Whose World Is It Anyway?

Whose World Is It Anyway?

Mini Teaser: Charles Kupchan’s engaging new tome describes a world where global governance is collapsing and nations have only the barest common ground of agreement. But his analysis is marred by unworkable policy prescriptions and a static perspective.

by Author(s): Daniel W. Drezner

Even if Kupchan is correct about the persistence of different domestic regimes across the globe, his presumption that global governance is fracturing is equally problematic. True, the shifting distribution of power will likely make forums such as the UN Security Council more inert. Still, it is interesting to assess how the key institutions of global economic governance have performed since the 2008 economic crisis. It is true that the G-20 has bogged down recently, but it acted quickly and in concert during the immediate aftermath of the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy. Contra expectations in 2008, the International Monetary Fund became a more important and better-capitalized institution, and the World Trade Organization has preserved the existing state of economic openness. Indeed, these global-governance structures have performed well enough to revive global output and trade levels despite initial falls that exceeded those of the Great Depression. Despite the financial crisis, the World Bank reports that for the first time in modern history, extreme poverty has fallen in every region of the globe. If these are examples of what can be accomplished during global dissensus, then it doesn’t seem like that big of a problem.

Of course, one explanation for this is that on a welter of issues, there is a policy consensus at the elite and mass levels. Global public-opinion surveys demonstrate a genuine enthusiasm for economic globalization across the major economies—as well as positive attitudes toward existing global-governance structures. There are similar levels of consensus on issues like combating terrorism and nuclear nonproliferation. Kupchan is right to observe the absence of consensus on democracy promotion, but that is a small part of the global-issues menu. If the benefits of globalized capitalism are agreed upon by both established and emerging great powers, then Ikenberry’s arguments about the persistence of the status quo institutions trump Kupchan’s pessimism.

Daniel W. Drezner is professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and a senior editor at The National Interest.

Pullquote: According to Kupchan, it will be no one’s world: a mélange of competing ideas and competing structures will overlap and coexist. No one great power or great idea will rule them all.Image: Essay Types: Book Review