Trends in Global Governance and Future Scenarios 2030
GLOBE Report
Introduction
Trends in Global Governance and Future Scenarios 2030 (GLOBE Report 2030) is one of the final outputs of the project Global Governance and the European Union: Future Trends and Scenarios (GLOBE), supported by the EU under the Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme.
It defines contemporary tasks and future outlines of global governance by focusing on four macro-sectors: trade, security, finance, and the environment.
This report is based on original research carried out by GLOBE partners on different challenges that global governance confronts today. It also includes data from an original online survey of staff members from international organisations (IO), which identifies the perceptions and prospects of global governance in each of the four sectors.
On this website, we present highlights of the report. You can download the full report here (PDF, 1.5 MB).
(PDF, 1.5 MB)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report, Trends in Global Governance and Future Scenarios 2030, delineates current challenges and foreseeable patterns at the global level in the coming years. Our purpose is to encourage a focused discussion about the evolution of global governance in the near future. The report also discusses relevant policy implications for the governance of global affairs from a sector point of view. Here we integrate different analyses and discussions pursued within the GLOBE research project based on empirically driven study of the problems global governance faces. We also consider current theoretical and comparative discussions about its challenges.
Our perspective on global governance assumes that profound differences exist across multiple sectors and policy issues, making separate assessments necessary. This does not prevent showing that, when taken altogether, global governance developments during recent decades of globalization have increased largely, often beyond the logic and the scope of traditional international organisations (IOs). We also argue that nowadays, in many sectors, the importance of the global dimension as a key arena for multi-level policymaking is much more relevant than most analysts concede when focusing on national or regional policy levels.
The report is based on two layers of analysis: first, how institutional dynamics are evolving and shaping future trends of global governance, and second, how different sector scenarios impact the development of global governance. We also consider how international politics might shape sector-level global governance. While the first part of this report,Trends in global governance,is devoted to the first layer, the second part, Future scenarios of global governance, concentrates on the second layer.
FIRST PART: The role of IOs in global governance
In the first part, our research focuses mainly on the role of IOs in global governance. It identifies several challenges that global governance institutions face, namely in the governing structures of IOs and their decision-making rules, in misaligned mandates, and in limited resources such as in funding and information. While these are not universal problems, the observed trends and patterns around these critical areas affect many IOs across multiple sectors. The four macro-sectors we examine in the report illustrate significant differences regarding the importance of institutional path-dependence of IOs and the degree to which informal IOs and other international entities are relevant in their global governance activities.
TRADE
In the case of the trade sector, we observe that a relatively new institutional configuration – reformed in the 1990s – experienced some difficulties when the globalisation movement became less pronounced and some protectionist attitudes emerged among significant powers. In addition, institutional rigidities and the relative absence of informal IOs – and other entities operating in the trade sector – made it challenging to adapt sectoral global governance mechanisms. However, the main IO in this sector still had enough strength to steer new developments towards providing global public goods.
SECURITY
For the security sector, we confirm an ongoing institutional path-dependence that today still favours the persistence of many formal IOs that were established during the Cold War. In the context of changing geopolitical scenery, and with the appearance of new security threats, informal IOs and ad hoc arrangements – which are more flexible and less costly to set up – have stepped in to fill governance gaps where formal IOs have been ineffective. In addition, the highly globalised situation since the 1990s has contributed to the greater relevance of multiple actors, from terrorist groups and criminal networks to tech giants and private military security companies. This has contributed to the hybridisation of the security field. Despite this, the global governance of security in most issue areas remains state-centric.
ENVIRONMENT
In the environment sector, we do not see a single global regime; but rather a regime complex that includes several architectures. Some architectures show weak formal IOs with reduced path-dependence problems that have articulated complex global agreements. We also detect that some informal IOs and hybrid entities have flourished recently. This has allowed them considerable flexibility to navigate global governance, with some success, ahead of the tremendous challenges that climate change presents. Between the different issues of environmental global governance, we find multiple policy processes, which, however, still need to be connected.
FINANCE
In the case of the trade sector, we observe that a relatively new institutional configuration – reformed in the 1990s – experienced some difficulties when the globalisation movement became less pronounced and some protectionist attitudes emerged among significant powers. In addition, institutional rigidities and the relative absence of informal IOs – and other entities operating in the trade sector – made it challenging to adapt sectoral global governance mechanisms. However, the main IO in this sector still had enough strength to steer new developments towards providing global public goods.
Help us spread the word!
Share the GLOBE Report with your colleagues and friends.
SECOND PART: Future scenarios in global governance
The second part of GLOBE Report 2030 discusses four future scenarios in global governance for the next decade: a) the “drifting” scenario, which expects that current geopolitical tensions between the US and China will worsen and will define future major world cleavages; b) the “shifting” scenario, where unstable alliances are the norm, and North–South conflicts intensify; c) the “rising” scenario, where nation-states lose some dominance in international affairs, while other global actors, such as for-profit non-state actors (NSAs), rise with contested and plural goals, and d) the “flowing” scenario, in which there is a multipolar world with more inclusive global governance actions. An analysis of the prospects of the four selected macro-sectors of global governance under each of these scenarios is introduced, with intriguing results for the development of global governance in the years to come.
SCENARIOS
DRIFTING
In the case of the trade sector, we observe that a relatively new institutional configuration – reformed in the 1990s – experienced some difficulties when the globalisation movement became less pronounced and some protectionist attitudes emerged among significant powers. In addition, institutional rigidities and the relative absence of informal IOs – and other entities operating in the trade sector – made it challenging to adapt sectoral global governance mechanisms. However, the main IO in this sector still had enough strength to steer new developments towards providing global public goods.
SHIFTING
For the security sector, we confirm an ongoing institutional path-dependence that today still favours the persistence of many formal IOs that were established during the Cold War. In the context of changing geopolitical scenery, and with the appearance of new security threats, informal IOs and ad hoc arrangements – which are more flexible and less costly to set up – have stepped in to fill governance gaps where formal IOs have been ineffective. In addition, the highly globalised situation since the 1990s has contributed to the greater relevance of multiple actors, from terrorist groups and criminal networks to tech giants and private military security companies. This has contributed to the hybridisation of the security field. Despite this, the global governance of security in most issue areas remains state-centric.
RISING
In the environment sector, we do not see a single global regime; but rather a regime complex that includes several architectures. Some architectures show weak formal IOs with reduced path-dependence problems that have articulated complex global agreements. We also detect that some informal IOs and hybrid entities have flourished recently. This has allowed them considerable flexibility to navigate global governance, with some success, ahead of the tremendous challenges that climate change presents. Between the different issues of environmental global governance, we find multiple policy processes, which, however, still need to be connected.
FLOATING
In the case of the trade sector, we observe that a relatively new institutional configuration – reformed in the 1990s – experienced some difficulties when the globalisation movement became less pronounced and some protectionist attitudes emerged among significant powers. In addition, institutional rigidities and the relative absence of informal IOs – and other entities operating in the trade sector – made it challenging to adapt sectoral global governance mechanisms. However, the main IO in this sector still had enough strength to steer new developments towards providing global public goods.
Levels of responsibility and the policy scope that global governance will achieve in future years, will remain largely determined by the strategies and goals of nation-states, in particular – but not only – by the behaviour of the major powers. Global governance would be very different in a world heavily shaped by a US–China confrontation and geopolitical tensions and conflicts. This would be in contrast to a world in which countries’ desires for regional integration would allow strengthened forms of regional governance that limit major-power confrontations and add stronger voices to world politics and to world economies. In any case, we expect successful IOs will continue to accumulate resources and to gain reputations globally over the decade to 2030, thus allowing them to be more autonomous and operative, and to produce much demanded global public goods. Actually, we will observe an interactive dynamic between IOs and nation-states regarding their capacity to shape future scenarios, and we expect this interactive dynamic will appear much more varied and resourceful than any we have been able to observe in previous decades.
What’s in the report?
PART I. TRENDS IN GLOBAL GOVERNANCE
- 1. Institutional challenges of global governance
- 1.1. Governing structures and decision-making rules
- 1.2. Mandates and autonomy
- 1.3. Limited resources and budgetary prospects for IO’s goals
- 1.4. Informality in global governance
- Sector trends: global trade governance
- Major trends in the global governance of trade
- Etc
PART II. FUTURE SCENARIOS OF GLOBAL GOVERNANCE
- Global governance scenarios: a general view
- Drifting scenario: The bipolar world with multiple tensions
- Shifting Scenario: instability and the prevalence of the North-South conflicts
- Rising scenario: Markets and states in global regulatory governance
- Flowing scenario: A multipolar world of strong regional global governance
- Sector global governance scenarios
- Etc
Want to go further?
You can download the full report as a PDF.
Also, stay tuned for further research, including sector-specific deep dives.
The GLOBE Project has come to an end, but we will still be publishing outcomes and findings over the next months.
To stay up to date, why not sign up for our Newsletter and follow us on Twitter, Facebook or LinkedIn?
Help us spread the word!
Share the GLOBE Report with your colleagues and friends.
About and contact:
This page was created for the GLOBE Project by a Steering Committee at the Institut Barcelona d’Estudis Internacionals (IBEI), a graduate school and research institute focused on international studies.
The principal investigator was Jacint Jordana, Director of IBEI and professor of Political Science and Public Administration at the Universitat Pompeu Fabra. Adam Holesch, project manager of GLOBE, was responsible for implementing the survey. Lewin Schmitt provided research assistance and oversaw the operational and technical workstreams. Laia Comerma and Emily Jones also contributed as research assistants.
To inquire more about the project, please contact info@globe-project.eu.
Follow-up publications and other relevant outputs will be made available to the public over the next months. To stay up to date, sign up for our Newsletter.
GLOBE partners
The GLOBE project is coordinated by the Institut Barcelona d’Estudis Internacionals (IBEI), a graduate school and research institute focused on international studies. Besides that, in GLOBE participate: the Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies (GGS); the Global Governance Institute/University College London (UCL); Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB); Center for Global Economy and Geopolitics, ESADEgeo; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales in Buenos Aires (Argentina); Universitas Bina Nusantara (Indonesia) and Fundación Privada Instituto de Salud Global Barcelona (IS Global).
Data protection
This page does not collect or store any personal information from you. We do, however, include a third-party analytics cookies (Google Analytics), which stores anonymous and pseudonymised data to help us understand how users engage with the site. To learn more about our cookie policy, click here.
We adhere to the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
