For verification of this paper, please visit on http://www.socialresearchfoundation.com/remarking.php#8

In September 2015, world leaders adopted an ambitious, 15-year blueprint for a better world. The goals are broad, universal and potentially transformative. They envision nothing less than saving our planet for future generations, ending extreme poverty and hunger, and creating a healthier, safer, more inclusive world.  The success of these goals depends to a large extent on the coordination of implementation efforts through good global governance.

800 Million People Go Hungry

1. 800 million people worldwide suffer from hunger and malnutrition, yet there is enough food for everyone.
2. The majority is poor, unemployed, lack formal education and have poor health.
3. Raising the incomes of the poor is one of the main challenges of ensuring food security.
4. Until now, policies have focused on short-term relief and on increasing food production, but with little overall effect.
5. Long-term approaches are required which target the underlying socioeconomic conditions.[5,7,8]

Geography Matters

1. Disparities in food security is increasing, both among countries and within countries.
2. Hunger has a clear geographic concentration: low income inner-city neighbourhoods, large metropolitan regions, and remote rural regions.
3. National averages typically mask these pockets of poverty and food insecurity.
4. With unprecedented regional disparities within countries - policies must recognise these differences to be effective.
5. Place-based targeted policies can address the causes and possible solutions to hunger and malnutrition.

A Territorial Approach

1. Food security & nutrition (FSN) is a global challenge that requires a cross-sectoral, coordinated approach involving stakeholders at local, national, regional and international levels.
2. This type of territorial approach allows the diversity of different territories to be taken into account, which is missed in the current one- size-fits-all policy approach.
3. A territorial approach also benefits from urban-rural linkages, to have connected and more effective policies.

Food Security Policies Need To

1. Enhance strategies and programmes beyond agriculture.
2. Promote multi-level governance systems to strengthening horizontal and vertical co-ordination.
3. Increase the availability of data and indicators at the local and regional levels to support evidence-based FSN policy.
4. Link social policies with economic growth policies.[9,10,11]

Global governance refers to institutions that coordinate the behavior of transnational actors, facilitate cooperation, resolve disputes, and alleviate collective action problems.[1][2][3] Global governance broadly entails making, monitoring, and enforcing rules.[4] Within global governance, a variety of types of actors – not just states – exercise power.[4] Governance is thus broader than government.[4]

Global governance began in the mid-19th century.[1] It became particularly prominent in the aftermath of World War I, and more so after the end of World War II.[1] Since World War II, the number of international organizations has increased substantially.[1] The number of actors (whether they be states, non-governmental organizations, firms, and epistemic communities) who are involved in governance relationships has also increased substantially.[1]

Various terms have been used for the dynamics of global governance, such as complex interdependence, international regimes, multilevel governance, global constitutionalism, and ordered anarchy.[5]

‌‌Large-scale natural and human-induced disasters have generated over USD 1.5 trillion in economic damages over the last decade in OECD and BRIC countries. Single events have exceeded damages worth 20% of annual GDP. Resilience of OECD countries is particularly challenged during times of economic downturns, above all in countries that rely on state budgets for post-disaster loss financing.A shift in risk governance is required as governance obstacles hamper the effectiveness of current risk reduction investments. The report urges governments to address widespread disincentives that persist for governmental and also non-governmental risk management actors, leading to an over-reliance on the government for post-disaster risk financing.

4 out of 5 citizens around the world think that the system is not working in their interests, according to the 2019 Edelman Trust Barometer. A key reason for this is the perception that when it comes to politics, money talks.

Finance is a necessary component of the democratic processes. Money enables the expression of political support and competition in elections.

However, it may be a means for powerful narrow interests to exercise undue influence. For example, newly elected officials maybe pressured to "return the favour" to corporations that funded their campaign.

This can lead to policy capture, where public decisions over policies are directed away from the public interest towards a specific interest.[12,13,15]

Governments have responsibility for managing a range of complex crises. Such crises include pandemic, climate risk, other natural hazard, cyber or terrorist attacks. The COVID-19 crisis illustrates the transboundary nature of such critical risks. Effective crisis management coordinates with the private and voluntary sectors. The OECD fosters mutual learning amongst governments to collect data and notable practices on strategic crisis management and increasing national resilience in the face of an uncertain future.

The Public Management and Budgeting Division (PMB) is a leading source of budgetary governance and fiscal policy expertise worldwide. The division monitors and analyses global trends and innovations; advises a large range of member countries on their budget framework and fiscal issues; and contributes to the definition of international standards and best practices in areas as diverse as fiscal transparency, fiscal risk management and independent fiscal institutions. The division's recent work has contributed to the discussion on budget reforms to improve governments' governance and accountability and fiscal policy options to address fiscal challenges in the aftermath of the global financial crisis and, now, the COVID-19 crisis.

Policy Capture Risks

The possible existence of a link between campaign spending and performance in elections should be enough to put us on our guard, even if there is not yet consensus on whether donations directly influence election outcomes.

Evidence suggests that policy capture has consequences on business competition in some countries, regions or sectors.  In some countries swings in market shares of companies can reflect the changing preferences of the political leadership for well-connected businesses.

Financial contributions by lobbyists in the political process also threaten fair and democratic decision-making.

Developing a policy framework

The Framework presented in this report maps a wide range of risk areas and provide policy tools to adequately regulate the financing of political parties and electoral campaigns.[17,18,19]

The framework ensures transparency and promote a level playing field on:

Gender mainstreaming refers to the integration of a gender equality perspective across all government action. It is a strategy that helps governments make better decisions to achieve gender equality including as they relate to policy and spending decisions. A commitment to gender mainstreaming is one of the most effective ways that governments can support and promote gender equality.[23,25]

Global transformations - from population ageing to digitalisation, rising inequalities and climate change - have created profound uncertainties for young people and future generations, despite unprecedented access of today’s young generation to information, education and technology. The OECD provides practical insights to support governments in designing and implementing policies to empower youth and promote intergenerational justice.[25]

1. Barnett, Michael N.; Pevehouse, Jon C.W.; Raustiala, Kal (2021), Pevehouse, Jon C. W.; Raustiala, Kal; Barnett, Michael N. (eds.), "Introduction", Global Governance in a World of Change, Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–47, doi:10.1017/9781108915199.001, ISBN 978-1-108-90670-8, S2CID 244865423
2. Young, Oran R. (1994). International Governance: Protecting the Environment in a Stateless Society. Cornell University Press. p. 54. ISBN 978-0-8014-8176-5.
3. Barnett, Michael; Duvall, Raymond (2004), Barnett, Michael; Duvall, Raymond (eds.), Power in global governance, Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–32, ISBN 978-0-521-84024-8
4. a.b.c. Lake, David A (2021). "The organizational ecology of global governance". European Journal of International Relations. 27 (2): 345–368. doi:10.1177/1354066120959407. ISSN 1354-0661. S2CID 224930498.
5. Alter, Karen J. (2022). "The promise and perils of theorizing international regime complexity in an evolving world". The Review of International Organizations. 17 (2): 375–396. doi:10.1007/s11558-021-09448-8. ISSN 1559-744X. S2CID 245870740.
6. Forum for a New World Governance; Reasons for this Forum for a new World Governance
7. International Organization and Global Governance. Routledge. 16 February 2018. ISBN 9781315301891.
8. The Long Battle for Global Governance. Routledge. 8 January 2016. ISBN 9781317276883.
9. Rethinking Global Governance. Bloomsbury. 16 February 2019. ISBN 9781137588623.
10. James Rosenau, "Toward an Ontology for Global Governance", in Martin Hewson and Timothy J. Sinclair (eds.), Approaches to Global Governance Theory (Albany, NY: State University of New York, 1999).
11. Stone, Diane (2008). "Global Public Policy, Transnational Policy Communities and their Networks" (PDF). Policy Studies Journal (Submitted manuscript). 36 (1): 19–38. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2007.00251.x.
12. Riazati, Saba (October 18, 2006). "A Closer Look: Professor Seeks Stronger U.N." The Daily Bruin. Retrieved October 17, 2012.
13. The UN and Global Governance Archived 2007-08-21 at the Wayback Machine
14. Böhmelt, Tobias; Koubi, Vally; Bernauer, Thomas (February 2014). "Civil society participation in global governance: Insights from climate politics" (PDF). European Journal of Political Research. 53 (1): 18–36. doi:10.1111/1475-6765.12016. S2CID 55095118.
15. http://maihold.org/mediapool/113/1132142/data/Finkelstein.pdf[bare URL PDF]
16. Pawel Zaleski Global Non-governmental Administrative System: Geosociology of the Third Sector, [in:] Gawin, Dariusz & Glinski, Piotr [ed.]: "Civil Society in the Making", IFiS Publishers, Warszawa 2006.
17. Margaret P. Karns and Karen A. Mingst (2009). International Organizations: The Politics and Processes of Global Governance, 2nd ed. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers. p. 633. ISBN 978-1-58826-698-9.
18. Thomas G. Weiss and Ramesh Thakur, The UN and Global Governance: An Idea and Its Prospects, Indiana University Press, forthcoming.
19. Alexander, Titus (1996). Unravelling Global Apartheid: An Overview of World Politics. Polity Press. pp. 320. ISBN 978-0-7456-1353-6.
20. Kadochnikov, Denis (2013). "Gustav Cassel's purchasing power parity doctrine in the context of his views on international economic policy coordination". European Journal of the History of Economic Thought. 20 (6): 1101–1121. doi:10.1080/09672567.2013.824999. S2CID 154383662.
21. Blin, Arnaud; Marin, Gustavo; "Rethinking Global Governance" Archived 2012-05-30 at archive today
22. Kim, Rakhyun E.; Morin, Jean-Frédéric (2021). "Massive Institutional Structures in Global Governance". Global Environmental Politics. 21 (3): 26–48. doi:10.1162/glep_a_00604. ISSN 1526-3800. S2CID 233696467.
23. For greater discussion, see: Andreani, Gilles; "Governance global : origines d'une idée"; Politique étrangère, Nº 3, 2001, pp. 549–68.
24. Avant, Finnemore, & Sell, "Who governs the globe?" in Avant, Finnemore, & Sell (2010), pp. 14–16.
25. Avant, Finnemore, & Sell, "Who governs the globe?" in Avant, Finnemore, & Sell (2010), pp. 9–14. "If organizations like the United Nations (UN), the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), and Exxon are all (potentially) global governors, why are they in charge? Why does anyone pay attention to them? [...] We define authority as the ability to induce deference in others. [...] Deference to authority might take a variety of forms. Authority might cause actors to subordinate their own conscious preferences to the directives of the authority and thus, in Robert Dahl's (1957 and 1968) sense, get one actor to do what she would not otherwise do, but it might also have subtler effects. Authority might create new preferences in actors who were previously indifferent or at odds. It might change preferences in others who become persuaded to share the authority's views based on its moral standing or expertise."