The GOVERNANCE blog

Jack A. Seddon replies to our conversation on the Coen/Pegram commentary on global governance research:  With three simple observations, I would like to concur with the call for a third generation of global governance research. I would further agree with Professors Coen and Pegram that global governance is failing, though it is probably too much—and a wholly ungenerous reading of the understandably polemical call to arms published in Governance—to assert that it is failing equally everywhere. My only comment is that the ubiquitous backsliding and inadequacy that characterises much of what constitutes global governance is probably only a surprise to the second generation of global governance scholarship. This, if correct, suggests three relatively concrete things about the next generation of research. Global governance analysis needs to be less functionalist and conceptual, more attuned to power and political conflict, and better grounded in its empirical claims. Read the rest of this entry »

Yves Tiberghien replies to a commentary on global governance research by David Coen and Tom Pegram: David Coen and Tom Pegram are right on two counts: our current global governance system is not working and our current theories of global governance are too fragmented to help us analyze the situation and suggest improvements. Yet, the problem is even more serious than what they describe. In fact, the current combination of systemic risks, dramatic power shift, and entropic forces facing our existing global governance architecture could well overwhelm it. And we could well miss it until it is too late.

Read the rest of this entry »

By Angel Saz Carranza.  As a complement to David Coen and Tom Pegram’s recent call for a renewed global governance research effort, I underscore the usefulness to include in such an effort the organization perspective. Global governance needs administrative and organization research.

Coen and Pegram correctly highlight the dire need to advance research on global governance by advancing inter-disciplinary and combining multiple methods.  They call for the integration of International Relations (IR)—for long the sole disciplinary approach used to study of global governance-, European Public Policy Studies (EPP), and International Law approaches. Their call for a new generation of global governance research is very timely.

Read the rest of this entry »

By Karthik Nachiappan.  In a recent commentary for Governance, David Coen and Tom Pegram argue that the best way to improve global governance research is by synthesizing advances from three disciplines – International Relations, International Law and European Public Policy to enable scholars map, grapple with and overcome hindrances to global public policy-making. Though instructive, their agenda will not explain why ‘global governance is not working’ since their focus does not extend to the politics around the gridlock in global governance today.

Read the rest of this entry »