Cybernetic Model of Global Governance

The cybernetic model of governance, well-established at the national level, has yet to be applied in transnational and global dimensions for analytical purposes, despite favorable conditions for its implementation. Global governance practices are increasingly resembling classic cybernetic challenges, such as maintaining the planet's average temperature within a 1.5°C increase relative to the pre-industrial era. This task essentially involves the creation of climate control on a planetary scale. Its resolution demands not only an acceleration of the energy transition and changes in social behavior and economic consumption patterns at an individual level but also a consideration of the mechanisms of the planet's climatic and geological evolution. This article traces the genealogy of the cybernetic governance model from its initial description in the works of Norbert Wiener to contemporary studies in political science, identifying key concepts and limitations of this model. Utilizing the Copenhagen School of Security Studies, particularly the concept of "macro-securitization," the article justifies the selection of climate change as a crucial case for the cybernetic model of global governance. The analysis of the practice of implementing global governance in the field of climate change aligns with the main characteristics of the cybernetic model and can be viewed as its practical application. The cybernetic model's primary challenge in a global context lies in its requirement for an overarching, unified approach to complex and diverse global issues. The model's emphasis on measurable indicators poses difficulties in areas where quantifiable metrics are less apparent or where multiple competing interests and values must be balanced. This necessitates a nuanced understanding of the global political and socio-economic landscape and the intricate interplay between various actors and factors influencing global governance. The article suggests that while the cybernetic model offers valuable insights for certain global challenges, particularly in environmental governance, its broader application across diverse global governance domains warrants careful consideration and adaptation to the complex realities of global politics and policy-making.

1. Adler E., Barnett M. (1998). Security communities. Cambridge University Press. 462 p.

2. Agamben G. (2009). “What is an apparatus?” and other essays. Stanford University Press. 80 p.

3. Avant D.D., Finnemore M., Sell S.K. (2010). Who governs the globe? Cambridge University Press. 439 p.

4. Bauer R.A. (1966). Social Indicators. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 380 p.

5. Barnett M., Duvall R. (2004). Power in global governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 375 p. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511491207

6. Beckley M. (2018). The Power of Nations: Measuring What Matters. International Security. Vol. 43. No. 2. P. 7–44. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/isec_a_00328

7. Bianchi C. (2010). Improving performance and fostering accountability in the public sector through systems dynamic modelling. Systems Research and Behavioral Science. Vol. 27. No. 4. P. 361–384. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.1038

8. Bogaturov A.D. (2002) Dinamicheskaya stabil’nost’ v mezhdunarodnoj praktike [Dynamic stability in international practice]. In: Bogaturov A.D., Kosolapov N.A., Khrustalev M.A. Ocherki teorii i politicheskogo analiza mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenij. Moscow: Moskovskiy rabochiy. P. 145–171.

9. Buzan B., Wæver O. (2009). Macrosecuritisation and security constellations: reconsidering scale in securitisation theory. Review of international studies. Vol. 35. No. 2. P. 253–276. doi:10.1017/ S0260210509008511

10. Davis K. E., Kingsbury B., Merry S. E. (2012). Indicators as a technology of global governance. Law & Society Review. Vol. 46. No. 1. P. 71–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5893.2012.00473.x

11. Deutsch K. W. (1963). The Nerves of Government: Models of Political Communication and Control. New York: Free Press. 316 p.

12. Durand M. (2015). The OECD better life initiative: How's life? and the measurement of well-being. Review of Income and Wealth. Vol. 61. No. 1. P. 4–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/roiw.12156

13. Falkner R., Buzan B. (2022) (ed.). Great powers, climate change, and global environmental responsibilities. Oxford University Press, 2022. 304 p.

14. Fukuyama F. (2011). The origins of political order: From prehuman times to the French Revolution. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 608 p.

15. Gause F.G. (2017). Ideologies, alignments, and underbalancing in the new Middle East Cold War. PS: Political Science & Politics. Vol. 50. No. 3. P. 672–675.

16. Gerring J. (2007) Case study research: Principles and practices. Cambridge university press. 265 p.

17. Gindarsah I., Priamarizki A. (2021) Explaining Indonesia’s Under-balancing: The Case of the Modernisation of the Air Force and the Navy. Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs. Vol. 8. No. 3. P. 391–412.

18. Guzzini S. (2013). Power, Realism and Constructivism. London: Routledge. 360 p. https://doi.org/ 10.4324/9780203071748

19. Lewis S. L., Maslin M. A. (2015). Defining the anthropocene. Nature. Vol. 519. No. 7542. P. 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14258

20. Luhmann N. (2007). Vvedenie v sistemnuyu teoriyu [Introduction to system theory]. Moscow: Logos Publishing House. 360 p.

21. Malito D.V., Umbach G., Bhuta N. (eds). (2018). The Palgrave handbook of indicators in global governance. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan Cham. 535 p. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3- 319-62707-6

22. Montbrial Th. (2005). Dejstvie i systema mira [Action and system of the world]. Moscow: ROSSPEN. 488 p.

23. Peters G. (2012). Information and governing: Cybernetic models of governance. In D. Levi-Faur (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press. P. 19–32. https://doi.org/ 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199560530.013.0008.

24. Scharpf F.W. (1988). The joint decision-trap: Lessons from German federalism and European integration. Public Administration. Vol. 66. No. 3. P. 239–278. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1988. tb00694.x

25. Schweller R.L. (2008). Unanswered threats: Political constraints on the balance of power. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. 200 p.

26. Steinbruner J.D. (1974). The Cybernetic Theory of Decision: New Dimensions of Political Analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 368 p.

27. Wiener N. (1958). Kibernetika i obschestvo [Cybernetics and society]. Moscow: Foreign literature. 200 p.

28. Wiener N. (1989). The Human Use of Human Beings Cybernetics and Society. Hachette Books. 200 p.

29. Wiener N. (2019). Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. MIT Press. 352 p.

30. Zapf W. (2000). Social reporting in the 1970s and in the 1990s. Social Indicators Research. Vol. 51. P. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006997731263

31. Zhornist V., Nesmashnyi A., Kharkevich M., Safranchuk I. (2022). Differentsiatsiya gosudarstv po klimaticheskoj ambitsioznosti: vliyanie na mirovuyu politiku [State Differentiation by Climate Ambition: Implications for World Politics]. Vestnik mezhdunarodnykh organizatsij. Vol. 17. No. 1. P. 163–182. DOI: 10.17323/1996-7845-2022-01-08

32. Zürn M. (2018). A theory of global governance: Authority, legitimacy, and contestation. Oxford University Press. 368 p.

33.