Here's an interesting global model from Dani Rodrik (Harvard). It provides another avenue of approach towards a deeper understanding some of the issues that Philip Bobbitt and many others (including me) are currently wrestling with. Dani's premise is simply that deep global economic integration, national sovereignty, and democracy are incompatible. Only two of the three are possible in any viable system (he has a good argument for this). That leaves three potential configurations for global governance (see this graphic for more detail):
- Democracy + National Sovereignty
- Economic integration + National Sovereignty
- Economic integration + Democracy
The configuration of democracy + national sovereignty was dominant during most of the last century. However, with the end of the Cold War, economic integration ran amok. Integration, fueled by information networks, grew so fast and got so big, that we are now deeply integrated economically and financially.
That unmitigated growth in integration led to the current crisis. As a result we have two options, either the nations of the world become subservient to global markets (ignoring the needs of their citizens in favor of market needs) or they put aside national sovereignty and integrate politically within tight economic constraints (which is very similar to what the EU did).* It appears, given the EU's current financial crisis and the EU's inability to scale much beyond its current footprint, that national subservience to the global market system without much democracy is likely to win out as the dominant configuration.
It can't imagine an outcome that retains national sovereignty, deprecates democracy, and glorifies economic integration that doesn't result in either a) a hollow state or b) an authoritarian/corporate state. Can you?
*NOTE: Yves, over at Naked Capitalism, thinks we have a third option: roll back economic integration to preserve both sovereignty and democracy. I don't think that is possible.