Renewal of the Global Governance Model in the Process of Geosocium Transformation ()
1. Introduction
For a long time, the state has been a universal organizational form which dominated the process of regulating social production and distribution of material goods within a certain territory on the basis of the legal and legitimate right to dispose of natural resources necessary for this. However, legalization and legitimation only recorded the results of the subjectivity transfer from society to the state, as the community and/or individuals lost the right to dispose of land and natural resources within the relevant territory. The power potential of the state was subsequently fixed in state management functions, including the actions of a controversial, reverse nature—the transfer of rights to land and disposal of resources to separate individuals and groups, which determined their subjectivity, ability to make certain management decisions.
Modern global technological changes in the human existence have brought MNCs and their varieties to the fore, which affected the energy balance at the geosocium level to a varying degree. This can be exemplified by the Dutch East India Trading Company and the British East India Company, or Armand Hammer’s Allied American Corporation, which, based on their innovative and managerial activities, were the ground for communications between states in difficult times. That is, system governance functions were periodically transferred from states to international commercial associations, which acted as the flagships of human development. It was these structures that became the sources of the emergence and development of insurance and stock markets, and also contributed to the legalization of socialism as a new approach to the organization of production and redistribution of material goods.
However, today we are experiencing a comprehensive and systematic transition to new forms of global governance, in which the balance of vital and energy resources is simultaneously regulated at different levels, including at the place of its origin/location, while subjectivity appears as a temporary feature of participants in geosocial relations. Such transformations destroy the established system of the geosocium functioning and actualize the scientific search for a renewed model of global governance.
Therefore, the research objective is to make a comprehensive review of the existing geosocial changes and provide the description of the contours of a new model of global governance.
2. Literature Review
As part of this study, we attempted to analyze the trends and patterns in the organization of the global system governance from the perspective of various researchers.
Thus, the generalized position based on the works by Gramsci (2014), Marx (2020), Lenin (2010), Volovyk (2004): 1) fixes the complexity of establishing and maintaining the subjectivity of civic associations of people due to lack of access to tools and means of production; 2) determines the trend toward concentrating the potential of organizers of material goods production in large international commercial companies, which are fighting for redistribution in the global sales market.
At the same time, Wallerstein (2011), Weber (2004), Fukuyama (2010), Vigna & Casey (2016) focus on the origin, functioning and destruction of the liberal democratic system of the global order as well as on its transformation in the context of digitalization.
The dominating trends in public in-state and international relations are emphasized by Attali (2011) and Datsiuk (2018), who, taking the stand of libertarianism, actively promote the idea of the death of the state and beginning of the era of dominance of large MNCs.
While analyzing the development of geosocial processes, we should not forget about global civil society—an active actor of international and interstate relations, which is a more effective participant in solving problems on a global scale than national social associations (Mishra, 2012). In this context, in order to develop partnership under global changes, organization of civil discussion and support for the development of communication at the actor-to-actor level are of crucial importance.
The study of the global governance model transformation is based on the existing views of social governance reform at the country level. Of particular importance is institutionalization of the existing elements of public administration as a perspective of institutions’ development at the geosocium level (Li, 2017). In his research paper, X. Li shows the importance of accounting the accumulated theoretical and practical experience both at the socio-historical and socio-cultural level.
The environmental crisis caused by the unlimited development of free market influenced the emergence of a new range of studies focused on understanding the ways of a great transition to more harmonious management forms. Among them, there are those to be emphasized, namely the fundamental analysis and assessment of the global environmental situation under the pressure of material overproduction, as well as creation of the basis for formulating a new model of global governance (Li, 2021). In the context of our research, the anti-environmental nature of capitalism and the need for its transformation and rethinking is worth consideration.
In addition, the basis for our paper was modern methodological research in the field of ideal models (utopias) creation, which can be extrapolated to both social and global processes of the modern world (Li, 2021). Such spatiotemporal models are tools for creating a vision of the necessary geosocial changes. This is especially true for accumulation and efficient use of human capital in the context of tectonic transformations experienced by the humankind today.
At the same time, the view of global governance would be incomplete without relying on the study of dystopias as a reflection of the worst-case scenarios for the further global development. In this context, the analysis of the works by G. Orwell as well as their significance for reconsideration of the socio-historical processes and the present can be viewed as the starting point (Hassan & Elaref, 2022). The model updated in this paper is focused on preventing the emergence of dystopias as destructive manifestations of geosocial relations, since it is based on the balance of production and consumption in the material production system, which enables building an organic society.
3. Methodology
To attain the objective set, a dialectical approach based on the methodological improvements of Marx (2020) and Lenin (2010) was employed in the research, while considering the refinements of the Zaporizhzhia socio-philosophical school founded by Professor Volovyk, which addresses the issues of national and international humanitarianism in a holistic way.
The paper focuses on the dialectical interaction “formal state—TNC”, which manifests itself through the emergence of new actors of geosocial relations— communities. They are harmonizing a new global world order through the introduction of dialogue and communications.
Furthermore, the research work was carried out using the utopian method (Li, 2021: p. 66) as a synthesizing tool for developing a complete picture of the future model of global governance. The use of this method enabled identifying new life management centers and determining the options for redistributing functions between them in order to ensure the flexibility of a governance effect.
To delve into the micro-level of these processes, the study uses a secondary analysis of quantitative data (Uber Movement, 2019), (Yasinchuk, 2020), (ArcelorMittal, 2021), which revealed the changes in the balances of the geosocium governance during the digitalization of production and consumption of material goods.
4. Results and Discussions
4.1. The Development Vectors of Actors of Geosocial Relations
Modern global transformations represent a complex socio-historical process, which is manifested, among other things, in changing the interaction of state political elites and economic elites, and therefore affects modernization of the social and geosocial relations governance. Analyzing this transformation, J. Attali sees MNCs as dominant part of this process: “The markets will progressively find new sources of profitability in activities that are today exercised by the public services: education, health, environment, sovereignty. Private enterprises will seek first to commercialize these services, then replace them with mass produced consumer objects, dovetailing perfectly with the dynamic of technical progress…” (Attali, 2011: p. 158). A similar point of view is shared by Datsiuk (2018), who argues that there exists “a large-scale process of worldwide deconstruction of nation-states and their displacement by corporations in many areas of monopolistic provision of services”. We will further use this proposition to indicate the trend, but should note that dialectical interaction of MNCs (oligarchic consensus) and formal states is multi-sided, since it is revealed and implemented in a network of unique and complementary people’s associations, which have become independent actors of global governance.
Under the current conditions, the state has ceased to be a stronghold of society and geosocium. We all remember the UN Climate Change Conference in Glasgow, where the leaders of states failed to save the future of our planet, which can serve as a vivid example of the fact that the state is now doomed to share management functions with MNCs, and other active actors of geosocial relations that control financial and human capital. But, is there any alternative to the state in the existing system of management relations in the world?
In defining the components of the existing global governance model, we will start with MNC as one of its centers, being part of the shadow state and playing a leading role in organizing global and regional coexistence. When defining the concept of Multinational Corporation, researchers in the field of material resources circulation have broken more than one lance in the attempt to include the amount of working capital or complex and contradictory structure of these institutions in the criteria.
To develop a working concept, we emphasize that such organizations operate outside of the state control, and therefore their generic feature is subjectivity at the geosocial level, whereas their specific features are related to MNC’s functions, which ‘flow’ to them from the state.
The basic function is to access and dispose of the resources for human existence, which is regulated through appropriation of these resources and legitimization of the proprietary on the basis of the accepted view of coexistence in the world. Given the above information, we can define MNC as a structured actor of geosocial relations established by representatives of oligarchic elites to manage strategic resources based on the existing structure of coexistence organization.
Addressing the reasons for legitimation of MNCs as carriers of basic management functions that determine the potential for changes in global governance, and analyzing the works by Henri de Saint-Simon, I. Wallerstein writes: “He saw the class conflict between the ‘industrials’ (those who work) and the idlers as a transitional phase, to be superseded by a harmonious society of productive industrial classes under the aegis of the savants…” (Wallerstein, 2011: p. 78). We should pay attention to the fact that ‘savants’ act as participants in class conflict, gaining control over strategic resources for existence. Under such conditions, this proactive social group took shape of the oligarchy as a new form of governance, which later grew into shadow governments of global and regional levels.
V. Lenin identified the stages of MNCs’ creation, defining imperialism as their highest form of global interaction and characterizing it as “capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed” (Lenin, 2010: p. 68). The described manifestations of MNCs’ activities expansion were quite clearly seen in Ukraine and other Eastern European countries, when commercial monopolies became part of the management mechanism of industrial enterprises and land estates. However, the time flows, and the “new imperialism” has changed its vector from gaining possession of territories to controlling human resources by means of digital communication on the Internet.
Focusing on the area of restoring the energy potential of the social organism, we clearly see that the types of these international corporations differ in the resources of geosocial life under their control.
The analysis of MNCs’ activities has given the ground for the following grouping. First, these are corporations with a clear focus on commercial benefits which form priority human dependencies. This group includes Coca-Cola, Kraft Foods, and Cargill Inc., as well as Royal Dutch Shell and Philip Morris International. The second group is comprised of the corporations producing an information product that determines the direction of communication in the geosocium. This group includes Google, Discovery Inc., Facebook, Twitter and TikTok. There are corporations that stand out in this row forming a separate subgroup of servicing corporations, such as Constellis, Macdonald’s, Uber, and DHL Express. All the activities given above represent provision of services, which stimulated the development of “consumer society” and pushed the production in the world to the background; however, in the current situation, the ways to restore the balance of production and consumption in this area should be addressed immediately.
Those activities are coordinated in geopolitical associations, which, on many grounds, act as centers for integration of the given transnational activity. This group includes the Soros Foundation, the Rome and Bilderberg clubs, as well as other international organizations in this area, which have shaped the model of geopolitical oligarchic consensus and are credited with the status of a shadow world government.
The leading place on the list of such geopolitical associations is taken by the World Economic Forum in Davos, which reflects the existing balance between the financial and political centers of power in the world. At Davos summits, the global level of management relations is externalized, the agenda for global coexistence is set, and the main focus in governing the dominant resources of humanity is determined. This forum was established as an alternative to the United Nations, where the rules of peace are set by the leading powers. Thus, in the world there are MNCs and their associations, as well as nation-states and their associations that interact and compete in the process of governing the geosocium.
It is easy to notice the analogy, the mirror nature of the institutions under study: having formed around the influential strategic resource, MNCs bear a strong resemblance to the state. They take over state functions and gravitate towards an autonomous cycle of existence. Therefore, there is a subjectivation of the global and regional shadow states, which become powerful actors in the world’s governance.
4.2. The Transition of Functions and the New Contours of Geosocium
In studying these transformations, it is worth determining the measure of transformation of the global governance model as it was seen by Vitalii Volovyk, the founder of our local school of philosophy. He defines the measure as “the limit of quality stability and quantity variability within a given quality” (Volovyk, 2004: p. 94). A larger part of the 20th century was under the sign of a well-established quality of existence for most representatives of the geosocium. The 21st century appeals to impulsive and quantitative changes in the global coexistence. Here the measure consists in a harmonious distribution of the functions of governing the resources for human existence.
One of the first state functions, which MNCs attempted to take over, is social security as the basis for controlling human capital. Some institutions are trying to harmonize the ecosystem of the organization by creating inclusive jobs, such as Google (Google Careers, 2021). This practice is important for people with disabilities, but at the same time it is very similar to a PR company to support Google within the global community of information product consumers.
Other companies, such as Mittal Steel Company N.V. (ArcelorMittal, 2021), try to completely copy the state social sphere by introducing its own social insurance system and providing social services separately, thus shaping an autonomous view of maintaining the organization’s labor potential. All these prove that the nation-state has started to lose its status of a social security monopolist.
However, the most qualitative social function in the form of preserving and developing human potential can only be performed by associations of people related to the territory of residence (communities). They act as a source of subjectivity of participants in global governance, which comes from the actual foundations for human activities. For instance, Japan is one of the most developed countries in the world that cares about its human capital. F. Fukuyama argues that “the primary social group to which individuals in Japan owe deference is the family, and the benevolent authority of a father over his children was the original model for authority relations throughout society” (Fukuyama, 2010: p. 239). Therefore, the family as a source of harmonious existence is a key prototype of the association of people, which is fully capable of ensuring proper preservation and development of resources for vital human activities. Associations of families within a certain territory contribute to the formation of community—an institution that generalizes and solves the problems of renewing the social body, but at a higher level than that of the family.
Implementation of this governance model makes communities the actors of the relations in the global world. This is not a return to the ancient Greek poleis or the Republic of San Marco, but creation of the existential sources that developed in the care of strong states and became regulators of the geosocium functioning, e.g. Silicon Valley, Shen-Zhen, Wuhan, Los Angeles, and Mumbai, which are urbanized communities determining the vector of people, countries, and states’ development around the world.
The situation is different with rural communities working on land and producing raw materials for food products, which are appropriated by large MNCs, such as Cargill, Inc. Cities can defend their resources and human capital, whereas villages are not able to do so until the institution of farming is established and real farm associations, which can set the tone for the supply of products in the country and around the world, are formed.
We can take as an example the changes in prices for future crops on global commodity exchanges in the event of strikes or problems experienced by large and small food producers. In this case, we see restoration of the primary subjectivity of communities, around which other actors of geosocial relations will gradually unite.
In the development of the institute of farming, there is a big question about the form of ownership/attitude to land. Farmers, being land owners, and their associations can become managing entities if their property rights are protected by the state or other actors of management relations.
The next issue to consider is the main function of society and geosocium governance, which is discussed most—the use of violence. M. Weber insisted that it is the state that claims “the monopoly of the legitimate physical violence” (Weber, 2004: p. 33). At the same time, when defragmenting state power, this claim is laid by various self-help security groups, or by paramilitary companies, such as Légion Étrangère, Constellis and PMC Wagner. Social self–help security groups organized by communities do not have a long-term coersive influence and are marginalized when the main source of their funding—public budget—is unavailable. Private military companies are different; they are funded by shadow states and usually act as partners for strong formal states and destroyers of weak participants in geosocial relations.
Here, we should note that the basis for renewing the model of geosocium governance is a radical change in the production and consumption of material goods, which has become truly global by nature. Lenin once declared that “Production becomes social, but appropriation remains private. The social means of production remain the private property of a few…” (Lenin, 2010: p. 20). This thesis can be extrapolated to the modern world of MNCs with the correction that production is gradually becoming international, and a small group of owners is fighting for the rights to control all resources (industrial, land, digital).
The peculiarity of the process of the global governance transformation consists in the fact that these international commercial organizations establish grey zones of “artificial chaos”, which are quite difficult to control using traditional tools. Such changes are commonly referred to as transitions that provide a new configuration for controlling strategic resources for human activities.
For instance, “green transition” can be defined as alienation of the state’s energy potential by “reducing” the carbon footprint. In this transition, large private owners of renewable energy sources and households that tend to be self-sufficient begin to play a leading role in the energy balance system. The state is trying to maintain the function of regulator, but it is becoming increasingly difficult due to the autonomy of other participants in energy exchange.
A characteristic illustration of the problem of such reformatting is Ukraine, where the development of renewable energy through inflated tariffs has led to huge financial problems for the state (Yasinchuk, 2020). In this situation, the influence of DTEK (a major Energy company in Ukraine) on the country's economy and energy played an important role. It should be noted that a broader involvement of small consumers united in communities in solving this problem could improve the balance of the new governance model in the country.
In the consumer sector, a different direction of interaction between MNCs and citizens is being shaped in the form of strengthening of sharing as a joint use of production means, land plots, property and digital capacities. This changed the view of property rights, stimulated social cohesion and put the state in the role of participant in market relations. Currently, there are no effective tools for state control of the work of organizations developing joint consumption. In other words, deregulation of property relations enables levelling the possibility of state supervision and, due to this, quickly moving towards direct interaction between MNCs and communities.
In addition, this process is particularly important as part of the “digital transition”. This can be exemplified by the fruitful collaboration between the division of the Uber Movement digital TNC and Cincinnati City Council in traffic management: “OKI Regional Council of Governments, Greater Cincinnati region’s Metropolitan Planning Organization, is using Uber Movement Speed data to measure the effectiveness of the pilot program. With the Uber Speed dataset, OKI is able to analyze speed data, segment by segment, throughout the business district by hour of the day and direction of traffic” (Uber Movement, 2019). That is, instead of attracting state regulation, self-organization takes place through cooperation between MNCs and communities, which are turning into actors of the global energy exchange management.
Consequently, the digital economy sector has set the outline of the new geosocium configuration, in which large MNCs cooperate with communities and have acquired subjectivity in the system of managing vital resources for human activities. This is done on the basis of establishing an acceptable configuration for the distribution of managerial functions and digitalizing the processes of exchanging these resources.
We should also focus on preservation of efficient human capital. The educational function has not always and everywhere belonged to the state, but the control over it ensured the potential for the society development. In a market society, educational institutions compete fiercely, with the private sector having the potential for flexibility and a significant advantage over the public sector, especially when it comes to international corporations.
A typical example is Google Digital Workshop and Metinvest Polytechnic, which serve the interests and needs of their “parent organizations” in full. At the same time, education, which trains managerial personnel for ensuring the functioning of society, remains in the background and requires constructive refinement and determination of vectors for its further development. That is, education as a secondary product of the social production system is determined by the formal or shadow state. In the case of Ukraine, the shadow state offers a more understandable program for the development of society and, accordingly, has a greater advantage.
However, the most significant impact on the transformation of global governance is exerted by the “cryptocurrency transition” and its production basis – mining. Vigna & Casey define the nature of this process as follows: “…computer owners ‘mine’ cryptocurrencies, bring them into existence, and imbue them with value by expending resources on their creation” (Vigna & Casey, 2016: p. 47). It means that a person provides computing facilities for joint use and carries energy expenses, acquiring the equivalent of wealth. In this case, the state loses its function of ensuring financial circulation, and the management problem is further aggravated in the context of digitalization of society and geosocium. At great expense, this function is transferred to a dominant participant in market relations, which has accumulated more cryptocurrency.
Let us focus on the content of changes in the process of financial support for existence. In his work Capital, K. Marx declares the following components of value: “The body of the commodity that serves as the equivalent, figures as the materialization of human labor in the abstract, and is at the same time the product of some specifically useful concrete labor” (Marx, 2020: p. 39). The division of labor into direct and abstract enables the latter to serve as the equivalent of the material goods exchange to ensure practical human activity.
Abstract labor is measured in the amount of time spent on obtaining practical benefits; however, in the digital age it does not involve direct in-kind exchange, but requires a new financial instrument, which cryptocurrencies are gradually starting to represent. It should be noted that most states are categorically opposed to the use of free digital currencies, at the same time trying to develop their own digital commodity exchange units. However, it seems impossible to control such an activity without MNCs—owners of tools for developing information society.
Further development of material production and consumption in this area is represented by blockchain technologies that have optimized the parity exchange at the level of actor-to-actor, where the essence of exchange is the energy of labor, natural resources, digital and industrial production. This is what will enable the transition to renewal of the global governance model in the form of interaction between the above-mentioned corporations, communities and states.
A fair distribution of subject activity in the fields of education, protection of interests, energy, and financial turnover ensures the integrity of this model and its prospects. However, copying functions in such modeling is inappropriate, and therefore these actors of geosocial relations seem to be complementary elements of the global governance system, which exchange basic energy elements. Taking into account the construct complexity, the development of such a system of energy exchange should be based on the constructive principles of communication, including: openness to joining the system by new participants; tolerant discussion of positions and interests to achieve public consensus; responsibility for decisions made.
To sum it up, building an open energy and information system, where basic management functions are redistributed relatively to the potential of the actors of geosocial relations, is the way for the shadow state to enter into direct communication with the formal state and communities.
Therefore, the research findings are a comprehensive review of the existing geosocial changes and the description of the shape of a new model of global governance, which includes modernization of the concept of a new global coexistence by consolidating the ideas of sharing as securing the right to jointly use production complexes (technoparks), fertile land, digital capacities and management mechanisms that will ensure the proper functioning of society and geosocium. This should be done not only in consumption, but also in the production process, which will harmonize the management of strategic resources for human activities and access to their use.
5. Conclusion
The changes in the living conditions globally have stimulated the redistribution of strategic resources for existence and renewal of the geosocium governance model. Global coexistence is based on the joint production and consumption of material goods.
The beginning of the sharing era influenced the flexibility of the existing governance entities, such as formal and shadow states, and also encouraged the revival of communities’ subjectivity, which are turning into centers of attraction for other participants in geosocial relations. In this construct, there are simultaneously existing MNCs and their associations, states and their associations, and communities starting the development and legitimization of their associations.
The specific feature of the new global governance model is a free “flow” of basic management functions depending on the condition of geosocium participants, which affects the nature of energy and information exchange and the balance of use of vital resources for human activities. The grounds for these changes were green, digital and cryptocurrency transitions, which represent the resource basis for future co-existence. Nevertheless, we see an increased competition among the actors of global relations governance. Consequently, the shaping of a global governance model based on the system of communication principles, namely, openness, tolerant discussion of positions and responsible participation in dialogue, can be considered as the solution. It should be possible through optimization of sharing in the framework of implementation of the practice of joint use of wealth within a holistic model of energy exchange.