Governance solutions for a better world: catchy buzzwords but lots of unknowns

The official consensus that came out of the 2019 Annual meetings of the World Economic Forum is that “the global system has spun out of control” and needs to be rebalanced. Short of it, climate change will not be tamed and the transformation of work and the economy through the combined effects of globalisation, digitalisation and automation will lead to massive popular uprisings against the current liberal political and economic order. 

A consensual prescription: inclusive, collaborative, stake-holder based systems of governance

What is needed seems to be pretty clear for global elites. Global governance should be collaborative, more inclusive and build upon partnerships between multiple stakeholders. According to the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), we should “enhance the global partnership for sustainable development, complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships that mobilize and share knowledge, expertise, technology and financial resources, to support the achievement of the sustainable development goals in all countries, in particular developing countries” (Target 17.16) and we should “encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and resourcing strategies of partnerships” (Target 17.17).

Uncertainty about what the remedy would bring about at the global level

How the global system would look like if we follow those prescriptions is another matter. I argued in one of my previous articles that the UN could be replaced by a multi-layered system of partnerships or networks, yielding an open problem-solving transnational cooperation. Some of those networks link only national governments. Some include regional or local organisations, others networks of global charitable organisations. Most of them are either providing scale or resilience, but some may be oriented toward some specific, and time limited, tasks.

This transformation raises three series of largely unanswered questions. First, how would these various networks and partnerships interconnect and work together? Would they compete against each other or rather agree on a harmonious division of labour? In the latter case, would the world need a conductor of the orchestra of networks and if so who would it be?

Second, there is uncertainty about the role and status of states in such a new configuration. Would the sovereign equality of states remain the cornerstone of the global system of governance? Very unlikely as the privileged position of states as well as leading international organisations will have to give way to more horizontal global governance, possibly requiring changes in constitutional competencies at the national level legally empowering sub-state entities such as cities. Changes of such importance are likely to be fiercely resisted by states, particularly, but not only, illiberal ones. Would it lead to an oligopoly of some states and the demise of others?

A third question pertains to how newly empowered actors, in particular private firms and organisations, would adjust their behaviour to a global responsibility role and a rebalancing between private interests and public good. Would some types of actors be more able to take on the new clothes? If so, which ones and in what domains?

What about democracy at the national level

The consensual prescription on how to globally achieve a better world remains silent on possible change on the dominant system of political governance at the national level – democracy. Very typical of the current dominance of the principle of sovereignty of nation states, the SDGs emphasise the need to “respect each country’s policy space and leadership to establish and implement policies for poverty eradication and sustainable development” (Target 17.5). Given the current social uprisings and populist movements in several democratic states, it is hard however to avoid the question. There seems to be a clear discontent about the functioning of representative models of democracy in several countries with severe loss of confidence in elected politicians and calls for more participatory forms of democracy. In that context, the Swiss model based on a subtle balance of federalism, parliamentary democracy and popular referenda and initiatives, has often been seen as a potential source of inspiration. The model has undeniable virtues if the goal is to preserve stability as the evolution of Switzerland since the mid-1800s has shown. Yet, is it fit for the promotion of change and the transition to new modes of consumption and production? Recent political dynamics on issues of sustainability is mixed at best and historical evidence indicates that in times of massive change and disruption the system resorted to closure to the world, an option that is no longer on the table.

In sum, it seems that despite all the catchy buzzwords aired by powerful spin-doctors, policy-makers have still a long way to go on governance solutions for a better world. It is the responsibility of each of us to help them out in this difficult, but crucial, endeavor.

This article is part of my series "The Director's words" which features in our Executive Education newsletters. Follow us on LinkedIn>