In the current era of globalization, the world is faced with many global and dispersed problems that cross national borders and challenge the traditional capabilities of states (Hirst and Thompson, 1995). Problems such as climate change, economic inequality, and epidemics have become global challenges that require concerted efforts in many regions. As a result, there has been a paradigm shift in governance strategies, many countries are transforming their power by decentralizing power and transferring authority to local governments (Hameiri et al, 2017). For example, Indonesia’s post-Suharto reforms have allowed states like Bali to manage their tourism strategies independently, ensuring that development is consistent with the area’s cultural and environmental priorities. This internationalization is driven by the recognition that local businesses are often in a better position to understand and address the specific needs of their communities, thus promoting relevant and context-specific solutions (Hanka and Downs, 2010).
The concept of global exchange is emerging as an important framework for adapting global ideas and practices to local conditions. Glocalisation refers to the co-occurrence of the tendency to integrate everywhere and is specified in modern social, political, and economic systems (Robertson, 1994; Swyngedouw, 2010). This means that while globalization spreads ideas and practices around the world, local systems adapt these influences to suit their unique circumstances. In a sense, that is similar to international brands, such as McDonald’s, adapting their products to suit local cultures and needs (Ritzer, 2002). As a conceptual framework, glocalisation is a useful lens through which global phenomena are interpreted and applied at the local level.
Another result of this phenomenon of “glocalising” is the emergence of the practice of paradiplomacy. A relatively new concept, paradiplomacy refers to international relations conducted by subnational or regional governments. It involves local governments to participate in international relations activities to promote their interests by establishing relations with other regions or countries. The work is now considered a normal communication activity (Cornago, 2010), which is compatible with the traditional negotiations carried out by large governments (Wolff, 2007). A famous example is the collaboration between California and Quebec on climate change policies. These are transnational enterprises that bypass national level diplomacy by engaging in paradiplomacy. This means that local governments can demonstrate their influence in the international arena, encourage cooperation on common challenges and facilitate the exchange of best practices in certain policy areas. The process involves collaborating on shared challenges and exchanging best practices on specific topics. Therefore, through paradiplomacy, local governments can make their voice heard in global governance systems.
The interaction between glocalisation and paradiplomacy lies in the ability of local governments to shape global agendas to suit local needs while at the same time influencing these agendas in international cooperation. For example, cities like Surabaya, Indonesia, have integrated the SDGs into local urban planning while collaborating on best practices with their sister cities around the world. Glocalisation provides a framework for local governments to adapt to global norms and practices, ensuring they are compatible with local people. Paradiplomacy, on the other hand, provides a way for local governments to pursue their domestic interests by forming alliances and networks that strengthen their influence globally. This dynamic enables local governments to pursue their interests through regional cooperation and networks, contributing to global issues while addressing local needs.
A few examples show how local governments can use the power of glocalisation through paradiplomacy to address global challenges. One prominent example is the Local2030 initiative, a UN platform that supports the “downstream delivery” of the SDGs. This program empowers cities and regions to align with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to suit their unique circumstances. Local2030 was founded on the recognition that the SDGs are built on collaboration with relevant local actors. Therefore, aligning the SDGs with the local context enables municipalities to effectively address issues such as poverty, inequality, and climate change identified in the SDG goals. Local2030 serves as a platform for local leaders, national governments, the private sector, and the public to collaborate, provide tools, resources, and networks that facilitate the localization of global goals.
With Local2030, local governments can translate global goals into actionable strategies. This forum exemplifies the principles of paradiplomacy by providing a platform for cities and regions to engage in international relations to implement the conditions and implement the SDGs. A good example of initiatives in Local2030 is Global Goals Week, an initiative run by Liverpool City Government in the form of environmental workshops and networking events. Through such programs, local governments can leverage collective resources and expertise to improve their ability to address complex global issues. In addition, this program shows the importance of cultural and social considerations in sustainable development, in such a way that efforts are compatible with local communities and encourage participation (Moallemi et al, 2019). As the world continues to face complex challenges, the localization of the SDGs through initiatives such as Local2030 will be critical to driving positive change at the local level.
In the evolving context of international relations, traditional state-centered governance approaches are increasingly being challenged by the complexity of global integration, which means that many issues cannot be resolved at the national level alone. As Gumplova (2015) suggests, states are no longer separate or autonomous political and legal entities. Through globalization and technological advancements, states are integrated into a complex web of communication, which includes networks, exchanges of goods, ideas, and people, and structures of international governance. These emerging bodies are gradually taking over the traditional role of the state to make laws for its citizens. Therefore, this change requires a shift to decentralized approaches for local businesses to face global challenges effectively. Within this context, glocalisation and paradiplomacy provide important insights into how local governments can contribute to shaping the international agenda while promoting their own interests.
The study of glocalisation and paradiplomacy provides important insights into the mechanisms that allow local businesses to establish their global presence. By understanding these trends, scholars and practitioners can contribute to a more balanced and inclusive international agenda. This combination is very important in the regions that remain understudied in International Relations. For example, in countries of the Global South, where democracy is still strong, central governments may not fully address local issues. Here, globalization plays an important role in enabling local governments to adapt global ideas and programs to their unique cultural, economic, and social contexts. empowering local governments to participate in international relations, these ideas help to democratize the world’s governance. On the other hand, paradiplomacy ensures that the interests and needs of different local communities are represented and taken into account.
References
Cornago, Noe. “The norm of sub-state diplomacy.” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 5, no. 1-2 (2010): 11-36.
Gümplová, Petra. “On the monarchy and after the monarchy.” Philosophica Critica 1, no. 2 (2015): 3-18.
Hameiri, Shahar, Caroline Hughes, and Fabio Scarpello. International intervention and local politics: Cross-states and the politics of scale. Cambridge University Press, 2017.
Hankla, Charles and William Downs. “Decentralization, governance and the structure of local political institutions: Studies of change?.” Local Government Studies 36, no. 6 (2010): 759-783.
Hirst, Paul, and Grahame Thompson. “Globalization and the future of the world.” Economy and society 24, no. 3 (1995): 408-442.
Moallemi, Enayat A., Shirin Malekpour, Michalis Hadjikakou, Rob Raven, Katrina Szetey, Mehran Mahdavi Moghadam, Reihaneh Bandari, Rebecca Lester, and Brett A. Bryan. “The 2030 Local Agenda for Sustainable Development.” Lancet Planetary Health 3, no. 6 (2019): e240-e241.
Ritzer, George. “Introduction to McDonaldization.” McDonaldization: The Reader 2 (2002): 4-25.
Robertson, Roland. “Globalisation or glocalisation?” Journal of international communication 1, no. 1 (1994): 33-52.
Swyngedouw, Erik. “Globalization or ‘globalization’? Networks, locations and redistribution. ” The Cambridge Review of International Affairs 17, no. 1 (2004): 25-48.
Wolff, Stefan. “Paradiplomacy: scope, opportunities and challenges.” Bologna Center Journal of International Affairs 10, no. 1 (2007): 141-150.
Further Studies in E-International Relations
Source link
