You are here: Home Knowledge Base Geopolitics and the Provision of Global Public Goods
Symposium 2013

Geopolitics and the Provision of Global Public Goods

The Challenge

Global public goods (GPGs), like other public goods, tend to be under-supplied because of their non-rival and non-excludable nature. They are normally attained when countries work together, but some essential GPGs, such as the fight against terrorism or the security of sea-lanes, can also be provided by a dominant country acting alone.

The geopolitical landscape is undergoing radical transformation, rebalancing away from “the West”. Signs that we are moving beyond the age of US global dominance abound, but while a G7 dominated world is fast becoming a thing of the past, G7 countries are still reluctant to share global leadership. At the same time, emerging powers remain hesitant to assume global responsibility and get their “collective power act” together. How will this affect the provision of GPGs? And how will the global public “bads” (such as environmental degradation or human rights abuses) be dealt with? Does the rise of multiple emerging powers mean that we are heading for a truly multi-polar world? Could the G20 provide GPGs or will it grow increasingly irrelevant? Might we imagine a new geopolitical order defined by the rise of Asia and dominated by a China in charge of providing GPGs? Or could the world simply become a-polar, without a single hegemon, with no one willing or in a position to deliver GPGs? What are the new ideas in terms of global governance that new geopolitical players may want to promote? Are there new models and ideas in the realm of international relations that could favour a more collaborative global framework?

Part of the issue cluster "New Opportunities for Global Cooperation"

    Proposals

    Proposal
    Symposium 2013

    Filling the International Leadership Vacuum

    SEOUL – Has the world entered a new era of chaos? America’s vacillating policy toward Syria certainly suggests so. Indeed, the bitter legacy of the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, followed by t ...

    SEOUL – Has the world entered a new era of chaos? America’s vacillating policy toward Syria certainly suggests so. Indeed, the bitter legacy of the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, followed by the 2008 financial crisis, has made the United States not only reluctant to use its military might, even when “red lines” are crossed, but also seemingly unwilling to bear any serious burden to maintain its global leadership position. But, if America is no longer willing to lead, who will take its place? China’s leaders have demonstrated their lack of interest in active global leadership by openly rejecting calls

    Polity, Academia, Business, Civil Society