scholarly journals Hybrid institutional complexes in global governance

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth W. Abbott ◽  
Benjamin Faude
Keyword(s):  
Global Governance ◽  
Research Agenda ◽  
Structural Difference ◽  
Functional Differentiation ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Intergovernmental Organizations ◽  
The Core ◽  
Institutional Strategies

AbstractMost issue areas in world politics today are governed neither by individual institutions nor by regime complexes composed of formal interstate institutions. Rather, they are governed by “hybrid institutional complexes” (HICs) comprising heterogeneous interstate, infra-state, public–private and private transnational institutions, formal and informal. We develop the concept of the HIC as a novel descriptive and analytical lens for the study of contemporary global governance. The core structural difference between HICs and regime complexes is the greater diversity of institutional forms within HICs. Because of that diversity, HICs operate differently than regime complexes in two significant ways: (1) HICs exhibit relatively greater functional differentiation among their component institutions, and hence suffer from relatively fewer overlapping claims to authority; and (2) HICs exhibit greater informal hierarchy among their component institutions, and hence benefit from greater ordering. Both are systemic features. HICs have characteristic governance benefits: they offer good “substantive fit” for multi-faceted governance problems and good “political fit” for the preferences of diverse constituents; constrain conflictive cross-institutional strategies; and are conducive to mechanisms of coordination, which enhance substantive coherence. Yet HICs also pose characteristic governance risks: individual institutions may take on aspects of problems for which they are ill-suited; multiple institutions may create confusion; HICs can amplify conflict and contestation rather than constraining them; and the “soft” institutions within HICs can reduce the focality of incumbent treaties and intergovernmental organizations and forestall the establishment of new ones. We outline a continuing research agenda for exploring the structures, operations and governance implications of HICs.

Governing Complexity: Design Principles for the Governance of Complex Global Catastrophic Risks

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Kreienkamp ◽  
Tom Pegram
Keyword(s):  
Global Governance ◽  
Research Agenda ◽  
Design Science ◽  
Design Principles ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Governance Structures ◽  
Governance System ◽  
Rigorous Research ◽  
Catastrophic Risks ◽  
Action Taking

Abstract Why are existing global governance structures “not fit for purpose” when it comes to addressing complex global catastrophic risks (CGCRs) such as climate breakdown, ecosystem collapse, or parasitic artificial general intelligence? This article argues that a deeper appreciation of these risks as complex—as opposed to complicated—is vital to an effective global governance response. It joins other IR scholarship seeking to invigorate a rigorous research agenda on complex system dynamics within world politics, highlighting the value of complexity theory, not simply as a contextual descriptor, but as a conceptual toolkit to inform CGCR governance research and action. Taking seriously the implications of “restricted complexity,” it interrogates why the legacy governing toolkit—the assumptions, heuristics, models, and practices conventionally employed to solve international collective action problems—are unlikely to suffice. It further draws laterally upon design science to offer a novel design model for governing complex systems, with broad application across global policy domains. A case study of the COVID-19 pandemic response illustrates the importance of supplementing inherited “complicated” governance system design and practices with design principles explicitly oriented to working with complexity, rather than against it. We contend that IR scholars and practitioners must update old ways of thinking in light of a complexification of the discipline. Such a shift involves both revisiting the design logics underlying how we build global governance structures, as well as pursuing a generative research agenda more capable of responding adequately to instability, surprise, and extraordinary change.

From meditation to action – a research agenda for studying informal global rule-making: remarks on ‘Cosmopolitanism, publicity, and the emergence of a “global administrative law”’

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Oliver Westerwinter
Keyword(s):  
Global Governance ◽  
Comparative Research ◽  
Research Agenda ◽  
Institutional Design ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Democratic Legitimacy ◽  
Institutional Architecture ◽  
Global Law ◽  
Rule Making ◽  
Law Making

Abstract Friedrich Kratochwil engages critically with the emergence of a global administrative law and its consequences for the democratic legitimacy of global governance. While he makes important contributions to our understanding of global governance, he does not sufficiently discuss the differences in the institutional design of new forms of global law-making and their consequences for the effectiveness and legitimacy of global governance. I elaborate on these limitations and outline a comparative research agenda on the emergence, design, and effectiveness of the diverse arrangements that constitute the complex institutional architecture of contemporary global governance.

The Intersection of Security and Justice in Global Governance

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
William Durch ◽  
Joris Larik ◽  
Richard Ponzio
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Conceptual Framework ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
Human Dignity ◽  
Structural Violence ◽  
Essential Elements ◽  
International Level ◽  
The Core ◽  
Personal Community

Security and justice are both essential elements in humanity’s quest not only to survive but to thrive with dignity; neither is sustainable alone. Security is merely the appearance of order in a framework of structural violence unless tempered or leavened by concepts of justice that include human rights, human dignity, and other normative limits on the use of power. The pursuit of justice, whether at the personal, community, national, or international level can be crippled if not matched, in turn, by means to sustain security at each level. This complementarity of security and justice—despite their inherent tensions—is the core conceptual framework of the book. Achieving “just security,” we argue, is essential to the success of any global governance enterprise or architecture.

Challenges in the Empirical Study of Global Governance Legitimacy

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Bernstein
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Study ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
Research Agenda ◽  
Cultural Factors ◽  
Theory Building ◽  
Trade Off ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Political Communities

This commentary discusses three challenges for the promising and ambitious research agenda outlined in the volume. First, it interrogates the volume’s attempts to differentiate political communities of legitimation, which may vary widely in composition, power, and relevance across institutions and geographies, with important implications not only for who matters, but also for what gets legitimated, and with what consequences. Second, it examines avenues to overcome possible trade-offs from gains in empirical tractability achieved through the volume’s focus on actor beliefs and strategies. One such trade-off is less attention to evolving norms and cultural factors that may underpin actors’ expectations about what legitimacy requires. Third, it addresses the challenge of theory building that can link legitimacy sources, (de)legitimation practices, audiences, and consequences of legitimacy across different types of institutions.

Introduction

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonas Tallberg ◽  
Karin Bäckstrand ◽  
Jan Aart Scholte
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Conceptual Framework ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
Comprehensive Treatment ◽  
Human Rights Abuses ◽  
Sociological Approach ◽  
The Core ◽  
Governance Institutions

Legitimacy is central for the capacity of global governance institutions to address problems such as climate change, trade protectionism, and human rights abuses. However, despite legitimacy’s importance for global governance, its workings remain poorly understood. That is the core concern of this volume, which engages with the overarching question: whether, why, how, and with what consequences global governance institutions gain, sustain, and lose legitimacy. This introductory chapter explains the rationale of the book, introduces its conceptual framework, reviews existing literature, and presents the key themes of the volume. It emphasizes in particular the volume’s sociological approach to legitimacy in global governance, its comparative scope, and its comprehensive treatment of the topic. Moreover, a specific effort is made to explain how each chapter moves beyond existing research in exploring the book’s three themes: (1) sources of legitimacy, (2) processes of legitimation and delegitimation, and (3) consequences of legitimacy.

scholarly journals The Fragmentation of Global Governance Architectures: A Framework for Analysis

2009 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 14-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank Biermann ◽  
Philipp Pattberg ◽  
Harro van Asselt ◽  
Fariborz Zelli
Keyword(s):  
Global Governance ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Private Institutions ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Governance Challenges ◽  
Alternative Hypotheses ◽  
Governance Architecture

Most research on global governance has focused either on theoretical accounts of the overall phenomenon or on empirical studies of distinct institutions that serve to solve particular governance challenges. In this article we analyze instead “governance architectures,” defined as the overarching system of public and private institutions, principles, norms, regulations, decision-making procedures and organizations that are valid or active in a given issue area of world politics. We focus on one aspect that is turning into a major source of concern for scholars and policy-makers alike: the “fragmentation” of governance architectures in important policy domains. The article offers a typology of different degrees of fragmentation, which we describe as synergistic, cooperative, and conflictive fragmentation. We then systematically assess alternative hypotheses over the relative advantages and disadvantages of different degrees of fragmentation. We argue that moderate degrees of fragmentation may entail both significant costs and benefits, while higher degrees of fragmentation are likely to decrease the overall performance of a governance architecture. The article concludes with policy options on how high degrees of fragmentation could be reduced. Fragmentation is prevalent in particular in the current governance of climate change, which we have hence chosen as illustration for our discussion.

“It’s the End of the World as We Know It”

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 553-576
Author(s):  
Matthias Hofferberth ◽  
Daniel Lambach
Keyword(s):  
Global Governance ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Punk Rock ◽  
New Approaches ◽  
The World ◽  
New Energy ◽  
End Of The World

Abstract This article contends that practices of, and reflections on, global governance are diversifying without any particular teleology. Therefore, it proposes a “postgovernance” perspective to capture and make sense of the multiplicity of concurrent developments. Just like post-punk followed punk rock and provided new energy, postgovernance provides opportunities to revitalize debates on world politics. Postgovernance allows both scholars and practitioners to consider the persistence of “traditional” forms of global governance as well as the simultaneous emergence of new approaches. This article thus proposes postgovernance as a mode of world politics in a postparadigmatic world that is dynamic yet inconsistent. We advance this argument by outlining what postgovernance entails, by taking stock of current debates from a postgovernance perspective, and by discussing how these can be advanced from a postgovernance point of view.

scholarly journals Contemplating Cosmopolitan Global Governance in Postcolonial Discourse Analysis

Federalism-E ◽  
1969 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 68-76
Author(s):  
Ajnesh Prasad
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Cold War ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
World Politics ◽  
International Affairs ◽  
Clash Of Civilizations ◽  
End Of History ◽  
The End Of History ◽  
Postcolonial Discourse ◽  
The Cold War

“The international community is at a crossroads” (Held, 1995a: 96). Since the conclusion of the Cold War and with the elimination of the bipolar world thereafter, many scholars have attempted to theorize, if only to evaluate, the transformations that have taken place within the realm of world politics in the last decade and a half. From Francis Fukuyama’s argument, the “End of History” (1992), to Samuel Huntington’s thesisclaim, the “Clash of Civilizations” (1993), there have been categorizing, and ultimately limiting, understandings of international affairs in the postcommunist period. Consequently, discursive and explicit interstices of antagonistic tension continue to prevail and manifest into graphic demonstrations of hegemonic aggression and parochial actions of daily resistance. The international interstices of antagonistic tension continue to threaten immeasurable tragedy at the most globalized landscape. Remnants of these present tensions go so far as to predicate the aggressive and resistant temperament of events like the aircraft attacks on New York and Washington, D.C. [...]

scholarly journals Forms of global governence

2014 ◽  
pp. 133-137
Author(s):  
M. V. Kharkevich
Keyword(s):  
Global Governance ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Theoretical Possibility ◽  
Market Control ◽  
Pricing Mechanism ◽  
Contemporary World ◽  
Hierarchical Relationship ◽  
The Asymmetry ◽  
Global Government ◽  
Globalized World

Global governance as a concept defines the meaning of contemporary world politics both as a discipline and as reality. Interdependent and globalized world requires governance, and a global government has not been formed yet. The theoretical possibility of global governance without global government is proved and justified. The purpose of this article is to analytically identify possible forms of global governance. Three such forms of global governance are identified: hierarchical, market and network. In a hierarchy the governance is due to the asymmetry of power between the parties. Market control happens via anonymous pricing mechanism. Network, in contrast to the market is characterized by a closer value link between the actors, but unlike the hierarchical relationship actors are free to leave the network. Global governance takes three forms and is being implemented by different actors. To determine the most efficient form of global governance is impossible. Efficiency depends on the match between a form and an object of government. It should be noted that meta governance is likely to remain a monopoly of institutionally strong states in global governance.

Introduction: Global Governance through Goal Setting

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Norichika Kanie ◽  
Steven Bernstein ◽  
Frank Biermann ◽  
Peter M. Haas
Keyword(s):  
Sustainable Development ◽  
Goal Setting ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
Research Agenda ◽  
Sustainable Development Goals ◽  
The Sustainable Development ◽  
Unique Nature ◽  
History Of ◽  
Development Goals ◽  
Governance Strategy

This chapter lays out a research agenda to assess conditions, challenges, and prospects for the Sustainable Development Goals to pursue this aim. First, the chapter discusses goal setting as a global governance strategy. Second, to contextualize the Sustainable Development Goals, it discusses the unique nature of the modern challenges that the Sustainable Development Goals must confront and review the historical and political trajectory of sustainable development governance, including the evolution from a primarily rule-based to a more goal-based system and the experience of the earlier Millennium Development Goals. Third, the chapter reviews the negotiating history of the Sustainable Development Goals. Then, the chapter elaborate on how the chapters are organized to address the three questions that guide the book.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document