The effectiveness of an institution is the likelihood of accomplishing its function and the capacity to get things done. On the other hand, credibility refers to the extent that an institution is accepted as doing the right thing to benefit everyone. This paper investigates the factors that undermine the effectiveness and credibility of the UN Security Council, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. Other elements influencing the success of global governance institutions, in general, are also discussed. Finally, the study suggests actions that should be made to improve these institutions’ performance or operating efficiency.
The UN Security Council
The Security Council has a credibility problem that may be explained by many individuals being unhappy with how it functions. Other countries believe the Security Council does not adequately represent them. Since its inception in 1945, the Council has been out of date, and many state and non-state entities see the Security Council as illegitimate (Tallberg & Zurn, 2019). As a result, many opponents, particularly from developing countries, say that the structure of the Council does not reflect current geopolitical realities. For instance, the institution composition had remained unchanged since 1971 when permanent membership was increased to ten.
Inefficiencies can be caused by the Security Council’s systems and organization. The R2P veto, for example, gives the P5’s political interests excessive weight, resulting in inactivity in the face of mass atrocities. However, not just P5 members have shown a fear of using force. Interventions have been denounced by all of the candidates for permanent membership as an infringement of sovereignty (Tallberg & Zurn, 2019). The number of breaches committed, the nature of the infractions and the cost of peacekeeping operations are currently being investigated.
Steps that should be taken to enhance the performance or operational efficiency of the Security Council
The Security Council should allow additional permanent membership. Moreover, there should be other elected seats that can be renewed within a certain period. Because changing the UN Charter is impossible, the Council’s image, credibility, and efficacy might be improved by procedural changes such as more openness and closer cooperation with troop-contributing states.
Furthermore, the elite are destroying World Bank. It was created to alleviate poverty, but it also serves the commercial interests of the United States. The institution is viewed as a tool for promoting American or Western interests. It has repeatedly pushed a “neoliberal” agenda on developing nations, forcing policies on them. The organization requires countries to reform their laws and practices to receive financing. The World Bank’s effective means of providing conditional loans for development is structural adjustment programs. Loans are only available to governments that embrace neoliberal (pro-business) policies such as privatization of public services, tax cuts, economic deregulation, and the formation of an “export-driven” economy (Tallberg & Zurn, 2019). Export agriculture has resulted in the demise of subsistence farming and a push to shift people to cities, resulting in rapid urbanization and a rise in slum conditions. Multinational businesses have been able to buy state-owned firms at exceptionally low costs because of privatization. Tax reforms enacted as part of structural adjustment programs have frequently resulted in tax advantages for the wealthy (for example, by lowering profits taxes) while transferring the tax burden to the middle and lower-income groups. Deregulation has made it easier for TNCs to shift their income overseas, such as offshore banking accounts.
Furthermore, the organization has been overly focused on “providing loans rather than generating actual development results in a short period.” The World Bank serves two incompatible functions: a governmental organization and a business entity. While the World Bank represents 189 countries, a small group of economically dominant countries manages it (Hooghe et al., 2019). According to Karns et al. (2015), the World Bank has exacerbated poverty while harming the environment, public health, and cultural variety. Furthermore, it is inextricably entwined with current forms of donor-driven and NGO-driven imperialism. The institution’s lack of openness to the public affects its legitimacy. Therefore, many state actors are skeptical of the institution.
Steps that should be taken to enhance the performance or operational efficiency of the World Bank
First, the World Bank must become more receptive to external influences and criticism. Since 1944, for example, the World Bank has never refused a single proposal. Accepting that some financing is not required should help to improve the situation. Furthermore, the World Bank should strengthen its internal capabilities and organization. The World Bank could not manage the development of its headquarters while employing highly paid employees. Furthermore, the bank’s lending requirements should be improved. The loan portfolio is fast degrading because of the bank’s low lending rules.
The political power imbalances in the IMF’s governance structures, resulting from voting power depending on a nation’s size and economic ‘openness,’ are essential credibility issues and criticism leveled against the organization. Therefore, poorer nations, typically recipients of BWI loans, are systematically marginalized in decision-making. The voting system is very unjust, especially in light of the demands placed on this institution by major state players such as the US.
In addition, the IMF fosters policy circumstances that are detrimental to debtors. These criteria are attached to technical support, loans, financial monitoring, and infrastructure enhancements by the institution. Borrower nations’ sovereignty is eroded because of the circumstances, which limit their capacity to make policy decisions and diminish ownership of national development policies. There is also a lack of balance inside the institution. It can be seen in the ineffectiveness of independent reviews of its policies and activities.
Steps that should be taken to enhance the performance or operational efficiency of IMF
First, the IMF must ensure a power balance by expanding poorer nations’ representation in decision-making. It would improve the IMF’s global credibility since it would no longer be classified as a body that favors the interests of Western countries. In addition, the official letter of the intent process should be eliminated by the school. Quantitative performance requirements and structural standards, for example, include systemic macroeconomic policy modifications that must be made for an IMF loan to be approved. Because of the process, the independence and sovereignty of several countries have been compromised. Alternative loan approval methods might boost the IMF’s reputation significantly.
Factors That Affect the Performance of Global Governance Institutions In General
In today’s global governance framework, power has become increasingly diffused. Concerns about probable global governance restructuring or alterations have arisen because of the power shift that has accompanied the emergence of nations such as China and Brazil. Emerging economies have helped establish and support alternative political and economic collaboration groups and campaigns for improved representation in international organizations. Furthermore, while many global governance players have rallied around human rights and security principles and norms, the notion of sovereignty continues to obstruct their international implementation (Higer, 2018). Furthermore, economic and political inequity exists, influencing governance both within and outside of a country. Inequality, in whatever form, causes social instability and extremism to spread. It raises questions regarding the international community’s role in human growth beyond basic needs like security, food, and shelter.
Global leadership and governance are unavoidable for the sake of humanity’s existence in future generations. Global governance is necessary because of the globalization trend. Moreover, growing awareness of human security, institutional complexity, individual empowerment, the liberal world political paradigm, and international power transfer will all affect the future of global governance.
Bo, P. (2018). China, global governance, and hegemony: Neo-Gramscian perspective in the world order. Journal of China and International Relations, 6(1), 48-72.
Higer, A. J. (2018). Institutions of Global Governance.
Hooghe, L., Lenz, T., & Marks, G. (2019). Contested world order: The delegitimation of international governance. The Review of International Organizations, 14(4), 731-743.
Karns, M., Mingst, K., & Stiles, K. (2015). International organizations: The Politics and Processes of Global Governance (3rd ed.). Lynne Rienner.
Tallberg, J., & Zürn, M. (2019). The legitimacy and legitimation of international organizations: Introduction and framework.