States remain the optimal starting point for studies of global governance needs because of their distinct legitimacy and capabilities from other actors. In global governance, however, the role of sovereign states and their governments is contradictory. They not only exert positive effects as leading forces in international affairs, but also share power with other increasingly active actors as the targets of reform on both domestic and international scales.

1. States, market failures and absence of authority in the international system

Global governance entails the rules, structures and institutions that guide, regulate and control social life. In the international system, however, there is no “government,” nor is there a perfectly competitive market. The aim of handling global affairs is not simply to improve governance or rectify inactions, but also to counter disorder. To build a fair, democratic and efficient international political and economic order, effective regional and global governance calls for active participation of multiple and multi-level non-state actors to adjust authority shortcomings by states and markets. Furthermore, strong execution and legitimacy to compensate the absence of international authority is also needed.

Although the diffusion of power has pushed more non-state actors to the international arena, it is too early to deem it conducive to the shaping of some force for “international authority.” During the assessment of execution, most theories tend to neglect actors’ “ability to put their decisions into practice,” which only states possess. Lacking the ability or motivation to carry out their decisions to varying degrees, emerging actors like the United Nations (UN), non-governmental organizations (NGOs), multinational corporations and civil societies can hardly take part in managing global affairs independently and effectively. Any governance mechanism that overlooks this point is imperfect in design. With regard to legitimacy, the international community, despite many effective domestic judicial and management procedures, is seriously problematic in providing authoritative explanations, clarifying rules and adjusting rules to reality. Multiple subjects can subsequently lack legal protection in their actions at the international level, thus their abilities are further impaired. Only governments are able to reasonably wield their power to attain various social goals and ensure the validity of all agreements. State-led governance thus plays a central role in global governance. If non-state actors desire to exert influence, they have to garner authority either by “relying on” or “resorting to” the legitimacy of states, or calling the attention of public opinion on the opposite side.

Nonetheless, states are not all-powerful. Due to challenges ahead in the globalization era, state-led governance is entangled in new execution and legitimacy crises, which leads to a gap between ideal outcomes and reality in global governance practices. With the diffusion of power to different countries and non-state actors, contradictions are manifested by the distortion of global governance.

2. Risks of semi-global and non-global governance

Global governance affects and serves the entire world. Nation states can provide pertinent agendas, but capabilities differ from one country to another. There are always more capable states that have greater say in international affairs, and consequently bring about “semi-global” or “non-global” governance. In most cases, the “Northern Hemisphere” governs the “Southern Hemisphere.”

As late American political scientist Kenneth N. Waltz pointed out, inequality among states is larger and has grown more rapidly. Rich countries have become richer and poor countries have remained poor. In a system without central governance, the influence of the units of greater capability is disproportionately large because there are no effective laws and institutions to direct and constrain them. On the one hand, the capable have responsibilities to fulfill. Having benefited most from globalization, developed regions and countries are obliged to contribute more to the healthy operation of political and economic order. Itching to rule the world, on the other hand, they are apparently self-centered in governance practices. For various reasons, they often pursue some specific goals selectively and shirk their responsibilities in other issues, either stepping into the politics of other countries brazenly through the use of force, turning a blind eye to massive ethnic cleansing or avoiding issues that they should be responsible for, such as carbon emissions. These facts undermine global governance’s original principle of equal consultation by resulting in “the strong governing the weak,” and even reduce it to a policy tool for some countries to advance their own interests. In research of global governance, it is necessary to take into consideration global governance distorted by states, global capital and technocracy.

　　Although the trend of world multi-polarization after the Cold War particularly contains the spread of “semi-global” governance, the rise of emerging countries and the global financial crisis have made it possible for developing countries to take part in governance. The polarization and opposition of governance subjects have severely affected the base of legitimacy of global governance and the effectiveness of relevant mechanisms.

3. Constraints from international governance hindering global governance

Even though all countries take part in decision-making on an equal footing, problems remain in state-led governance. If “international” stands for the totaling of interests of all countries, “global” represents the well-being of the whole human race. Different from coordination between great powers, global governance not only takes states as a point of departure, but also regards the consideration of human aspirations as a criteria of good governance, seeking more effective cooperation in issues such as the elimination of hunger, prevention and cure of diseases, safeguarding of women’s and children’s rights, and protection of the environment. These goals are not confined to a specific country, religion or race, and beneficiaries are concrete, so they are in essence global issues.

However, constraints exist when states initiatively seek supernational interests and realize globally-balanced development. Firstly, it is difficult for the state-led governance model to view global issues from the supernational standpoint. States’ self-interests restricts governance practices to traditional transnational cooperation or coordination between great powers, and makes impossible the focus on more urgent “livelihood issues” that are concerned with the development of mankind. Secondly, governance of many transnational issues, such as poverty eradication, crime-fighting and environmental protection, is usually implemented within the border and completed by a certain government. Worse still, the diffusion of state power in the globalization age and inherent defects of bureaucratic departments seriously contain the effects of governance. Finally, the emergence of transnational civil societies questions and pressurizes states in governing the world, hence the prolonged process in which the government persuades the public and society to support its policies.

Moreover, state power is increasingly limited. In the face of the constantly integrated and divided world, states are losing their control power. Not only are traditional external behavioral patterns challenged, but states have to conduct more extensive multilateral cooperation, even to achieve domestic goals. Meanwhile, states’ “self-help” capability is being crippled by the evolving inter-dependency, and the effect of unilateralism is weakening. There is a short supply of power for states to manage world affairs. In the context of globalization, the need of the international community for authority increases instead. However, the weakening of power on the international scale does not bring about a zero-sum game. The power of some countries is not ceded to others, so at the heart of the international political economy, there is a vacuum that is not adequately filled by inter-governmental institutions. This has caused a series of problems, like short supply of international public goods, weak regulations of the international financial market, and deferred response to global issues.

Against such a backdrop, states not only need non-state actors to supply their deficiencies in resources, capabilities and willingness, but also must call for extensive cooperation with other countries. Only through multilateral, diversified and multi-level cooperation can states effectively cope with challenges in the globalization age.

The current world system is in transition. Whether the new order would be more equal and democratic depends on how all countries take collective and cooperative actions. Undoubtedly, states will play a crucial part in the process. Whether they can dialectically comprehend and effectively defend state interests and become positive forces in promoting good global governance rests with how they define and pursue their own interests and power amid globalization.

The authors are from the Zhou Enlai School of Government at Nankai University.

Translated by Chen Mirong

　　Revised by Tom Fearon