GOVERNANCE THROUGH GLOBAL GOALS (VIJGE ET. AL)
• New mechanism of global governance: the use of broad global policy goals to orchestrate the activities
of all citizens of the world
• Role has become much stronger last two decades
• Several attempts:
o The Millennium Development Goals (2000)
o The Sustainable Development Goals (2015)
§ Not legally binding and cannot be enforced as law within national or international
adjudication
§ They are marked by weak institutional arrangements that are not supported by
international treaty organizations, formal monitoring agencies, strong dispute
settlement bodies and the like
§ They are meant to be highly inclusive, covering all countries and sectors of society
§ They are broadly framed and hence leave much leeway to national implementation and
interpretation
CONCEPTUALIZATION
• Global goals = internationally agreed non-legally binding policy objectives that are time-bound,
measurable and aspirational in nature
• A key defining feature of governance through goals is that it does not seek to directly change existing
institutional architectures, and that it does not seek to regulate existing institutions or actors by demanding
or enforcing behavioral change
• Governance through goals relies on non-legally binding global public policy goals, generally negotiated
under the purview of intergovernmental institutions and organizations, most notably the UN à typically
endorsed by governments and non-state actors around the world, which could enable them to guide
actions and policies at global, national and subnation levels
• They are typically endorsed by governments and non-state actors around the world, which could
enable them to guide actions and policies at global, national and subnational levels
• Governance through goals can thus have some influence by setting priorities that shape the international
and national allocation of scarce resources, as well as by galvanizing action through specific and time-
bound targets with which actors track their progress towards goal achievement
• But: will the goals be effective in the end?
RESEARCH FINDINGS
1. Non-legally Binding Nature
• Only recommendations, not formally signed and ratified by states
• Not part of international law, essentially political agreements
Lot of critics on this non-legally binding character of the global goals:
• Suboptimal
• Ineffective and counterproductive
• Need to create additional mechanisms to ensure that these goals are not just a reflection, but reach
further than the existing fragmented and compartmentalized system of international law
• This might limit the sense of urgency, commitment and acceptance
Advantages of non-legally binding characteristics:
• Some political agreements have had a greater influence on state behaviour than legal agreements
10
, • Goal-setting articulates time-bound aspirations, procedures and targets that need to rely on
enthusiastic support among a wide range of actors to induce self-governance
• It might motivate all governments to make at least some contributions on sensitive topics
• Non-legally binding commitments might in some cases be more precise and effective
• The extent to which accountability mechanisms are in place to support global goals, for instance
through systems of transparency and review are also important
o Voluntary National Reviews à could help mobilize and empower domestic supporters and
increase a sense of urgency among participants
2. Underlying Weak Institutional Arrangements
• Global goals do not rely on legal authority or on a formal status within the UN hierarchy
o They lack significant resources to execute their mandate and the capacity to create norms,
resolve disputes and enforce compliance with further rules and regulations
• The ineffectiveness of global governance that comes from inefficiency, the lack of an overall vision,
duplication and conflicts between the mandates and activities of organizations, lack of
implementation and enforcement and lack of adequate and predictable funding à negative views on
governance fragmentation
But weak institutional arrangements can also be a possible way to deal with governance fragmentation:
• Orchestration: a strategy closely linked to governance through goals that relies on legal authority
and enforcement but rather on ‘soft modes of influence’
o Gain influence through intermediary organizations
o Can steer actors in desired directions (bottom-up, country-driven, stakeholder-oriented)
o They are believed to be able to exercise leadership
• Example: the High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development
o Responsible for the institutional oversight in formulating and implementing SDG’s
o Focal point for implementing the SDG’s
3. Inclusiveness of the Goal-Setting Process
• Procedural inclusiveness (openness of the process to a wide range of state and non-state actors) and
substantial inclusiveness (relates to the broad range of targets of a given policy)
• The attention to inclusiveness is linked to the search for greater (input) legitimacy in global
governance
• Stakeholder diplomacy
o A more reflexive form of governance
o Resilience and deliberation that embodies the institutional ability to be something else
• New forms of hybrid governance emerged (dialogues and public-private partnerships
Critics:
• Lack of participation from marginalized groups, insufficient monitoring and reporting and the biased
funding that is generated through strong private sector involvement
• Millennium Development Goals (2000) à also faced sharp criticism with regard to their
inclusiveness
o They were aimed only at developing countries, with industrialized countries envisaged
almost as tutors, reflecting a unidirectional and not very inclusive understanding of
development
o Criticism about the strong emphasis of the MDGs on measurability, which has caused a
certain reductionism and may have led to the inclusion or marginalization of crucial
qualitative elements of comprehensive development
o Partnerships were established around the MDGs were criticized for their weak review
mechanisms and performance measurements
11
, • The SDG’s did much better à they emerged from a ‘mould-breaking’ negotiation process that
involved the establishment of an Open Working Group à ‘inclusive and transparent
intergovernmental process on SDG that is open to all stakeholders’
o But there are still critical voices that point at some weaknesses
4. The National Leeway in the Implementation of the Goals (speelruimte)
• Global goals remain subject to contestation, negotiation and translation at the national level
• This might result in less inclusiveness in some countries that was originally envisaged
• If countries with different levels of development are held up to the same measures of performance,
then the special conditions in the least developed countries would make it very difficult for them to
meet the goals
• Nationally owned strategies for implementing the SDGs might also foster greater accountability at
national and other levels, through the development of appropriate monitoring and evaluation
mechanisms
à However, while the SDGs somewhat remedy the shortcomings of the MDGs, potential pitfalls remain
• There are risks of simplification and selectivity of goals through national implementation
• Yet very few governments clearly articulate how to execute their respective agendas or how to
monitor and evaluate their progress à slippage in ambition and vision
• National leeway might foster important learning processes within countries
o Institutional integration requires much re-learning and must transpire through a multi actor,
multi-sector and multilevel process, providing new possibilities to engage with different
types of knowledge
• Some indicators for the SDGs are still not based on established methodologies and standards, and
some lack the required data for measurement
GOVERNANCE THROUGH GOALS AND THE PERFORMANCE OF
ARCHITECTURES
Can global goals affect global governance architectures, and under what circumstances?
• It seems possible that goals offer an overarching set of norms, leading to more normative agreement and
institutional integration, be it through soft modes of governance or orchestration
• On the other hand: the involvement of particularly powerful private actors and the cherry-picking of goals
could lead to the strengthening of specific complexes around certain goals and not others –W result in a
more modular global governance architecture, where synergistic fragmentation is present within specific
complexes, but cooperative or even conflictive fragmentation is present between complexes
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
• We need to better understand how, to what extent and with what extent and with what effects global goals
and their norms are embedded and integrated in existing governance arrangements at global, national and
local levels
• The concept of orchestration in global governance constitutes an important new research area as well,
focusing for example on the extent to which ‘powerless’ steering may have powerful effects on actors’
behaviour
• Governance through the goals as a mechanism of global governance is not likely to disappear, not is it
likely to become less dominant with the termination of the SDGs by 2030
o It will therefore remain of utmost importance, both for the attainment of the SDGs and for any
future effort of global goal-setting, to continue critical examination of the various effects of
global goals at the global, national and subnational levels
12
, COVID-19 AND MULTILATERALISM (SACHS)
ABSTRACT
• The greatest crisis since World War II and its greatest economic calamity since the Great Depression
• Two ways out of a global crisis:
o A global leader that guides an effective response
o Global cooperation through the UN multilateral framework
• Our only way forward is cooperation under the UN mandate
INTRODUCTION
• The contrast between the globalization that we need to fight COVID-19 and the reality of rising
geopolitical tensions as the US increasingly turns its back on multilateralism
• Economic situation worsened dramatically in the US
o Unemployment reaching 20%
o A social turmoil following the brazen killing of several African-Americans and the unrest that
has followed
o Epidemic, depression, geopolitical conflict, social instability
o Divided country
• It is crucial to keep our eye on our long-term goals and principles, as guideposts for escaping from a
downward spiral of unrest, disease, and economic collapse
• The US at its best is about cooperation with the world, building institutions and efforts for a world that
shares peace and prosperity. Yet at its worst, the US is about extreme chauvinism, overthrowing
governments, inciting conflicts, and even instigating wars of choice with devastating consequences
• We must redouble our efforts to choose a path out of this crisis built on public health, sustainable
development and the common good and global cooperation
1. The public health: contain the pandemic everywhere in the world
a. intensified public-health efforts, testing, physical distancing, safe workplace practices
b. global cooperation to support the WHO
2. Financial, logistical and humanitarian support
a. Financial backing of the world’s poor countries in the form of grants, loans and debt relief
3. Global, cooperative effort to build a new global economy that is socially inclusive and environmentally
sustainable
a. US Green Deal?
HEGEMONIC STABILITY
• Hegemonic Stability Theory (Kindleberger): the idea that a dominant power, or hegemon, was needed to
provide global public goods such as financial stability
• After W.W.II à US became new hegemon (faced off against the Soviet Bloc in the Cold War)
o America led the establishment of global institutions (UN, Bretton Woods institutions, other
multilateral institutions, Marshall Plan)
§ This was self-interested à to promote America economic interests
• Through period from the ‘40s to the ‘80s, narrow American self-interest and global idealism were both
at play in US foreign policy
WANING US LEADERSHIP
• With the end of the Soviet Union à America viewed itself as even more powerful and even more
exceptional than during the Cold War
13
