World Government for Efficient Governance

The purpose of any government is governance, and so it must be ascertained how suitable a world government is in providing for global governance. Before coming to that question, however, first we must note that at present there exists no such thing as global governance. Instead there are a multitude of independent countries which each try to govern separate territories and populations, and no authority at the world level. Instead of this anarchy, we do have the option of a world union to bring about effective governance, which I take to mean high-quality public service that produces desirable outcomes for the people.

The agency of global governance shall be far improved under a world state than under two hundred nations, the former having the ability to undertake globally coordinated action. Movement of resources will no longer be hindered by national boundaries, enabling them to be used for the benefit of humanity as a whole rather than the nation that controlled them. In times of a widespread crisis or emergency, such as a natural disaster, pandemic, or financial crisis, the world government can act decisively and quickly at a global scale. This is far preferable to the status quo, where it is hardly feasible to coordinate between a multitude of self-interested national governments for the sake of humanity.

Added to this is the standardization of regulations and laws across the globe, which simplifies matters and enhances the ability of the government to enact policies. With a single cohesive legal framework, disparities in the implementation of policies would also be mitigated, with everyone having access to the same standard of governance. Uniformity in the standards prevailing across the globe (Fed. 6), as opposed to existing national differences, facilitate both equality and efficiency in governance for the people.

The nation-based organization of the world is vastly inefficient, being determined not by planning but by historical and political coincidence. So many nations are too small, both in area and population, to merit an independent sovereign government. Others are extensive enough that their subdivisions themselves are of national proportions. Of course, sovereign nations cannot be expected to reorganize themselves for the human good. Yet in a world government, the administrative units can be structured to make the government accessible and responsive to the people, rather than according to made-up national identities.

Regarding fears that a world government would be riddled with corruption and favour vested interests, the sheer size of a world-state is itself an effective safeguard against it on a large scale. For an institution of its size, 200 times larger than the average national one, the resources and power needed to twist it in favour of some vested interests are prohibitively high. What interest group or entity existing in the world today has the means to bend every national government in the world to its will? With that as a benchmark, consider how much more difficult it would be then to exert significant influence by corruption or lobbying over a strong world state.

The extent of a world government would also render ineffective patronage networks as a means for politicians to gain support, and buying off various political groups or factions with private goods will no longer be a viable strategy at global-level politics. To maintain the support of a winning coalition at the world level, it is unfeasible to provide individuals or groups with targeted, exclusive benefits due to the sheer numbers of people involved. This in turn means more provision of public goods for the benefit of the entire population, which is widely accepted as desirable in governance and produces better outcomes.

One further significant improvement that a world government will bring about in global governance is the end of weakly governed or lawless spaces and so-called ‘failed states’. While many parts of the world have had experience with efficient government institutions, others continue to be ravaged by anarchy and lack of authority. It is in these areas that most of the greatest humanitarian tragedies occur, violence and gangs arise, and conditions are at their most unstable. National sovereignty and alienation has ensured that humanity has so far failed to improve state capacity in these regions. Yet should not every human have an accountable and responsive government? A world government would establish a common institutional structure for the whole world, guided by the best of human experience, to bring effective governance to all.

Some people worry that a government at the global scale would become disconnected from the people’s needs and individuals, focusing too much on humanity-level issues and the ‘greater good’. If this objection were valid, then even nations are too large for the consideration of individuals, and indeed theorists have advocated tiny states for this purpose. Yet even the nation-based system was not held back by this, and most individuals are satisfied enough by the present state of governance to not urge the dissolution of nations into smaller states. So even a world government should not be objected to on these grounds; like existing nations it could address societal concerns without becoming disengaged from the population.

I do hope that opponents of world government do not misunderstand its nature to believe that there would just be a unitary world authority responsible for all issues. Any government of respectable size requires at least some separation of powers. It is not just impracticable but grossly inefficient to vest all governance responsibilities in one bulky institution; involving a centralized state in local matters is akin to using a sword for a needle’s job. Even the nationalist world order does not work that way; why make this unwarranted assumption for a world government?

As with today’s sizeable states, under a world government too local issues shall be delegated to lower levels of government, each level handling matters appropriate to its scope. The purpose of the world government is not to take control of all governance, but to function as a central authority at the global level to deal with worldwide or humanity-level issues. Given the larger size of the world, perhaps more levels of government will be needed than in nations (in my opinion, three or four). What is being advocated here is not the total centralization of the world, but the addition of a top layer to government structure and an appropriate jurisdictional distribution to each level.

Setting up a world government gives humanity a unique and unprecedented opportunity to design an institutional framework that is best suited to global conditions. As opposed to nation-states, which arose from political coincidence that in many cases determined their institutional arrangement, a world union could potentially be humanity’s first truly planned government. Drawing upon the vast research of political science and the experiences of different regimes, humanity can choose the very best design for its government, and implement it on a global scale so that everyone can benefit from it.

Humanity and the planet earth are singular, complete entities, and logically a whole would be best governed by an institution of the whole rather than multiple arbitrary units. Yet nationalism gives us the opposite of governance at the world level, anarchy. If anarchy were preferable to government then all governments should have been abolished. Since the opposite is widely held to be the case, then it is time to end global anarchy with a Union of the World. As the saying goes, ‘No governance without government.’