The most powerful effect of globalization possibly might have been the increase of internationally provided multilayered governance and consequently a diffusion of political authority, taking it off the national state to multinational state-blocs as well as to other actors like NGOs and international institutions (Norris, 2000: 155-156). So governance does not necessarily originate only from governments anymore (Rosenau, 1992b: 3). Still NGOs can only become an effective agent for problem solving if they can form a coalition with strong powers inside the society having enough legitimacy to claim to act in public interest (Brown et al, 2000: 288).

The transnational corporate networks are providing governance by forming alliances with each other that allow them to operate better, but also by shaping international standards (Keohane / Nye Jr., 2000: 22).

The number of international NGOs has increased significantly in the 1990s from about 6.000 to 26.000 including organizations with several million members as well as tiny networks. Together their aid is more important than the one of the UN, but they also provide political pressure as well as independent scientific research. The national governments might form alliances with NGOs to influence other governments or international institutions as well (Keohane / Nye Jr., 2000: 22-23).

As hard as it is, to uphold a national technical or environmental standard against the better examples of transnational corporations or international bodies, it might be same difficult for a national government to neglect the norms developed by a NGO. The citizens of today are more cosmopolitan and aware of the international norms and standards than their parents (Githongo, 2007: 3), and consequently would be hardly satisfied with anything less, this tends to fragment the national or lower level affiliations increasingly as individualism is a priority of the future promised by globalization und protected by the universally to be guaranteed human rights that are based on the values of humanism. His leads to an understanding of the conjuncture of collectivism brought about by globalization as well as it is also opening channels to escape from the narrow limits of the collective, one was previously assigned to by birth (Rosenau, 1992a: 274-276). The NGOs are an important means to express and defend these international values (Brown et al, 2000: 275). As for technical matters national standards are restricting international trade decisively and hikes transaction as well as adjustment costs.

Altogether the globalization is not only characterized by the intergovernmental coordination but also by the cooperation of private and third sector actors on local, national and international level (Keohane / Nye Jr., 2000: 24). Increased participation is seen as at least a partial solution to the limited representativeness of international organizations, but as well to overcome narrow views of problems and also to increase efficiency (Woods, 2007: 35-36). The long established hierarchies – both national governments and international regimes – become more and more penetrable by the globalization (Keohane / Nye Jr., 2000: 30). There are four key problems for these hierarchies, which are:

• the increasing number and heterogeneity of states,
• the emergence of new and more active actors like firms, associations, labour unions and NGOs,
• the stronger demands for accountability and transparency and
• especially cross-linkages between issues that pose problems for the single issue-orientated international regimes (Keohane / Nye Jr., 2000: 30-31).

While the first two factors increase the complexity the second one points to the preconditions of an enhanced participation, the sufficient information about what actually is going on (Woods, 2007: 39-40).

The fourth problem highlights the difference between the comparatively easy to establish more or less single-issue international regimes and the quite hard to achieve comprehensive multi-issue global governance (Rosenau, 1992b: 9).

Concerning the role of the national state and the provision of governance there are three theories upheld by mostly American scholars. The neoliberal institutionalism insists on the state still staying the main actor, creating the international institutions and regimes that are able to govern the global sphere somehow successfully. If institutions are becoming unsuitable to the changing conditions they restructure to become properly adjusted, like the newly formed World Trade Organization (WTO), which is much more powerful than its predecessor, the GATT (Gilpin, 2002: 241-243).

The new medievalism on the contrary sees the state being undermined by the developments of globalization and also eclipsed by the civil society and other non-governmental actors. Solution of problems will be provided by selfless NGOs, as the new medievalists are hoping. Still NGOs might not always show the same favourable intentions but could also be organized to pressure for petty selfish interests (Gilpin, 2002: 243-245).

The transgovernmentalism maintains a continued existence of the national state but some of the functions of governance might be handed over to non-governmental actors or networks. Also technical issues are believed to be separatable from politics and consequently be dealt with by technocrats. It is highly questionable if this sharp distinction between politics and technical matters can be upheld in reality, as political interests are often densely interwoven with the implementation of technical standards (Gilpin, 2002: 245).

References

Brown, L. David / Khagram, Sanjeev / Moore, Mark M. / Frumkin, Peter (2000): Globalization, NGOs, and Multisectoral Relations. In: Nye, Joseph S. Jr. / Donahue, John D. (eds): Governance in a Globalizing World. Washington D.C., Brookings Institution Press: 271-296.

Gilpin, Robert (2002): A Realist Perspective on International Governance. In: Held, David / McGrew, Anthony (eds.): Governing Globalization. Power, Authority and Global Governance. Cambridge U.K. / Malden, M.A., Blackwell Publishing: 238-248.

Githongo, John(2007): Kenya's Fight Against Corruption. An Uneven Path to Political Accountability. Center for Global Liberty & Prosperity Development Policy Briefing Paper 2/2007. Washington, D.C.: CATO Institute.

Keohane, Robert O. / Nye, Joseph S. jr. (2000): Introduction. Governance in a Globalizing World. In: Nye, Joseph S. Jr. / Donahue, John D. (eds): Governance in a Globalizing World. Washington D.C., Brookings Institution Press: 1-41.

Norris, Pippa (2000): Global Governance and Cosmopolitan Citizens. In: Nye, Joseph S. Jr. / Donahue, John D. (eds): Governance in a Globalizing World. Washington D.C., Brookings Institution Press: 155-177.

Rosenau, James N. (1992a): Citizenship in a Changing Global Order. In: Rosenau, James N. / Czempiel, Ernst-Otto (eds.): Governance without Government: Order and Change in World Politics. Cambridge Studies in International Relations 20. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 272-294.

Rosenau, James N. (1992b): Governance, Order, and Change in World Politics. In: Rosenau, James N. / Czempiel, Ernst-Otto (eds.): Governance without Government: Order and Change in World Politics. Cambridge Studies in International Relations 20. Cambridge, U.K., Cambridge University Press: 1-29.

Woods, Ngaire (2007): Multilaterialism and building stronger international institutions. In: Ebrahim, Alnoor / Weisband, Edward (eds.): Global Accountabilities. Participation, Pluralism, and Public Ethics. Cambridge, U.K., Cambridge University Press: 27-44.