Proclaiming a prophecy empty of substance? A pragmatist reconsideration of global governance
| Author | Ulrich Franke,Matthias Hofferberth |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/17550882211028778 |
| Published date | 01 October 2022 |
| Date | 01 October 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/17550882211028778
Journal of International Political Theory
2022, Vol. 18(3) 312 –335
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/17550882211028778
journals.sagepub.com/home/ipt
Proclaiming a prophecy empty
of substance? A pragmatist
reconsideration of global
governance
Ulrich Franke
University of Erfurt, Germany
Matthias Hofferberth
The University of Texas at San Antonio, USA
Abstract
In 1995, the UN Commission on Global Governance published their “Our Global
Neighbourhood” report and the academic journal “Global Governance: A Review of
Multilateralism and International Organizations” was launched. Both events in retrospect
play a significant role in the emergence of global governance thinking and practice in
world politics. Despite inherent ambiguities, this idea since then gained massive traction
and became both a modality and a heuristic of world politics. Advancing a pragmatist
framework, we unpack global governance in terms of the beliefs which underline and
guide it. These beliefs are important since they, as rules for action, define the scope of
global governance as a theoretical and a political concept. Reconstructing these beliefs
directly from the 1995 report, the article highlights the inherent conflations of normative
and analytical commitments indicative of global governance. As a projection surface of all
kinds, we believe such a reconsideration of global governance is important to (a) reveal
the baselines of its thinking and practice, (b) indicate how its normative and analytical
ambitions overlap and conflate, and (c) contribute to a more reflective discussion on
the idea which explicitly considers its inherent normativity. At the same time, we hope
to show the value of a pragmatist framework on beliefs for the study of world politics.
Keywords
American Pragmatism, beliefs, global governance, reconstruction, rules for action
Corresponding author:
Matthias Hofferberth, The University of Texas at San Antonio, One UTSA Circle, San Antonio, TX 78249-
1644, USA.
Email: matthias.hofferberth@utsa.edu
1028778IPT0010.1177/17550882211028778Journal of International Political TheoryFranke and Hoerberth
research-article2021
Article
Franke and Hofferberth 313
Introduction
In 1995, the UN Commission on Global Governance published their report on Our
Global Neighbourhood and the academic journal called Global Governance: A Review
of Multilateralism and International Organizations was launched in association with the
Academic Council of the United Nations System (ACUNS). Twenty-five years later,
global governance, as a political program and an academic discourse, continues to influ-
ence thought and practice of world politics in a deep and sustained manner (Murphy,
2014). At the same time, since its very conception, much has been written about the need
to intellectually and practically improve global governance. In fact, the criticism of
ambiguity is just as old as the notion itself (Finkelstein, 1995; Latham, 1999).1
As a projection surface of all kinds, we struggle academically and in conceptual terms
to define and make sense of global governance, while delivery in practical terms remains
inefficient, lacks accountability, and represents patchwork or gridlock (Hale et al., 2013).
Nevertheless, despite its inherent ambiguity and its continuing failure to provide a legiti-
mate and effective order beyond the nation-state, global governance has gained massive
traction in International Relations (IR) and beyond and developed from an inchoate to a
more mature discourse over the past 25 years (Weiss and Wilkinson, 2019; Zürn, 2018b).2
Current discussions in global governance reflect past trajectories as well as “points of
analytical transition and legacies,” trying to move the discourse toward a more mature
stage (Coen and Pegram, 2018: 107). In order to do so, we contend in this article, both
the scholarship and the practice of global governance needs to reflect upon its implicit
yet rather strong and far-reaching assumptions. In analytical terms, for example, global
governance has challenged IR meta-narratives such as anarchy and hierarchy (Baumann
and Dingwerth, 2015) and has been framed, at least by some, to come to the rescue of a
discipline otherwise confined in its commitment to be(come) a precise and non-norma-
tive science (Weiss and Wilkinson, 2014). At the same time, its relation vis-à-vis IR
theory has never been quite defined. In political terms, global governance, much like
globalization as the macro process it responds to, has been framed as being “without
alternatives”—with states around the world assumingly having little choice but to
embrace multilateralism and multistakeholderism as guiding principles. In other words,
global governance has become a compelling paradigm for some and even the sine qua
non for thinking and doing world politics for others. The concept will, however, remain
incomplete, contested, and subject to immediate criticism, in particular in populist-
nationalist disguise, if its advocates do not critically reflect and provide better justifica-
tion for their underlying assumptions and implicit value commitments (Zürn, 2018a).
Twenty-five years after receiving its name and intellectual framing, we propose a
critical reconsideration of global governance based on the pragmatist concept of beliefs
as rules for action (James, [1907] 1975; Peirce, [1878] 1992). Elaborated in detail below,
we contend that practices and academic reflections of global governance are based on
assumptions and normative ideas—beliefs—of how one conceives the world and should
act in it. As rules for action, these beliefs represent the underpinnings of global govern-
ance and explain both its ambivalence and prevalence as an idea. They constitute the
normative core of the idea and define the scope of practice and thought. It is thus impor-
tant to (a) reveal these rules for action as baselines in and of global governance, (b)
To continue reading
Request your trial