Analysis of Global Governance - Essay Example

Analysis of Global Governance 1. Introduction The criteria used for the evaluation of political and social frameworks worldwide are likely to be differentiated being influenced by the local ethics and values; the position of each country in the international community and its power to influence the decisions of international organizations are also likely to affect the country’s political and social characteristics and initiatives. On the other hand, it has been proved that the decisions of governments on crucial political, social and economic issues may present similarities in countries internationally – a phenomenon observed especially in countries with common social or cultural characteristics. In this way, local political choices may influence the forms of international policies – a trend well developed in areas such as security and governance. Current paper focuses on the critical examination and comparison of two studies focusing on global governance: the study of Held & McGrew (2002) and that of Wilkinson & Hughes (2002); both of these studies refer to the criteria, the characteristics and the implications of global governance. The interpretation of global governance – as given by the above writers – is critically discusses by referring to the actual political and social conditions in the international community. Moreover, the examination of their work led to the assumption that global governance can have a long-term impact on various aspects of international political and social framework. In this study emphasis is given on the implications of global governance for security – as these implications can be identified in the work of Held et al. (2002) and Wilkinson et al. (2002). It is concluded that, the above studies indicate a relationship between global governance and security; however, the level at which this relationship is developed is depended on the grade of acceptance of the relevant schemes by the authorities of each country – which are asked to adopt a specific global governance or security scheme. 2. Critical analysis of the work of Held & McGrew (2002) and that of Wilkinson & Hughes (2002) In order to evaluate the potential differences in the interpretation of global governance as developed by Held et al. (2002) and Wilkinson et al. (2002) it would be necessary to refer primarily to the criteria on which these two studies have been based. Moreover, the values used by the above authors need to be taken into consideration – having the power to influence the aspects of global governance presented in the particular studies. After identifying the values and the criteria on which the authors have been based, it would be easier to understand and compare their approaches in regard to the global governance. At the next level, the potential implications of the global governance – as described in the studies of Held et al. (2002) and Wilkinson et al. (2002) – would be easier identified and evaluated. 2.1 Issues highlighted The framework of global governance is given different characteristics within the studies of Held et al. (2002) and Wilkinson et al. (2002); in accordance with Held et al. (2002) global governance is mainly related to the following three sectors: the economic, the political and the environmental sector (Held et al., 2002, p.2). In this context, any effort for explaining the role of global governance in setting policies worldwide, has to be based on the following rules: a) the increase of power of leaders worldwide may lead to a condition which is not easily controlled in advance; in other words, international political framework may be negatively influenced by the fact that no measures have been developed for the improvement of existing governmental policies worldwide. In fact, governments of countries in the international community tend to promote the interests of their states without been concerned for the development of law as an element of the international political framework, b) not all governments worldwide would accept a common scheme for the control of global governance; because of the existence of high differentiations in regard to each country’s political and social characteristics. In the above context, the development of a scheme based on mutual agreement of states internationally would be delayed either because of its contradiction with the national law or because of the lack of willingness of members of international bodies to enforce the relevant rules of the international law (Held et al., 2002, p.2). On the other hand, it is made clear that the intervention between the global governance and the elements of political, economic and social environment cannot be avoided. The relationship between the global governance and the above frameworks is described as follows: political decisions had traditionally a crucial role of the forms of global governance worldwide – in fact the modes of global governance adopted by countries worldwide are set by the local government. The economic environment has been also found to be related to the global governance through the following fact: the development of governmental projects worldwide is based on the availability of funds required for their completion; in this way, the economic conditions of a specific market are likely to affect the views of customers across the particular market. It is through this approach that the view of Held et al. (2002) on global governance should be evaluated. As for the influence of the economic environment on global governance, this is considered as standardized; in the context of the international community, the activities of all organizations (both those of the public sector and those of the private sector) are expected to be constantly aligned with the local natural environment; therefore, global governance is also depended on the environmental policies chosen by countries across the European Union. In the study of Wilkinson & Hughes (2002), global governance is related to a series of similar elements and facts; however, emphasis is given on different issues – which influence the modes of global governance adopted by countries worldwide. More specifically, in the above study, it is noted that global governance is likely to be related to the following issues: a) the reasons for which global governance practices are adopted by a particular country – at this point, difference is made between developmental governance and financial governance; the former derives from the latter but only under specific political initiatives (p.15-24), b) the level at which global governance has supported the increase of power of international financial organizations, such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank (p. 22, 23), c) the level at which modern form of global governance has led to the differentiation of traditional political frameworks worldwide; it is explained by Wilkinson & Hughes (2002) that within the context of the global governance, a continuous increase of the interaction between the political and the economic initiatives has been observed worldwide. Through the above trend, the following phenomenon has been identified: traditional political systems of governance in countries worldwide have been alternated; the new systems of political governance – based on the global governance – are likely to interact highly with economics at such level that a political-economic mode of governance appears. As Wilkinson & Hughes (2002, p.24) note, this trend is clear in the case of IMF and the policies that this organization uses for resolving economic crises worldwide. 2.2 Criteria The work of Held et al. (2002) is based on specific criteria: in accordance with the above authors the analysis of the elements of global governance can be achieved only by referring primarily to globalization – on which global governance is depended. In this context, the following criterion is set: global governance should not be regarded as a perspective or characteristic of modern era; in fact, aspects of globalization – in accordance with Held et al. (2002, p.2) - can be identified in the long history; from this point of view, global governance – as also globalization – is considered to have a long history. Another criterion set in the development of the study of Held et al. (2002) is the fact that global governance does not have a standardized form; rather it is likely to be related to different political, economic and social conditions and to be explained using different theoretical frameworks. The above criteria are likely to be used when trying to evaluate the role and the characteristics of global governance within the international community. As for the study of Wilkinson & Hughes (2002) the criteria used for evaluating the form and the nature of global governance – as explained through their study are the following ones: a) global governance is highly related to economic problems (p.15); through this point of view, global governance is expected to be highly developed in countries where the intervention of international organizations is promoted for supporting the local economy (p.15), b) global governance leads to the development of important and unique governance frameworks – reference is made to a framework based on both political and economic principles (p.17), c) global governance is highly depended on the decisions and the goals of international organizations (p.36); the above fact has not been adequately highlighted in the study of Held et al. (2002) where a socio-cultural perspective of the global governance has been rather promoted, a view which cannot be totally accepted; rather, the view of Wilkinson & Hughes (2002) on the political/ economic nature of global governance should be accepted, d) the global governance can have more aspects – not only political/ economical; such aspects would be the following ones: d1) environmental, d2) cultural, d3) health (p.55, 57). On the other hand, in the study of Wilkinson & Hughes (2002) global governance is expected to have a unique role: the role of mediator in the resolution of disputes involving the violation of human rights (p.75). Wilkinson & Hughes (2002) accept the multi-dimensional character of Held et al. (2002); however, they do not seem to agree that global governance has a long history; instead, they support that the specific mode of governance is relatively new being related to the modern methods for managing political and economic crisis. In accordance with Wilkinson & Hughes (2002, p.24) their view is supported by the fact that global governance is rapidly expanded worldwide through economic interventions of international organizations – reference is made especially to the International Monetary Fund. These interventions are characterized by the simultaneous use of political and economic policies for the promotion of specific financial measures – a practice that cannot be accepted in the context of the international law as it can possibly result to violations of the existing rights. This phenomenon can further lead to the unjustifiable alteration of current security framework. It is in this context, that global governance can influence security – using the views of Wilkinson & Hughes (2002). The specific problem is analytically discussed below. 2.3 Approaches in regard to the global governance and security In accordance with Held et al. (2002) global governance is related to a series of different elements; apart from its long history within the international community, global governance – as noted by Held et al. (2002) – is considered as having the following characteristics: a) to be depended on the policies of international institutions (Held et al., 2002, p.25), b) to reflect a new trend on a wide political framework which considers global governance as the basis of global political control (Held et al., 2002, p.70), c) to be related to the management of a series of severe human issues – for instance to the management of illnesses that are spread rapidly across countries internationally (Held et al., 2002, p.111), d) to be related to specific legal problems – especially those referring to cases that are likely to involve in many countries – simultaneously, as for instance in the case of international intellectual property rights (Held et al., 2002, p.171), e) to refer to the management of economic issues related to the activities of governments and businesses worldwide; through this point of view, global governance is directly related to the management of international economics (Held et al., 2002, p.189). Through the above views, Held et al. (2002) note that global governance can be interpreted using specific theories – reference is made specifically to realism and cosmopolitism (p. 267). The views of Wilkinson & Hughes (2002) in regard to the implications of global governance for security are partially similar with those of Held et al. (2002); however, there are certain points in the study of Wilkinson & Hughes (2002) where different aspects of global governance as a tool for promoting policies worldwide are highlighted. The implications of global governance for security – as revealed through the study of Wilkinson & Hughes (2002) can be described as follows: a) global governance can lead to the introduction of security measures that are both of political and economic nature; b) on the other hand, the study of Wilkinson & Hughes (2002) emphasizes on the close dependency of global governance on politics, in the context of global governance it is possible that severe restrictions on human rights are imposed – through the introduction of security measures that serve political and economic goals (p.17), c) another implication of the global governance for security – as highlighted by Wilkinson & Hughes (2002) could be the following one: global governance offers increased powers to international economic organizations; these powers have both political and economic character; using these powers, international economic organization can impose security measures for the promotion of their interests but these measures may be opposed to the existing national laws (p.17). In the context of the study of Wilkinson & Hughes (2002) global governance is characterized as being related to a specific form of security: the human security (p. 113); this type of security is related to the protection of individual as member of the community; human security refers mostly to human rights and from this point of view it is differentiated from security in general which is likely to be used for expressing the protection from an external threat or dangerous event, e) another form of security related to global governance is the economic security (Wilkinson & Hughes, 2002, p.132). The above view leads to the assumption that the introduction of global governance policies could threaten the economic security of people within a particular country; at this point, reference can be also made to the fact that in the context of global governance international organizations are given increased economic and political power, a fact that can lead to the introduction of measures that can threaten not only the physical security of citizens, but also their economic security (Wilkinson & Hughes, 2002, p.132). 3. Implications of the work of Held & McGrew (2002) and that of Wilkinson & Hughes (2002) for security As noted above, Held et al. (2002) set specific criteria in regard to the evaluation of global governance; in accordance with the above researchers, global governance is expected to serve different needs – either political, economic, health and even philosophical. Through this point of view, global governance can influence the forms of security developed in countries worldwide. In accordance with the theory used for the explanation of the nature of global governance, different forms of global governance are likely to be developed in countries worldwide. In those countries where liberalism is of higher importance compared to cosmopolitism, global governance will be aligned accordingly – being closer to liberalism. Security plans developed in those countries will also serve different needs and will be applied using different enforcement plans. If accepting the view of Held et al. (2002) on the nature of global governance, the following problem appears: the measures of security developed in each country cannot be considered as standardized; governments are free to choose among different security plans being influenced by different theories on the nature of global governance: in accordance with the theory used for the interpretation of global governance, appropriate measures of security will be introduced by governmental authorities. The above fact also leads to the assumption that security plans established by governments worldwide could be always justified – regardless of their form and nature – using different theoretical frameworks – as indicatively explained above. The study of Wilkinson & Hughes (2002) offers a more accurate explanation in regard to the current implications of global governance of security. The above study is differentiated from that of Held (2002) at the level that it accepts an active involvement of global governance in the political, social and economic life of individuals in countries worldwide. In this way, global governance can intervene in the development of security measures not just from a theoretical perspective. The views of Wilkinson & Hughes (2002) on global governance and security – as analytically presented in the previous section – lead to the assumption that the relationship between global governance and security is not based on theories but it is expressed through specific policies intervening in all aspects of life of citizens – as described above. 4. Conclusion The evaluation of global governance as a scheme for developing political, social and economic initiatives worldwide has been based on different criteria in the studies developed in the particular field. In the studies under examination, it is made clear that global governance has different aspects and roles. Moreover, global governance is likely to be used either for the introduction of specific modes of political control or the establishment of measures that serve economic goals (an issue highlighted in the study of Wilkinson & Hughes, 2002). Furthermore, different criteria seem to exist in regard to the evaluation of the implications of global governance for security; in fact, the forms of these implications are depended on the role of global governance within each country. Both studies manage to contribute to the examination of the aspects of global governance and the identification of this framework’s implications on security. However, the study of Wilkinson & Hughes (2002) should be characterized as more objective presenting the current forms of global governance worldwide while in the study of Held et al. (2002) global governance is more related to various social frameworks and theories, such as realism and cosmopolitism – which are valid but they are rather inappropriate in order to explain the current form and role of global governance worldwide. References Held, D., McGrew, A. (2002). Governing globalization: power, authority and global governance. Wiley-Blackwell Wilkinson, R., Hughes, S. (2002) Global governance: critical perspectives. Routledge Read More