Compare and Contrast Nayan Chanda’s argument and Robert Goodin’s arguments about the nature of global governance. Chanda argues global governance today is, as has often been the case throughout history, not keeping up with actual globalization. Goodin argues that a system of not just global governance, but world government, is actually in the process of emerging.
Based on what you’ve learned this semester, write a 5-6 page (double spaced) paper in which you evaluate this controversy–is Goodin correct, or Chanda? Or are they both partially correct? (If you argue they are both partially correct, it’s important to be very specific about exactly how each is partly correct.) Defend your argument with specifics and examples. Your paper should cite at least 2-3 reading sources from this course (not counting Goodin and Chanda’s essays) and 3-4 sources from outside this course, including at least two peer reviewed journal articles from the social sciences (you can include the one you wrote about earlier, if it’s helpful for this assignment.)
The important feature to this paper is to construct a clear argument (in the form of “Goodin is correct because X” or “Goodin is right about X, but Chanda has an important point Y”) and to spell it out in your first paragraph. Each subsequent paragraph should help make the case to your readers, using evidence from various readings, and your interpretation of that evidence.
Our focus this week will be on global governance and institutions—how has the world responded to various globalization processes in terms of politics? We won’t get into the history much, and we’ll focus on the main method shaping the world order since the end of WWII: the United Nations.
The first reading you should take a look at is the Hanhimaki reading about the history, structure, and politics of the UN. There’s a chart in there on p. 28 that will be pretty hard to read, but here’s a url for better version of it: http://www.un.org/en/aboutun/structure/pdfs/UN_System_Chart_30June2015.pdf
Next, read Snarr’s concluding chapter, “Future Prospects” (319-328). It gives a sense of what Snarr thinks some of the prospects and challenges globalization faces are. Then turn to our final two readings: a short essay by Chanda and a book chapter by Goodin. These two essays don’t exactly agree with one and other.
Chanda’s essay (as “Runaway Globalization without Governance”) discusses the “long history” (that’s what longee duree means) of globalization, arguing two main points: 1. That regulation and governance of global flows and processes has pretty much always lagged behind those processes, making globalization in many ways an ‘ungoverned’ and under-regulated phenomenon, and 2. That this feature of globalization is stronger than ever, because historically the best bet for global governance was for the most powerful country or empire to impose and enforce their vision of global order, and the US has for the last 70 years been reluctant to do that, preferring a cooperative world.
Goodin’s essay (for some reason, the last page of this chapter would only scan as a separate document so first read the document ‘Goodin World Government is Here’ followed by ‘Goodin last page’) paints a very different picture. Goodin argues that world government, an idea with a longstanding very bad reputation, is already here, in an early form, and isn’t really that scary. What does he mean by it? He compares the emergence of a world government in the 20th and 21st century with the emergence of the US National government in the 19th century. It’s an unusual and controversial argument, but well worth your time.