EU-LDC Network conference 2002
|
Improving Global Governance for Development: Issues
and Instruments - 7-10 December, Chiang Mai
Opening session - Improving the architecture
of global government - Summary
Global governance is for a large part depending
on the role of international organisations (IOs). The question of
how institutional provisions of global government should and can
be improved in order to meet the demands of the international community,
is an important issue. Although NGOs play an important role in global
governance, the speaker focused on the intergovernmental, international
organisations (IOs) from an economic perspective.
From the evaluation of IOs’ past, it becomes
clear that their existence stems from a need to set international
rules in order to enable collective action. Social needs and externalities
need to be coped with at an international level through the provision
of global public goods. In order to meet these demands several regimes
have been established. These regimes can have different ideologies.
A negative aspect of the regimes’ functioning is that the powerful
have tended to impose their ideologies upon others in the case of
some regimes. Most regimes now have a liberal ideology. In addition
to ideology, principles differ per regime. As a result of the differences
in ideologies and principles, the functioning of the regimes also
varies. The IOs make up a patchwork due to differences in coverage,
competences, principles and governance structures. Sometimes there
are overlapping areas between different regimes which can lead to
conflicts. On other occasions certain areas are not covered by any
IO. Other problems related to the governance of IOs lie with the
limits of compliance mechanisms. This refers, among others, to the
reputation of IOs, sanctions, indirect rewards and incentives.
Moreover, IOs have difficulties in adapting to the needs
of specific groups, for example developing countries. Although gradual
adjustments have enabled to meet changing demands, in some case
the regimes have insufficiently adapted to new needs. The limited
ability to adapt stems from high transaction costs and difficulties
related to the number of actors in IOs and their differing interests.
Insensitivity to voices by civil society have proven to be another
major obstacle for IOs to deal with changing demands of the global
community.
In the future the demands for IOs are likely
to increase. There is a need for more global public goods, which
need to be met at lower costs and from different ideological perspectives
as well as with more influence from poor actors. To achieve collective
action, there is a case for specialisation by subject (leading to
regimes) and by area (leading regionalism). In this respect, the
speaker presented four options for the future of global government:
-
A grand design with a united framework for
all public goods and the integration of different regimes. This
option is characterised by strong governance and low transaction
costs. However, problems with collective action limit the chances
of implementation.
-
Partial and incremental improvement of current
regime characterised by an increasing width and coverage. This
will lead to coherence within a regime, but might become captive
of sectoral interest. It is questionable whether it will fundamentally
change the existing regimes. Implementation seems easier than
option one, but transaction costs will be high.
-
A comprehensive three layer system which
links global and regional systems. In this option decisions
are more easily taken. It takes into account regional differences.
Nevertheless, transaction costs will be high.
-
Incremental globalism and regionalism. This
will allow regional approaches to certain issues in addition
to global approaches.
According to the speaker the first and third options should not
be dismissed, but they seem too difficult to realise. The second
and fourth seem more realistic. Therefore, a strategy can be followed
by improving the functioning of IOs, while there should also remain
a focus at the regional level. It is necessary to find like-minded
to create coalitions. This is also applicable to the relationship
between developing countries and the EU.
The discussant pointed to the lack of attention for distributive
issues in the presentation of the speaker. These issues are related
to the quality of national government and asymmetries of interests.
Distributive issues are relevant within countries, but also at the
global level. In this sense, the quality of national governance
and of global governance are inherently linked. It is important
to keep limits of governance at both the national and the international
level in mind. Finally, there is a need to define what global goods
exactly are before they can be addressed in a global perspective.
In the discussion the issue of distribution and differing
interests was highlighted again. In particular, some regimes mentioned
in the presentation of the speaker (environment, labour) are biased
towards a developed countries’ perspective. The case for regimes
of capacity building is very crucial for the developing countries
and needs not to be overlooked. Participation is a vital factor
in order to improve the architecture of global governance. Together
with lack of transparency and accountability, participation should
be linked to the ability in complying with global governance structures.
Opening session
- Speakers
Chair: Charit Tingsabadh,
Max van der Sleen
Speaker: Willem Molle
(ECORYS/Erasmus University)
Discussant: Robert
Owen (University of Nantes)
Back to Conference 2002 index
|
