Runaway Globalisation Without Governance(reader's response)

In Runaway Globalisation Without Governance, Nayan Chanda(2008) claims that the governance is always lagging behind globalisation, causing problems that affect the international community. The author also partly blames the United States for not being participative and pro-active in the development of the rules and regulations.

It begins with the notion that ‘the rules always lagged behind the growing connections across continents’. This is a reasonable statement, especially when technology was not as developed in the past. The overwhelming distance between continents itself was an enormous communication barrier, naturally slowing down the process of passing legislation that involved multiple nations. Even today, in such a hyperconnected world, the problem still exists. Rules and regulations are not easily agreed upon by multiple parties, and disputes do arise from the discussions. As long as it involves more than two countries, such problem would always remain, even when the technology advances further in the future.

The three threats that the world is facing currently are namely the risk of nuclear proliferation, national security and the growing environmental problems. The United States, being one of the superpower states in the world, is apparent of its passiveness towards the international movements to solve such problems and work on the governance of the globalisation. However, the United States should have a choice of participation in such case. It is a country that can wield great influence on the world, given its power and authority over the global community. However, globalisation is hardly the work of one country. It is a process that every country has a part to play, thus every country is to be blamed if one has to put a finger on.

It is critically wrong for the United States to jump on the bandwagon of creation of nuclear weapons, even for the purpose of self-defense because other countries are likely to follow suit. Instead, it should have tackled a more peaceful method of deterring other countries that possess nuclear weapons. Regarding the withdrawal from other governance such as the Kyoto Protocol and other environmental movements, it is still reasonable because it has a responsibility to protect its own citizens from the negative side effects such as economic downturn and threats of terrorism. A recent study has analysed that the Kyoto Protocol was not achieving its goals, affecting the United States adversely as well even though the US did not even ratify the Protocol. The United States was '[paying] almost two-thirds of the global cost in the central Annex I case'.[1]

Overall, the article is well reasoned and balanced on the topic of globalisation. The United States is accused of its insufficient contribution to the governance of globalisation, but not to an extreme degree. The author also constantly reminds the readers that it is legitimate for governance to be slower than the globalisation itself.

Reference:

1.Henry Jacoby and Ian Sue Wing, “Adjustment Time, Capital Malleability and Policy Cost,” The Energy Journal, Kyoto Special Issue, p. 126.