Will we evolve to effective world governance or will our lives be governed by dedicated regional and local groups? Pretty much everybody thinks our world will continue to be ruled at a local level of some sort, with just a hopeful few thinking that global governance is in our future.
Comments are divided into three rather loose groups: A Global View, Some Regional Changes, and No Real Changes.
A Global View
Moving towards world governance is seen as a possibility, although slower than in the next 20 years.
-
Largely driven by climate change and the desire for peace a focus on world governance will be the way forward. United States
Hopefully world governance and an agreement to end war. South Africa
More and more world governance, but maybe not as soon as 2043. Brazil
We will slowly move to the world governance. We are all living in a Global Condominium. no longer a Global Village or Global Street. We are getting integrated at an abnormal speed. India
World governance but with local militias. Belgium
World governance is a standardization conundrum. The new way might become the old way like the pigs in Animal Farm. Canada
-
A wonderful question and one that is completely up for discussion. I would hope that in a modern world that we would have country/region governance that has its population’s interests in mind. And coordination of these entities will be critical. United States
There is a growing need for global governance. However, to be effective it needs to contain peace, security and justice. Australia
I hope that we will go towards more aligned and greater worldwide approach to ethics and governance. France
By 2043, country jurisdictions will still apply but there will be clear global governance enforced by all countries unanimously. Hong Kong
If we are lucky we probably see an effective world governance in 20 years – but I believe it will take us 1-2 more new generations to make it really happen. Germany
The multi-polar power structure will continue to develop and hopefully will BRICS (and Saudi Arabia) succeed with that, which is strange from a democratic perspective. Sweden
Same as for companies, governments will be forced to cooperate more. Global institutions will be empowered and more democratic (less corruption and opaqueness), but we will not have full world government yet. Netherlands
We need to look at this planet as one world, one people. As long as we are heavily divided, moving forward will be a challenge. United States
I think it is heading towards world governance but not by 2043. In Australia I see us moving away from our federal, state, local method to federal and local .. becoming a republic and therefore future step is one government to guide the world. Australia
-
World governance is still somewhat piecemeal. However, the world has come together on global taxation of the ultra-wealthy and a mechanism to distribute taxes. Regions like the EU use their regional governance to work more effectively on renewable energies. Mass migration due to climate disruption is driving more concerted efforts and supra-national governance. United States
Since the level of education worldwide in all countries is uneven, I doubt that there will be a world governance, but hopefully there will be agreements that help overcoming borders. Switzerland
Some Changes Enlarging Regional Control
There could be mutually beneficial pan-regional or pan-national groupings, especially with the mid-sized players.
-
There will be an overlay of the two, but regional governance will dominate. India
Interdependence will increase but the countries, regions and dedicated groups will stay the status quo. India
Both are necessary. Humans as a global team need world governance, as much as they need regions. I do not see them as opposed. Germany
There is a need for world governance coupled to a strong local power. The equilibrium between the two will come through the three pillars described by Mintzberg, the Private sector, the Public sector and the Plural (or community) sector. Canada
Actually both. At the macro level, more alignment around topics which impact us all, at the local level more control over specific implementations. Netherlands
-
I can see the world moving more toward bigger coalitions with a few (probably big) countries being left on the sidelines. We will see a shift toward EU type connections rather than say US or China dominating everything. Austria
We will realize the global village nature of our connected world and systems should emerge to allow people to experience the benefits. Systems like EU will be existing based on a few dominant systems like US and China conglomerates for example. India
-
Maybe not in the next 40 years but there will be a future where smaller countries opt for integration with larger countries (like a voluntary/opt in colonization). This will predominately drive for quality of life and economic reasons. I don’t think there will be a single world government but there is likely to be a reforming of the United Nations into a global collaboration. Australia
Regionally maintained. Other countries will buddy up for what they want and friend and befriend their partners. United Kingdom
People still need to belong, but an overarching system to provide equal opportunities and reduce conflict would be good. United Kingdom
No Real Changes from Local Governance
These responses see no real possibility of moving away from our current local governance, at whatever its current regional or national level. Some variations in the result, however, could be more world governance for the wrong reasons or because of threats.
-
No major change from the present. India
Countries will thrive like they are today. India
This will never change because of egos. (country unknown)
In 20 years, little will change at this level. Belgium
As it gets more difficult for the nations and societies in different regions of the world, unfortunately it will be more “self-care approach” or isolation tendencies. Germany
People who hope for “open borders” will likely be very disappointed. United States
It’s a matter of granularity. World governance is too coarse. It’s extremely difficult to see patterns that influence behavior. I prefer to be governed at a level where my authentic voice can be heard, acted upon, and make a difference. That level will vary according to the problem/opportunity context. There might be some high-level language but it must be easily translated into What’s in for me to influence attitude. Canada
Regional and global governance mechanisms have become weaker and have lost the trust of people. India
I may be shortsighted on this but i cannot envision 20 years from now individual countries abdicating power to a world governance. To me the pathway to that possibility is through transnational globalized businesses and until business gets its shit together (and, yes, social impact is an important factor here, beyond just financial goals). I can’t envision it. But please, someone change my mind. United States
Countries will become more and more protective. There will be less central world governance. Netherlands
We will still be governed by countries and regions. Nigeria
Local is more relevant, but hopefully they will collaborate to have improved global governance. Australia
Countries and Blocs will keep happening. India
The world and its communities feel more separated and polarized than ever – I can’t see any signs of that changing. United Kingdom
Nobody is going to let go of power. United Kingdom
Individual self-interest will always prevail. India
Countries are not going to cede control that soon. India
There will still be counties who will thrive for the status of power. India
The incumbents will seek to protect what they have. Brexit and Trumpism signaled retrenchment and backsliding. But to address major challenges and opportunities, we will need to tackle them at a planetary scale. United Kingdom
Looking at people’s behavior (commercial, political, personal gain) however makes me wonder if it will remain a dream. People and countries really need to set their egos aside…I wonder when that will happen. Netherlands
-
The construct of countries as legal entities has possibly done more harm than good, however I do not see any trends which would lead to a world government. Historically the history of man which is available to us from historical sources is one of empires where governments fight for various elements: land/power/resources/belief systems/control. United Kingdom
There might be some kind of “world” governance, but definitely it will NOT be effective and it will comprise only parts of the world willing to be involved at the current time and current situation. See how UN “works”. Czech Republic
-
We will still have the difference in way of ruling, as well as communist and democratic countries. I don’t believe they will find a way together when it comes to governance. Cultures differ too much for that as well. Netherlands
There is need for a more egalitarian model of governance. The current order is under pressure. Collaboration is key to solving complex problems that face humanity. But forces of nationalism have divided people like never before and undermine the interdependency that the world needs. India
Still too much us vs them and many still think living in a regime is normal and preferred. United States
Though some global governance issues need to be tackled, the balance will be back to country and region, around shared beliefs, to enable the right level of action. France
-
We will be transitioning into a world governance model in which the filthy rich will rule us all, the precariat. Their economic power will overrule countries, regions, governments, as they exert their power and influence in everything they touch. All of that, without having even to go through an election process. The global non-benevolent dictatorship of the minority will eventually take over of who we are today. European Union
More than countries and regions, it will be a handful of privileged people who will run the entire world. India
There will be continued back and forth. There are true benefits to be found in greater international collaboration, but government needs to work at all levels. Wherever there are borders there is inequality, but fewer borders means greater inequality. United Kingdom
-
We will have more effective world governance by geographic or values alliance (thanks Russia). 100%. Europe is bonded and purposeful as never before, and North America is also on board. Canada
Now that is a big question. The Brexit decision still astounds me. United we stand, divided we fall. But not sure the UN can deliver and if it would take another world war to change? (I hope not!). Australia
World governance is the only way forward. The fact that we are still a local government is simply because the crisis on a global level is only starting to be felt. Only when our existence is threatened we will unite. Netherlands
It is apparent that we are rapidly moving toward a new world order. The control of mainstream media and corporations by the very few “hidden” conglomerates (i.e. Black Rock) shows that it is only a matter of time before WW3 will break out between the east (China & Russia) vs the West (Rest of Europe & USA) and the winner will be the victor who gets to control all. United Kingdom
I believe this will be country and regional overall. I see major wars before a global governance, that would probably wipe us all out. United Kingdom
If the war on Ukraine is any indication, we will continue to be splintered down national boundaries, political and economic ideologies, and power blocs. Atrocities seen in the coming years may see us swing back towards attempts to build world governance, similar to what occurred after WWII. Australia
Countries will remain the main source of governance in the near future. World governance will remain stagnant until the next world war. United States
I suppose that global governance will only keep receding, until a mega crisis forces us to reinvent a new form of global cooperation. France
World governance will be only effective when a danger threatens everyone, all countries, all regions, all groups. Switzerland
Effective world governance will only arrive if there is a clear, major, disruptive event, bigger than this pandemic. Canada
