Edicto, Beatrice Caroline S.

BSED-Science 1-B2 10-28-21

“Nation-state, Civil Society, and Global Governance”

Introduction

The Nation-State and Civil Society has a vital role and impact in Globalization and in local and
global governance. A nation state is a state that self-identifies as deriving its political legitimacy
from serving as a sovereign entity for a nation as a sovereign territorial unit. While Civil society
is the arena outside of the family, the state, and the market where people associate to advance
common interests. This study will therefore help in determining the concept of nation-state and
civil society in local, national, regional, and global political arenas, its advantages and
challenges, the relevance of global political structures, and the new forms of governance.

Goals and Objectives

The research paper seeks to achieve the following objectives of leveraging on nation-state and
civil society in understanding global governance and global political structures by focusing on
the following objectives:
● Examine the interaction between the nation-state and civil society, differentiating
between local and global civil society.
● Analyze the concept of global governance and discuss the adequacy of such a
government as a political tool in the “ real world''. ”
● Research the advantages of, and challenges to, the nation - state, in the context of
“imagined communities”.
● Examine the relevance of global political structures such as the UN in light of global
flows and processes
● Present examples on the new forms of governance
- The first is governance without government (Rosenau and Czempiel 1992 ),
governance without government management.
- The second is governance through various public policy networks.
- Finally, governance at the global level can be normatively mediated and
moderated.
● Present the negative sides to the growth of INGOS (and civil society)
Discovery

Neither the nation-state nor civil society is seen as acting in isolation. In order to achieve
welfare, the nation-state and civil society must work together to manage poverty. By developing
their local capacity, society works to meet the demands of society. The nation-state, on the
other hand, keeps society going by providing them with the resources and access they need to
keep their traditions alive and adapt them to a changing world.

Global Governance brings together the knowledge of renowned academics and practitioners
interested in international cooperation and multilateralism. The result is a thought-provoking
examination of today's most important international challenges, including issues of peace and
security, development, human rights, the environment, and health, as well as groundbreaking
research, opinion pieces, and book reviews. The editors and distinguished editorial board are
dedicated to publishing a peer-reviewed publication that reflects a diverse variety of disciplinary
and global viewpoints.

The nation is an imagined community because most of its members will never know each other;
it is imagined as a limited community because it is externally bound by other nations; and it is
seen as sovereign because it is historically rooted in the ideas of internal and external freedom.
It’s advantages are that they are the sole environment in which democracy can appear, and
they do not have a tendency to increase their territory. Its challenges are that nation-states are
individualistic and reject some objectives of Globalization, and it has a Monarchical Attitude of
King.

All governing processes – whether by a state's government, a market, or a network – take place
over a social system (family, tribe, formal or informal organization, a territory, or across
territories) and are carried out by the laws, norms, power, or language of an organized society.
It's about "interaction and decision-making among the people involved in a collective problem
that leads to the establishment, reinforcement, or reproduction of social norms and institutions."
In layman's words, it's the political processes that take place within and between formal
institutions.

To assume the presence of governance without government is to imagine functions that must
be fulfilled in any viable human system, regardless of whether the system has established
organizations and institutions specifically entrusted with carrying out those functions. For
example, any system must deal with external problems, prevent conflicts among its members or
factions from tearing it apart irreversibly, purchase resources necessary for its preservation and
well-being, and establish goals and policies to achieve them.

Global public policy networks connect actors from governments, international organizations, civil
society, and industry to develop bridges across sectors and levels. The networks, as they have
evolved, serve three primary tasks. Some of them are negotiation platforms that make it easier
to establish global norms and laws. Others concentrate on resource coordination and market
failure correction. Others concentrate on enforcing existing international conventions.
knowledge.

Two visions of a peaceful world currently dominate; one is based on a world government, while
the other is based on global governance. They differ in the amount of power given to a central
decision-making body. A world government would presumably be a modern-day equivalent of a
state. Former sovereign states, for example, would lose much of their authority in intermediate
territorial formations. A universal constitution would define their scope of jurisdiction. The central
authority may also take over their supporting tasks, such as protecting individuals from
deprivation and hostility.

Local needs may be diluted as a result of INGO involvement in order to match multinational
agendas. Alternatively, INGOs may concentrate on a single goal while overlooking others that
are equally vital to the movement's cause. Relationships between INGOs and movements led
by and for impoverished communities in the Global South, I suggest, are often structurally
damaging because they promote external interests, are excessively short-sighted, and
disempower the poor.

Related Studies and Literature

According to Jordan (2011) Global civil society has greater subsidiarity between local, national,
regional, and global political arenas and it has forced global institutions to recognize that
technical deliberations and the standards they produce are forms of decision making with public
responsibilities. It validates the existence of global civil society and evaluates the relation
between global governance and global civil society.
Larry Finkelstein commented in one of the early issues of Global Governance that "'Global
Governance' looks to be virtually anything." A decade later, the concept of global governance
has grown in popularity—and uncertainty about what it means has grown even more. While we
feel that some flexibility in the application of concepts is theoretically desirable and practically
unavoidable, we believe that the current state of affairs is impeding more fruitful conversations
and the development of more cohesive theories of global governance. As a result, we propose
that a more rigorous application of the term global governance is required to resolve the current
ambiguity caused by the term's various definitions.

According to Dingwerth and Pattberg (2006), much of the literature is still dominated by
arguments for more autonomy and multilateralism. The term "global governance" is currently
being used to describe various types of international integration, including world government.
The phrase is also applied to any IGO improvements that are desired in order for them to better
address new challenges on the global agenda. (Ramphal and Carlsson 1995). Advocacy
emphasizes the importance of increased public participation in the work of IOs, greater equity in
the representation of state interests, greater transparency in decision-making, and greater
accountability to both people and governments. These recommendations, if implemented, would
bring IO much closer to world government. As a form of advocacy, idealism is still alive and well,
but only peace theorists support it on analytic grounds.

According to Pattnaik & Panda (2005), Due to financing constraints, there is widespread
concern that INGOs would increasingly take on a corporate personality. Afraid citizens are
concerned that corporatization may lead to INGOs favoring funders over the underprivileged
areas they are supposed to help. As a result, these groups will have few ties to the local
community. As a result, INGOs tend to develop initiatives with short-term, Band-Aid remedies,
perpetuating poverty on a systematic basis. Due to the short-term nature of INGOs' activities,
their participation in social and grassroots movements may improve the accomplishment of one
aim while compromising the attainment of other movement goals. As a result, the existence of
INGOs and the dependency that they induce may perpetuate poverty in these communities.
Factors like a reliance on INGOs for finance, a deepened reliance on INGOs based on short-
term projects, or INGO "experts" patronizing members of grassroots movements can all
contribute to the disempowerment of impoverished people.
According to Witte, Benner, Reinicke (2003), States and international organizations are no
longer the only players in the international arena in this new environment. Responding to the
challenges of globalization, nongovernmental groups and enterprises have reconfigured their
activities on a worldwide scale and are increasingly playing a role in international relations. More
than 40,000 nongovernmental organizations currently operate across national borders, and over
60,000 businesses have established transnational relationships.

According to Rosenau (1992), to presume the presence of governance without government is to

The ability of central state institutions has received a lot of attention in state construction.
Supporting civil society and citizen involvement is also important so that citizens can hold the
government accountable and make it more responsive to society. When donor policy and
financing are directed at both state and civil society institutions, these interventions are
frequently compartmentalized according to the conventional state-civil society division. At all
stages of the war-to-peace transition, from peace negotiations and agreement implementation
through post-conflict peacebuilding, strategies and policies that focus on the interaction between
institutions and citizens are required. The challenge is to form horizontal and vertical peace
alliances between diverse levels of society.

Conclusion

The Nation-state and Civil Society has played a vital role in the context of global governance as
a tool in the real world. The nation-state and civil society never observed isolation, instead they
tried to work as one to meet the goals the institutions and organizations had set. The nation-
state has been challenged with the whole idea of Monarchial attitude of a king while there are
also advantages in the territorial aspect. Global Governance focuses on informing successful
multilateral negotiations on the creation or reform of global institutions, as well as involving new
transnational actors from the corporate sector and civil society more effectively. Moreover, In a
non-monotonic approach, the political structure adjusts to expanding commercial prospects. I do
believe that these institutions and concepts are relevant especially in the context of globalization
since these institutions were made to establish peace and security in the world.

References

Dingwerth, K., & Pattberg, P. (2006). Global Governance as a Perspective on World Politics.
Global Governance, 12(2), 185–203. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27800609

Haas, E. (2001). International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Social &
Behavioral Sciences. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B0080430767012699

Jordan, L. (2011, August 29). Global Civil Society. Oxford Handbooks Online. Retrieved
October 28, 2021, from
https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195398571.001.0001/oxfordhb-
9780195398571-e-8#oxfordhb-9780195398571-div1-45.

Pattnaik, B.K., & Panda, B. (2005). Perceiving the role of grassroots NGOs: From the new
social movement perspective. Social Change, 35(3), 1–24.
https://doi.org/10.1177/004908570503500301

Rosenau, J. N. (1992). Governance, order, and change in world politics. Governance without
Government, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511521775.003

State-society relations and Citizenship - GSDRC. (n.d.). Retrieved October 28, 2021, from
https://gsdrc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/CON88.pdf.

Witte, J. M., Benner, T., & Reinicke, W. H. (2016, July 28). Global public policy networks:
Lessons learned and challenges ahead. Brookings. Retrieved October 28, 2021, from
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/global-public-policy-networks-lessons-learned-and-
challenges-ahead/.