1. World Trade Organization (WTO):
Global governance is related to the key multilateral economic institutions like the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO. It varies from TRIPs, TRIMs and agriculture to services, market access and dispute settlements. Many people are unaware of the World Trade Organization (WTO), yet it makes decisions which affect the future of everyone. Established in 1994 (Marrakech Agreement) and located in Geneva, the WTO makes rules and regulations about health, safety and environmental standards worldwide.
Member-states commit themselves (with no reservations allowed) to alter their national statutes and procedures to comply with supra-state laws. Advice of the DSB (Dispute Settlement Body) is binding unless every state party to the global trade regime votes to overturn the advice. Its standards are often based on industry requests, with little, if any, input from consumers. The WTO, successor of GATT, divides global governance by means of various trade-related agreements, which are both technical as well as all-compassing general instruments.’
It operates on the basis of one vote per member state. But core global trade negotiations occur between the USA and the EU. Nearly one-third of the member governments lack the resources to maintain a permanent delegation in Geneva to monitor and intervene in its day-to-day affairs of the WTO. Most of the states of the South and the East have no representation whatsoever in decision-making at the OECD.
The WTO has final authority over all of its decisions, and is more powerful for trade matters than any nation, including the US. All however is not bleak. On the positive side, over 600 nonprofit organisations worldwide used the Internet to prevent adoption of one of the most offensive treaties, the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI). The World Bank and the IMF have charted out a course of action for parties in dispute with each other.
It makes up a remarkable instrument of governance. Corporate power globally is enormous and growing. It is hard to imagine that more than half of the top 100 economies in the world are now private businesses. Corporate power also grows significantly through international treaties.
2. International Monetary Fund (IMF):
In 1946, the Washington-based IMF held a modest attempt to establish and then manage the Bretton Woods regime of fixed exchange rates. However, since the 1970s the Fund has intervened more intensely with its client governments.
At the IMF, governments of the G7 control 45 per cent of votes on the Executive Board. The African 44 states have less than 5 per cent of the total votes. According to a prevalent convention, a West European is always Managing Director of the IMF, while a citizen of the USA is always President of the World Bank.”
Since then, the IMF has undertaken comprehensive and detailed surveillance of economic annual performance of its 184-member states and of the world economy as a whole. The IMF supplies major training and technical assistance services, largely to poorly equipped states. The IMF Institute has 21,000 officials the world over. The Fund has gone beyond its traditional stabilisation measures to sponsor wide-ranging economic restructuring programmes in 80 countries.
It plays a pivotal role in responding to crises in global finance, including emergencies occurring everywhere. It has acted as something like a supra-state central bank. It has developed some general principles for overseeing global commercial banking , such as, capital adequacy ratios, payment and settlement systems. The World Bank has given considerable attention to reforming state and sub-state governance in areas such as the civil service, the judiciary and labour legislation.
3. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD):
The OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) also illustrates the contemporary growth of global economic governance. With a Paris based secretariat consisting of 2,300 people, the OECD convenes some 200 committees, working parties, and expert groups. Its recommendations has multiplied more than tenfold. Its measures have especially addressed the environment, taxation, and trans-world investments. Like the WTO and the IMF, the OECD has acquired a significant role in policy surveillance.
It is essential to understand that humanity is engaged in a contest over who will determine its future. Will the business and financial world define and dominate human societies and relationships with little consideration for individuals, communities and nations? Even the New York Times reported this as the “inevitable clash between the power of government and the power of markets.
In Russia, Malaysia, and even Japan, the United States is insisting on reforms that would essentially give power to investors to move their money across borders at will, instead of to governments seeking to control their own destinies.” We should understand that these “reforms” do often conflict with the ability of nations and peoples to control their destinies.