The multilateral system is outdated.
A refit is long overdue.
Multilateralism is facing a crisis of confidence. The system designed in the 20th century has successfully curbed great-power conflict and advanced humanitarian and development aims. But it has significant deficits in terms of legitimacy, transparency, accountability and equitable representation. The benefits of global cooperation, notably in the economic domain, have been far from equitably distributed. For many citizens, there is a deeply embedded distrust of (i) the intentions driving collective decisions, (ii) the credibility of public commitments and (iii) the efficacy of multilateral spending. Imbalances that were built into the design of today’s multilateral system continue to frustrate marginalized states. More fundamentally, global governance appears as a distant diplomatic exercise, serving states and global elites, but disconnected from the needs and priorities of its most numerous constituents: citizens and communities. One roundtable participant noted that the system may be working effectively at the ‘thin’, interest-based level [among states], but that the deeper values of multilateralism are under threat.
At the same time, our consultations indicated that the global governance system as it stands is increasingly mismatched with many of the change-makers of today’s world. Participants in the roundtables reflected on how agency has dispersed as citizens have gained increased access to information, technology and the means for mobilization. Civil society and grassroots initiatives in some countries and regions hold more power than ever before, and in many parts of the world business actors are leading social and environmental change. Scientific and technological development is increasingly driven by the private sector, requiring governments to engage with privately owned companies in order to pursue national security and economic interests.
The unwieldy structures of international organizations are having difficulty keeping pace with the fluidity and speed of global challenges. There are also pressures around demographic change, with growing young populations the most disconnected from economic opportunity, and around the rise of South–South networks and geo-economic shifts more generally. A refit of global governance for today’s world is long overdue, as UN Secretary-General António Guterres frequently states.
But even if confidence in multilateral institutions is under pressure both from publics and governments, the roundtable discussions underscored that collective action remains a necessity. Despite a fractious political environment, world leaders echoed this point in the September 2020 declaration commemorating the 75th anniversary of the United Nations. There is an ever-growing list of issues too large for individual or even partial groups of states to address.
The ticking climate clock, the COVID-19 pandemic and its economic fallout, and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were just a few of the issues highlighted. A rules-based international system remains fundamental to managing the global commons, and to striking a fair balance between responsibilities and interests. Emerging frontiers for public policy – over artificial intelligence (AI), biogenetics and outer space, for example – are presenting new questions to current governance structures. Even when geopolitical competition risks freezing multilateral action, it is imperative to find alternatives; long-term global projects are not built for cyclical stops and starts.
Why inclusivity deserves attention
Greater inclusion is an important element of re-engineering global governance for today’s world. The influence of new agents of change is showing that states do not control the governance equation as they once did.
Bottom-up civic movements have become more powerful change-makers, even in some closed societies, and technology is enabling their influence to spread. Meanwhile, emerging markets are demanding a greater role in shaping global governance. Where this is not happening, they are moving on their own tracks to create regional, plurilateral or other governance policies. Leaving these actors aside risks neglecting key elements of both the problem and the potential solution. The formula of global rule-makers and rule-takers that anchored the international system in recent decades has become obsolete. Demographic trends and urbanization will only further cement this reality.
The movement towards corporate social responsibility and responsible investing using environmental, social and governance (ESG) metrics has created an entirely new category of leverage over global policy issues. Consumers and shareholders are driving economic pressure for companies to adopt more sustainable products and practices. Whatever the motivation, these market forces have taken on a momentum that in some areas is driving normative change even where governments are hesitant, especially in respect of environmental issues.
Time and again in our roundtables, participants emphasized that building greater inclusivity into global governance will require a shift in both practice and mindset.
This trend reflects just one channel of influence, and is by no means a substitute for the mandates of governments, but a number of roundtable participants noted that such leverage can be a useful driver of progress – one that is especially powerful once capital flows move behind it. As one participant argued, carbon border adjustment mechanisms may become the largest single driver of international investment governance in the decade ahead. And with technology innovation taking place outside state frameworks, the inclusion of technology actors in shaping global regulatory initiatives has become imperative.
Constituency outreach is not new for public officials, nor are campaigns for outside parties to lobby the direction of public policy. But time and again in our roundtables, participants emphasized that building greater inclusivity into global governance will require a shift in both practice and mindset. The scale, complexity and urgency of global challenges require the widest possible set of contributors to solutions. National and international public officials are struggling to juggle a growing list of global challenges. Financial resources are stretched, and official development assistance is far from sufficient to carry the burden of large-scale global initiatives. International organizations’ budgets are under almost constant strain. There are both pragmatic and legitimacy gains to be had for governments and international organizations that can think and act more inclusively.
What is already under way? What is needed?
A step change has already occurred in consultative processes by multilateral institutions/mechanisms and by national governments in terms of their global efforts. Structural policy engagement with multilateral bodies has been ongoing for years. Consider, for example, the number of side-events and consultation bodies now built into most multilateral summits, UN processes and high-profile international events. A key strand of the UN’s 75th anniversary events in 2020 was the secretary-general’s outreach initiative to crowd-source global perspectives on future priorities.
Climate governance is known to be rich with inclusivity initiatives, born from the first formal effort at the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) conference. As of 2018, over 2,200 NGOs and 130 intergovernmental organizations have been admitted as observers.
Our Inclusive Governance Initiative consultations in 2020 highlighted the proliferation of mechanisms for multi-stakeholder collaboration in global digital governance. The use of special envoys, working groups, formal observer platforms and outreach tours is now frequent practice for international organizations and national governments. For at least a decade, G20 and G7/G8 summits have included formal side-events for stakeholders; moreover, activity around the summits now involves a full year of outreach through structured engagement groups.
In our roundtables and supplementary conversations, it was frequently flagged that platforms for dialogue are not the same as mechanisms for upstream involvement in policy deliberation or decision-making. There are numerous pathways that enable would-be stakeholders to ‘have a seat at the table’. But this is distinctly different from policy collaboration.
The challenge is to tease out the next level of specificity. Which issues work most effectively with a more collaborative approach? Aiming for concrete outcomes, what is the right balance of participation and mandates, broad representation and targeted expertise? How does one address questions around legitimacy and accountability in processes and mechanisms that involve non-state actors? And as more perspectives are included, how can these be marshalled towards effective outcomes rather than drawn-out and inconclusive processes?
These practical questions become even more complex when consideration moves from platforms for dialogue to carving out new roles for non-traditional actors in policy formulation. There are also significant challenges in pushing for broader participation during a period of increasing geopolitical competition. Many states are highly sensitive about the inclusion of non-state actors in governance arrangements, as well as about redistributions of influence between states themselves.
The global governance practitioners and experts consulted for the Inclusive Governance Initiative shared their perspectives on the development of pragmatic pathways for building greater effectiveness and legitimacy through inclusion, while recognizing the distinct roles and responsibilities of state and non-state actors. The following chapter outlines 10 insights from these discussions, with the aim of helping inform efforts towards inclusivity in global governance frameworks.
