Beyond institutionalism: toward a transformed global governance theory

Jan Aart Scholte

doi:10.1017/s1752971920000421

Abstract

AbstractPrompted by both promises and pitfalls in Michael's Zürn'sA Theory of Global Governance, this paper reflects on challenges going forward beyond liberal institutionalism in the study of world politics. Six suggestions are particularly highlighted for future theorizing of global governance: (a) further distance from state-centrism; (b) greater attention to transscalar qualities of global governing; (c) more incorporation of social-structural aspects of global regulation; (d) trilateral integration of individual, institutional, and structural sources of legitimacy in global governance; (e) more synthesis of positive and normative analysis; and (f) transcendence of Euro-centrism. Together these six shifts would generate a transformed global governance theory – and possibly practice as well.

Highlights

2018 saw the publication of a milestone work in institutionalist scholarship on global governance
While the above two problems with institutionalist global governance research in international relations (IR) can be substantially handled through adjustments within the paradigm, a third issue requires a more fundamental ontological overhaul
Talanoa practices from the Pacific and hehe ideas from China could provide new approaches to global conflict transformation.29. In these and other cases, Euro-centrism could be depriving global governance theory of valuable insights and policy tools. Prompted by both enthusiastic reception of and certain reservations over Michael’s Zürn’s A Theory of Global Governance, this commentary has reflected on possibilities going forward beyond institutionalist IR

Summary

Introduction

2018 saw the publication of a milestone work in institutionalist scholarship on global governance. Five decades of IR institutionalist research on global governance have yielded major advances in knowledge of world order, many of them amply manifested in Zürn’s A Theory. While the above two problems with institutionalist global governance research in IR can be substantially handled through adjustments within the paradigm, a third issue (namely, to integrate deeper social structures) requires a more fundamental ontological overhaul.

Results

Conclusion