Global Governance: Pros and Cons

Global governance refers to the emergence of worldwide relationship in which economic, cultural, political, and environmental activities in a community from one part of the world becomes of great importance to another community in a different part of the world. The reason for forming global governments is to establish problem solving policies that cause positive impact to several states in the world. Global governance is best practiced in the instances where the state government is absent. As more states grow towards being interdependent, global governance enhances observance of a worldwide rules and regulations.

Global governance involves formal and informal procedures for problem solving in governmental, non-governmental organisations and coalition of several organizations. It is presented with events, instruments, processes between and among the institutions involved. In global governance, similar interests are noted down and a global consensus reached by the member states. In the process of establishments, obligations, tasks, civil liberties and differences all deliberations are made.

Global governance is used to refer to the specified rule and procedures intended for collective human organization.  Global governance is closely related to exercising government authority in a country as asserted by James Rosenau. On the other hand, Ralph Bunche defines global governance as the collective solution providing procedures whish may involve the United Nations and other states’ secretariats. The Soviet Union remained in power for very many years. The union however fell in the year 1991 and thus the global governance era erupted in the 19^th century.  Global governance arose due to some contributing factors which include the following.

The weakening of the nations governing powers in various states contributed greatly to the need for globalization. This was made very possible by relocating the governing rules to the global stage. This, however, just happened for a few states whose governing policies were not effectively practiced at the national stage. Additionally, the global governance developed during a period when the environmental issues were being addressed. The concerns raised by various states acknowledged by the Rio Earth Summit which took place in 1992. The various climatic issues addressed showed possibilities of having global resources such as ocean water, soil and minerals.

The era of increased trade and issues affecting trade came at a time the traditional debate on how macroeconomics influences the steadiness of state strategies. The more disturbing issues were health, ownership of property, environment and leadership. Thus, for global governance, main aspects of interdependence got allocated to professional institutions and personnel. A German philosopher Immanuel Kant wrote about the democratic peace that comprises of the political environment “laissez-faire”. The concept is that global governance aims at developing a systematic worldwide organization among all the states. It may, however, not be so easy to monitor every country’s advancement since each grows at its own different pace.

Additionally, global governance may involve provision of education to all human kind throughout all generations. To ensure that all human beings have all that they need it takes a lot of energy and resources. The act of educating all people and providing their daily needs becomes harder especially as challenges become more complex. Therefore, it is not easy to attain global governance by civilizing all people.

A challenge to fast growth of globalization is the presence of differences between states. The differences exist due to culture, language, beliefs, and political orientation. Thus the nations ought to tolerate and accept all the states with their unique differences. However various organizations have to come up with important civic knowledge to all parts of the Third World countries. Globalization has taken long before getting firmly established since there has been a flaw in the system between the major institutions and the lower organizations. Nature is also critical in the development of globalization for balance in the use of environment and its importance in preservation. Thus for the continuity of the balanced ecosystem, the environment ought to be protected and preserved by all people on all sectors.            

Global government majorly involves the full participation of several parties. Each of the parties is subject of its own thought and conviction while operating on it’s on. However when states merge together in a coalition like the United Nations, they start operating on a different form of policies.  The common policies are made in consideration of all the states so they strike a balance for both the developed and the developing countries. All the member states in the alliance of states are expected to agree with consensus according to the stipulated policies. Since all states agree with consensus, none of them feels trapped in case of policy enforcement.         

The global governance with fully established member states performs its duties with regard to the stipulated policies. Thus various rules are set out for different functions and activities. The global market has therefore been affected by the tight application of these rules on businesses and companies.

Additionally, the regulations have been expanded in recent past in order to incorporate more states. The expansion was made with regard to the appropriate business measures and thus wider boundaries of operation incorporated. The globalization of very many institutions becomes difficult due to the variations of their operations as all of them do not fall under the regulations stipulated. 

Author Jan Art Scholte commented about global governance as being a weak organization due to some specific constraints. The major constraint noted is the increase in the social needs which are not fully met by the prevailing overriding policies. On the other hand, there are various loopholes created worldwide that compromise the perfect moral upbringing of people.

An additional source of decline for global governance establishment is weak lawful foundations initially laid. The lack of credible work statutes as well lead to poor delivery of raw materials in the appropriate time and dimensions. Philosophers assert that all the weaknesses witnessed are due to uncharismatic leadership. These inadequacies generated add up to illegal discrepancies that remain unaccounted for over numerous regimes.            

There are notable desires to have global governance well established amongst all nations.  Consequently, various proposals have been presented to meetings by political coalitions, social unions, regional institutions and parliaments of various autonomous countries.  These proposals and directives were suggestive about development of associations amongst institutions globally.     

Apparently, building of global democratic governance necessitates participation of state citizens.  This takes the participation of the international community in the formulation and synchronization of globally legal objectives. Global harmonization of objectives should be constricted in a worldwide constitution as a reference.

The global governance intention is to establish peace, security, health for all people.     The human activities however increasingly lead to more harm to the environment, thus hindering achievement of these basic goals. The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) was formed in order to address all human activities that affect the climatic conditions. Additionally, the World Environment Organization (WEO) and the World Trade Organization (WTO)            were developed to address trade matters that affect the environment.          

Global governance has been split to address environmental, economical, political issues, conflict resolution, education and communication matters of the universal sphere. The regional partakers in various continents suggest that globalization should enact the global poverty act as intended in the year 2015 to eradicate poverty. Globalization also aims at achieving a common military operation that shall safeguard the global interests from a common source.

Pros and Cons of Global Governance

Verhezen & Morse noted the need for the world to integrate both the formal and the informal government mechanisms in the global arena (Verhezen & Morse, 2009, p. 84). The two identified a number of pros and cons that result from global governance. In identifying the cons, Verhezen and Morse stated that global governance can promote a relationship among different nations and thus enabling them to access certain resources which would have been impossible if every nation would close its borders and insist on individual governance. The two scholars however warned that if the world is to reap from global governance, every international organization must seek to stick only to those values that promote sustainability. According to Bainbridge, this will enable the governance to have positive effects on both its citizens and the other nations (Bainbridge, 2008, p. 34).

Verhezen & Morse see the possibility of the positive global unifying governance principles as having the potential of evolving into Global Corporate Citizenship in the long run. They however noted that this would only be possible if the world would get spirited leadership while seeking to instill confidence in the established global institutions. According to Verhezen & Morse, global governance has the potential of engaging, innovative and integrated business solutions that can possible transform the myriad of the global challenges the world is facing today (Verhezen & Morse, 2009, p. 85).

Ivonova & Roy also noted that certain states design and make use of the international institutions to further their own goals. According to them, such governments form institutions to basically protect their sovereignty. Ivonova & Roy added that the international organizations formed with such motives are normally in effective merely meant to provide such governments with a defense mechanism. This is done by assigning the organizations contradicting responsibilities. They are then used by such governments to go against the laid down acts and rules like that on the environment or the human rights (Ivonova & Roy, 2009, p. 50).

Ivonova & Roy noted that today governments take their concerns to the less efficient forums instead of the more efficient ones. According to these scholars, though the competition among different organizations may seem appealing, whenever there is a problem on coordination then the competition may prove harmful to both the organization and the countries involved (Ivonova & Roy, 2009, p. 50). They also noted that while the interplay between various institutions may seem to have beneficial outcomes in theory, it doesn’t result into win-outcomes and may even result into incompatible outcomes which may in turn lead to ambiguity in international law. The legal inconsistencies by different regulation bodies have been a hindrance to the credibility of the international law (Ivonova & Roy, 2009, p. 50).

Ivonova & Roy also noted that various governments are feeling today the burden of the current multiplicity of forums and policy making bodies which are even leading to miss prioritization of goals. They argue that the national officials have to spend both finances and time attending various conferences causing the financial and human resources strain among the developing nations (Ivonova & Roy, 2009, 52).

Identifying the cons of the global governance, Ivonova & Roy noted that some of the existing international institutions are merely designed by certain states to enable them compete one another. They stated that in cases where such formations are aimed at stemming up the competition for resources and projects, then it can improve the efficiency of the involved organizations (Ivonova & Roy, 2009, p. 50). The interplay between the organizations has also been found to be a positive mechanism which helps the organizations to realize the goals and objectives. An example is the World Trade Organization dispute settlement mechanism which is increasingly being used by both the developed and the developing countries.

Verhenzen and Morse also noted that even though corporate governance may not completely eradicate various misconducts or misdeeds practices by autocratic leaders across the globe, it will without any doubt help in improving the way in which a country is running. It is also obvious that a country with good governance structure will attract more investors (Verhenzen and Morse, 2009, p. 85).

Is Global Governance a Promising  Utopia?

I personally think that the global governance is both a promising utopia and a catastrophic reality. According to Verhenzen and Morse, it depends on whether it could be possible for nations and cultures to reach consensus on the necessary corporate governance universal principles. It is argued that these principles may make it possible for the evolution into Global Corporate Citizenship which is characterized by spirited leadership and social entrepreneurship. These would promote innovativeness and provide solutions to the challenges facing the business world today and thus greatly transforming every sector of the world’s economy leading into utopia (Verhenzen and Morse, 2009, p. 84).

The two scholars argued that the world has been experienced pressure on the need to establish common principles that promote global governance from forces such as the global competition and different world’s disasters that have been experienced of late. Verhenzen and Morse therefore stated that the world is destined to a state of global governance in which rules will be created to operate between states, multinational organizations without excluding both the national and the international participants. This means that with well established decision making procedures and programmed activities, utopia would be a reality in the future (Verhenzen and Morse, 2009, p. 85).

However, Verhenzen and Morse cautioned that global governance can never be a reality in a state where nations join together with the motive of championing their own interests. They argued instead that to achieve such a state, it must come up with justified corporate governance principle which can provide the necessary checks and balances of the developed nations from exploiting the developing nations (Verhenzen and Morse, 2009, p. 85). Giving example with the field of business, the two scholars argued that there should be the replacement of leissez-fair model which is usually based on the individual self interest only to a stakeholder theorem which is flexible and will most likely be able to address challenges facing the globe. Banks also noted that achieving utopia in global governance would also need corporate governance principles which can provide an obligation of care to all states by emphasizing ethical values and ecological soundness (Banks, 2004, 32).

There is also a need for avoidance of any interference by superior government in the global governance (Bennis & Toole. 2008, 65). These would certainly paralyze both the necessary innovation processes and slow down the world’s economic growth. Instead, there is a need for global agreements. Without strong institution mechanisms to enforce rules, it may not be possible for the world to ensure the proper functioning of both the global policies of the implementation of the international agreements (Bradley & Walsh, 2000, p. 1).

Verhenzen and Morse also stated that global governance may only be realized through voluntary and prerogative actions and not by forcing mandatory laws on nations. This means that there must be a consensus between different nations, institutions and the major corporations and governments. Such governance principles must take into account the common norms and the interests of the citizens. However, they pointed out that this may be doomed due to the fact that the standardized governance rules can most likely never be effective in countries with no complimentary laws or in those countries where such laws are only practiced in partiality (Verhenzen and Morse, 2009, p. 89).

Global Governance as a Catastrophic Reality

On the other hand, a number of factors can also point out that global governance may be a catastrophic reality. Global governance has led to a continued global ecological degradation, increasing income inequality and poverty gap and the observed materialistic nature of the major developed countries which are promoted and advertised by global corporations. All these reasons cast doubts on the possibility of achieving global solutions through the global governance. A part from promoting disparity in the economic growth between the developed and the developing countries, global governance has also promoted such vices as large scale environmental degradation (Verhenzen and Morse, 2009, p. 86).

According to Verhenzen and Morse, the continued failure to address these societal hazards will eventually cause conflicts among different nations in the world making the dream of global governance a catastrophic reality. Their argument is that such practices give some nations an advantage over other nations. The result is the improvement of the relevance of the empowered nations in the global arena and thus the role they play in determining the global issues (Verhenzen and Morse, 2009, p. 86).

Verhenzen and Morse have also warned that such a system may encourage the West to force their own rules and procedures on the other states as a form of enforcing good governance. They underlined the need for trust if global governance is to come to a reality. According to them, the emphasis should not just be on the procedures. They underlined that such a form of governance may soon lead the world into experiencing a period of political and financial instability due to the changing world conditions (Verhenzen and Morse, 2009, p. 87).

I also agree with Verhenzen and Morse who also pointed out that any failure of the accountability practices will automatically lead to the erosion of the individual rights. The leaders are mostly driven by their own personal interests or the interests of their own states instead of the common global good making global governance a catastrophic reality (Verhenzen and Morse, 2009, p. 89).

In conclusion, it will be a toll order for the world to achieve utopia through global governance. The evidence has shown that numerous attempts have been made towards realizing it, many factors have provided equal amount of force to make it to a catastrophic reality. There is a need for various governments to recognize that they is simply a part of the global system and should not interfere with its goals. Those involved in the world leadership must also seek to the good of the globe as whole and not giving preference to some nations.