Doubts on whether the world is coming together
There have been a few very sharp critiques of my short essay arguing that the world has become centripetal. Jay Ulfelder argues that the rising powers will be very hesitant about significantly deepening existing institutional cooperation. Because their relative power is increasing, he contends, they have every incentive to stall: Right now, globalization probably is ...
There have been a few very sharp critiques of my short essay arguing that the world has become centripetal. Jay Ulfelder argues that the rising powers will be very hesitant about significantly deepening existing institutional cooperation. Because their relative power is increasing, he contends, they have every incentive to stall:
There have been a few very sharp critiques of my short essay arguing that the world has become centripetal. Jay Ulfelder argues that the rising powers will be very hesitant about significantly deepening existing institutional cooperation. Because their relative power is increasing, he contends, they have every incentive to stall:
Right now, globalization probably is broadening and deepening possibilities for mutual gains from international cooperation, but obstacles to collective action may be strengthening as well, as America’s and Europe’s relative power declines and new powers arise. I think we’ve seen this dynamic at work in the failures of the Doha round of talks on new rules for global trade and the Copenhagen conference on climate change in 2009. In both cases, there was no lack of mutual interest; instead, it was the shifting balance of power that impeded deal-making. In Doha and Copenhagen, rising powers demanded larger concessions than established powers were willing to make. Those failures would seem to favor the established powers for now, but the rising powers probably believe (correctly) that time is on their side. As a result, they have little incentive to strike a deal now that might lock them into terms less favorable than the ones they might get 10 or 20 years hence. A similar pattern has emerged recently within the European Union, the deepest of all international-governance projects. There’s been talk of new layers of financial cooperation, but there’s been even more talk of scuttling the common currency, and newer members have increasingly pushed back against the old-timers’ demands on many political matters as well.
Erik Voeten, who’s done fantastic work on international organizations, also believes that the status quo may well prevail, even in the European Union:
The conventional wisdom is that the eurozone will either break apart or that Europe will move to much greater centralization of fiscal policies. The political incentives, however, are to muddle through. Breaking up the eurozone is extremely risky and centralizing authority is extremely unpopular. Markets, of course, can discipline European political leaders or make it impossible for individual countries to maintain the euro. However, I wouldn’t be too surprised if a few years from now the institutional architecture of the eurozone looks remarkably similar to what it is today.
David Bosco is a professor at Indiana University’s Hamilton Lugar School of Global and International Studies. He is the author of The Poseidon Project: The Struggle to Govern the World’s Oceans. Twitter: @multilateralist
More from Foreign Policy

Can Russia Get Used to Being China’s Little Brother?
The power dynamic between Beijing and Moscow has switched dramatically.

Xi and Putin Have the Most Consequential Undeclared Alliance in the World
It’s become more important than Washington’s official alliances today.

It’s a New Great Game. Again.
Across Central Asia, Russia’s brand is tainted by Ukraine, China’s got challenges, and Washington senses another opening.

Iraqi Kurdistan’s House of Cards Is Collapsing
The region once seemed a bright spot in the disorder unleashed by U.S. regime change. Today, things look bleak.