Global Governance
In the face of globalization and multiple international challenges, the need for a coordinated international action emerges. Global governance may provide all the solutions needed to ensure global sustainability. In the first chapter of their book, Chan et al. write about the nature, purposes, and goals of the given phenomenon and discuss the major barriers to effective international cooperation and equal distribution of welfare.
The term “global governance” largely differs from conventional notions of politics. Overall, it can be defined as a sum of well-coordinated actions and decisions made by individuals and various institutions to handle global problems and find solutions that can bring favorable changes. Global governance has a purpose “to bolster order, stability, and predictability in international transactions and cross-border activities in the absence of the overarching central authority” (Chan et al. 11). Particular practices related to the given form of leadership and administration include the development of international norms and laws, promotion of human rights, and engagement in international conferences and discussions, such as G20 and G8, aimed to generate new ideas and solutions.
National governments always remain the major public entities that can respond to global problems of current interest (Chan et al. 9). However, the researchers emphasize that one needs to differentiate the term “global governance” from the concept of global government and world federalism (Chan et al. 9). It means that global governance has nothing in common with sovereignty and supreme power. While sovereignty implies that only one governing entity has the full right and authority to impose control over the situation and no other parties are involved in the decision-making process, global governance means the opposite thing. It implies that many national governing bodies can influence the course of the situation development through cooperation and achievement of a consensus.
The major goal of trans-sovereign cooperation is to promote and equally disseminate public goods. Overall, the public good can be defined as common social welfare and its material and intangible attributes, in particular. The public good may relate to financial performance, employment, housing, environment, healthcare, nutrition, and so on. As Chan et al. observe, the main characteristics of the global public good are non-rivalry and non-exclusivity in consumption, which means that each of those goods is distributed equally across countries and individuals (20). To a large extent, all people regardless of their cultural identity and nationality usually agree on many global public goods because all human beings have the same basic needs for safety, health, etc. Nevertheless, some countries still may have opposing views on public goods. It is possible to say that political orientation and dominant ideologies defining the social environments in different states may be core to the differences in perspectives on the common good.
It is due to deficiencies in the local public sectors and governments that global public goods may be under-provided in some states. It means that some countries simply do not have sufficient resources and capabilities to contribute to the global welfare. However, the given situation provokes another issue, i.e., the inclusion of non-contributors in the public good distribution system induces “powerful incentives for many to free-ride on others’ contribution” (Chan et al. 20). Thus, sometimes the states that can provide global public goods may be unwilling to do so. For this reason, it is possible to say that a country can gain real benefits by providing global public goods only if international contributions are fairly apportioned.
Overall, global governance is meant to distribute global public goods and regulate the bads in a way that they are spread evenly and fairly across the globe. The major barriers to this are of political, economic, and even ethical character. Since global governance is not the global government but is the cooperation of various governing bodies, a country cannot be forced to participate in collective actions. Since there are no apparent immediate benefits a state can get through the contribution of public goods when others can easily take advantage of this, some countries may be reluctant to volunteer. The given issue is one of the topical in global governance.
Chinese Perspectives on Global Governance
Since the 20th century, China has significantly increased its participation in international organizations. However, due to a unique political, cultural and social situation in the country, its motivations for the involvement in global governance efforts were different from those which many other countries had. In the second chapter, Chan et al. discuss the peculiarities of Chinese perspective on global governance and reveal the state’s role in this process.
At the beginning of the economic reform in China, Deng Xiaoping said that the country should focus on hiding its capacities and biding its time and “not seeking leadership” (Chan et al. 3). It is possible to assume that he said it because he understood that other countries could see China as a threat as, in the 20th century, it had strengthened its power significantly. He implied that instead of imposing its own views on other states, China should rather participate in international institutions and engage in the dialog with others.
China associates globalization with multiple threats including the external imposition of values and ideologies, economic sanctions, and so on. As Chan et al. state the Chinese government regards the tightening of international ties as “an encroachment on its sovereignty” (25). However, instead of closing itself from the world in the face of those security threats, China decided to become an active participant in international affairs, shift from the national security concept towards the common security, and engage in inter-state multilateral cooperation.
Considering the fact that China does not seek leadership at the global arena but pursues other goals through international participation, it cannot be regarded as a revisionist power. Moreover, as Chan et al. state, the democratization of international relations has become one of the main goals of the country in its global governance endeavors (33). It is true that the Chinese government sees global governance as a means to enhance its economic and political power. However, it does not aim to impose itself on other states, unlike the United States that often tends to practice political hegemony. Thus, the United States can be regarded as a revisionist state because, throughout the history, it threatened the countries with non-Westphalian systems.
Since, to a large extent, the global civil society can be regarded as the artifacts of Western liberal society, China’s relationship with it is rather complex. The state emphasizes the importance of preserving the integrity of sovereignty, but with the increasing number of domestic NGOs, it may be undermined. Thus, the government requires NGOs to coordinate all their actions with it. Some researchers, however, see state-NGO relationships in China as cooperative rather than “confrontational” (Chan et al. 27).
China opposes many Western liberal ideas including the “responsibility to protect” principle (Chan et al. 29). From the state’s point of view, the given idea can be used by the global civil society to intervene the affairs of others. China accepts humanitarianism yet emphasizes the importance of non-interference because it goes against the sovereign equality. China’s opposition to the idea of “responsibility to protect” seems to be one of the primary causes why the state continues to insist on working with the UN. It gives the state an opportunity to express its opinion and influence the decision-making process by exercising its veto power and exposing the “damaged credibility of the UN Security Council” (Chan et al. 31).
The imposition of western ideologies across the states was also practiced by western financial institutions that intervened developing economies of Latin America, Africa, and south-east Asia and imposed uniform policies on them also known as “Washington Consensus” (Chan et al. 34). The given consensus implies the promotion of good governance and the integration of such values as transparency, accountability, and democracy in leadership models. However, unlike the Chinese economic reforms, also known as “Beijing Consensus,” the application of “Washington Consensus” to diverse states resulted in variable success. Beijing Consensus is characterized by an innovative approach, sustainable development, and regular environmental assessment, as well as the search for a unique rather than a borrowed change and development model. However, since the word “consensus” means an “ideal model,” many Chinese scholars prefer to call the given developmental strategy as “China model” because it is less idealistic and leaves a chance for other countries to alter it according to own interests and needs (Chan et al. 34).
It is interesting to see how Chinese perspective on global governance differs from the one many western nations have. The chapter reveals that the state sees international cooperation as a way to mitigate security threats and, without seeking global leadership, increase own political and economic power. It is possible to say that China was able to show that sometimes the global civil society’s decisions can be biased because it may compromise countries’ rights to sovereignty while trying to protect the rights of minority groups. For this reason, it is valid to say that China’s voice in global governance is important.
Work Cited
Chan, Gerald, et al. China Engages Global Governance: A New World Order in The Making? Routledge, 2013.