Search results

All forms of organization have governance requirements and procedures. Often, these are quite similar despite the form and mission of the organization in question. They only consider governance in the organization environment and rarely look beyond their immediate stakeholders. In many corporations, the immediate stakeholders are even considered to be the investors and only those regardless of the apparency of other close stakeholders such as workers, customers, suppliers, authorities, and interest groups or non-governmental organizations. Even corporations with such narrow views and organizations with a broader stakeholder view are relatively unrealistic and are inappropriate in the modern global world, which we inhabit. Organizations of any form and size need to recognize both the need to consider radical changes in the modern global environment and the opportunities and possibilities presented by the current environment. Therefore, this chapter takes a broad approach and considers governance requirements in the modern world seen from a global perspective for all forms of organization. With global perspective, organizational governance is, here, called New Governance, and it includes the idea, that even the smallest decision can have a dramatic social, economic, or geopolitical impact in other parts of the world. The idea of New Governance is to put on the global lenses when making decisions to consider the potential effect – positive as well as negative – on the local as well as the global perspective, even on the unknown future and on future generations to come. Some may call this sustainable governance, but in this chapter, it is embedded in the New Governance as a concept, which can be nothing else but sustainable in its core idea. The future requirements for New Governance in any kind of organization are discussed, as the relationship between organizations and its global and future stakeholders, and how they form these requirements.

Global health challenges and threats could be confronted by collaborative efforts of international community. Governance for global health is a set of formal and informal processes, operating beyond state boundaries, and refers to institutions and mechanisms established at the national, regional and international levels. Nordic countries demonstrated a long-standing commitment to development assistance for health (DAH), and more recently to governance for global health. Governance for global health tools could be used effectively to achieve collective solutions for the maintenance and promotion of health as a common good, could ensure accountability and transparency, and reconcile the interests of different actors on the international and national levels. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of tools and approaches in support of eight sub-functions of governance for global health applied by the Nordic countries. This will help international audience to compare those mechanisms with similar mechanisms that are available or planned in their countries and regions, and may benefit policy scholars and practitioners.

This study uses qualitative review of research literature, policy documents and information available from institutional websites related to the governance of global health in four Nordic countries. In total, 50 selected publications were analyzed using framework synthesis, mapping all findings to 8 dimensions (sub-functions) of governance for global health and related tools.

Review reveals which tools are available, how they have been applied by the Nordic countries and influenced all domains (sub-functions) of governance for global health at different levels: national governments, agencies and networks; bilateral and multilateral partnerships; inter-governmental institutions and international health-related organizations. Common trends and approaches in governance for global health have been formulated.

This study is unique in relation to the prior literature as it looks at the role of Nordic countries in the governance for global health system through the lens of tools applied in support to its sub-functions.

The topics of an emerging planetary civilisation and its common affairs, global problems requiring coordinated worldwide responses and contested forms of globalisation are collectively stimulating an international conversation about alternatives to the current system of global governance. The purpose of this paper is to introduce new voices to the conversation, providing unconventional perspectives of possible futures to those found in much of the scholarly literature. These perspectives are those of the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organisation (UNPO), an international non-government organisation comprising nations and peoples not represented at the United Nations (UN).

Collectively the discourses and worldviews of the UNPO, feminists, social and environmental movements, Cosmopolitan Democrats, technocrats and the Commission on Global Governance reveal contesting images of global governance futures in which the UN is transformed in ways that are aligned to emerging forms of alternative globalisations. The Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) futures research method is used to construct models of each group’s preferred global governance future from elements of their discourses and deeply held ideological commitments.

Structural aspects are also considered and the author offers an analytical framework summarising the models against the layers of CLA and the history, power base, globalisation worldview and agency congruent with each model. The models are then presented as visionary scenarios generating images of future alternatives while providing an opportunity to hear what the nations unrepresented in the current system have to say.

Their image produced a more inclusive, egalitarian and holistic image of a global governance future when compared with the “business as usual” UN future. As we approach 2015 and the 70th anniversary of the establishment of the UN, this conversation provides a timely prompt for the review of the UN system of global governance and an opportunity for the UN to consider how it might transform to retain relevance in a rapidly changing global environment.

The purpose of this paper is to explore and compare three different principles – the culpability, capacity and concern principles – for allocating responsibility for governance in a multi‐level context of addressing sustainable development.

The principles are first analysed from a theoretical and normative standpoint, linking to earlier literature on for example, the contribution principle, subsidiarity and global citizenship. Then the three principles are analysed in an empirical setting. The selected case is the issue complex around the health and environmental concerns from pesticide use in developing countries. Document analysis and semi‐structured interviews were carried out with relevant stakeholders from local, national and global governance levels on themes which enabled analysis of the workability and justness of the principles and whether they were already applied to some degree.

Analysis of the case shows the mutual complementarity of the three principles for allocating responsibility for governance, especially when culpability and capacity are dispersed across different agents and levels. However, the concern and capacity principles emerged as more important and promising. The results indicated the need for moving the value basis of agents towards more selfless global concern in order to create an effective multi‐level governance system.

The results may help policymakers at different levels to analyse more systematically who should assume responsibility for sustainable development governance and why.

Extends the analysis of principles for allocating responsibility for global issues.

This paper aims to clarify the character of globalization, to identify the changes it brings to structures of governance, and to consider ways in which these arrangements could be made to serve a good (more global) society.

This essay takes a reflective approach.

The paper considers the rules and regulatory processes that govern today's more global world. The first step in the analysis identifies globalization as a trend whereby people's lives become more interconnected on a planetary scale. The second section describes the institutional apparatuses through which global issues are governed. Global governance is seen to take shape not as a “world government”, but as a complex array of regulatory networks that span local to global scales and also combine public and private sectors. The third section assesses the normative values that this “networked” and “polycentric” governance of global affairs might serve. Both an earlier “neoliberal” design of global governance and a currently prevailing “social market” paradigm are critiqued. An alternative vision of global social and ecological democracy is offered as a more promising road to a good society in the contemporary more global world.

The paper suggests alternative guiding principles for governance of today's more global society, including the role of corporations in it.

The paper suggests ways in which global governance can deliver social justice, ecological sustainability and democracy along with material prosperity.

The paper consolidates a conception of post‐statist governance that can aid researchers and practitioners alike in mapping the processes of contemporary policymaking. The normative framework presented can, moreover, help to clarify the objectives that citizens of a more global world would wish regulation to provide.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a critical and informative exploration of the emerging roles and rising influence of the Global South in shaping the future of global governance. Specifically, it inquires into the following questions: How is the Global South impacting the way we govern globally? What are the pushers, pulls and weights to the futures of global governance? Using Jim Dator’s alternative futures archetype, what is the future of global governance? What are the emerging issues and trends?

It uses Sohail Inayatullah’s futures triangle to map the drivers – the pushes, pulls and weights of global governance and Jim Dator’s archetypes – continued economic growth, collapse, conserver and transformation – to imagine and construct alternative futures of global governance.

The futures triangle analysis maps and reveals three diverse but causally linked Global South narratives of global governance. The pulls of the future include the Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa leading the way, and emerging economies reinforcing the pluralization of global governance discourses and systems. New governance regimes create new global governance dynamics and North – South relations. Their increasing social, political and economic clout leads to new governance structures. The Global South’s rising human development index, economic growth, decreasing financial reliance, the rise of minilateralism and South – South cooperation is a push of the present. Weights are recurring financial constraints, their lack of technical capacity, existing international laws, stagnating bureaucracy, poverty, domestic issues and state centrism (among others). Four alternative global governance scenarios emerge: a harmonious world is everybody’s business – a state-centric and economic growth global governance future. Here, the dynamics of global governance remain the same as zero-sum thinking informs the rules of the game. In dangerous transitions and the rise of the rest, however, the status quo is disrupted as power shifts rapidly and detrimentally. Then, in mosaic of the old structure, the South embraces protectionism, and the old vanguards return. Finally, in all boats rise substantially, power is redistributed as emerging states gain larger, formal (and informal) leadership roles in global governance. The global world order is re-designed for the Global South. A world parliament is created and stronger regional confederation or unions emerge.

This paper extensively utilizes existing and emerging literature, official reports, blogs, interviews, books and other digital texts on global governance. The sources relevance is analyzed using the futures triangle tool and dissected to present four detailed scenarios using Dator’s alternative futures archetype. This study seeks to initially explore alternative futures of global governance from the perspective of the Global South. While some studies have approached the topic, only a few authors have addressed global governance using futures tools and methods. The goal of this research is to map and explore some alternative futures of global governance. The paper is less useful in predicting what lies ahead. Its intention is to highlight the “rise of the different” and to create a space for more meaningful conversations on global governance.

This research could provide futurists, policy-makers, international relations scholars and global governance advocates some alternative narratives, frameworks and images of global governance. While it does not offer any specific structures and solutions, it offers a number of emerging issues and perspectives from the Global South that decision-makers and institutions might want to consider as they rethink global governance.

This paper highlights the emerging roles and perspectives of the Global South in global governance. It identifies some “trading zones” and “emerging issues” that may inspire actors to create new global governance spaces, innovate alternative narratives and design new frameworks of global governance.

It maps and constructs some plausible scenarios of global governance that emphasize Global South perspectives while using futures tools and methods.

Aim of the present monograph is the economic analysis of the role of MNEs regarding globalisation and digital economy and in parallel there is a reference and examination of some legal aspects concerning MNEs, cyberspace and e‐commerce as the means of expression of the digital economy. The whole effort of the author is focused on the examination of various aspects of MNEs and their impact upon globalisation and vice versa and how and if we are moving towards a global digital economy.

As social movements engage in transnational legal processes, they have articulated innovative rights claims outside the nation-state frame. This chapter analyzes emerging practices of legal mobilization in response to global governance through a case study of the “right to food sovereignty.” The claim of food sovereignty has been mobilized transnationally by small-scale food producers, food-chain workers, and the food insecure to oppose the liberalization of food and agriculture. The author analyzes the formation of this claim in relation to the rise of a “network imaginary” of global governance. By drawing on ethnographic research, the author shows how activists have internalized this imaginary within their claims and practices of legal mobilization. In doing so, the author argues, transnational food sovereignty activists co-constitute global food governance from below. Ultimately, the development of these practices in response to shifting forms of transnational legality reflects the enduring, mutually constitutive relationship between law and social movements on a global scale.

This chapter reviews the changing contours of education governance in today’s global environment in which governments participate in different educational agreements across various levels (supranational and global) or what is identified as the rise of “educational multistakeholderism.” Methodologically it draws up discursive evidence from previous studies in the form of a content analysis to show how the expansion of international regimes (institutions) into new issue areas, such as education, creates an overlap between the elemental (core) regime and other regimes. In exploring how regime theory has been applied to comparative and international education, this chapter draws attention to how new regimes and institutions arise and coexist alongside two or more classes (civil society, nongovernmental, intergovernmental, businesses, and state) of actors and its consequences for education governance. It suggests that regime complex(es) in education, which aims to facilitate educational cooperation and are composed of assemblages from several other regimes, are responsible for governing, steering, and coordinating education governance activities through the use of agreements, treaties, global benchmarks, targets, and indicators. It concludes by suggesting that regimes and regime complex(es) in education are constituted by different types of multistakeholder governance.

This paper examines the current state of blockchain governance research. The study’s findings also propose a conceptual framework for the use of blockchain in governance and global governance and provide a global look at how public and private sectors alike are implementing new technologies.

The study is qualitative as well as quantitative in nature. The authors used Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) to gather data for the study. Furthermore, a bibliometric analysis using VOSviewer visualization tool and R Studio was carried out to attain the research objectives.

Many scholars and practitioners from around the world are interested in the topic, according to the analysis. This is a multidisciplinary study, so researchers have looked at how the blockchain can be used to govern countries, public utilities and global facilities, including corporations. There are numerous examples of how technology has been used in global governance, and the authors found that governments, as well as corporations around the world, have implemented technology in a variety of areas that affect the public and other stakeholders.

This study makes numerous contributions. In the first place, it presents the complex concept of blockchain in an easier to understand way. The numerous governmental and commercial initiatives that have made use of blockchain are also highlighted. As a result, the use of technology in corporate and social governance will continue to grow. Finally, the research will inform the academic community on the current state of the topic and potential future directions.

As a result of this research, academics and scholars can better understand the potential of blockchain in various governance models, ranging from developed to developing economies. The general public, as well as organizations, will benefit from the decentralized nature of the blockchain in a variety of ways related to their day-to-day governance. To the best of authors’ knowledge, this is a first kind of research on blockchain in governance using PRISMA and bibliometrics tools.