Dorine Akwiri
Susanne Beilmann
Professor Tupper
GPP 506
Global Governance in its Labyrinth:
History, Deficiencies and Successes
Introduction
The last three decades have seen a rapid supranationalization of political and social
processes due to globalization and its related technological advances. This supranationalization
has resulted in the creation of international institutions and regulatory frameworks to enable the
development of a structure for global governance. The concept of global governance refers to
the entirety of regulations put forward with reference to solving specific denationalized and
deregionalized problems or providing transnational common goods. (Zurn, p. 1). This global
governance framework is not only a response to the natural needs of a more interconnected
world, but to the political visions and interests of Western world powers. This process began with
the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Soviet Bloc, wherein a new Liberal Order came about
to impose hegemony at a global level. As Francis Fukuyama describes in his book, The End of
History and the Last Man (1992), this event signaled a future dominated by a lack of conflict and
the predominance of the Western liberal democracy and market-oriented economies. The
Western bias in the ideas of governance and public administration is problematic because it
imposes normative constructs that are not necessarily shared by the countries that are affected
by them. The three articles discussed in this essay will describe the issue Western bias in public
management, the notion of the ideal state and global governance and how Western dominance
Public Management
Public management is an integral part of governance. The methods and ideas that are
used to steer a State become part of the larger governance structure. In his 2014 lecture at the
administration has been dominated by Western countries for the last 30 years, this domination
was never as complete as it was once thought. Moreover, the efficacy of these techniques is
tradition becomes less prominent, new public administration ideas and traditions are starting to
consultancies, organizations such as the OECD, and the governments of the United States, the
United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Stemming from Anglophone countries, this
Under these techniques, specific public sector organizations, such as an agency for child welfare,
are regarded as general organizations whose modus operandi can be molded using Western
techniques. Seen as a one-size-fits-all solution, these practices, which include New Public
Management, benchmarking and contracting out, offer a set of tools that could help public sector
organizations work with more efficiency and efficacy. The organizations and academics behind
these ideas saw this management approach as a way to minimize expensive, time-consuming
local research and the struggle to understand the fine detail of local contexts- because basically
government officials, these ideas were propelled in public management discourse for over 30
years. However, as Pollitt points out, it is becoming increasingly apparent that these ideas were
not as dominant as perceived. Many countries, including France and Germany, rejected these
ideas and opted for their own indigenous traditions. Other countries, such as Japan, heavily
transformed them prior to implementing them locally. Still others did not see a need to use these
ideas at all, since they had administrative traditions and techniques of their own.
2
The success of these ideas has come under closer scrutiny over the last few years. Once
regarded as a universally applicable tools (Rovik, quoted in Pollitt, p. 5), the ability of these
techniques to bring positive change while lowering costs is increasingly being questioned. Pollitt
provides several examples of public management reforms carried out in the UK and the US that
resulted in little to no impact on productivity, efficiency or waste reduction. Instead, Pollitt points
out that many governments have been hollowed out, losing control over many of their agencies
administration techniques recedes, the ideas of other countries such as China, India, and some
Latin American countries are starting to gain a stronger foothold. This change, concludes Pollitt,
represents something of a liberation an opening up of multiple opportunities (p. 13) for different
techniques and solutions, for a more inclusive and open stage for dialogue on public
administration.
Pollitts analysis about the so-called dominance of Anglosphere ideas does not really
answer the question of why these ideas were not globally adopted. He states that some countries
have systems of their own, and that reservations against the full adoption of Anglosphere ideas
stem only partly from cultural differences (p. 11). However, we believe that Pollitts argument
would be much stronger if he provided a deeper analysis and answer to this question.
Anglosphere public management norms, particularly those related to New Public Management,
are laden with values that can be contradictory of the values of many non-Western countries. The
emphasis on output versus process, the focus on efficiency (sometimes at the expense of human
rights), and doing more for less are fundamentally opposed to the public management values of
many countries outside the OECD (Hood, 1991). These are very Western, Eurocentric ideas. We
argue that cultural differences are thus a significant reason for why these ideas were not
implemented by other countries. Likewise, the impact of local social and economic conditions
cannot be undermined. NPM-style reforms came about after World War II, when various
3
developed countries enjoyed years of economic growth and social liberation. These ideas and
techniques were designed to work best in modern societies with well-functioning market
economies; they cannot be translated and applied to just any country. In fact, like the strategy
corruption, a decrease in the quality of services offered, and accountability vacuums. These
undesired effects have occurred not only in the Anglophone countries where these traditions
originated, but in many of the countries where they have been (forcefully or otherwise)
implemented. Of course, that is not to say that they have not proved to be fruitful in many different
countries, because they have. But the overall capacity of these ideas and techniques to
accomplish the goals that they presuppose, particularly when applied to non-Western countries,
should be evaluated empirically prior to further promulgation by organizations like the World Bank
While we agree that there has been a relative decrease in the dominance of public
administration ideas and techniques, we are unsure about the practical aspects of the inclusion
and implementation of administrative ideas of other countries. Put simply, this relates to language
barriers, path dependency and the monetization required to promote these ideas. One of the main
reasons why Anglosphere ideas took off is that the authors and organizations behind them all
spoke the same language. China, India, Latin America and the United States do not share the
same language. Nor do they share international management consultancies willing and able to
push their ideas globally. Moreover, we argue that path dependence would signify an obstacle to
the full or even partial implementation of vastly different reforms, were these to be translated.
Lastly, it should be noted that, unless non-Anglosphere ideas are monetized and promulgated by
international management consultancies the way Anglosphere ideas were, it remains unlikely that
4
these will reach a significant level of global prominence. To be sure, Anglosphere ideas and
techniques are still being actively promoted by various governmental and non-governmental
agents around the world; these are an important aspect of multi-level governance.
the last 60 years that has resulted in an interplay political entities. This concept has been infiltrated
by a Western bias imposed on the political realm by developed countries such as the United
States, the United Kingdom and France after World War II. This bias is reflected in the liberal
world order that purports to have the answers to the worlds political and social problems.
Global governance presupposes the existence of common goals between regions and
countries. This assumption does not deny the existence or importance of the nation-state as a
natural space for solving problems under the modernity paradigm. Instead, the analysis of global
governance recognizes that there are fundamental conflicts between States. In this sense, the
analysis of global governance has risen in a historical post-World War II scenario where Western
powers reshaped the international agenda according to their particular set of political and social
values in every area of life. The concept that results from these power relations has a clear
normative direction and is a logical response to the interconnection that came about with the
technological revolution.
regulatory frameworks that have direct implications for the public policy and administrative
related to the consensus principle and equality under international law. Therefore, there is tension
between the idea of global governance and the principles of sovereignty of countries under its
power.
type of system that is required for global governance to function coherently and with a defined
5
purpose, a multi-level governance system. The actors and entities within multi-level governance
are organized, autopoietic, polycentric and organic parts of the system. Thus, political authority
has to be shared between the many levels of this system. As a result, the multi-level governance
system consists of three well-defined levels: legitimation, coordination and implementation. Each
level has a specific role and can coordinate with other levels to reach goals. There are deficiencies
The legitimation level is a space for deliberation and having the public discussions around
what kind of problems must be decided and how those problems will be addressed. There are
interventions from a myriad of key actors at this levels such as the nation-state, regional
organizations, international organizations, civil society organizations, and the business sector. At
the coordination level, multilevel governance implies building a framework for the actors who will
be carrying out the basic tasks demanded by the system. The system requires that each actor is
willing to implement common policy goals. Finally, at the implementation level, multi-level
governance results in an overlap in the jurisdiction and competencies of actors (domestic and
international) in reaching common goals. Multi-level governance requires a nation-state that will
work within the system and support the consensus created at the legitimation level. This is why
multi-level governance does not negate the relevance of the nation-state. Instead, it relies on the
The paradigm of multi-level governance faces two main problems which lie at the
legitimation level and the inherently fragmented structure of the system. At the legitimation level,
there is a high degree of politicization where Western liberal values have greater influence.
Consequently, there has been a reduction in the global relevance of non-Western ideologies.
Specifically, global legitimacy has focused on the monetary aspects of governance, rather than
aspects related to rights and democratic processes. Secondly, the fragmentation of the multi-level
system between different jurisdictions has resulted in a preferential treatment of some democratic
6
demands over others, such as security and anti-terrorism agendas over human rights. There is
little coordination within the system to provide common goods and solve problems.
the Western bias in defining and understanding local governance. As defined by Thomas Risse,
a limited state is a country in which central authorities lack the ability to implement and enforce
rules and decisions, and/or in which the legitimate monopoly over the means of violence is lacking,
at least temporarily.
Areas of limited statehood, despite the lack of domestic autonomy, still belong to
internationally recognized states and are subject to international legal standards of good
governance, human rights and the rule of law. But these standards come with Eurocentric and
Western biases of what governance ought to be, and how states ought to be run. The Western
discourse on governance remains centred on the ideal type of statehood: one with internal and
external sovereignty, a legitimate monopoly on the use of force, and checks and balances that
But limited states are far from the ideal Western state. They lack internal sovereignty and
laws come from multiple sources including the constitution, religious institutions and tradition,
thereby making sovereignty through rule of law difficult. Limited states are also mostly steered
sometimes the use of force. Central authorities of governance in limited states are sometimes
lacking, and in areas where they are present, they lack legitimate power to control the use of
violence and provide goods and services across the unit of governance, the State. Because they
lack monopoly over the use of force, limited states are characterized by violence and opposing
military units and rebel groups with considerable power to execute violence. There are weak
political institutions that can constrain political action and provide checks and balances on political
authority.
7
Within the State, governance (i.e. the intentional provision of goods and services and the
control of the use of force) in areas of limited statehood is performed by multiple actors. This
includes violent actors, local and international NGOs, informal governance actors like village
elders, governments, and public and private firms. There is also a considerable presence of multi-
level governance players like external (mostly western) governments, transnational corporations
and INGOs involved in providing goods and in rule-making. This presence of Western State-
building actors can be attributed to the view of the Western nation-state as the ultimate model of
good governance; therefore, solely they are seen as suited to help areas of limited statehood
The main challenge of multi-level governance in areas of limited states when looked
through the lens of Western bias is to incorporate the non-hierarchical steering that exists
domestically in areas of limited statehood, within the internationally accepted, traditional Western
top-down, command-and-control approach to governance. This push to make limited states fit
into the international system of states that can be globally governed has been driven by the need
for legitimacy, accountability and efficient governance. This is because these factors have been
a main cause of concern in how effective, accountable and legitimate governance can occur in
To find a solution to this lack of hierarchical coordination, Risse points that the international
community has come to rule authoritatively in areas of limited statehood and also supplies a
shadow of hierarchy, inducing other actors operating within limited states to provide effective
governance. And this has led to the provision of direct public services in limited states by the
international agencies creating multi-level governance at the local level. However, it is not clear
how effective these services provided in this multi-level system are and how different they are to
the services provided in a non-hierarchical system. And we argue that they may not be as relevant
to the local people. This is because decision-making in multi-level governance happens at the
legitimation level, which is two levels away from the local implementation level. Also, at this stage
8
there are multiple actors involved, most of whom will be international experts and not members
legal standards on good governance, human rights and the rule of law hold actors accountable.
This is the only way that actors, both local and international, can gain international legitimacy.
While we appreciate that forcing actors in areas of limited statehood has increased protection of
the rights of local citizens, as Risses article rightly mentions, enforcement of these standards has
been inherently problematic. Perhaps a detailed analysis of why local actors have failed to adhere
to these internationally-set legal standards would help find a more relevant solution to the
governance dilemma in limited states. And find better ways of legitimizing governance actors in
these areas.
As we have seen, the international community, in its attempt to ensure areas of limited
statehood experience good governance, has just basically been pushing limited states to become
Western democracies. The obsession with hierarchy, the push for legitimacy through Western-
developed laws and the need for local actors to adhere to these international standards, has not
shown evidence of creating a more inclusive system of governance, or of providing a more locally
The role of local actors, state or non-state in deciding governance in areas of limited states within
the context of globally acceptable systems has continued to be absent. Multi-level governance in
these areas continues to be Eurocentric and based on a single narrative of Western standards.
On 3 June 2013, for example, the Security Council established the United Nations
Assistance Mission in Somalia (UNSOM) which was meant to galvanise international support for
Somalia as it recovers from more than two decades of conflict and builds a new state. To date,
the heavy presence of the UN in Somalia has not been effective in stopping the conflicts or terror
attacks, or at the least leading to better provision of goods and services. Since the Somali civil
wars in 1991, the international community, through UNSOM has made 15 failed attempts at
9
creating peace and stability within Somalia. Perhaps this failure is what has caused the
international community to work together with Somalis and develop a New Deal for Somalia. The
New Deal emphasizes Somali-owned and Somali-led development and effective aid management
and delivery that mirrors these development needs among other principles. This fresh
commitment is guiding the UNs work and strengthening its partnerships in Somalia. And early
research has shown that this paradigm shift of inclusion of local actors in multi-level governance
in Somalia seems to bear more fruit than previous efforts (Manuel, Mckechnie, Wilson, & das
Pradhan-Blach).
Conclusion
The three articles discussed above demonstrate that governance efforts by the powers of
the Western Liberal Order and the structures that they have put in place has been successful in
creating a global institution that allows the participation and regulation of almost every country.
However, there are serious deficiencies in this structure that must be addressed. Apart from the
structural aspects already discussed above, we wish to highlight the importance of considering
local contexts, both in terms of public management and governance. Without this, efforts that try
to clone Western ideas and methods in non-Western States with the aim of developing or
10
References
Fukuyama, F. (1992). The End of History and the Last Man. Free Press.
Hood, C. (1991). All Seasons? the Rise of New Public Management (Npm). Public
Administration, 69(1), 319. https://doi.org/http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-
9299.1991.tb00779.x/pdf
Manuel, M., Mckechnie, A., Wilson, G & das Pradhan-Blach, R. The New Deal in Somalia- An
Independent Review of the Somali Compact, (April 2017), 20142016.
Pollitt, C. (2014). Towards a new world: some inconvenient truths for Anglosphere Public
Administration. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 117.
11