Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-mnl9s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-23T00:07:30.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Global Governance: Parsimony and the Strictures of Complexity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2011

Jorg Kustermans
Jorg Kustermans*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Political and Social Sciences, University of Antwerp, Belgium. E-mail: jorg.kustermans@ua.ac.be
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The central contribution of the discipline of International Relations to the debate on globalization is its engagement with the process of global governance. This article seeks to map the substance of this engagement through a systematic comparison of three main theoretical approaches to global governance: James Rosenau’s account of the sui generis and complex nature of global governance, Political Realism’s reductive reading of global governance as fragile international cooperation, and the so-called English School’s ‘middle-way’ analysis of global governance as (a historically evolved form of) ordered international interaction.

Information

Type
Focus: Globalization
Information
European Review , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , February 2011 , pp. 19 - 29
Copyright
Copyright © Academia Europaea 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

References and Notes

1.Czempiel, O. and Rosenau, J., (eds) (1992) Governance Without Government: Order and Change in World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
2.Wendt, A. (1992) Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics. International Organization, 46, pp. 391–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Biersteker, T. and Weber, C., (eds) (1996) State Sovereignty as a Social Construct (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Rosenau, J. (1995/2004) Governance in the twenty-first century. In: T. Sinclair (ed.) Global Governance: Critical Concepts in Political Science, Vol. I (London & New York: Routledge), p. 185.Google Scholar
5.Gilpin, R. (2001) Global Political Economy: Understanding the International Economic Order (Princeton: Princeton University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Rosenau, J. (1995/2004) Governance in the twenty-first century. In: T. Sinclair (ed.) Global Governance: Critical Concepts in Political Science, Vol. I (London & New York: Routledge), p. 185.Google Scholar
7.Rosenau, J. (1995/2004) Governance in the twenty-first century. In: T. Sinclair (ed.) Global Governance: Critical Concepts in Political Science, Vol. I (London & New York: Routledge), p. 409.Google Scholar
8.Rosenau, J. (1997/2004) Governance. In: T. Sinclair (ed.) Global Governance: Critical Concepts in Political Science, Vol. I (London & New York: Routledge), p. 414.Google Scholar
9.Rosenau, J. (1992) Governance, order and change in world politics. In: O. Czempiel and J. Rosenau (eds) Governance Without Government: Order and Change in World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 7–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Rosenau, J. (1997/2004) Governance. In: T. Sinclair (ed.) Global Governance: Critical Concepts in Political Science, Vol. I (London & New York: Routledge), p. 409.Google Scholar
11. In a sense, this is a strange argument for Realists to make. Kenneth Waltz’ neo-realist theory of international politics is famous, and contested, for asserting the isomorphic effect of the anarchic international structure. States converge, they become like-units because of the structural pressures of the international political system. It is unclear why Waltz would not be sympathetic to a similar hypothesis in the international economic realm. His only argument can be that economic issues do not matter much. As if the key were: ‘it is international security, stupid’.Google Scholar
12.Delwaide, J. and Geeraerts, G. (2005) Globalisering: requiem voor de staat? Vrede en Veiligheid: Tijdschrift voor Internationale Betrekkingen, 34, pp. 484–503. For a concise summary of the Realist argument on Globalization, see K. Waltz (1999) Globalization and governance. PS: Political Science and Politics, 32, pp. 694–697.Google Scholar
13.Gilpin, R. (2004) A realist perspective on international governance. In: D. Held and A. McGrew (eds) Governing Globalization: Power, Authority and Global Governance (Cambridge: Polity Press), pp. 237–248.Google Scholar
14.Keohane, R. O. (1984) After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (Princeton: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
15.Delwaide, J. (2001) Voor vrijheid en recht: de legitimiteit van humanitaire interventie. Vrede en Veiligheid: Tijdschrift voor Internationale Betrekkingen, 30, pp. 327–342. R. Abdebal and A. Segal (2007) Has globalization passed its peak? Foreign Affairs, 86, pp. 103–114.Google Scholar
16.Waltz, K. (1999) Globalization and governance. PS: Political Science and Politics, 32, pp. 699.Google Scholar
17. For a discussion of the role of private actors in an English School account, see Dunne, T. (2005) Global governance: an English school perspective. In: A. Ba and M. Hoffman (eds) Contending Perspectives on Global Governance: Coherence, contestation and world order (London & New York: Routledge), pp. 72–87; B. Buzan (2004) From International to World Society: The English School Theory and the Social Structure of Globalisation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). For a fine treatment of private authority in international security, see A. Leander (2006) Eroding State Authority? Private Military Companies and the Legitimate Use of Force (Rome: Centro Militare di Studi Strategici).Google Scholar
18.Dunne, T. (2005) Global governance: an English school perspective. In: A. Ba and M. Hoffman (eds) Contending Perspectives on Global Governance: Coherence, contestation and world order (London & New York: Routledge), p. 72.Google Scholar
19.Rosenau, J. (1992) Governance, order and change in world politics. In: O. Czempiel and J. Rosenau (eds) Governance Without Government: Order and Change in World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), p. 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Katzenstein, P. and Sil, R. (2008) Eclectic theorizing in the study and practice of international relations. In: C. Reus-Smit and D. Snidal (eds) The Oxford Handbook of International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 109–130.Google Scholar
21.Neumann, I. and Sending, O. J. (2010, forthcoming) Governing the Global Polity: Practice, Mentality, Rationality (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar