Global Governance

Global governance refers to all coexisting forms of collective steering by both public and private actors that directly or indirectly transcend national borders. The term "steering" draws from Latin and Greek roots of “governance,” denoting all types of regulation, whether formal or informal, institutionalized or ad hoc. These regulatory practices may involve self-regulation by civil society, co-regulation by public-private partnerships, or authoritative rule-setting by public actors. Importantly, governance occurs at all levels from the local to the global and cuts across policy fields ranging from economic policy to environmental management. In this framework, the "global" does not merely refer to geographical scope but to the highest level of political coordination. While global governance is a contested concept, there is broad agreement that it reflects “governing without government” (James Rosenau and Ernst-Otto Czempiel), indicating the absence of a single global authority with monopoly power. Unlike classical state-centric approaches in international relations, global governance recognizes the complex interplay between state and non-state actors and embraces multi- level governance frameworks. Although rooted in the discipline of international relations, the concept of global governance transcends traditional neo-realist and liberal institutionalist models. It moves beyond simply focusing on the international system as dominated by sovereign states. It aligns more closely with constructivist and critical perspectives, emphasizing the role of identity, norms, networks, and multiple layers of authority.

The Rise of New Actors and Institutions in Global Governance

One of the most notable shifts in global governance is the emergence of new forms of agency. Civil society organizations and NGOs, once peripheral, now play central roles in agenda-setting, monitoring, implementation, and evaluation of international commitments. For instance, NGOs often serve as intermediaries in development aid projects, sometimes executing programs on behalf of large intergovernmental organizations like the World Bank. Similarly, corporations have assumed both financial and political roles most notably in the UN Global Compact, a voluntary initiative that promotes corporate sustainability. Scientific communities also play a growing role. A significant example is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which, although created by states, operates as a semi-autonomous body that provides essential policy-relevant knowledge in areas riddled with uncertainty, such as climate change. Public non-state actors such as international bureaucracies (e.g., UN agencies) and city coalitions (e.g., C 40 Cities) also exert substantial influence. At the same time, illicit actors including transnational criminal networks and terrorist organizations form part of this broader governance system, albeit as disruptive forces. Each of these actors operates under different mandates, degrees of legitimacy, and levels of influence, creating a dynamic and heterogeneous system of governance. In addition to agency shifts, we see institutional proliferation. Following the Cold War, there was a surge in global conferences and agreements, such as the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), and later, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Alongside these developments, institutions like the International Criminal Court and WTO's Dispute Settlement Body were established, reinforcing judicial mechanisms at the global level. Meanwhile, non-and sub-state actors have spearheaded new cooperation models from informal transnational networks to formalized public-private partnerships which can shape everything from global supply chains to environmental standards. The growth of such mechanisms reflects not only gaps in existing governance but also the evolving complexity of world politics.

Themes, Complexity, and the Emergence of Polycentric Governance

Global governance has significantly broadened in scope, moving beyond its earlier focus on security, trade, and development to include prominent new issue areas such as environmental protection, global health, and human rights. Even traditional fields like security have been reformulated within new paradigms, including the Global War on Terrorism, the responsibility to protect (R2P), human security, and good governance. This thematic expansion, accompanied by greater diversity of actors, has produced what Elinor Ostrom described as polycentric governance-overlapping and often fragmented regulatory systems operating at different levels of authority, across varying geographic scales, and addressing a wide range of issues. While such structures can foster innovation and flexibility, they also create challenges related to coherence, legitimacy, efficiency, and accountability. In response to these transformations, two major perspectives on global governance have emerged. The analytical perspective treats global governance as a descriptive and explanatory concept, enabling scholars to map and interpret the shift from state-centered diplomacy to a decentralized network of governance, drawing on interdisciplinary approaches from international relations theory, political economy, and discourse analysis. In contrast, the normative perspective views global governance as a political project aimed at building more democratic, inclusive, and effective global systems in the absence of a central world authority. Championed by the UN Commission on Global Governance in its 1995 report “Our Common Neighbourhood”, this approach envisions decentralized governance as a way to address the challenges of globalization and promote global integration, with proposals ranging from strengthening UN institutions to drafting a world constitution or establishing specialized bodies such as a World Environment Organization.

Critiques and Future Directions of Global Governance

Global governance is not without significant criticism. One line of critique, often from critical international political economy, charges that the concept is ideologically biased, reinforcing a neoliberal discourse that seeks efficient solutions while ignoring the systemic inequalities and crises of late capitalism. Scholars like Ulrich Brandt argue that global governance masks the global dominance of market-oriented policies and fails to address injustices stemming from economic globalization. There are also accusations of a Global North bias. Critics highlight that global governance mechanisms often reflect Western priorities and structures, overlooking regional contexts, indigenous knowledge, and postcolonial power imbalances. In response, some argue for more localized and equitable governance arrangements rooted in regional diversity and historical legacies. From the neoconservative angle, global governance is seen as a veiled attempt to curtail the power of sovereign states, especially the United States. In this view, multilateralism and transnational regulations are seen as threats to national autonomy and democratic self-determination. Others point to functional shortcomings. The 2008 global financial crisis exposed deep weaknesses in regulatory frameworks. Scholars such as Jan Aart Scholte argue that instead of providing clarity and coordination, the multiplication of agencies and rules has led to a fragmented, inconsistent, and often ineffective governance landscape. Far from increasing democratic accountability, the rise of non-state actors has raised new concerns about legitimacy, particularly as these actors are unelected and often unaccountable to public constituencies. Finally, there is skepticism about whether a true shift in authority has occurred. Some argue that despite the rise of civil society and non-state actors, sovereign states, especially powerful ones remain the primary actors in global governance. States continue to design, fund, and authorize most institutions, and retain the ability to resist or withdraw from them. National interests, security strategies, and traditional diplomacy still dominate the global stage, challenging claims that we are witnessing a radical transformation in world politics.

Global governance captures the growing complexity of managing transnational challenges in a world without a global government. It reflects a pragmatic adaptation to globalization recognizing the limitations of the state while incorporating new actors and institutions. Yet, it also reveals the enduring power of sovereign states, the difficulties of legitimacy without direct representation, and the ideological battles embedded in regulatory discourse. Whether understood analytically or normatively, global governance remains an essential, albeit imperfect, lens through which to interpret contemporary global affairs. Its future development will likely depend not only on institutional innovation but on the political will to address underlying inequalities and power asymmetries both globally and locally.

PSIR Ecosystem

UPSC

NET JRF

CUET PG

UGC NET Paper 1

NCERT

Global Governance