Global governance vs empire: Why world order moves towards heterarchy and hierarchy

  • Rainer Baumann
  • Klaus Dingwerth
Article

Abstract

Current debates in International Relations (IR) entail two different claims regarding the global structures evolving in the post-Cold War world. Some suggest that the scope of the US power amounts to lasting American hegemony or even to a US empire; others speak of global governance in light of waning capacities of single states to tackle international problems or the growing salience of non-state actors. In this article, we discuss these two bodies of literature in conjunction. We argue that the global governance literature and the empire literature use different lenses to observe the same object, that is, world politics after the Cold War, and that they both address the question of power and authority in IR. The global governance literature identifies a diffusion of power and authority in world politics and thus a move from anarchy to heterarchy. The empire literature, in contrast, identifies a concentration of power and authority in the hands of the United States and thus a move from anarchy to hierarchy. We discuss different attempts to redress this seeming contradiction and show that there is much ground to believe that world politics is in fact characterised by both a concentration and a dispersion of power and authority. What we may see is neither global governance nor empire alone, but rather moves towards heterarchy and hierarchy at the same time.

Keywords

empire global governance heterarchy hierarchy world order 

References

  1. Avant, Deborah A., Martha Finnemore and Susan K. Sell, eds (2010) Who Governs the Globe? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baird, Zoe (2002) ‘Global Internet Governance: Engaging Government, Business and Nonprofits’, Foreign Affairs 81 (6): 15–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnett, Michael and Martha Finnemore (2004) Rules for the World: International Organizations in World Politics, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Barnett, Michael and Raymond Duvall, eds (2005) ‘Power in Global Governance’, in Power and Global Governance, 1–32, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bendrath, Ralf, Jeanette Hofmann, Volker Leib, Peter Mayer and Michael Zürn (2008) ‘Namensräume, Datenschutz und elektronischer Handel: Die Suche nach Regeln für das Internet’, in Achim Hurrelmann, Stephan Leibfried, Kerstin Martens and Peter Mayer, eds, Zerfasert der Nationalstaat? Die Internationalisierung politischer Verantwortung, 209–39, Frankfurt and New York: Campus.Google Scholar
  6. Bull, Hedley (1977) The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics, New York: Columbia University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Büthe, Tim and Walter Mattli (2011) The New Global Rulers: The Privatization of Regulation in the World Economy, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Callinicos, Alex (2005) ‘Anti-war Protests Do Make a Difference’, Socialist Worker Online 1943: available at http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=6067 (last accessed 15 December, 2008).Google Scholar
  9. Clark, Ian (2011) Hegemony in International Society, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cox, Michael (2004) ‘Empire, Imperialism and the Bush Doctrine’, Review of International Studies 30 (4): 585–608.Google Scholar
  11. Cox, Michael (2005) ‘Empire by Denial: The Strange Case of the United States’, International Affairs 81 (1): 15–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crenshaw, Martha and Maryann Cusimano Love (2007) ‘Networked Terror’, in Maryann Cusimano Love, ed., Beyond Sovereignty: Issues for a Global Agenda 3rd edn. 114–35, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  13. Cutler, Claire A., Virginia Haufler and Tony Porter, eds (1999) ‘The Contours and Significance of Private Authority in International Affairs’, in Private Authority and International Affairs, 333–76, Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  14. Dingwerth, Klaus and Philipp Pattberg (2006) ‘Global Governance as a Perspective on World Politics’, Global Governance 12 (2): 185–203.Google Scholar
  15. Enloe, Cynthia (1989) Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics, London: Pandora Press.Google Scholar
  16. Ferguson, Yale H. (2003) ‘Illusions of Superpower’, Asian Journal of Political Science 11 (2): 21–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ferguson, Yale H. (2008) ‘Approaches to Defining “Empire” and Characterizing United States Influence in the Contemporary World’, International Studies Perspectives 9 (3): 272–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ferguson, Yale H. and Richard Mansbach, eds (2008) ‘Superpower, Hegemony, Empire’, in A World of Polities: Essays on Global Politics, 200–15, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Ferguson, Yale H. and Richard W. Mansbach (2007) ‘Postinternationalism and IR Theory’, Millennium — Journal of International Studies 35 (3): 529–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goldsmith, Jack and Tim Wu (2006) Who Controls the Internet? Illusions of a Borderless World, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hardt, Michael and Antonio Negri (2000) Empire, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Holitscher, Marc (1999) ‘Global Internet Governance and the Rise of the Private Sector’, Swiss Political Science Review 5 (2): 134–42.Google Scholar
  23. Hurrell, Andrew (2007) On Global Order: Power, Values, and the Constitution of International Society, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ikenberry, G. John (2002) ‘America’s Imperial Ambition’, Foreign Affairs 82 (5): 44–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ikenberry, G. John (2008) ‘The Rise of China and the Future of the West. Can the Liberal System Survive?’ Foreign Affairs 87 (1): 23–37.Google Scholar
  26. Kennedy, Paul (1987) The Rise and Fall of Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000, New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  27. Keohane, Robert O. (1984) After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Krahmann, Elke (2005) ‘American Hegemony or Global Governance? Competing Visions of International Security’, International Studies Review 7 (4): 531–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Krauthammer, Charles (1991) ‘The Unipolar Moment’, Foreign Affairs 70 (1): 23–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Krisch, Nico (2010) Beyond Constitutionalism: The Pluralist Structure of Postnational Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Krisch, Nico and Benedict Kingsbury (2006) ‘Introduction: Global Governance and Global Administrative Law in the International Legal Order’, European Journal of International Law 17 (1): 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lake, David (2008) ‘The New American Empire?’ International Studies Perspectives 9 (3): 281–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lake, David (2009) Hierarchy in International Relations, Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Lake, David (2010) ‘Rightful Rules: Authority, Order, and the Foundations of Global Governance’, International Studies Quarterly 54 (3): 587–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Layne, Christopher (1993) ‘The Unipolar Illusion: Why New Great Powers Will Rise’, International Security 17 (4): 5–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Leander, Anna (2010) ‘Practices (Re)producing Orders: Understanding the Role of Business in Global Security Governance’, in Morten Ougaard and Anna Leander, eds, Business and Global Governance, 57–77, London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Leib, Volker (2002) ICANN und der Konflikt um die Internet-Ressourcen: Institutionenbildung im Problemfeld Internet Governance zwischen multinationaler Staatstätigkeit und globaler Selbstregulierung, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Konstanz, Germany.Google Scholar
  38. Lipschutz, Ronnie D. (2002) ‘The Clash of Governmentalities: The Fall of the UN Republic and America’s Reach for Imperium’, Contemporary Security Policy 23 (3): 214–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lipschutz, Ronnie D. and Cathleen Fogel (2002) ‘“Regulation for the Rest of Us?” Global Civil Society and the Privatization of Transnational Regulation’, in Rodney Bruce Hall and Thomas J. Biersteker, eds, The Emergence of Private Authority in Global Governance, 115–50, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Milner, Helen (1993) ‘The Assumption of Anarchy in International Relations Theory: A Critique’, in David Baldwin, ed., Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate, 143–69, New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Motyl, Alexander J. (1999) Revolutions, Nations, Empires: Conceptual Limits and Theoretical Possibilities, New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Münkler, Herfried (2005) Imperien: Die Logik der Weltherrschaft — vom Alten Rom bis zu den Vereinigten Staaten, Berlin: Rowohlt.Google Scholar
  43. Nexon, Daniel H. (2008) ‘What’s This, Then? ‘Romanes Eunt Domus’?’ International Studies Perspectives 9 (3): 300–08.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nexon, Daniel H. and Thomas Wright (2007) ‘What’s at Stake in the American Empire Debate’, American Political Science Review 101 (2): 253–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ninkovich, Frank (2000) ‘Review of Empire by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri’, Political Science Quarterly 115 (3): 488–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nye, Joseph S. (1990) Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power, New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  47. Nye, Joseph S. (2002) ‘The Dependent Colossus’, Foreign Policy 129: 74–76.Google Scholar
  48. Rai, Shirin M. (2008) ‘Analysing Global Governance’, in Shirin M. Rai and Georgina Waylen, eds, Global Governance: Feminist Perspectives, 19–42, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rosenau, James N. (1990) Turbulence in World Politics: A Theory of Change and Continuity, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Rosenau, James N. (1997) Along the Domestic — Foreign Frontier: Exploring Governance in a Turbulent World, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rosenau, James N. (2003) Distant Proximities: Dynamics Beyond Globalization, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Rosenau, James N. (2005) ‘Illusions of Power and Empire’, History and Theory 44 (1): 73–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rosenau, James N., ed. (2006a) ‘Toward an Ontology of Global Governance’, in The Study of World Politics, Vol. 2: Globalization and Governance, 111–20, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  54. Rosenau, James N., ed. (2006b) ‘Global Affairs in an Epochal Transformation’, in The Study of World Politics, Vol. 2: Globalization and Governance, 31–45, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  55. Strange, Susan (1988) States and Markets, London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  56. Strange, Susan (1996) The Retreat of the State: The Diffusion of Power in the World Economy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Teubner, Gunther, ed. (1997a) ‘Global Bukowina: Legal Pluralism in World Society’, in Global Law without a State, 3–28, Dartmouth: Aldershot.Google Scholar
  58. Teubner, Gunther, ed. (1997b) Global Law without a State, Dartmouth: Aldershot.Google Scholar
  59. Tilly, Charles (2002) ‘Review of ‘Empire’ by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri’, Canadian Journal of Political Science 35 (1): 224–25.Google Scholar
  60. Tyler, Patrick E. (2003) ‘Threats and Responses: News Analysis — A New Power in the Streets’, New York Times (17 February, 2008): available at http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9902E0DC1E3AF934A25751C0A9659C8B63 (last accessed 20 November, 2010).
  61. Walt, Stephen M. (2005) Taming American Power: The Global Response to US Primacy, New York and London: Norton.Google Scholar
  62. Waltz, Kenneth N. (1979) Theory of International Politics, Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  63. Waltz, Kenneth N. (1993) ‘The Emerging Structure of International Politics’, International Security 18 (2): 44–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Waltz, Kenneth N. (1999) ‘Globalization and Governance’, Political Science and Politics 32 (4): 693–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wendt, Alexander (1999) Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Whitman, Jim (2005) The Limits of Global Governance, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Young, Oran R., ed. (1997) ‘Global Governance: Toward a Theory of Decentralized World Order’, in Global Governance, 273–99, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  68. Zürn, Michael (2007) ‘Institutionalisierte Ungleichheit in der Weltpolitik: Jenseits der Alternative “Global Governance” versus ‘American Empire’’, Politische Vierteljahresschrift 48 (4): 680–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Zürn, Michael, Martin Binder and Matthias Ecker-Ehrhardt (2012) ‘International Authority and Its Politicization’, International Theory 4 (1): 69–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rainer Baumann
    • 1
  • Klaus Dingwerth
    • 2
  1. 1.University of Duisburg-Essen, Centre for Global Cooperation Research/Käte Hamburger-KollegDuisburg
  2. 2.School of Economics and Political Science (SEPS), Department of Political ScienceUniversität St. Gallen, School of Economics and Political Science (SEPS)St. GallenSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations