Global Governance through the Institutional Lens

  • Matthias Finger

Abstract

There is, so far, little or no concern about the organizational and institutional dimensions of global governance. In the minds of our leaders and many academics, global governance still appears to be a simple mechanism—a technical fix, rather than a set of organizations and institutions, whose coming about is merely a matter of political will (Strong 2001). In other words, global governance is not seen as a matter of contingencies reflecting interests and power structures among strategic actors. Consequently, global governance has been viewed so far mainly from a functional—as opposed to an institutional—perspective (Held 1995), if it is not outright wishful thinking (Commission on Global Governance 1995). This chapter takes a different approach and examines global governance essentially in terms of historical and sociological constraints. In doing so, I proceed by first presenting a conceptual framework and then by reviewing the international institutional system as set about by the former colonial powers and cemented in the UN system. The pressures on the UN system, resulting in particular from the various dimensions of globalization, are highlighted in a third section. The fourth section describes how the international institutional system today is reacting, adapting, and rearranging itself in light of these pressures. Finally, I outline the possible future perspectives of institutionalized global governance.

Keywords

Europe Tuberculosis Malaria Defend International Atomic Energy Agency 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Commission on Global Governance. 1995. Our Global Neighborhood. The Report of the Commission on Global Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Crozier, Michel. 1963. Le phénomène bureaucratique. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  3. Dijkzeul, Dennis, and Yves Beigbeder, eds. 2003. Rethinking International Organizations: Pathology and Promise. New York: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
  4. Etzioni, Amitai. 1964. Modern Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  5. Finger, Matthias, and Ludivine Tamiotti. 2002. The Emerging Linkage Between the WTO and the ISO: Implications for Developing Countries. In Development and Challenge of Globalisation, edited by P. Newell, S. Rai, and A. Scott, 89–101. London: ITDG Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Giddens, Anthony. 2001. Sociology. London: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  7. Held, David. 1995. Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance. London: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  8. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. 2003. Annual Report. New York: OHCHR.Google Scholar
  9. Rosenau, Jim, and Ernst-Otto Czempiel. eds. 2000. Governance without Government: Order and Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Strong, Maurice. 2001. Where on Earth are We Going? Toronto: Texere Publishing.Google Scholar
  11. United Nations Development Program. 2003. Annual Report. New York: UNDP.Google Scholar
  12. Young, Oran. 1994. International Governance. Protecting the Environment in a Stateless Society. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Markus Lederer and Philipp S. Müller 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthias Finger

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations