Description
Most current discussion of global governance concentrates on specific issue-areas while neglects panoramic understanding across different issues. This paper aims to explain what the optimal mission divisions between global and regional institutions across different issues are, and to give an estimate of how far the practical global governance is from it. These findings contribute to figuring out in which areas reforms in global governance are most needed.
This study approaches this question using formal models and quantitative analysis. I construct a framework in which three types of factors determine the optimal mission division: functional factors, social factors, and cost structure of missions. The formal model explains how the trade-off among three types of factors determines the optimal authority allocation.
For empirical analysis, an expert survey for 53 international public goods summarized from annual reports of 9 international organizations using machine learning algorithm is conducted to evaluate three types of factors and their effects on determining whether and to what extent a mission should be managed by a regional or a global institution. Then, I compare the estimated optimal division with current division across missions. It implies that two issue-areas, competition policy and foreign policy, largely deviate from the optimal division.
The research offers insights into understanding what contributes to an efficient global governance architecture and how to reform current global and regional institutions to improve the efficiency of public goods provision.
