti- Human Trafficking, Climate Change 3. Reduce global warming, prosecution of human rights violations, poverty reduction, etc 4. Greenpeace, Human Rights Watch, Transparency International, Interparliamentary Union

Global Governance Essay

Global governance means a direction toward political cooperation between different nations aimed at addressing a wide range of global problems that affect each nation. There are several institutions of global governance, including the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Criminal Court and others. Hence, there is no global government to control the world collectively. These institutions, both intergovernmental organizations, and nongovernmental organizations help to provide to global governance in a proper way. According to experts, global governance allows finding solutions to common problems that affect the world in an adverse way (Lechner & Boli, 2014). The issues or threats addressed through global governance include reduction of environmental threats, nuclear threats, addressing peace, security and social justice issues, and other issues.

Moreover, it is necessary to identify the types of actors important in global governance. These actors include governments and non-state actors, such as NGOs, business organizations like MNCs and science organizations like the International Council for Science and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. These types of actors serve their roles in establishing the proper conditions for the processes of globalization. According to Dodgson and colleagues (2014), “globalization is reducing the capacity of states to provide for the health of their domestic populations, and by extension, intergovernmental health cooperation is also limited (p. 297). Non-state actors help to deal with this problem through increased cooperation (Ritzer & Dean, 2015).

Besides, it becomes clear that globalization is diluting the role of the nation-state. Nation-states are focused on developing networks to address the challenges caused by globalization. Nation-states can be transformed to form networks like allied nation-states and international network of states (Meyer et al., 2014). Civil society organizations are important in addressing global threats. Due to the strengthened roles for civil society organizations and especially NGOs, it is possible to resolve many complicated problems, including global health issues. INGOs help to ensure effective practices in the areas of science, engineering, knowledge management, sports, hobbies, management techniques, medicine, and others (Lechner & Boli, 2014).

Wal-Mart Marketing Essay

Doping scandal: russian athletes competing as neutrals. what next, writing help.

Our Benefits

• Professional Writers
• Plagiarism Free papers
• Friendly Customer Support
• Reasonable Prices

Free Extras

• Plagiarism FREE Papers
• FREE Title Page
• FREE Bibliography
• FREE Formatting
• FREE Delivery

Service Features

• Custom Written
• Fully Referenced
• 300 Words per Page
• Any Citation Style
• 12 point Courier New Font
• Double spacing

LEGAL NOTICE

Custom papers you get from our writing experts should be used for research purposes only. These papers are not supposed to be submitted for academic credit.

• Writing Services
• Essay Samples
• Essay Types
• Terms of Services
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Testimonials