Global Governance Theory

Global governance is complex in nature. With contemporary Global governance being truly dynamic with a wide variety of actors and issues, the multiple theories on Global governance and international relations matter, as they help to break-down and make clear what actors, if any, matter most, the roles each play, and the nature of the existence of global governance. The major theories (and their associated middle-level theories) of Liberalism, Realism, Social Constructivism, and the English School each attempts to address the process of global governance and the setting in which it takes place.
The main premise of Liberalism in IR theory is that human nature is good, allowing for change via institutions (Karns et al, 2015, p. 44). What we traditionally

45). Of central importance in liberal theory are States, that each have different interests. Within Liberal theory global governance is described as the stage, or “context”, in which states interact with each other (Karns, p. 45). The power of major states is a key factor but can be held in check by various rules and International Organizations. As states become more interdependent, their shared interests will also increase (Karns, p. 46). Several of the middle-level theories of Liberalism help to better explain the nature of global governance. Foremost, Neoliberalism, or neoliberal institutionalism, predicts a disorderly international setting in which state actors are encouraged to interact with one another in order to maximize absolute gains (Karns, p. 47). The concept of absolute gains distinguishes Liberalism from the further discussed theory of Realism, which focuses on maximizing relative gains (Karns, p. 56). This focus on absolute gains is how neoliberalism explain the importance of international institutions, through which neoliberalism suggests states collectively work to solve common problems for the absolute benefit of all actors involved (Karns, p. 47-48). Because there is an assumed level of distrust between competing states,

Unlike Liberalism, Realist theory does not assume that human nature is benevolent, but that individuals simply act ‘rationally’ to serve and protect their own self-interests (Karns, p. 55). And though like Liberalism the state is the primary actor internationally, according to Realist theory they act in a way that is described as unitary, with the focus on relative gains to other states (Karns, p. 56). This worldview can be simplified from a state perspective as the more the first state wins, the more the other states lose. For example, if both the U.S. and Brazil were working on a trade deal, both states would seek to create a deal that is best for their own respective country. If one deal resulted in a 5% improvement for both countries and another deal resulted in a 4% improvement for the US and a 2% improvement for Brazil, the second deal would represent the highest relative gains for the U.S. and therefore be a better deal according to realist theory. The first deal would be the maximum absolute gains for both countries and thus be a better deal according to Liberalism. The focus on relative gains according to Realist theory displays its predictive model on global governance, simply that while global governance is possible, there is really no strong incentive to take part in it (Karns, p. 55). Unlike Liberalism, Realism does not lend any importance to the roles of IGOs. In its view, because they lack any ability to