RSS

While the collective issues to be coped with in a globalized world are of increasing importance, the necessary means for tackling those issues are rudimentary. So is the "idea" that has principally been meant to solve those contemporary challenges being faced by political leaders: global governance.

The economic facet of the concept comprises a wide range of actors and processes, each seeking influence and control so as to be able to promote their views sonorously on what should (or should not) be subject to international regulation. Yet, the significance of intergovernmental cooperation highly exceeds that of the other components and unambiguously emerges as the most commonly applied "strategy" to react to globalisation - not only in the field of economy. Although the existing multilateral institutions have undoubtedly made important contributions to the unprecedented progress and economic growth of many countries since the Second World War, they were designed largely for the world of more than half a century ago.

This paper intends to emphasize the main drawbacks of the present form of global economic governance through focusing solely on the major pillars of the contemporary intergovernmental cooperation in regulating the global economy: the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank (WB) and the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

Balazs Ujvari is pursuing an MA degree in International Studies at Aarhus University. His research field is centred upon global economic governance and trade-led economic growth.

February 23, 2012

Henri Erti, Dubrovnik International University, (5)

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Magnificent work I must say. You managed to hit the contemporary dilemmas of the global governance and its fundamental meaning to the paradigm of globalization. However, the rapidly changing global governance system creates constant flow of disequilibrium, whether it is trade, development, governance and etc. Therefore, I must advocate for the IMF, WTO and WB for their efforts in keeping up with the changes globalization has created. It would be a bit naive to suggest that such institutions have the power to control and command the markets.Therefore the efficiency (or lack of) is due the constant interactions of various markets and markets should not be controlled by any institution. Furthermore, these institutions are forced to be mostly re-active and avoid being pro-active in a sense of intervening to the markets.

However, great work and I enjoyed reading it.

Best regards,
Henri

Commenting has been deactivated in the archive. We appreciate your comments on our more recent articles at atlantic-community.org