An information society is a society where the creation, distribution, use, integration and manipulation of information is a significant economic, political, and cultural activity. Its main drivers are digital information and communication technologies, which have resulted in an information explosion and are profoundly changing all aspects of social organization, including the economy, education, health, warfare, government and democracy. The people who have the means to partake in this form of society are sometimes called digital citizens,
defined by K. Mossberger as “Those who use the Internet regularly and
effectively”. This is one of many dozen labels that have been identified
to suggest that humans are entering a new phase of society.
There
is currently no universally accepted concept of what exactly can be
termed information society and what shall rather not so be termed. Most
theoreticians agree that a transformation can be seen that started
somewhere between the 1970s and today and is changing the way societies
work fundamentally. Information technology goes beyond the internet,
and there are discussions about how big the influence of specific media
or specific modes of production really is. Frank Webster notes five
major types of information that can be used to define information
society: technological, economic, occupational, spatial and cultural.
According to Webster, the character of information has transformed the
way that we live today. How we conduct ourselves centers around
theoretical knowledge and information.
Kasiwulaya and Gomo (Makerere University) allude
that information societies are those that have intensified their use of
IT for economic, social, cultural and political transformation. In
2005, governments reaffirmed their dedication to the foundations of the
Information
Society in the Tunis Commitment
and outlined the basis for implementation and follow-up in the Tunis
Agenda for the Information Society. In particular, the Tunis Agenda
addresses the issues of financing of ICTs for development and Internet
governance that could not be resolved in the first phase.
Some people, such as Antonio Negri,
characterize the information society as one in which people do
immaterial labour. By this, they appear to refer to the production of
knowledge or cultural artifacts. One problem with this model is that it
ignores the material and essentially industrial basis of the society.
However it does point to a problem for workers, namely how many creative
people does this society need to function? For example, it may be that
you only need a few star performers, rather than a plethora of
non-celebrities, as the work of those performers can be easily
distributed, forcing all secondary players to the bottom of the market.
It is now common for publishers to promote only their best
selling authors and to try to avoid the rest—even if they still sell
steadily. Films are becoming more and more judged, in terms of
distribution, by their first weekend's performance, in many cases
cutting out opportunity for word-of-mouth development.
Michael Buckland characterizes information in society in his book Information and Society.
Buckland expresses the idea that information can be interpreted
differently from person to person based on that individual's
experiences.
Considering that metaphors and technologies of information move
forward in a reciprocal relationship, we can describe some societies
(especially the Japanese society) as an information society because we think of it as such.
The word information may be interpreted in many different ways. According to Buckland in Information and Society,
most of the meanings fall into three categories of human knowledge:
information as knowledge, information as a process, and information as a
thing.
The amount of data stored globally has increased greatly since the 1980s, and by 2007, 94% of it was stored digitally. Source
The growth of technologically mediated information has been
quantified in different ways, including society's technological capacity
to store information, to communicate information, and to compute
information. It is estimated that, the world's technological capacity to
store information grew from 2.6 (optimally compressed) exabytes in 1986, which is the informational equivalent to less than one 730-MB CD-ROM per person in 1986 (539 MB per person), to 295 (optimally compressed) exabytes in 2007. This is the informational equivalent of 60 CD-ROM per person in 2007
and represents a sustained annual growth rate of some 25%. The world’s
combined technological capacity to receive information through one-way broadcast networks was the informational equivalent of 174 newspapers per person per day in 2007.
The world's combined effective capacity to exchange information through two-way telecommunication networks was 281 petabytes of (optimally compressed) information in 1986, 471 petabytes in 1993, 2.2 (optimally compressed) exabytes in 2000, and 65 (optimally compressed) exabytes in 2007, which is the informational equivalent of 6 newspapers per person per day in 2007.
The world's technological capacity to compute information with humanly
guided general-purpose computers grew from 3.0 × 10^8 MIPS in 1986, to
6.4 x 10^12 MIPS in 2007, experiencing the fastest growth rate of over
60% per year during the last two decades.
James R. Beniger
describes the necessity of information in modern society in the
following way: “The need for sharply increased control that resulted
from the industrialization of material processes through application of
inanimate sources of energy probably accounts for the rapid development
of automatic feedback technology in the early industrial period
(1740-1830)” (p. 174)
“Even with enhanced feedback control, industry could not have developed
without the enhanced means to process matter and energy, not only as
inputs of the raw materials of production but also as outputs
distributed to final consumption.”(p. 175)
One of the first people to develop the concept of the information society was the economist Fritz Machlup. In 1933, Fritz Machlup began studying the effect of patents on research. His work culminated in the study The production and distribution of knowledge in the United States in 1962. This book was widely regarded and was eventually translated into Russian and Japanese. The Japanese have also studied the information society (or jōhōka shakai, 情報化社会).
The issue of technologies and their role in contemporary society
have been discussed in the scientific literature using a range of labels
and concepts. This section introduces some of them. Ideas of a
knowledge or information economy, post-industrial society, postmodern society, network society, the information revolution, informational capitalism, network capitalism, and the like, have been debated over the last several decades.
Fritz Machlup (1962) introduced the concept of the knowledge industry.
He began studying the effects of patents on research before
distinguishing five sectors of the knowledge sector: education, research
and development, mass media, information technologies, information
services. Based on this categorization he calculated that in 1959 29%
per cent of the GNP in the USA had been produced in knowledge
industries.
Economic transition
Peter Drucker has argued that there is a transition from an economy based on material goods to one based on knowledge. Marc Porat
distinguishes a primary (information goods and services that are
directly used in the production, distribution or processing of
information) and a secondary sector (information services produced for
internal consumption by government and non-information firms) of the
information economy.
Porat uses the total value added by the primary and secondary
information sector to the GNP as an indicator for the information
economy. The OECD
has employed Porat's definition for calculating the share of the
information economy in the total economy (e.g. OECD 1981, 1986). Based
on such indicators, the information society has been defined as a
society where more than half of the GNP is produced and more than half
of the employees are active in the information economy.
For Daniel Bell
the number of employees producing services and information is an
indicator for the informational character of a society. "A
post-industrial society is based on services. (…) What counts is not raw
muscle power, or energy, but information. (…) A post industrial society
is one in which the majority of those employed are not involved in the
production of tangible goods".
Alain Touraine
already spoke in 1971 of the post-industrial society. "The passage to
postindustrial society takes place when investment results in the
production of symbolic goods that modify values, needs, representations,
far more than in the production of material goods or even of
'services'. Industrial society had transformed the means of production:
post-industrial society changes the ends of production, that is,
culture. (…) The decisive point here is that in postindustrial society
all of the economic system is the object of intervention of society upon
itself. That is why we can call it the programmed society, because this
phrase captures its capacity to create models of management,
production, organization, distribution, and consumption, so that such a
society appears, at all its functional levels, as the product of an
action exercised by the society itself, and not as the outcome of
natural laws or cultural specificities" (Touraine 1988: 104). In the
programmed society also the area of cultural reproduction including
aspects such as information, consumption, health, research, education
would be industrialized. That modern society is increasing its capacity
to act upon itself means for Touraine that society is reinvesting ever
larger parts of production and so produces and transforms itself. This
makes Touraine's concept substantially different from that of Daniel
Bell who focused on the capacity to process and generate information for
efficient society functioning.
Jean-François Lyotard has argued that "knowledge has become the principle [sic]
force of production over the last few decades". Knowledge would be
transformed into a commodity. Lyotard says that postindustrial society
makes knowledge accessible to the layman because knowledge and
information technologies would diffuse into society and break up Grand
Narratives of centralized structures and groups. Lyotard denotes these
changing circumstances as postmodern condition or postmodern society.
Similarly to Bell, Peter Otto and Philipp Sonntag (1985) say that
an information society is a society where the majority of employees
work in information jobs, i.e. they have to deal more with information,
signals, symbols, and images than with energy and matter. Radovan Richta
(1977) argues that society has been transformed into a scientific
civilization based on services, education, and creative activities. This
transformation would be the result of a scientific-technological
transformation based on technological progress and the increasing
importance of computer technology. Science and technology would become
immediate forces of production (Aristovnik 2014: 55).
Nico Stehr
(1994, 2002a, b) says that in the knowledge society a majority of jobs
involves working with knowledge. "Contemporary society may be described
as a knowledge society based on the extensive penetration of all its
spheres of life and institutions by scientific and technological
knowledge" (Stehr 2002b: 18). For Stehr, knowledge is a capacity for
social action. Science would become an immediate productive force,
knowledge would no longer be primarily embodied in machines, but already
appropriated nature that represents knowledge would be rearranged
according to certain designs and programs (Ibid.: 41-46). For Stehr, the
economy of a knowledge society is largely driven not by material
inputs, but by symbolic or knowledge-based inputs (Ibid.: 67), there
would be a large number of professions that involve working with
knowledge, and a declining number of jobs that demand low cognitive
skills as well as in manufacturing (Stehr 2002a).
Also Alvin Toffler
argues that knowledge is the central resource in the economy of the
information society: "In a Third Wave economy, the central resource – a
single word broadly encompassing data, information, images, symbols,
culture, ideology, and values – is actionable knowledge"
(Dyson/Gilder/Keyworth/Toffler 1994).
At the end of the twentieth century, the concept of the network society gained importance in information society theory. For Manuel Castells,
network logic is besides information, pervasiveness, flexibility, and
convergence a central feature of the information technology paradigm
(2000a: 69ff). "One of the key features of informational society is the
networking logic of its basic structure, which explains the use of the
concept of 'network society'" (Castells 2000: 21). "As an historical
trend, dominant functions and processes in the Information Age are
increasingly organized around networks. Networks constitute the new
social morphology of our societies, and the diffusion of networking
logic substantially modifies the operation and outcomes in processes of
production, experience, power, and culture" (Castells 2000: 500). For
Castells the network society is the result of informationalism, a new
technological paradigm.
Jan Van Dijk
(2006) defines the network society as a "social formation with an
infrastructure of social and media networks enabling its prime mode of
organization at all levels (individual, group/organizational and
societal). Increasingly, these networks link all units or parts of this
formation (individuals, groups and organizations)" (Van Dijk 2006: 20).
For Van Dijk networks have become the nervous system of society, whereas
Castells links the concept of the network society to capitalist
transformation, Van Dijk sees it as the logical result of the increasing
widening and thickening of networks in nature and society. Darin Barney
uses the term for characterizing societies that exhibit two fundamental
characteristics: "The first is the presence in those societies of
sophisticated – almost exclusively digital – technologies of networked
communication and information management/distribution, technologies
which form the basic infrastructure mediating an increasing array of
social, political and economic practices. (…) The second, arguably more
intriguing, characteristic of network societies is the reproduction and
institutionalization throughout (and between) those societies of
networks as the basic form of human organization and relationship across
a wide range of social, political and economic configurations and
associations".
Critiques
The
major critique of concepts such as information society, knowledge
society, network society, postmodern society, postindustrial society,
etc. that has mainly been voiced by critical scholars is that they
create the impression that we have entered a completely new type of
society. "If there is just more information then it is hard to
understand why anyone should suggest that we have before us something
radically new" (Webster 2002a: 259). Critics such as Frank Webster
argue that these approaches stress discontinuity, as if contemporary
society had nothing in common with society as it was 100 or 150 years
ago. Such assumptions would have ideological character because they
would fit with the view that we can do nothing about change and have to
adopt to existing political realities (kasiwulaya 2002b: 267).
These critics argue that contemporary society first of all is
still a capitalist society oriented towards accumulating economic,
political, and cultural capital.
They acknowledge that information society theories stress some
important new qualities of society (notably globalization and
informatization), but charge that they fail to show that these are
attributes of overall capitalist structures. Critics such as Webster
insist on the continuities that characterise change. In this way Webster
distinguishes between different epochs of capitalism: laissez-faire
capitalism of the 19th century, corporate capitalism in the 20th century, and informational capitalism for the 21st century (kasiwulaya 2006).
For describing contemporary society based on a dialectic of the
old and the new, continuity and discontinuity, other critical scholars
have suggested several terms like:
transnational network capitalism, transnational informational capitalism (Christian Fuchs
2008, 2007): "Computer networks are the technological foundation that
has allowed the emergence of global network capitalism, that is, regimes
of accumulation, regulation, and discipline that are helping to
increasingly base the accumulation of economic, political, and cultural
capital on transnational network organizations that make use of
cyberspace and other new technologies for global coordination and
communication. [...] The need to find new strategies for executing
corporate and political domination has resulted in a restructuration of
capitalism that is characterized by the emergence of transnational,
networked spaces in the economic, political, and cultural system and has
been mediated by cyberspace as a tool of global coordination and
communication. Economic, political, and cultural space have been
restructured; they have become more fluid and dynamic, have enlarged
their borders to a transnational scale, and handle the inclusion and
exclusion of nodes in flexible ways. These networks are complex due to
the high number of nodes (individuals, enterprises, teams, political
actors, etc.) that can be involved and the high speed at which a high
number of resources is produced and transported within them. But global
network capitalism is based on structural inequalities; it is made up of
segmented spaces in which central hubs (transnational corporations,
certain political actors, regions, countries, Western lifestyles, and
worldviews) centralize the production, control, and flows of economic,
political, and cultural capital (property, power, definition
capacities). This segmentation is an expression of the overall
competitive character of contemporary society." (Fuchs 2008: 110+119);
digital capitalism (Schiller 2000, cf. also Peter Glotz):
"networks are directly generalizing the social and cultural range of
the capitalist economy as never before" (Schiller 2000: xiv);
virtual capitalism: the "combination of marketing and the new
information technology will enable certain firms to obtain higher profit
margins and larger market shares, and will thereby promote greater
concentration and centralization of capital" (Dawson/John Bellamy Foster 1998: 63sq);
high-tech capitalism
or informatic capitalism (Fitzpatrick 2002) – to focus on the computer
as a guiding technology that has transformed the productive forces of
capitalism and has enabled a globalized economy.
Other scholars prefer to speak of information capitalism (Morris-Suzuki 1997) or informational capitalism (Manuel Castells 2000, Christian Fuchs
2005, Schmiede 2006a, b). Manuel Castells sees informationalism as a
new technological paradigm (he speaks of a mode of development)
characterized by "information generation, processing, and transmission"
that have become "the fundamental sources of productivity and power"
(Castells 2000: 21). The "most decisive historical factor accelerating,
channelling and shaping the information technology paradigm, and
inducing its associated social forms, was/is the process of capitalist
restructuring undertaken since the 1980s, so that the new
techno-economic system can be adequately characterized as informational
capitalism" (Castells 2000: 18). Castells has added to theories of the
information society the idea that in contemporary society dominant
functions and processes are increasingly organized around networks that
constitute the new social morphology of society (Castells 2000: 500). Nicholas Garnham
is critical of Castells and argues that the latter’s account is
technologically determinist because Castells points out that his
approach is based on a dialectic of technology and society in which
technology embodies society and society uses technology (Castells 2000:
5sqq). But Castells also makes clear that the rise of a new "mode of
development" is shaped by capitalist production, i.e. by society, which
implies that technology isn't the only driving force of society.
Antonio Negri and Michael Hardt
argue that contemporary society is an Empire that is characterized by a
singular global logic of capitalist domination that is based on
immaterial labour. With the concept of immaterial labour Negri and Hardt
introduce ideas of information society discourse into their Marxist
account of contemporary capitalism. Immaterial labour would be labour
"that creates immaterial products, such as knowledge, information,
communication, a relationship, or an emotional response" (Hardt/Negri
2005: 108; cf. also 2000: 280-303), or services, cultural products,
knowledge (Hardt/Negri 2000: 290). There would be two forms:
intellectual labour that produces ideas, symbols, codes, texts,
linguistic figures, images, etc.; and affective labour
that produces and manipulates affects such as a feeling of ease,
well-being, satisfaction, excitement, passion, joy, sadness, etc.
(Ibid.).
Overall, neo-Marxist accounts of the information society have in
common that they stress that knowledge, information technologies, and
computer networks have played a role in the restructuration and
globalization of capitalism and the emergence of a flexible regime of
accumulation (David Harvey 1989). They warn that new technologies are embedded into societal antagonisms that cause structural unemployment, rising poverty, social exclusion, the deregulation of the welfare state and of labour rights, the lowering of wages, welfare, etc.
Concepts such as knowledge society, information society, network
society, informational capitalism, postindustrial society, transnational
network capitalism, postmodern society, etc. show that there is a vivid
discussion in contemporary sociology on the character of contemporary
society and the role that technologies, information, communication, and
co-operation play in it.
Information society theory discusses the role of information and
information technology in society, the question which key concepts shall
be used for characterizing contemporary society, and how to define such
concepts. It has become a specific branch of contemporary sociology.
Second and third nature
Information society is the means of getting information from one place to another. As technology has advanced so too has the way people have adapted in sharing this information with each other.
"Second nature" refers a group of experiences that get made over by culture.
They then get remade into something else that can then take on a new
meaning. As a society we transform this process so it becomes something
natural to us, i.e. second nature. So, by following a particular pattern
created by culture we are able to recognise how we use and move
information in different ways. From sharing information via different
time zones (such as talking online) to information ending up in a
different location (sending a letter overseas) this has all become a
habitual process that we as a society take for granted.
However, through the process of sharing information vectors have
enabled us to spread information even further. Through the use of these
vectors information is able to move and then separate from the initial
things that enabled them to move.
From here, something called "third nature" has developed. An extension
of second nature, third nature is in control of second nature. It
expands on what second nature is limited by. It has the ability to mould
information in new and different ways. So, third nature is able to
‘speed up, proliferate, divide, mutate, and beam in on us from else
where.
It aims to create a balance between the boundaries of space and time
(see second nature). This can be seen through the telegraph, it was the
first successful technology that could send and receive information
faster than a human being could move an object.
As a result different vectors of people have the ability to not only
shape culture but create new possibilities that will ultimately shape
society.
Therefore, through the use of second nature and third nature
society is able to use and explore new vectors of possibility where
information can be moulded to create new forms of interaction.
As steam power was the technology standing behind industrial society, so information technology
is seen as the catalyst for the changes in work organisation, societal
structure and politics occurring in the late 20th century.
In the book Future Shock, Alvin Toffler used the phrase super-industrial society to describe this type of society. Other writers and thinkers have used terms like "post-industrial society" and "post-modern industrial society" with a similar meaning.
Related terms
A
number of terms in current use emphasize related but different aspects
of the emerging global economic order. The Information Society intends
to be the most encompassing in that an economy is a subset of a society.
The Information Age is somewhat limiting, in that it refers to a 30-year period between the widespread use of computers and the knowledge economy,
rather than an emerging economic order. The knowledge era is about the
nature of the content, not the socioeconomic processes by which it will
be traded. The computer revolution,
and knowledge revolution refer to specific revolutionary transitions,
rather than the end state towards which we are evolving. The Information Revolution relates with the well known terms agricultural revolution and industrial revolution:
Knowledge services and knowledge value put content into an economic context. Knowledge services integrates Knowledge management, within a Knowledge organization, that trades in a Knowledge market.
In order for individuals to receive more knowledge, surveillance is
used. This relates to the use of Drones as a tool in order to gather
knowledge on other individuals. Although seemingly synonymous, each term
conveys more than nuances or slightly different views of the same
thing. Each term represents one attribute of the likely nature of
economic activity in the emerging post-industrial society.
Alternatively, the new economic order will incorporate all of the above
plus other attributes that have not yet fully emerged;
Today, It is important to selectively select the information. Due to
information revolution, the amount of information is puzzling. Among
these, we need to develop techniques that refine information. This is
called data mining. It is an engineering term, but it is used in
sociology. In other words, if the amount of information was competitive
in the past, the quality of information is important today.
Intellectual property considerations
One
of the central paradoxes of the information society is that it makes
information easily reproducible, leading to a variety of freedom/control
problems relating to intellectual property. Essentially, business and capital, whose place becomes that of
producing and selling information and knowledge, seems to require
control over this new resource so that it can effectively be managed and
sold as the basis of the information economy. However, such control can
prove to be both technically and socially problematic. Technically
because copy protection is often easily circumvented and socially rejected because the users and citizens of the information society can prove to be unwilling to accept such absolute commodification of the facts and information that compose their environment.
Responses to this concern range from the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in the United States (and similar legislation elsewhere) which make copy protection (see DRM) circumvention illegal, to the free software, open source and copyleft
movements, which seek to encourage and disseminate the "freedom" of
various information products (traditionally both as in "gratis" or free
of cost, and liberty, as in freedom to use, explore and share).
Caveat: Information society is often used by politicians meaning
something like "we all do internet now"; the sociological term
information society (or informational society) has some deeper
implications about change of societal structure. Because we lack
political control of intellectual property, we are lacking in a concrete
map of issues, an analysis of costs and benefits, and functioning
political groups that are unified by common interests representing
different opinions of this diverse situation that are prominent in the
information society.
Digital Transformation (DX) is not necessarily about digital
technology, but about the fact that technology, which is digital, allows
people to solve their traditional problems. And they prefer this
digital solution to the old solution.
The transformation stage means that digital usages inherently
enable new types of innovation and creativity in a particular domain,
rather than simply enhance and support traditional methods.
In a narrower sense, "digital transformation" may refer to the concept of "going paperless" or reaching a "digital business maturity" affecting both individual businesses and whole segments of society, such as government, mass communications, art, medicine, and science.
While the impact of this on businesses has been profound, many
are struggling to realise the full potential of what digitisation and
this is also clearly divided by Geography. According to the McKinsey
Global Institute's Industry Digitization Index,
Europe is currently operating at 12% of its digital potential, while
the USA is operating at 18%. Even within the leading economies of Europe
there are also some significant differences as, according to the study,
Germany operates at 10% of its digital potential, while the UK is
almost on par with the US at 17%. This clearly demonstrates that, while
business processes are undergoing great change making much progress in
the adoption of digitisation, even advanced economies are struggling to
exploit the full potential of digitisation.
Layers of Digital Transformation for organizational considerations
Historic development
Binary
In 1703 Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz explained and envisioned the concept that would be known as "digitalization" in his publication Explication de l'Arithmétique Binaire. Initially developed as a base-2 numerical system, using only two values, 0 and 1, the system was further developed and complemented by scholars such as George Boole (1854), Claude Shannon (1938), and George Stibitz during the 1940s.
Early digital computers
Today, Stibitz is considered one of many pioneers of the digital
computer, through the development of the first electromechanical
computer from his discovery of the automatic computing relays as well as
the term 'digital'. The first electronic computer was introduced by John Atanasoff in 1939. The process of digitalization thereafter accelerated, with the development of personal computers such as the Simon in 1950, Apple II in 1977 and IBM PC in 1981.
Accelerated change
With the introduction of the World Wide Web,
the scope, dimension, scale, speed as well as effects of digitalization
fundamentally changed, resulting in the increased pressure on the
societal transformation process.
In 2000, digitalization began to be used more widely as a concept and argument for an overall governmental introduction of IT,
increased usage of internet and IT on all levels. A similar development
began in the general business climate in order to raise awareness
regarding the issue and opportunity. In the EU for instance, an initiative called the Digital Single Market
was developed, with recommendations for national digital agendas in the
EU, which gradually and positively should contribute to the future
societal transformation, with more modern development of communities,
structures and to create a basis for e-governance and information society.
Impact
The
debate surrounding digitalization has therefore gained increased
practical importance for politics, business and social issues, and is
linked to political work issues for community development, new changes
in the practical business approaches, effective opportunities for
organizations in operational and business process development, with
effect on internal and external efficiency of IT to name a few. The
digital transformation is slated to generate over $370 billion in global
value during the next four years.
Development
Digitization is a sub-process of a much larger technological progress (see below): digitization (the conversion), digitalization (the process) and the digital transformation (the effect) that are collectively accelerating the global and societal transformation process.
Digitization
In political, business, trade, industry and media discourses, digitization is defined as "the conversion of analog information into digital form" (i.e. numeric, binary format). Digitizing
is technically explained as the representation of signals, images,
sounds and objects by generating a series of numbers, expressed as a
discrete value. The majority of sectors and industries in media, banking and finance, telecoms, medtech and health care have been strongly affected by this conversion of information.
The academic discussion surrounding digitalization has been
described as problematic as no clear definition of the phenomena has
been previously developed.
A common misconception is that digitalization essentially means the
usage of more IT, in order to enable and take advantage of digital
technology and data. This early definition however, has largely been
replaced by the above definition, now linked to holistic views on
business and social change, horizontal organizational and business
development, as well as IT.
Digital transformation
Finally, digital transformation is described as "the total and overall societal effect of digitalization".
Digitization has enabled the process of digitalization, which resulted
in stronger opportunities to transform and change existing business
models, consumption patterns, socio-economic structures, legal and
policy measures, organizational patterns, cultural barriers, etc.
Digitization (the conversion), digitalization (the process) and
the digital transformation (the effect) therefore accelerate and
illuminate the already existing and ongoing horizontal and global
processes of change in society.
Opportunities and challenges
Digital transformation is a major challenge and opportunity.
When planning for digital transformation, organizations must factor the
cultural changes they'll confront as workers and organizational leaders
adjust to adopting and relying on unfamiliar technologies.
Digital transformation has created unique marketplace challenges and
opportunities, as organizations must contend with nimble competitors who
take advantage of the low barrier to entry that technology provides.
Additionally, due to the high importance given today to technology and
the widespread use of it, the implications of digitization for revenues,
profits and opportunities have a dramatic upside potential. We can understand digital transformation through some real-world examples.
1. Digital transformation in hospitality management
It focuses on ambitious digital transformation, aiming to put the
customer back at the center of its strategy and operations. We need to
assess organizational structure to embrace digital transformation and
identify how data from online content and reviews might play a role in
increasing booking. Latest advancement in this respect are Online Travel
Agencies, service aggregators like Expedia, Booking.com. We have
another competitor in market which is not only digitally transforming
the hospitality industry but actually bringing disruption with the help
of technology, AirBnb.
2. Digital Transformation in e-commerce
Digital experience has become inevitable without e-commerce
interaction. Big players like Amazon.com, Alibaba.com have already
disrupted the shopping journey. But now we have more challenging tasks
of avoiding sequence of events that lead to the security breaches like
theft of debit and credit card numbers as well as the personal
information of millions of customers. We need to improve over our
infrastructure with minute details like safe transactional operations,
improved customer satisfaction along with data security.
3. Digital Transformation in banking
It focuses on digital transformation of banking sector in seeking
regional growth amidst a new digital era. Banks have already invested
heavily in technology and infrastructure, which bring dramatic changes
and rewired this sector for digital innovation. From online banking
(bank in your pocket), to ATM availability at every nook and corner has
enriched the user experience. Major forces of the digital transformation
strategy involve the overhaul of organization, the rapid enhancements
of highly scalable digital platforms,
the leverage on technology to sculpt the customer experience, and the
internal evolution and external partnering in seeking new digital
innovation.
4. Digital Transformation in training
With the increase of online learning tools and facilities
organisations and individuals are looking for more flexible ways per
personal development. Using video driven lectures, online learning
communities and learning management systems allows creating new business
models which disrupt the traditional lecture driven training sessions.
5. Digital transformation in healthcare
It concentrates on the application of IT-reliant services for
facilitating the management and delivery of health services. It involves
storage and exchange of clinical data (e.g. electronic medical records,
electronic health records), inter-professional communication (e.g.
secure e-mail and direct messaging), computer-based support (e.g.
clinical decision support systems, computerized physician order entry),
patient-provider interaction and service delivery (e.g. patient referral
and handover systems), and education.
Most studies implicitly report on cases from primary care (e.g. family
doctors, medical specialists), secondary care (e.g. hospitals, clinics),
or medical research facilities. However, digital transformation in
healthcare also takes place in areas other than clinics and research
facilities, like for example community-based health promotion and
outpatient care services.
Other studies
In November 2011, a three-year study conducted by the MIT Center for Digital Business and Capgemini Consulting concluded that only one-third of companies globally have an effective digital transformation program in place.
The study defined an "effective digital transformation program" as one that addressed:
"The What": the intensity of digital initiatives within a corporation;
"The How": the ability of a company to master transformational change to deliver business results.
A report published in 2013 by Booz & Company warns that the impact of digitization "is not uniform".
This points out that some sectors and countries have taken to
digitization more readily than others. It concludes that "policymakers
need to develop digitization plans across sectors that take into
consideration the varying impact by level of economic development and
sector".
In 2015, the World Economic Forum and Accenture
launched the digital transformation initiative (DTI) to study and
research the impact of digitalization. The initiative offers unique
insights into the impact of digital technologies on business and wider
society over the next decade. DTI research supports collaboration
between the public and private sectors focused on ensuring that
digitalization unlocks new levels of prosperity for both industry and
society. A 2017 interim report claims that digital transformation "could
deliver $ 100 trillion in value to business and society over the next
decade".
A 2015 report by MIT Center for Digital Business and Deloitte
found that "maturing digital businesses are focused on integrating
digital technologies, such as social, mobile, analytics and cloud, in
the service of transforming how their businesses work. Less-mature
digital businesses are focused on solving discrete business problems
with individual digital technologies."
In February 2017, a study by McKinsey & Company
argued that "On average, industries are less than 40 percent digitized,
despite the relatively deep penetration of these technologies in media,
retail, and high tech". This study also points out the inequality in
the penetration of digital change across industries, arguing that while
in some industries there were core changes due to digitization, in
others the impact of this phenomenon was limited to minor or secondary
changes.
In July 2017, a survey of 1239 global IT and business professionals was released by the digital performance management company Dynatrace.
While this study shows, that 48% of its participants "stated digital
performance challenges were directly hindering the success of digital transformation strategies
in their companies", the survey also refers to 75% of respondents, "who
had low levels of confidence in their ability to resolve digital
performance problems".
In October 2017 a survey of 890 CIOs and IT Directors across 23 countries by Logicalis
Group established that 44% of respondents felt complex legacy
technology is the chief barrier to digital transformation, with 51%
saying they planned to adapt or replace existing infrastructure as a
means of accelerating digital transformation.
Global governance or world governance is a movement towards political cooperation among transnational actors, aimed at negotiating responses to problems that affect more than one state or region. Institutions of global governance—the United Nations, the International Criminal Court, the World Bank, etc.—tend to have limited or demarcated power to enforce compliance. The modern question of world governance exists in the context of globalization and globalizing regimes of power: politically, economically and culturally. In response to the acceleration of worldwide interdependence, both between human societies and between humankind and the biosphere, the term "global governance" may name the process of designating laws, rules, or regulations intended for a global scale.
Global governance is not a singular system. There is no "world government" but the many different regimes of global governance do have commonalities:
While the contemporary system of
global political relations is not integrated, the relation between the
various regimes of global governance is not insignificant, and the
system does have a common dominant organizational form. The dominant
mode of organization today is bureaucratic rational—regularized,
codified and rational. It is common to all modern regimes of political
power and frames the transition from classical sovereignty to what David
Held describes as the second regime of sovereignty—liberal
international sovereignty.
Definition
The
term world governance is broadly used to designate all regulations
intended for organization and centralization of human societies on a
global scale. The Forum for a new World Governance defines world
governance simply as "collective management of the planet".
Traditionally, government has been associated with "governing," or with political authority, institutions, and, ultimately, control. Governance
denotes a process through which institutions coordinate and control
independent social relations, and that have the ability to enforce, by
force, their decisions. However, authors like James Rosenau
have also used "governance" to denote the regulation of interdependent
relations in the absence of an overarching political authority, such as
in the international system. Some now speak of the development of "global public policy".
Adil Najam, a scholar on the subject at the Pardee School of Global Studies, Boston University has defined global governance simply as "the management of global processes in the absence of global government." According to Thomas G. Weiss, director of the Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies at the Graduate Center (CUNY) and editor (2000–05) of the journal Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations,
"'Global governance'—which can be good, bad, or indifferent—refers to
concrete cooperative problem-solving arrangements, many of which
increasingly involve not only the United Nations of states but also
'other UNs,' namely international secretariats and other non-state
actors." In other words, global governance refers to the way in which global affairs are managed.
The definition is flexible in scope, applying to general subjects
such as global security and order or to specific documents and
agreements such as the World Health Organization's Code on the Marketing of Breast Milk Substitutes.
The definition applies whether the participation is bilateral (e.g. an
agreement to regulate usage of a river flowing in two countries),
function-specific (e.g. a commodity agreement), regional (e.g. the Treaty of Tlatelolco), or global (e.g. the Non-Proliferation Treaty). These "cooperative problem-solving arrangements" may be formal, taking
the shape of laws or formally constituted institutions for a variety of
actors (such as state authorities, intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), non-governmental organizations (NGOs), private sector entities, other civil society actors, and individuals) to manage collective affairs. They may also be informal (as in the case of practices or guidelines) or ad hoc entities (as in the case of coalitions).
However, a single organization may take the nominal lead on an issue, for example the World Trade Organization
(WTO) in world trade affairs. Therefore, global governance is thought
to be an international process of consensus-forming which generates
guidelines and agreements that affect national governments and
international corporations. Examples of such consensus would include WHO
policies on health issues.
In short, global governance may be defined as "the complex of
formal and informal institutions, mechanisms, relationships, and
processes between and among states, markets, citizens and organizations,
both inter- and non-governmental, through which collective interests on
the global plane are articulated, Duties, obligations and privileges
are established, and differences are mediated through educated
professionals."
Titus Alexander, author of Unravelling Global Apartheid, an Overview of World Politics, has described the current institutions of global governance as a system of global apartheid, with numerous parallels with minority rule in the formal and informal structures of South Africa before 1991.
Usage
The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 marked the end of a long period of international history based on a policy of balance of powers.
Since this historic event, the planet has entered a phase of
geostrategic breakdown. The national-security model, for example, while
still in place for most governments, is gradually giving way to an
emerging collective conscience that extends beyond the restricted
framework it represents.
The post-Cold War world of the 1990s saw a new paradigm emerge based on a number of issues:
The growing idea of globalization as a significant theme and the
subsequent weakening of nation-states, points to a prospect of
transferring to a global level of regulatory instruments. Upon the model
that regulation was no longer working effectively at the national or
regional levels;
An intensification of environmental concerns, which received multilateral endorsement at the Earth Summit. The Summit issues, relating to the climate and biodiversity, symbolized a new approach that was soon to be expressed conceptually by the term Global Commons;
The emergence of conflicts over standards: trade and the environment, trade and property rights, trade and public health.
These conflicts continued the traditional debate over the social
effects of macroeconomic stabilization policies, and raised the question
of arbitration among equally legitimate objectives in a
compartmentalized governance system where the major areas of
interdependence are each entrusted to a specialized international
institution. Although often limited in scope, these conflicts are
nevertheless symbolically powerful, as they raise the question of the
principles and institutions of arbitration;
An increased questioning of international standards and institutions
by developing countries, which, having entered the global economy, find
it hard to accept that industrialized countries hold onto power and
give preference to their own interests. The challenge also comes from
civil society, which considers that the international governance system
has become the real seat of power and which rejects both its principles
and procedures. Although these two lines of criticism often have
conflicting beliefs and goals, they have been known to join in order to
oppose the dominance of developed countries and major institutions, as
demonstrated symbolically by the failure of the World Trade Organization Ministerial Conference of 1999.
Technique
Global governance can be roughly divided into four stages:
World authorities including international organizations and corporations achieve deference to their agenda through different means. Authority can derive from institutional status, expertise, moral authority, capacity, or perceived competence.
Themes
In its initial phase, world governance was able to draw on themes inherited from geopolitics and the theory of international relations, such as peace, defense, geostrategy, diplomatic relations, and trade relations. But as globalization
progresses and the number of interdependences increases, the global
level is also highly relevant to a far wider range of subjects.
Following are a number of examples.
Environmental governance and managing the planet
"The crisis brought about by the accelerated pace and the probably irreversible character of the effect of human activities on nature requires collective answers from governments and citizens. Nature ignores political and social barriers,
and the global dimension of the crisis cancels the effects of any
action initiated unilaterally by state governments or sectoral
institutions, however powerful they may be. Climate change, ocean and air pollution, nuclear risks and those related to genetic manipulation, the reduction and extinction of resources and biodiversity,
and above all a development model that remains largely unquestioned
globally are all among the various manifestations of this accelerated
and probably irreversible effect.
This effect is the factor, in the framework of globalization,
that most challenges a system of states competing with each other to the
exclusion of all others: among the different fields of global
governance, environmental management
is the most wanting in urgent answers to the crisis in the form of
collective actions by the whole of the human community. At the same
time, these actions should help to model and strengthen the progressive
building of this community."
Proposals in this area have discussed the issue of how collective
environmental action is possible. Many multilateral,
environment-related agreements have been forged in the past 30 years,
but their implementation remains difficult.
There is also some discussion on the possibility of setting up an
international organization that would centralize all the issues related
to international environmental protection, such as the proposed World
Environment Organization (WEO). The United Nations Environment Program
(UNEP) could play this role, but it is a small-scale organization with a
limited mandate. The question has given rise to two opposite views: the
European Union, especially France and Germany, along with a number of
NGOs, is in favor of creating a WEO; the United Kingdom, the USA, and
most developing countries prefer opting for voluntary initiatives.
The International Institute for Sustainable Development proposes a
"reform agenda" for global environmental governance. The main argument
is that there seems to exist an unspoken but powerful consensus on the
essential objectives of a system of global environmental governance.
These goals would require top-quality leadership, a strong
environmental policy based on knowledge, effective cohesion and
coordination, good management of the institutions constituting the
environmental governance system, and spreading environmental concerns
and actions to other areas of international policy and action.
A World Environment Organisation
The focus of environmental issues shifted to climate change from 1992 onwards.
Due to the transboundary nature of climate change, various calls have
been made for a World Environment Organisation (WEO) (sometimes referred
to as a Global Environment Organisation)
to tackle this global problem on a global scale. At present, a single
worldwide governing body with the powers to develop and enforce
environmental policy does not exist. The idea for the creation of a WEO was discussed thirty years ago but is receiving fresh attention in the light of arguably disappointing outcomes from recent, ‘environmental mega-conferences’(e.g.Rio Summit and Earth Summit 2002).
Current global environmental governance
International environmental organisations do exist. The United Nations Environmental Programme
(UNEP), created in 1972, coordinates the environmental activity of
countries in the UN. UNEP and similar international environmental
organisations are seen as not up to the task. They are criticised as
being institutionally weak, fragmented, lacking in standing and
providing non-optimal environmental protection.
It has been stated that the current decentralised, poorly funded and
strictly intergovernmental regime for global environmental issues is
sub-standard.
However, the creation of a WEO may threaten to undermine some of the
more effective aspects of contemporary global environmental governance; notably its fragmented nature, from which flexibility stems. This also allows responses to be more effective and links to be forged across different domains.
Even though the environment and climate change are framed as global
issues, Levin states that ‘it is precisely at this level that government
institutions are least effective and trust most delicate’ while Oberthur and Gehring argue that it would offer little more than institutional restructuring for its own sake.
A World Environment Organisation and the World Trade Organisation
Many proposals for the creation of a WEO have emerged from the trade and environment debate.
It has been argued that instead of creating a WEO to safeguard the
environment, environmental issues should be directly incorporated into
the World Trade Organization (WTO). The WTO has “had success in integrating trade agreements and opening up markets because it is able to apply legal pressure to nation states and resolve disputes”. Greece and Germany are currently in discussion about the possibility of solar energy being used to repay some of Greece’s debt after their economy crashed in 2010.
This exchange of resources, if it is accepted, is an example of
increased international cooperation and an instance where the WTO could
embrace energy trade agreements. If the future holds similar trade
agreements, then an environmental branch of the WTO would surely be
necessary. However critics of a WTO/WEO arrangement say that this would
neither concentrate on more directly addressing underlying market
failures, nor greatly improve rule-making.
The creation of a new agency, whether it be linked to the WTO or not, has now been endorsed by Renato Ruggiero, the former head of the World Trade Organization (WTO), as well as by the new WTO director-designate, Supachai Panitchpakdi.
The debate over a global institutional framework for environmental
issues will undoubtedly rumble on but at present there is little support
for any one proposal.
Governance of the economy and of globalisation
The 2008 financial crisis may have undermined faith that laissez-faire capitalism
will correct all serious financial malfunctioning on its own, as well
as belief in the presumed independence of the economy from politics. It
has been stated that, lacking in transparency and far from democratic,
international financial institutions may be incapable of handling
financial collapses. There are many who believe free-market capitalism
may be incapable of forming the economic policy of a stable society, as
it has been theorised that it can exacerbate inequalities.
Nonetheless, the debate on the potential failings of the system
has led the academic world to seek solutions. According to Tubiana and
Severino, "refocusing the doctrine of international cooperation on the
concept of public goods offers the possibility . . . of breaking the
deadlock in international negotiations on development, with the
perception of shared interests breathing new life into an international
solidarity that is running out of steam."
Joseph Stiglitz
argues that a number of global public goods should be produced and
supplied to the populations, but are not, and that a number of global externalities
should be taken into consideration, but are not. On the other hand, he
contends, the international stage is often used to find solutions to
completely unrelated problems under the protection of opacity and
secrecy, which would be impossible in a national democratic framework.
On the subject of international trade, Susan George states that
". . . in a rational world, it would be possible to construct a trading
system serving the needs of people in both North and South. . . . Under
such a system, crushing third world debt and the devastating structural
adjustment policies applied by the World Bank and the IMF would have
been unthinkable, although the system would not have abolished
capitalism."
Political and institutional governance
Building
a responsible world governance that would make it possible to adapt the
political organization of society to globalization implies establishing
a democratic political legitimacy at every level: local, national,
regional and global.
Obtaining this legitimacy requires rethinking and reforming, all at the same time:
the fuzzy maze of various international organizations,
instituted mostly in the wake of World War II; what is needed is a
system of international organizations with greater resources and a
greater intervention capacity, more transparent, fairer, and more
democratic;
the Westphalian system,
the very nature of states along with the role they play with regard to
the other institutions, and their relations to each other; states will
have to share part of their sovereignty with institutions and bodies at
other territorial levels, and all with have to begin a major process to
deepen democracy and make their organization more responsible;
the meaning of citizen sovereignty in the different government
systems and the role of citizens as political protagonists; there is a
need to rethink the meaning of political representation and
participation and to sow the seeds of a radical change of consciousness
that will make it possible to move in the direction of a situation in
which citizens, in practice, will play the leading role at every scale.
Governance of peace, security, and conflict resolution
Armed conflicts have changed in form and intensity since the Berlin wall came down in 1989. The events of 9/11, the wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq,
and repeated terrorist attacks all show that conflicts can repercuss
well beyond the belligerents directly involved. The major powers and
especially the United States, have used war as a means of resolving
conflicts and may well continue to do so. If many in the United States
believe that fundamentalist Muslim networks are likely to continue to
launch attacks, in Europe nationalist movements have proved to be the
most persistent terrorist threat. The Global War on Terrorism
arguably presents a form of emerging global governance in the sphere of
security with the United States leading cooperation among the Western
states, non-Western nations and international institutions. Beyer argues
that participation in this form of 'hegemonic governance' is caused
both by a shared identity and ideology with the US, as well as
cost-benefit considerations.
Pesawar school attack 2014 is a big challenge to us. Militants from the
Pakistani Taliban have attacked an army-run school in Peshawar, killing
141 people, 132 of them children, the military say.
At the same time, civil wars continue to break out across the
world, particularly in areas where civil and human rights are not
respected, such as Central and Eastern Africa and the Middle East. These
and other regions remain deeply entrenched in permanent crises,
hampered by authoritarian regimes, many of them being supported by the
United States, reducing entire swathes of the population to wretched
living conditions. The wars and conflicts we are faced with have a
variety of causes: economic inequality, social conflict, religious
sectarianism, Western imperialism, colonial legacies, disputes over
territory and over control of basic resources such as water or land.
They are all illustrations a deep-rooted crisis of world governance.
The resulting bellicose climate imbues international relations
with competitive nationalism and contributes, in rich and poor countries
alike, to increasing military budgets, siphoning off huge sums of
public money to the benefit of the arms industry and military-oriented
scientific innovation, hence fueling global insecurity. Of these
enormous sums, a fraction would be enough to provide a permanent
solution for the basic needs of the planet's population hence
practically eliminating the causes of war and terrorism.
Andrée Michel argues that the arms race is not only proceeding
with greater vigor, it is the surest means for Western countries to
maintain their hegemony over countries of the South. Following the
break-up of the Eastern bloc countries, she maintains, a strategy for
the manipulation of the masses was set up with a permanent invention of
an enemy (currently incarnated by Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, and North
Korea) and by kindling fear and hate of others to justify perpetuating
the Military–industrial complex
and arms sales. The author also recalls that the "Big Five" at the UN
who have the veto right are responsible for 85% of arms sales around the
world.
Proposals for the governance of peace, security, and conflict resolution begin by addressing prevention of the causes of conflicts,
whether economic, social, religious, political, or territorial. This
requires assigning more resources to improving people's living
conditions—health, accommodation, food, and work—and to education,
including education in the values of peace, social justice, and unity and diversity as two sides of the same coin representing the global village.
Resources for peace could be obtained by regulating, or even
reducing military budgets, which have done nothing but rise in the past
recent years. This process could go hand in hand with plans for global
disarmament and the conversion of arms industries, applied
proportionally to all countries, including the major powers.
Unfortunately, the warlike climate of the last decade has served to
relegate all plans for global disarmament, even in civil-society
debates, and to pigeonhole them as a long-term goal or even a Utopian
vision. This is definitely a setback for the cause of peace and for
humankind, but it is far from being a permanent obstacle.
International institutions also have a role to play in resolving
armed conflicts. Small international rapid deployment units could
intervene in these with an exclusive mandate granted by a reformed and
democratic United Nations system or by relevant regional authorities
such as the European Union. These units could be formed specifically for
each conflict, using armies from several countries as was the case when
the UNIFIL was reinforced during the 2006 Lebanon War.
On the other hand, no national army would be authorized to intervene
unilaterally outside its territory without a UN or regional mandate.
Another issue that is worth addressing concerns the legitimate
conditions for the use of force and conduct during war. Jean-Réné
Bachelet offers an answer with the conceptualization of a military
ethics corresponding to the need for a "principle of humanity." The
author defines this principle as follows: "All human beings, whatever
their race, nationality, gender, age, opinion, or religion, belong to
one same humanity, and every individual has an inalienable right to
respect for his life, integrity, and dignity."
Governance of science, education, information, and communications
The
World Trade Organization's (WTO) agenda of liberalizing public goods
and services are related to culture, science, education, health, living
organisms, information, and communication. This plan has been only partially offset by the alter-globalization movement, starting with the events that took place at the 1999 Seattle meeting,
and on a totally different and probably far more influential scale in
the medium and long term, by the astounding explosion of collaborative
practices on the Internet. However, lacking political and widespread citizen support as well as sufficient resources, civil society
has not so far been able to develop and disseminate alternative plans
for society as a whole on a global scale, even though plenty of
proposals and initiatives have been developed, some more successful than
others, to build a fairer, more responsible, and more solidarity-based
world in all of these areas.
Above all, each country tries to impose their values and
collective preferences within international institutions such like WTO
or UNESCO, particularly in the Medias sector. This is an excellent
opportunity to promote their soft power, for instance with the promotion
of the cinema.
As far as science is concerned, "[r]esearch increasingly bows to
the needs of financial markets, turning competence and knowledge into
commodities, making employment flexible and informal, and establishing
contracts based on goals and profits for the benefit of private
interests in compliance with the competition principle. The directions
that research has taken in the past two decades and the changes it has
undergone have drastically removed it from its initial mission
(producing competence and knowledge, maintaining independence) with no
questioning of its current and future missions. Despite the progress, or
perhaps even as its consequence, humankind continues to face critical
problems: poverty and hunger are yet to be vanquished, nuclear arms are
proliferating, environmental disasters are on the rise, social injustice
is growing, and so on.
Neoliberal commercialization of the commons favors the interests
of pharmaceutical companies instead of the patients', of food-processing
companies instead of the farmers' and consumers'. Public research
policies have done nothing but support this process of economic
profitability, where research results are increasingly judged by the
financial markets. The system of systematically patenting knowledge and
living organisms is thus being imposed throughout the planet through the
1994 WTO agreements on intellectual property. Research in many areas is
now being directed by private companies."
On the global level, "[i]nstitutions dominating a specific sector
also, at every level, present the risk of reliance on technical bodies
that use their own references and deliberate in an isolated environment.
This process can be observed with the 'community of patents' that
promotes the patenting of living organisms, as well as with authorities
controlling nuclear energy. This inward-looking approach is all the more
dangerous that communities of experts are, in all complex technical and
legal spheres, increasingly dominated by the major economic
organizations that finance research and development."
On the other hand, several innovative experiments have emerged in the sphere of science, such as: conscience clauses and citizens' panels as a tool for democratizing the production system: science shops and community-based research. Politically committed scientists are also increasingly organizing at the global level.
As far as education is concerned, the effect of commoditization
can be seen in the serious tightening of education budgets, which
affects the quality of general education as a public service. The Global
Future Online report reminds us that ". . . at the half-way point
towards 2015 (author's note: the deadline for the Millennium Goals),
the gaps are daunting: 80 million children (44 million of them girls)
are out of school, with marginalized groups (26 million disabled and 30
million conflict-affected children) continuing to be excluded. And while
universal access is critical, it must be coupled with improved learning
outcomes—in particular, children achieving the basic literacy, numeracy
and life skills essential for poverty reduction."
In addition to making the current educational system available
universally, there is also a call to improve the system and adapt it to
the speed of changes in a complex and unpredictable world. On this
point, Edgar Morin asserts that we must "[r]ethink our way of organizing
knowledge. This means breaking down the traditional barriers between
disciplines and designing new ways to reconnect that which has been torn
apart." The UNESCO report drawn up by Morin contains "seven principles
for education of the future": detecting the error and illusion that have
always parasitized the human spirit and human behavior; making
knowledge relevant, i.e. a way of thinking that makes distinctions and
connections; teaching the human condition; teaching terrestrial
identity; facing human and scientific uncertainties and teaching
strategies to deal with them; teaching understanding of the self and of
others, and an ethics for humankind.
The exponential growth of new technologies, the Internet in
particular, has gone hand in hand with the development over the last
decade of a global community producing and exchanging goods. This
development is permanently altering the shape of the entertainment,
publishing, and music and media industries, among others. It is also
influencing the social behavior of increasing numbers of people, along
with the way in which institutions, businesses, and civil society are
organized. Peer-to-peer communities and collective knowledge-building projects such as Wikipedia
have involved millions of users around the world. There are even more
innovative initiatives, such as alternatives to private copyright such
as Creative Commons, cyber democracy practices, and a real possibility of developing them on the sectoral, regional, and global levels.
Regional views
Regional players, whether regional conglomerates such as Mercosur
and the European Union, or major countries seen as key regional players
such as China, the United States, and India, are taking a growing
interest in world governance. Examples of discussion of this issue can be found in the works of: Martina Timmermann et al., Institutionalizing Northeast Asia: Regional Steps toward Global Governance; Douglas Lewis, Global Governance and the Quest for Justice - Volume I: International and Regional Organizations;
Olav Schram Stokke, "Examining the Consequences of International
Regimes," which discusses Northern, or Arctic region building in the
context of international relations;
Jeffery Hart and Joan Edelman Spero, "Globalization and Global
Governance in the 21st Century," which discusses the push of countries
such as Mexico, Brazil, India, China, Taiwan, and South Korea,
"important regional players" seeking "a seat at the table of global
decision-making";
Dr. Frank Altemöller, “International Trade: Challenges for Regional and
Global Governance: A comparison between Regional Integration Models in
Eastern Europe and Africa – and the role of the WTO”, and many others.
Interdependence among countries and regions hardly being
refutable today, regional integration is increasingly seen not only as a
process in itself, but also in its relation to the rest of the world,
sometimes turning questions like "What can the world bring to my country
or region?" into "What can my country or region bring to the rest of
the world?" Following are a few examples of how regional players are
dealing with these questions.
Africa
Often
seen as a problem to be solved rather than a people or region with an
opinion to express on international policy, Africans and Africa draw on a
philosophical tradition of community and social solidarity that can
serve as inspiration to the rest of the world and contribute to building
world governance. One example is given by Sabelo J. Ndlovu-Gathseni
when he reminds us of the relevance of the Ubuntu concept, which
stresses the interdependence of human beings.
African civil society has thus begun to draw up proposals for
governance of the continent, which factor in all of the dimensions:
local, African, and global. Examples include proposals by the network
"Dialogues sur la gouvernance en Afrique" for "the construction of a
local legitimate governance," state reform "capable of meeting the
continent's development challenges," and "effective regional governance
to put an end to Africa's marginalization."
United States
Foreign-policy proposals announced by President Barack Obama include restoring the Global Poverty Act,
which aims to contribute to meeting the UN Millennium Development Goals
to reduce by half the world population living on less than a dollar a
day by 2015. Foreign aid is expected to double to 50 billion dollars. The money will be used to help build educated and healthy communities, reduce poverty and improve the population's health.
In terms of international institutions, The White House Web site
advocates reform of the World Bank and the IMF, without going into any
detail.
Below are further points in the Obama-Biden plan for foreign policy directly related to world governance:
strengthening of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty;
global de-nuclearization in several stages including stepping up
cooperation with Russia to significantly reduce stocks of nuclear arms
in both countries;
revision of the culture of secrecy: institution of a National
Declassification Center to make declassification secure but routine,
efficient, and cost-effective;
increase in global funds for AIDS, TB and malaria. Eradication of
malaria-related deaths by 2015 by making medicines and mosquito nets far
more widely available;
increase in aid for children and maternal health as well as access to reproductive health-care programs;
creation of a 2-billion-dollar global fund for education. Increased funds for providing access to drinking water and sanitation;
other similarly large-scale measures covering agriculture, small-
and medium-sized enterprises and support for a model of international
trade that fosters job creation and improves the quality of life in poor
countries;
in terms of energy and global warming, Obama advocates a) an 80%
reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050 b) investing 150 billion
dollars in alternative energies over the next 10 years and c) creating a
Global Energy Forum capable of initiating a new generation of climate
protocols.
Latin America
The
21st century has seen the arrival of a new and diverse generation of
left-wing governments in Latin America. This has opened the door to
initiatives to launch political and governance renewal. A number of
these initiatives are significant for the way they redefine the role of
the state by drawing on citizen participation, and can thus serve as a
model for a future world governance built first and foremost on the
voice of the people. The constituent assemblies in Ecuador and Bolivia
are fundamental examples of this phenomenon.
In Ecuador, social and indigenous movements were behind the discussions that began in 1990 on setting up a constituent assembly. In the wake of Rafael Correa's arrival at the head of the country in November 2006, widespread popular action with the slogan "que se vayan todos"
(let them all go away) succeeded in getting all the political parties
of congress to accept a convocation for a referendum on setting up the
assembly.
In April 2007, Rafael Correa's government organized a
consultation with the people to approve setting up a constituent
assembly. Once it was approved, 130 members of the assembly were elected
in September, including 100 provincial members, 24 national members and
6 for migrants in Europe, Latin America and the USA. The assembly was
officially established in November. Assembly members belonged to
traditional political parties as well as the new social movements.
In July 2008, the assembly completed the text for the new constitution
and in September 2008 there was a referendum to approve it. Approval for
the new text won out, with 63.9% of votes for compared to 28.1% of
votes against and a 24.3% abstention rate.
The new constitution establishes the rule of law on economic,
social, cultural and environmental rights (ESCER). It transforms the
legal model of the social state subject to the rule of law into a
"constitution of guaranteed well-being" (Constitución del bienestar garantizado)
inspired by the ancestral community ideology of "good living"
propounded by the Quechuas of the past, as well as by 21st century
socialist ideology. The constitution promotes the concept of food
sovereignty by establishing a protectionist system that favors domestic
production and trade. It also develops a model of public aid for
education, health, infrastructures and other services.
In addition, it adds to the three traditional powers, a fourth
power called the Council of Citizen Participation and Social Control,
made up of former constitutional control bodies and social movements,
and mandated to assess whether public policies are constitutional or
not.
The new Bolivian constitution was approved on 25 January 2009 by
referendum, with 61.4% votes in favor, 38.6% against and a 90.2%
turnout. The proposed constitution was prepared by a constituent
assembly that did not only reflect the interests of political parties
and the elite, but also represented the indigenous peoples and social
movements. As in Ecuador, the proclamation of a constituent assembly was
demanded by the people, starting in 1990 at a gathering of indigenous
peoples from the entire country, continuing with the indigenous marches
in the early 2000s and then with the Program Unity Pact (Pacto de Unidad Programático) established by family farmers and indigenous people in September 2004 in Santa Cruz.
The constitution recognizes the autonomy of indigenous peoples,
the existence of a specific indigenous legal system, exclusive ownership
of forest resources by each community and a quota of indigenous members
of parliament. It grants autonomy to counties, which have the right to
manage their natural resources and elect their representatives directly.
The latifundio system has been outlawed, with maximum ownership
of 5,000 hectares allowed per person. Access to water and sanitation are
covered by the constitution as human rights that the state has to
guarantee, as well as other basic services such as electricity, gas,
postal services, and telecommunications that can be provided by either
the state or contracting companies. The new constitution also
establishes a social and community economic model made up of public,
private, and social organizations, and cooperatives. It guarantees
private initiative and freedom of enterprise, and assigns public
organizations the task of managing natural resources and related
processes as well as developing public services covered by the
constitution. National and cooperative investment is favored over
private and international investment.
The "unitary plurinational" state of Bolivia has 36 official indigenous
languages along with Spanish. Natural resources belong to the people and
are administered by the state. The form of democracy in place is no
longer considered as exclusively representative and/or based on parties.
Thus, "the people deliberate and exercise government via their
representatives and the constituent assembly, the citizen legislative
initiative and the referendum..." and "popular representation is exercised via the political parties, citizen groups, and indigenous peoples."
This way, "political parties, and/or citizen groups and/or indigenous
peoples can present candidates directly for the offices of president,
vice-president, senator, house representative, constituent-assembly
member, councilor, mayor, and municipal agent. The same conditions apply
legally to all..."
Also in Latin America: "Amazonia
. . . is an enormous biodiversity reservoir and a major
climate-regulation agent for the planet but is being ravaged and
deteriorated at an accelerated pace; it is a territory almost entirely
devoid of governance, but also a breeding place of grassroots
organization initiatives.".
"Amazonia can be the fertile field of a true school of 'good'
governance if it is looked after as a common and valuable good, first by
Brazilians (65% of Amazonia is within Brazilian borders) and the people
of the South American countries surrounding it, but also by all the
Earth's inhabitants."
Accordingly, "[f]rom a world-governance perspective, [Amazonia] is in a
way an enormous laboratory. Among other things, Amazonia enables a
detailed examination of the negative effects of productivism and of the
different forms of environmental packaging it can hide behind, including
'sustainable development.' Galloping urbanization, Human Rights
violations, the many different types of conflicts (14 different types of
conflicts have been identified within the hundreds of cases observed in
Amazonia), protection of indigenous populations and their active
participation in local governance: these are among the many Amazonian
challenges also affecting the planet as a whole, not to mention the
environment. The hosts of local initiatives, including among the
indigenous populations, are however what may be most interesting in
Amazonia in that they testify to the real, concrete possibility of a
different form of organization that combines a healthy local economy,
good social cohesion, and a true model of sustainable development—this
time not disguised as something else. All of this makes Amazonia 'a
territory of solutions.'"
According to Arnaud Blin, the Amazonian problem helps to define
certain fundamental questions on the future of humankind. First, there
is the question of social justice: "[H]ow do we build a new model of
civilization that promotes social justice? How do we set up a new social
architecture that allows us to live together?" The author goes on to
refer to concepts such as the concept of "people's territory " or even
"life territory" rooted in the indigenous tradition and serving to
challenge private property and social injustice. He then suggests that
the emerging concept of the "responsibility to protect," following up on
the "right of humanitarian intervention" and until now used to try to
protect populations endangered by civil wars, could also be applied to
populations threatened by economic predation and to environmental
protection.
Asia
The growing
interest in world governance in Asia represents an alternative approach
to official messages, dominated by states' nationalist visions. An
initiative to develop proposals for world governance took place in
Shanghai in 2006, attended by young people from every continent. The
initiative produced ideas and projects that can be classified as two
types: the first and more traditional type, covering the creation of a
number of new institutions such as an International Emissions
Organization,
and a second more innovative type based on organizing network-based
systems. For example, a system of cooperative control on a worldwide
level among states and self-organization of civil society into networks using new technologies, a process that should serve to set up a Global Calling-for-Help Center
or a new model based on citizens who communicate freely, share
information, hold discussions, and seek consensus-based solutions.
They would use the Internet and the media, working within several types
of organizations: universities, NGOs, local volunteers and
civil-society groups.
Given the demographic importance of the continent, the
development of discussion on governance and practices in Asia at the
regional level, as well as global-level proposals, will be decisive in
the years ahead in the strengthening of global dialog among all sorts of
stakeholders, a dialog that should produce a fairer world order.
Europe
According to Michel Rocard,
Europe does not have a shared vision, but a collective history that
allows Europeans to opt for projects for gradual political construction
such as the European Union. Drawing on this observation, Rocard
conceives of a European perspective that supports the development of
three strategies for constructing world governance: reforming the UN,
drawing up international treaties to serve as the main source of global
regulations, and "the progressive penetration of the international scene
by justice."
Rocard considers that there are a number of "great questions of the present days" including recognition by all nations of the International Criminal Court,
the option of an international police force authorized to arrest
international criminals, and the institution of judicial procedures to
deal with tax havens, massively polluting activities, and states
supporting terrorist activities. He also outlines "new problems" that
should foster debate in the years to come on questions such as a project
for a Declaration of Interdependence, how to re-equilibrate world trade
and WTO activities, and how to create world regulations for managing
collective goods (air, drinking water, oil, etc.) and services
(education, health, etc.).
Martin Ortega similarly suggests that the European Union should
make a more substantial contribution to global governance, particularly
through concerted action in international bodies. European states, for
instance, should reach an agreement on the reform of the United Nations
Security Council.
In 2011, the European Strategy and Policy Analysis System
(ESPAS), an inter-institutional pilot project of the European Union
which aims to assist EU policy formulation through the identification
and critical analysis of long-term global trends, highlighted the
importance of expanding global governance over the next 20 years.
Stakeholders' views
It
is too soon to give a general account of the view of world-governance
stakeholders, although interest in world governance is on the rise on
the regional level, and we will certainly see different types of
stakeholders and social sectors working to varying degrees at the
international level and taking a stand on the issue in the years to
come.
Institutional and state stakeholders
Members of parliament
The World Parliamentary Forum, open to members of parliament from all nations and held every year at the same time as the World Social Forum,
drew up a declaration at the sixth forum in Caracas in 2006. The
declaration contains a series of proposals that express participants'
opinion on the changes referred to.
Regional organizations
The
European Commission referred to global governance in its White Paper on
European Governance. It contends that the search for better global
governance draws on the same set of shared challenges humanity is
currently facing. These challenges can be summed up by a series of
goals: sustainable development, security, peace and equity (in the sense of "fairness").
Non-state stakeholders
The
freedom of thought enjoyed by non-state stakeholders enables them to
formulate truly alternative ideas on world-governance issues, but they
have taken little or no advantage of this opportunity.
Pierre Calame believes that "[n]on-state actors have always
played an essential role in global regulation, but their role will grow
considerably in this, the beginning of the twenty-first Century . . .
Non-state actors play a key role in world governance in different
domains . . . To better understand and develop the non-state actors'
role, it should be studied in conjunction with the general principles of
governance." "Non-state actors, due to their vocation, size,
flexibility, methods of organization and action, interact with states in
an equal manner; however this does not mean that their action is better
adapted."
One alternative idea encapsulated by many not-for-profit organisations relates to ideas in the 'Human Potential Movement'
and might be summarised as a mission statement along these lines: 'To
create an accepted framework for all humankind, that is self-regulating
and which enables every person to achieve their fullest potential in
harmony with the world and its place in existence.'
Since the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, references to the universal
collective of humanity have begun using the term 'humankind' rather than
'mankind', given the gender neutral quality of the former.
'Self-regulation' is meant to invoke the concept of regulation which includes rule-making such as laws, and related ideas e.g. legal doctrine as well as other frameworks. However its scope is wider than this and intended to encompass cybernetics which allows for the study of regulation in as many varied contexts as possible from the regulation of gene expression to the Press Complaints Commission for example.
World Religious Leaders
Since
2005, religious leaders from a diverse array of faith traditions have
engaged in dialogue with G8 leaders around issues of global governance
and world risk. Drawing on the cultural capital of diverse religious
traditions, they seek to strengthen democratic norms by influencing
political leaders to include the interests of the most vulnerable when
they make their decisions. Some have argued that religion is a key to transforming or fixing global governance.
Proposals
Several
stakeholders have produced lists of proposals for a new world
governance that is fairer, more responsible, solidarity-based,
interconnected and respectful of the planet's diversity. Some examples
are given below.
Joseph E. Stiglitz proposes a list of reforms related to the
internal organization of international institutions and their external
role in the framework of global-governance architecture. He also deals
with global taxation, the management of global resources and the
environment, the production and protection of global knowledge, and the
need for a global legal infrastructure.
A number of other proposals are contained in the World Governance
Proposal Paper: giving concrete expression to the principle of
responsibility; granting civil society greater involvement in drawing up
and implementing international regulations; granting national
parliaments greater involvement in drawing up and implementing
international regulations; re-equilibrating trade mechanisms and
adopting regulations to benefit the southern hemisphere; speeding up the
institution of regional bodies; extending and specifying the concept of
the commons; redefining proposal and decision-making powers in order to
reform the United Nations; developing independent observation,
early-warning, and assessment systems; diversifying and stabilizing the
basis for financing international collective action; and engaging in a
wide-reaching process of consultation, a new Bretton Woods for the
United Nations.
This list provides more examples of proposals:
the security of societies and its correlation with the need for
global reforms——a controlled legally-based economy focused on stability,
growth, full employment, and North-South convergence;
equal rights for all, implying the institution of a global redistribution process;
eradication of poverty in all countries;
sustainable development on a global scale as an absolute imperative in political action at all levels;
fight against the roots of terrorism and crime;
consistent, effective, and fully democratic international institutions;
Europe sharing its experience in meeting the challenges of
globalization and adopting genuine partnership strategies to build a new
form of multilateralism.
Dr. Rajesh Tandon, president of the FIM (Montreal International
Forum) and of PRIA (Participatory Research in Asia), prepared a
framework document entitled "Democratization of Global Governance for
Global Democracy: Civil Society Visions and Strategies (G05)
conference." He used the document to present five principles that could
provide a basis for civil society actions: "Global institutions and
agenda should be subjected to democratic political accountability":
Democratic policy at the global level requires legitimacy of popular control through representative and direct mechanisms;
Citizen participation in decision making at global levels requires equality of opportunity to all citizens of the world;
Multiple spheres of governance, from local to provincial to national
to regional and global, should mutually support democratization of
decision making at all levels;
Global democracy must guarantee that global public goods are equitably accessible to all citizens of the world;
Blockchain
and decentralized platforms can be considered as hyper-political and
Global governance tools, capable to manage social interactions on large
scale and dismiss traditional central authorities.
Vijaya Ramachandran, Enrique Rueda-Sabater and Robin Kraft also
define principles for representation of nations and populations in the
system of global governance. They propose a "Two Percent Club" that
would provide for direct representation of nations with at least two
percent of global population or global GDP; other nations would be
represented within international fora through regional blocs.
Academic tool or discipline
In the light of the unclear meaning of the term "global governance" as a concept in international politics,
some authors have proposed defining it not in substantive, but in
disciplinary and methodological terms. For these authors, global
governance is better understood as an analytical concept or optic that
provides a specific perspective on world politics different from that of
conventional international relations theory. Thomas G. Weiss and Rorden Wilkinson have even argued that global governance has the capacity to overcome some of the fragmentation of international relations as a discipline particularly when understood as a set of questions about the governance of world orders.
Some universities, including those offering courses in international relations, have begun to establish degree programmes in global governance.
Context
There are those who believe that world architecture depends on
establishing a system of world governance. However, the equation is
currently becoming far more complicated: Whereas the process used to be
about regulating and limiting the individual power of states to avoid
disturbing or overturning the status quo, the issue for today's world
governance is to have a collective influence on the world's destiny by
establishing a system for regulating the many interactions that lie
beyond the province of state action. The political homogenization of the
planet that has followed the advent of what is known as liberal
democracy in its many forms should make it easier to establish a world
governance system that goes beyond market laissez-faire and the
democratic peace originally formulated by Immanuel Kant, which constitutes a sort of geopolitical laissez-faire.
Another view regarding the establishment of global governance is
based on the difficulties to achieve equitable development at the world
scale. "To secure for all human beings in all parts of the world the
conditions allowing a decent and meaningful life requires enormous human
energies and far-reaching changes in policies. The task is all the more
demanding as the world faces numerous other problems, each related to
or even part of the development challenge, each similarly pressing, and
each calling for the same urgent attention. But, as Arnold Toynbee
has said, 'Our age is the first generation since the dawn of history in
which mankind dares to believe it practical to make the benefits of
civilization available to the whole human race'."
Need
Because of
the heterogeneity of preferences, which are enduring despite
globalization, are often perceived as an implacable homogenization
process. Americans and Europeans provide a good example of this point:
on some issues they have differing common grounds in which the division
between the public and private spheres still exist. Tolerance for
inequalities and the growing demand for redistribution, attitudes toward
risk, and over property rights vs human rights, set the stage. In
certain cases, globalization even serves to accentuate differences
rather than as a force for homogenization. Responsibility must play its
part with respect to regional and International governments, when
balancing the needs of its citizenry.
With the growing emergence of a global civic awareness, comes
opposition to globalization and its effects. A rapidly growing number of
movements and organizations have taken the debate to the international
level. Although it may have limitations, this trend is one response to
the increasing importance of world issues, that effect the planet.
Crisis of purpose
Pierre Jacquet, Jean Pisani-Ferry, and Laurence Tubiana
argue that "[t]o ensure that decisions taken for international
integration are sustainable, it is important that populations see the
benefits, that states agree on their goals and that the institutions
governing the process are seen as legitimate. These three conditions are
only partially being met."
The authors refer to a "crisis of purpose" and international
institutions suffering from "imbalance" and inadequacy. They believe
that for these institutions, "a gap has been created between the nature
of the problems that need tackling and an institutional architecture
which does not reflect the hierarchy of today's problems. For example,
the environment has become a subject of major concern and central
negotiation, but it does not have the institutional support that is
compatible with its importance."
World government
Global governance is not world government, and even less democratic globalization.
In fact, global governance would not be necessary, were there a world
government. Domestic governments have monopolies on the use of force—the
power of enforcement. Global governance refers to the political
interaction that is required to solve problems that affect more than one
state or region when there is no power to enforce compliance. Problems
arise, and networks of actors are constructed to deal with them in the
absence of an international analogue to a domestic government. This system has been termed disaggregated sovereignty.
Consensus example
Improved
global problem solving need not involve the establishment of additional
powerful formal global institutions. It does involve building consensus
on norms and practices. One such area, currently under construction, is
the development and improvement of accountability mechanisms. For
example, the UN Global Compact
brings together companies, UN agencies, labor organizations, and civil
society to support universal environmental and social principles.
Participation is entirely voluntary, and there is no enforcement of the
principles by an outside regulatory body. Companies adhere to these
practices both because they make economic sense, and because stakeholders, especially shareholders,
can monitor their compliance easily. Mechanisms such as the Global
Compact can improve the ability of affected individuals and populations
to hold companies accountable. However, corporations participating in
the UN Global Compact have been criticized for their merely minimal
standards, the absence of sanction-and-control measures, their lack of
commitment to social and ecological standards, minimal acceptance among
corporations around the world, and the high cost involved in reporting
annually to small and medium-sized business
Bitcoin & Beyond: Blockchains,
Globalization, and Global Governance workshop brings together an
interdisciplinary group of researchers to examine the implications that
blockchains pose for globalization and global governance.
Issues
Expansion of normative mechanisms and globalization of institutions
One
effect of globalization is the increasing regulation of businesses in
the global marketplace. Jan Aart Scholte asserts, however, that these
changes are inadequate to meet the needs: "Along with the general
intensified globalization of social relations in contemporary history
has come an unprecedented expansion of regulatory apparatuses that cover
planetary jurisdictions and constituencies. On the whole, however, this
global governance remains weak relative to pressing current needs for
global public policy. Shortfalls in moral standing, legal foundations,
material delivery, democratic credentials and charismatic leadership
have together generated large legitimacy deficits in existing global
regimes."
Proposals and initiatives have been developed by various sources
to set up networks and institutions operating on a global scale:
political parties, unions, regional authorities, and members of parliament in sovereign states.
Formulation and objectives
One
of the conditions for building a world democratic governance should be
the development of platforms for citizen dialogue on the legal
formulation of world governance and the harmonization of objectives.
This legal formulation could take the form of a Global
Constitution. According to Pierre Calame and Gustavo Marin, "[a] Global
Constitution resulting from a process for the institution of a global
community will act as the common reference for establishing the order of
rights and duties applicable to United Nations agencies and to the
other multilateral institutions, such as the International Monetary
Fund, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization." As for formulating objectives, the necessary but insufficient ambition of the United NationsMillennium Development Goals,
which aim to safeguard humankind and the planet, and the huge
difficulties in implementing them, illustrates the inadequacy of
institutional initiatives that do not have popular support for having
failed to invite citizens to take part in the elaboration process.
Furthermore, the Global Constitution "must clearly express a
limited number of overall objectives that are to be the basis of global
governance and are to guide the common action of the U.N. agencies and
the multilateral institutions, where the specific role of each of these
is subordinated to the pursuit of these common objectives."
Calame proposes the following objectives:
instituting the conditions for sustainable development;
reducing inequalities;
establishing lasting peace while respecting diversity.
Reforming international institutions
Is
the UN capable of taking on the heavy responsibility of managing the
planet's serious problems? More specifically, can the UN reform itself
in such a way as to be able to meet this challenge? At a time when the
financial crisis of 2008 is raising the same questions posed by the
climate disasters of previous years regarding the unpredictable
consequences of disastrous human management, can international financial
institutions be reformed in such a way as to go back to their original
task, which was to provide financial help to countries in need?
Lack of political will and citizen involvement at the
international level has also brought about the submission of
international institutions to the "neoliberal" agenda, particularly financial institutions such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization (WTO). Pierre Calame gives an account of this development,
while Joseph E. Stiglitz points out that the need for international
institutions like the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO has never been so
great, but people's trust in them has never been so low.
One of the key aspects of the United Nations reform is the
problem of the representativeness of the General Assembly. The Assembly
operates on the principle of "one state, one vote," so that states of
hugely varying sizes have the same effect on the vote, which distorts
representativeness and results in a major loss of credibility.
Accordingly, "the General Assembly has lost any real capacity to
influence. This means that the mechanisms for action and consultation
organized by rich countries have the leading role."
Gustave Massiah advocates defining and implementing a radical
reform of the UN. The author proposes building new foundations that can
provide the basis for global democracy and the creation of a Global
Social Contract, rooted in the respect and protection of civil,
political, economic, social, and cultural rights, as well as in the
recognition of the strategic role of international law.
The three ‘gaps’ in global governance
There
is the jurisdictional gap, between the increasing need for global
governance in many areas - such as health - and the lack of an authority
with the power, or jurisdiction, to take action.
Moreover, the gap of incentive between the need for international
cooperation and the motivation to undertake it. The incentive gap is
said to be closing as globalization provides increasing impetus for
countries to cooperate. However, there are concerns that, as Africa lags
further behind economically, its influence on global governance
processes will diminish. At last, the participation gap, which refers to
the fact that international cooperation remains primarily the affair of
governments, leaving civil society groups on the fringes of
policy-making. On the other hand, globalization of communication is
facilitating the development of global civil society movements.
Global governance failure
Inadequate global institutions, agreements or networks as well as political and national interests may impede global governance and lead to failures. Such are the consequence of ineffective global governance processes.
Qin calls it a necessity to "reconstruct ideas for effective global
governance and sustainable world order, which should include the
principles of pluralism, partnership, and participation" for a change to this phenomenon. The 2012 Global Risks Report places global governance failure at the center of gravity in its geopolitical category.
