Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Louis W. Pauly
Centre for International Studies
University of Toronto
www.utoronto.ca/cis
Not surprisingly, many empirically minded political scientists approach the subject of this
paper with caution. What global governance really is there to reform? Asking myself this
reforming parental authority. Despite the fact that I would certainly be feeling that there was no
such authority to reform, or if it had ever existed it was rapidly eroding, my children could
certainly be counted upon to attend with enthusiasm, bringing with them many proposals for
changing something that not only persists but is increasingly onerous, obnoxious, and much in
need of reform.
In that same very practical spirit, let me grasp the nettle put in our hands. Where is the
true locus of global governance, and what could it possibly mean to reform it? In a short paper,
authority is truly hegemonic, the main external markets supporting our local societies rest today
not on private authority but on interdependent public authorities and increasingly on the
1
delegated public authority of international political institutions. The economic face of
states. It follows that the tenuous legitimacy of those international institutions and the evolving
global order they underpin are eroded when deepening interdependence is mistakenly assumed
That supranationalization may someday come, but it will not be durable if it arises by stealth.
For today, at least with regard to leading states, including our own, the really important
venue for debate and action on key issues of social and economic governance remains internal.
For tomorrow, there will be no way to move to effective global governance without having first
And what do I mean by effective? Since we are at the core of the international system
centered on capitalist social democracies—and we are, even in those that prefer to call
balance efficiency goals and fairness goals. Since they are human structures, they will always fall
short of the ideal and they will always reflect strong disagreements about the weight of the
balance. Obvious economic and social indicators can suggest effectiveness. But the ultimate
test of success is impossible-to-measure precisely. It is the broad systemic crisis that does not
arise. By such a standard, the advanced industrial democracies have succeeded mainly but not
only for themselves since the global cataclysm of 1939-1945. By such a standard, the former
Soviet Union and many states in the developing world have failed. In all cases, successes or
failures of mechanisms of global governance are at best only a part of a much larger story. At
worst, they are a distraction of political energy away from the search for practicable solutions to
actual problems at the local level. Mass demonstrations in Seattle, Prague, and Davos may well
be side-shows. Shadow-play may be what we really see when activists focus their energies
mainly at the global level. It is at least arguable that they set themselves up either to discredit
2
their cause because of unplanned violence or to prepare the ground for their own diversion or
co-optation. (Before I explore this further, let me take a bow to the obvious counterpoint.
Some say that capitalism informs most actual mechanisms of contemporary governance, it is in
its essence unfair, and it is deficient in other ways. I agree. But the fact is that it works, it can
be and has been adapted to social democracy, and a tamed version of mainly-national, perhaps
At the heart of our panel today lies the real issue of national political authority and its
relationship with international institutions. The issue commonly, and usually mistakenly, evokes
the word “sovereignty.” The concept of sovereignty in international relations has always been
contested. Its association over time with the institution of the state, moreover, is linked with a
number of material and normative transformations. But conflating that concept with the notion of
interdependent world, a turning away from deeper integration by legally sovereign states or by
the collectivity of states remains entirely conceivable. Indeed, some did turn away in the
financial realm as severe debt crises confronted them in the 1980s and 1990s, only to return to
To be sure, most states today confront tighter economic constraints--or clearer policy
trade-offs--as a consequence of a freer potential flow of capital, technology, and labour across
their borders. The erosion of their absolute freedom to pursue internally generated policies--a
conceptual category that should be referred to as policy autonomy, not sovereignty--is the flip-
side of the opportunities for accelerated growth presented by those same flows. The
phenomenon itself is not new, and it boded neither well nor ill for the legal principle of
sovereignty.
What is new is the widespread perception that all states, all societies, and all social
groups are now equally affected by the forces of global integration. The historical record belies
such a perception, and the sovereignty debate, in effect, shrouds important distinctions between
and within states. Underneath much of the overt discourse on vanishing sovereignty and the
3
inexorable logic of efficient markets, I suspect, there lays a covert discourse on power,
Following World War II, the victorious states, including ours but minus the Soviet Union
and China, attempted to craft a new world order. The initial American dream of a global “free”
market at the center of that order was never practicable. The real order, certainly after 1947,
combined a military alliance, national plans for economic development, a managed trading
system, and an underlying assumption that all markets could and would eventually emulate the
structure of American markets. More open markets increasingly compatible with but never
In this regard, the reluctance of states unambiguously to embrace what we might call
"complete mobility norms" --again, certainly vis a vis labour but also, if less obviously, vis a vis
technology and finance, their handling of periodic emergencies in international markets in an 'ad
hoc' manner, and their preference not clearly to designate an international organizational
overseer for truly integrated capital or labour markets suggested deeper concerns. Continuing
controversies on all of these points revolve around traditional issues of power and authority.
The legitimacy of a new order tending in the direction of global integration remains highly
problematic. More fundamentally, the struggle suggests that the architects of such an order
cannot easily calibrate emergent market facts with persistent political realities.
One doesn't need to be an extremist to sense the dimensions of the problem. One only
needs to observe market and governmental reactions to the periodic crises that characterize any
order relying in part on private capital markets. Such markets may be efficient in the long run,
but they are always prone to bouts of mass hysteria in the short run. Since 1945, prompted by
periodic emergencies, advanced industrial states regularly engaged in efforts to manage that
proclivity. In an interdependent economic and financial order, which we have created ourselves
for very good reasons, crises with potentially devastating systemic effects can begin in all but the
poorest countries.
4
From Mexico in 1982 and 1995 to Russia, East Asia, and Latin America in the late
1990s, many national dilemmas threatened to become disasters for the system. But who was
truly responsible for the necessary bailouts and for their sometimes perverse effects? Who
would actually be held responsible if the panicked reaction to financial turbulence in one country
actually began to bring down large commercial and investment banks and investment funds
around the world? "No one," a number of practitioners and analysts now say, for the authority
to manage global finance has dispersed into the supranational ether or has been privatized. I
disagree. Despite the obfuscation of accountability always implied in regimes aiming to advance
public policy agendas through the indirect means of private markets, actual crises in the waning
years of the twentieth century continued to suggest that national governments would be blamed
and that they would respond. If this creates what central bankers call “moral hazard,” excessive
private risk-taking in anticipation of public bailouts, so be it. There is no way around this when
the aim is decent societies and a peaceful world supported by the tenuous but practical logic of
democratic capitalism. I admit, however, that it is the function of central bankers and even
finance ministers to pretend otherwise, to sow a degree of uncertainty in this regard, and never,
never to be truly transparent. But since 1931, they have in fact never failed to make the
Indeed, it is the desire to avoid the end-game of fully transparent national emergency
response in the new world of international factor mobility that provides the driving force behind
continuing multilateral and regional efforts to bolster and broaden the mandates of particular
international institutions and to create new ones. If this is what we mean by the reform agenda, I
wholeheartedly agree that we as scholars, students, and citizens have an important role to play.
But it is mainly the painstaking role of combining the ethical, with the conceptual and the
practical. In more mundane settings likely to attract far fewer people than are assembled here,
we must ask not only what is right, but where have we been, what is the theoretical rationale,
and what will actually work. (By the way, this is exactly what we are now doing in the Munk
Centre across a full range of international policy arenas.) But in a more general sense, in the
5
best case, technocratic agencies promise to promote adequate standards of regulation around
the world, design functional programs for crisis avoidance and crisis management, and provide
mechanisms for states to collaborate with one another for mutual benefit. In the worst case, as
we just witnessed in the wake of the Russian and east Asian debacles, those same agencies can
also take on the role of scapegoats, thus serving as a political buffer for responsible national
authorities. What they have difficulty addressing, however, are basic questions of social justice.
Not only are standards across diverse societies themselves still diverse, but those agencies are
charged with helping to manage a system where the mobility of capital is not yet, in fact,
Justice and legitimacy are inextricably linked. At its core, the contemporary
international system reflects the fact that the governments of states cannot shift ultimate political
authority, to the global level. Perhaps they do not yet need to do so, because the term
“globalization” exaggerates the reality of international integration at the dawn of a new century.
But surely the vast majority of their citizens do not yet want them to do so. Only in Western
Europe, within the restricted context of a regional economic experiment still shaped by the
legacy of the most catastrophic war in world history, was a shift in power and authority beyond
the national level in sight. And even there, the fundamental construction of an ultimate locus of
authority remained highly convoluted and controversial. In the rest of the industrial world,
intensifying interdependence remained the order of the day as the citizens of still-national states
sought the benefits of international factor mobility without paying the ultimate political costs
“emerging markets” seemed like a distant roll of thunder. Whether the storm it signaled would
remain distant was now a crucially important question. But when the answer becomes clear, as
As the entire history of the post-World War II experiment attests, after all, markets are a tool of
6
My conclusion will come as no surprise. In good times, the authority to stabilize
markets can be delegated to the private sector. Voluntary efforts, best-practice codes, even
self-regulatory organizations are nothing new. When such efforts accomplish their goals, the
dog does not bark, catastrophes are avoided, and most of us don’t notice. But when they fail,
or threaten to fail, one of two things happen. Holders of legitimate public authority take back
systems in California, to environmental and social protection systems in Ontario, the emergence
of private authority is a contingent and fleeting phenomenon. The fragility or the durability of
international markets impinging on such systems remains entirely reflective of the interactive
Global markets did not cause Canada’s fiscal mismanagement beginning in the 1970s.
Globalization did not put our First-Nation and other fellow-citizens on the streets at the
University’s gates. The Americans did not gut Ontario’s environmental regulatory regime.
Global economic opportunities grasped did not necessarily imply that Canadian economic elites
had to bail out of their own society. Globalization does not determine Canada’s anemic policies
on overseas development assistance, or even the precise balance between public subsidy and
private effort in the funding of our university system. No external power is forcing a particular
agenda of response to the twin challenges technology and demography pose for our health care
system. Of course, openness brings the promise of national prosperity and the responsibility for
global stewardship. In Canada, seizing those opportunities and meeting that responsibility has
coherent and vibrant society. Not only in Canada, but certainly here, the challenge of reforming
global governance must first be met at home, and it still can be.
* Drawn from "Global Markets, National Authority, and the Problem of Legitimation," in
Private Authority and Global Governance, Rodney Bruce Hall and Thomas Biersteker, eds.,
under review. For related background, see Democracy Beyond the State? Michael Th.
Greven and Louis W. Pauly, eds., Lanham, MD/Toronto: Rowman & Litle field/University of
Toronto Press, 2000.
7
Contact: Louis W. Pauly, Director, Centre for International Studies, University of Toronto, 1
Devonshire Place, Toronto, ON M5S 3K7; lpauly@chass.utoronto.ca.