Global governance

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The term global governance describes both a political program and a political or social science research program. As a political program, global governance means the cooperative, multilateral shaping of globalization . The Brundtland Report published in 1987 , the end of the Cold War and the final report Our Global Neighborhood published by the Commission on Global Governance in 1995 were groundbreaking .

In addition to these social developments, global governance was taken up as a research program in the social sciences. In the tradition of (neo) liberal institutionalism , here in particular the theories of interdependence , the global governance approaches examine the intensification of international cooperation and the transformation of the international system, in which the anarchic system of sovereign nation-states evidently turns into a multilevel system with inclusion of non-state actors is changing. Probably the earliest more powerful become publication Governance without Government of Czempiel and Rosenau was (1992), tried in the to model Authority as a "system of rule" (dt .: "regimes"), which authorized without formally and with monopoly equipped actor comes into play.

In contrast to government , the term governance emphasizes the absence of a formal hierarchy and, in the broadest sense, emphasizes the collective regulation of social activities. Depending on the understanding of the term used by the individual authors, “governance” can be understood to be both complementary and superordinate to “government”. This very far-reaching conception is an essential argument for critical reflection on global governance. Claus Offe described the term global governance as an “empty signifier”, an empty phrase that can be used at will.

As a German translation was, for example, global governance , global governance and global regulatory and structural policies proposed. However, none of these variants has caught on, so that the English-language name is usually used.

definition

Dirk Messner defines the term as: "Development of a system of institutions and rules and new mechanisms of international cooperation that allow the continuous processing of global challenges and cross-border phenomena." Accordingly, the term describes the striving for or the entirety of institutions , rule systems and mechanisms , with whom different actors discuss and decide global challenges.

A distinction can be made between several variations of the term, which are summarized under global governance :

1. According to a neorealist perspective , global governance is a synonym for the German term international politics . It describes the anarchic state of affairs in international politics in which the nation states act. Global governance distinguishes itself from national governance . In this sense, global governance simply serves to describe the structural changes in international politics. Actors at different levels are examined and their coordination mechanisms are worked out. In this understanding, global governance is not a normative term that describes good or bad practices. Rather, the forms of cooperation between various actors on the international level are described in a value-neutral manner.
2. This neorealist view contradicts the institutionalist view that through the formation of international regimes the cooperation between states can be consolidated, legalized and thus at least brought closer to a common global control.
3. In the more general social science area, the term global governance describes the search for global problem solutions in the course of globalization. In this understanding, global governance should rather be understood as a concept of how global problems can be solved in the absence of a world government (global government) . The term is associated with a striving for problem solving and the attempt to include different actors in a network of institutions and regulations that allow the challenges of globalization to be met. With global governance while the solution-oriented, decentralized control of processes of globalization is meant by voluntary co-operation in the absence of a world government.

Differentiation from other terms

Global governance does not mean global government ( world government ). In the context of global governance processes, the nation states retain their sovereignty , but practice forms of voluntary cooperation. However, this restriction is partially criticized, for example by world federalist scientists who understand global governance to be a process that is open to development and which could well result in forms of global governance.

Global governance goes beyond the meaning of the term international politics , unless it is based on the neo-realistic understanding ( see above ). International politics refers to the political area in which states maintain political relationships with one another. Global governance , on the other hand, denotes the totality of coordination processes of different actors, not only state ones, with which global challenges can be mastered and global opportunities seized, and is also differentiated from the term international politics by its problem-solving orientation.

features

Global governance is defined by certain modes of action and characteristics:

  1. the search for solutions to long-term, cross-border problems (e.g. growth in world population),
  2. the creation of new political structures to solve these problems (in addition to formal regulations, informal regulations now also play a role; greater importance is attached to the relationship between state and non-state actors),
  3. Addressing the distribution of tasks at different political levels (regulatory patterns of state and non-state actors can be located at the local, national , regional and global level),
  4. the search for cross-policy structures and
  5. dynamic, ever-changing concept that is influenced by changes in power, interests, values ​​and ideas.

Levels

The architecture of global governance knows different actors at different levels:

A problem of global governance lies in the national interests of the sovereign states. These often contradict each other with regard to the need for global solutions to problems (for example, the US is striving not to hinder its economy by complying with the Kyoto Protocol ).

Global governance as an academic discipline

In view of the ambiguous use of the term global governance as a concept in international politics , as shown above , some authors have suggested defining it methodologically rather than substantively. Accordingly, global governance in this sense is an analytical method that offers an independent perspective on political processes, which can differ from that in the existing subject of " international relations ". Some universities, including those that offer "International Relations" courses, have now set up their own global governance courses.

Critical review

The concept of control and problem-solving inherent in the Global Governance project is viewed critically. Relevant issues are described in terms of regulatory problems that can be eliminated through the most efficient control possible. Ulrich Brand has analyzed global governance in terms of a hegemonic discourse according to Foucault . He points out that the control logic does not ask about causes or conflicts of interest, but only about efficient problem-solving options. The emergence of new, especially private, actors is also seen as problematic. NGOs, private companies, think tanks or groups of experts are usually not constitutionally anchored and therefore have a legitimation deficit . The attribution of responsibility in multi- stakeholder approaches with the inclusion of such novel actors also remains problematic . John R. Bolton , for example, draws attention to this fact when he writes: "[...] the civil society idea actually suggests a 'corporativist' approach to international decision-making that is dramatically troubling for democracy because it posits 'interests' ( whether NGOs or businesses) as legitimate actors along with popularly elected governments ". The idea already hinted at by Bolton that problem solving can best be done by (non-governmental) expert groups ( interests ), as is the case with Haas' Epistemic communities or Slaughters “government networks”, is also viewed critically by Shapiro , consequently by Global Governance “experts and enthusiasts” who represent their respective interests are favored, but “both knowledge and passion generate perspectives that are not those of the rest of us.” Other authors deny that it is within the framework of the global governance concept postulated change in the policy-making process at all. Global Government assumes that there is a shift in power from the state to non-state actors in the sense of a zero-sum game . Ole Sending and Iver Neumann , on the other hand, tried to use Foucault 's concept of governmentality to show that non-state actors such as NGOs are co-opted by governments, i.e. that the gain in regulatory competence for the non-state sector does not automatically mean a loss on the part of the state.

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Messner, Dirk: Globalization, global governance and perspectives of development cooperation, in: Franz Nuscheler (Ed.): Development and Peace in the 21st Century, Bonn 2000, pp. 267–294.
  2. ↑ K.Dingwerth and P.Pattberg, "Global Governance as a Perspective on World Politics" (2006) Global governance Vol. 12, p.198.
  3. ↑ Ulrich Brand: "Order and regulation: Global governance as a hegemonic discourse of international politics?" In: Review of International Political Economy 12 (1), 2005, pp. 155–176.
  4. ↑ John R. Bolton, “Should We Take Global Governance Seriously?” In: Chicago Journal of International Law, No. 1, 2000, pp. 205-222.
  5. ↑ Martin Shapiro: "Administrative Law Unbounded: Reflections on Government and Governance" In: Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 8 (2), 2001, pp. 369-377
  6. ↑ Ole Jacob Sending, Iver B. Neumann: "Governance to Governmentality: Analyzing NGOs, States, and Power", In: International Studies Quarterly, No. 50, 2006, pp. 651–672

See also

literature

  • Franz Nuscheler (Ed.): Development and Peace in the Sign of Globalization . Bonn 2000.
  • Maria Behrens (ed.): Globalization as a political challenge. Global governance between utopia and reality , Wiesbaden 2005.
  • Ulrich Brand et al .: Global Governance. Alternative to neoliberal globalization? Munster 2000.
  • Petra C. Gruber (Ed.): Sustainable Development and Global Governance. Responsibility, power, politics. Opladen 2008. (With contributions by Franz Nuscheler, Dirk Messner, Sven Gareis, Tanja Brühl, Florian Huber and others)
  • Hans-Jürgen Burchardt: A turning point. Politics after neoliberalism . Hanover 2004.
  • Klaus Dingwerth, Philipp Pattberg: What is Global Governance? In: Leviathan 34 (2006), pp. 377-399
  • Hartmut Ihne (2007): Global Governance and Scientific Policy Advice - Tendencies and Principles, Baden-Baden, ISBN 978-3-8329-2452-2 .
  • Lena Partzsch: Global Governance in Partnership. The EU initiative 'Water for Life', Baden-Baden 2007.
  • James N. Rosenau, E.-O. Czempiel (Ed.): Governance without Government . 2nd edition, New York 1995.
  • Helmut Willke : Global Governance . transcript. Bielefeld 2006.
  • Markus Sardison: Global Governance: From Power Struggle to Learning Process . Conceptual considerations from the perspective of an economic ethics . Berlin 2009
  • Michael Zürn : Governing beyond the nation state . Frankfurt am Main 1998.

Web links