Rethinking International Relations: A Caribbean Small State Perspective

• Author: Jessica Byron
• Pages: 63-82

Rethinking International Relations 63

In international relations theory, as in history, it is useful to take a long rather

than a short-term view of the world. The contours and significance of events

come more clearly into focus when viewed from a distance and we see the wood

rather than just the individual trees. In evaluating the significance of “9/11/

2001”, it helps to start with an earlier watershed in international politics, namely

the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the power structures

and alliances that defined the era from 1945 to circa 1990. New paradigms are

not created instantaneously. In times of crisis, actors revisit what already exists

and shape it to fit the new situation. A tremendous amount of theorising has

taken place in the post-Cold War decade, and it is these ideas which are now

being applied, discarded or modified after 9/11.

The end of the Cold War, though momentous, was certainly not the end of

history as prematurely proclaimed by Francis Fukuyama. It was the collapse of a

specific bipolar axis of power at the global level. Beneath this were seething

masses of regional, national and sub-national tensions and conflicts, and a

diverse mix of ideologies, identities and nationalisms which assumed greater

prominence thereafter. The last decade of the 20th century juxtaposed the former

against the reinforcement of Western dominance, symbolised most graphically

in the promotion of neo-liberal values and a globalised free market economy.

The post-Cold War period has not seen much of the promised peace dividend.

Indeed, it can be argued that 9/11 was the culmination of the chronic governance

and developmental problems of the past decade, which quickly put an end to

the euphoric “Brave New World” sentiments expressed in some quarters at the

end of the Cold War.

This paper will discuss some of the theoretical developments in international

relations during the last 15 years which relate to the theme of governance. I

begins by defining governance, and then gives an overview of some theoretical

areas which address issues of governance at the international level. It examines

RETHINkING INTERNATIONAL

RELATIONS: CHANGING PARADIGMS OR

MORE OF THE SAME?

A CARIBBEAN SMALL STATE PERSPECTIvE

JESSICA BYRON

CHAPTER FOUR

64 GLOBAL GOVERNANCE

the impact of 9/11 on these international relations paradigms and, conversely,

their likely impact on the world after 9/11. The final section of the paper analyses

the implications of both the pre - 9/11 and post - 9/11 periods and paradigms for

the Caribbean region.

Governance: a fashionable but fluid conceptGovernance: a fashionable but fluid concept

Governance: a fashionable but fluid conceptGovernance: a fashionable but fluid concept

Governance: a fashionable but fluid concept

The term “governance” has been used extensively, and rather loosely, in a

variety of contexts since the 1980s. Although it is supposed to be distinct from

the concept of “government”, the two terms appear at times to be used

interchangeably, particularly in the Caribbean discourse on governance. They

are, of course, linked by the notions of regulation and order inherent in both,

and by the fact that governance, with its emphasis on coordination and steering,

harks back to the classical Greek idea of government as the art of steering a

ship.1 However, reference texts generally differentiate governance from government

by describing the latter as “the formal and institutional processes which operate

at the national level to maintain order and facilitate collective action. . .core

functions are legislation, implementation of the law and adjudication”.2

Governance, in one sense, has a broader meaning. It is said to involve a much

larger number of actors from state and non-state sectors, and it is a more informal

process of consultation and coordination. Although governance is associated in

the literature with notions of regulation and control,3 this takes place without

there necessarily being a sovereign central authority with the right to use force.

Heywood4 identifies the main processes of governance as the interaction of

markets, hierarchies and networks. Markets regulate through the forces of supply

and demand, while hierarchies, which include state bureaucracies, exercise

control through vertical authority systems. Networks are said to have more

informal, possibly less authoritarian, organisational forms and, in the sphere of

governance, usually consist of some types of non-governmental organisations.

Keohane and Nye add to this the idea of the “geography of governance”, which

means that governance not only involves actors other than the nation-state, but

it takes place on supranational, national and subnational levels5. Governance is

a complex and demanding process which fundamentally changes the political

environment, the relationships and eventually the modus operandi among the

participants.

This notion of governance has been promoted since the 1980s in response

to growing recognition of political, economic and societal changes at the national

and international levels and the impossibility of governmental authorities

regulating social activities on their own. The concept of governance is therefore

linked, to some extent, to neo-liberal propositions about a reduced role for

governments and to debates on reforming the state and democratic processes

nationally and globally. However, this broad concept has also been criticised