The Covid-19 pandemic is a global crisis, yet it has largely been managed by states acting independently. Arvind Ashta argues that in light of the pandemic, we should seriously consider the potential advantages of moving toward a world federal government.
In a previous EUROPP article written during the first wave of the pandemic in Europe, I examined ways of financing measures to tackle Covid-19 and the relaunch of the global economy. In the concluding paragraph, I proposed a world federal government.
Federalism has many advantages, as explained in the Federalist Papers more than two centuries ago, including peace and free movement of people and capital within defined borders. The inability of states to deal with the pandemic should encourage us to explore new approaches to governance, drawing on our knowledge of what has worked in the past. With this in mind, there are at least seven reasons why we should now consider moving toward a world federal government.
Reducing inequality
I start with inequality reduction, which is the tenth Sustainable Development Goal, but is also linked to the other goals such as poverty alleviation. There may be enough goods in the world, but not everyone has equal access. As explained by Dambisa Moyo, the system of international aid, especially bilateral aid, is often beguiled by corruption. This corruption also adds to the risk of investing in a given country.
If a federal world government were elected democratically, this government would be as legitimate as a national government. It would have the power to negotiate with and override national and local governments in areas within its competency. This power would reduce the zones of possible corruption for national governments.
The underlying tension is that most of the world’s population is currently living in conditions of poverty and corruption, and if they vote along regional lines, future world governments would be equally corrupt, undermining any attempts to reduce inequalities by providing public services to the very poor. A possible solution is to perpetuate international power inequalities a little longer, phasing them out by providing an upper house where nations and economic strength weigh membership and voting rights, but with these weights changing over time.
Eliminating currency risk
Second, in addition to the risks associated with investing in individual countries, there is also a currency risk that restrains capital from moving from one country to another and leveling the playing field. Otherwise, with high interest rates in developing countries, capital should have already moved from developed to developing countries. However, the risk of a devaluation of the currencies used in developing countries is high, and this therefore deters the movement of capital.
If there were a federal world government and a federal monetary authority, it would be possible to have one currency, thus eliminating currency risk. This would therefore make the movement of capital freer. This single currency could be a cryptocurrency. However, the Greek crisis has shown that when devaluation is not possible, as in the case of the euro, it is difficult for weaker countries to break even. To solve this tension, an equalisation mechanism is required to ensure gains from trade are distributed evenly. There are always exceptions, with countries finding that they are gaining neither from trade nor from equalisation. Such situations lead to movements like Brexit, where people feel the cost of adhering to laws not of their own making.
Protecting the environment
A third problem is that of the environment – a problem that will also affect future generations. Certainly, developed countries can pay to dump their toxic waste on developing countries. They can also shift the most polluting factories to developing countries. At a global level, this geographical shift does not make a difference to climate change.
However, if pollution legislation were to be maintained at a world level, the rules would be equally applicable everywhere and therefore shifting factories to countries with more flexible legislation (or a lack of legislation) would no longer be possible. This means that companies would have to alter their processes or products.
The underlying tension is that firms and people find the extra costs of environmental safeguards detract from immediate profitability and employment concerns. However, this tension is often related to firms moving their businesses to countries with low safeguards, and should be less of an issue if environmental legislation is implemented at the global level.
Fixing taxation
A fourth problem is that those with economic power can avoid taxation. Capital is mobile and this makes it extremely difficult to levy corporate taxes. In the OECD, corporate taxes are only half as important as personal income tax. If corporations could be taxed adequately, the money raised could be redistributed more democratically, in an attempt to solve inequality, rather than relying on the generosity of corporate social responsibility.
The same problem is also true for any other tax on capital, such as the much-discussed Tobin tax on financial transactions. If the competency of corporate taxes were transferred to a world government, this would curtail the ability of owners of capital to negotiate with their feet. No matter where the corporate headquarters are located, the corporate tax would be the same and creative transfer accounting would no longer yield a tax advantage. Taxes to curb speculation and unnecessary financial transactions could also be levied at a world level, with similar advantageous results. The underlying tension is that corporations may block a move to a world government precisely because they anticipate this development.
Curbing the power of multinationals
Fifth, large multinational corporations have tremendous economic power, often far greater than that of individual nations. As a result, they can lobby for conditions that perpetuate their power, to the detriment of competition and global economic welfare. Large banks that finance governments can also perpetuate deficit financing even in times of growth, simply to gain low risk interest income.
Large governments have much greater negotiating power with these firms. They also represent a lower financial risk and can therefore negotiate better rates of interest on loans. Recently, thanks to the need to finance the relaunch of the economy post-pandemic, the European Union has recognised this and started to raise money collectively before distributing it to member states. A world government would have an even greater advantage in this negotiation and redistribution process.
Ensuring a fair response to crises
Sixth, the Covid-19 pandemic has shown that countries are competitive when it comes to protecting their citizens. Governments are currently scrambling to get vaccines, with a ‘me first’ approach generally prevailing over notions of solidarity or fairness. This has raised questions about who should be given priority for vaccinations, whether decisions over vaccines should be made at a global level, and whether factors such as income should be used to determine their distribution.
Approaching the pandemic from a local perspective has resulted in competition taking precedence over cooperation. Pre-existing geopolitical power struggles, such as that between China and Taiwan, have been exacerbated. The EU also had a much-publicised spat with the UK over supplies of the AstraZeneca vaccine.
A democratic perspective, in contrast, would start from the principle that all humans are equal. If health measures were within the purview of the world government, and if it was elected democratically, it would be in this government’s interest to ensure that people all over the world receive vaccines in a fair manner.
Solving the migration problem
Finally, in an international world, with global access to digital media, many people in developing countries would like to migrate to developed countries. They are currently prevented from doing so and this has led to an enormous loss of human life, as well as huge payments being made to human traffickers. In a federal world, there would be free movement of labour and this problem would be solved.
The underlying tension is that not everyone appreciates diversity because it brings with it the fear of the unknown. Strangely, Covid-19 and modern technology has created a situation where people may no longer wish to migrate. Many would rather spend time with their loved ones in their home country rather than strive for greater prosperity alone in a new country. Since they can work at a distance, they now have the possibility to work in one country and live in another.
From a global viewpoint, this should not make a difference. However, at present, there are complications stemming from the fact that the host country provides employment infrastructure while the individual uses the infrastructure of another country in their daily life. This raises the question of how taxation should be levied and shared between the two different states. On a bilateral basis, such tax sharing requires a lot of international treaties to be signed and updated. Yet these migration issues would not be a problem if guidelines for taxation and redistribution were decided at the world level.
The pandemic as a trigger for change
Major innovations in governance are often based on a shift in requirements triggered by a particular event. If the world has not already moved to global federalism today, it is in part because there has yet to be a trigger for pushing states in this direction.
In the past, crises such as the two World Wars of the 20th century have acted as triggers for change. Today, we face a war against a virus. Perhaps, the situation created by Covid-19 might serve to highlight the particular advantages of shifting to a world federal government. This may trigger a change that would not only help mitigate the damage caused by the pandemic, but would also offer a solution to many of the other challenges humanity currently faces.
Subscribe to the weekly LSE Blogs newsletter to receive the latest articles in your inbox.
Note: The author would like to thank Stuart Brown for his help and encouragement. This article gives the views of the author, not the position of EUROPP – European Politics and Policy or the London School of Economics. Featured image credit: David Rumsey Map Collection, David Rumsey Map Center, Stanford Libraries (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)
Sounds idealistic to me without a plan to move us from where we are now to a world federal government. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on how to overcome the obstacles to your idea. Here a few if mine.
How would you convince dictatorships (corrupt or otherwise) to participate?
The EU is an interesting example of how hard it is to equalise all member states. Different national interests and cultures disagree on too many occasions….. There are lots of other examples; the G7, African League of Nations, the Commonwealth. The USA and all its internal conflict.
Your suggestion appears to be a top down solution not bottom up? I’m truly fascinated how you think this idea could be implemented. Do you think it should replace a largely toothless UN (IMO), which has not achieved equality.
I was a child of the 60’s and spent my time on protests and marches hoping for a better world for everyone.
I still wish for this.
Mary
Thanks Mary. I appreciate your feedback. I note your concerns. Certainly, it is not going to be easy. Yet, the USA has existed for almost 250 years. What is the difference between these quasi-confederations or unions (EU, UN) and a federal option such as India or USA? Why does one survive and not the other? Its because federalism has a sticky glue that is called fiscal federalism or equalization payments. Please read the paper on Greece linked above by Ashta & Sinapi in Challenges. It shows that countries don’t want to stick together till everyone (I mean everyone) gains from trade. Now, we know that the direct gains will all come to strong countries like the USA or Northern Europe but then they have to pay (equalization) to the others to compensate them from the losses of trade. As long as this payment is greater than the loss from trading, the weaker countries will be encouraged to stay. The EU may have FINALLY realized this (even the frugal four). If the weaker countries leave, then the richer countries will no longer have access to their markets. They need the weaker countries. Thus, politically, we need two chambers, one to protect the interest of the rich countries (Senate with economically weighted voting) so that they are not made to pay more than their gains (unless they actually have a heart and not just rationality), and the other which allows the poorer countries to claim more (representatives based on number of people, for example). I don’t know if this adds clarity to what was mentioned above. (Bottom-up is difficult because it works for local solutions more than global ones. But the model can leave room for direct democracy).
*puts coin into the ‘Alex Jones Was Right’ jar.
Suppose we don’t like it; what other planet do we move to?
Suppose you don’t like your government and you are poor, What other country you move to?
I moved from the UK to Malaysia. Less corruption, less violence and better family values.
My Opinion,
World government needs leaders to carry on the will.
Leaders need people to follow the necessities to save the world.
People in many countries are under some irresponsible government.
Irresponsible government are in the process of earning money for themselves.
Money going into the bank of the some dishonest politician.
Poor people are remain as poor and majority of poor people in developing countries have no time to think of all the issues on going in the world. they have their own internal problems to be solved which is money. we cannot blame the poor people for this. because even for buying a milk powder for their babies, the need to sacrifice some other important needs and wants in their life.
END UP NEXT GENERATION WILL CONTINUE SUFFERING.
AND WORLD WILL BE REMAIN HARMED BY HUMAN BEING.
We need a good plan to execute the above solution sir. otherwise nothing will change.
Thina from Malaysia.
Do you really think China would ever sign on to such a thing? Unless, of course, that one world government is run by them – which they are actively preparing for right now, and are more likely to accomplish than the voluntary one you suggest.
This reminds me of communism/socialism, it looks good on paper but it has never been executed properly in reality. The problem isn’t the plan itself, its corruption, wealth, power etc. In a perfect world this plan could be a very good idea, unfortunately we don’t live in that world. We live in a world where money rules all, and if someone can find a way to make more of it (especially the already rich and powerful), then they’ll do it by whatever means necessary, even if it’s corrupt, immoral and unjust. Money is the root of all evil.
How is it communism/socialism? The above article proposes federalism (line 9). We already see this on a smaller scale in Germany, where everything is called a Bundesstaat, Bundesgesetz etc. ‘Bund’ originating from Latin ‘foedus’ meaning federalism.
All this talk of a one world government is nothing more than a prelude to the antichrist and total global domination. This is the greatest evil that will be perpetrated on humanity and should be resisted at all costs.
James, I could not agree more. This is a prelude to the control of the antichrist. It’s simple, get the mark, and you can buy and sell all you want. Don’t get the mark and it’s no food, clothes, car, etc. All this is control and Covid was the “trial run”.
Well said!
My main issue is every government in the world is ruled by religion. And every religion is the root of all evil, believing that their religion is correct and all must join or die to some degree.
This new government done through the United Nations will attack all religion(the destruction of Babylon the Great). This marks the start of The Great Tribulation. We are in the final hours of the conclusion of this system of things.
It doesn’t matter who is running what if all governments continue to blindly seek a 3% or better growth rate. Our poor little planet can’t take it no more.
I think this is an inevitable truth whether we like it or not. This will happen in the future. The planet will be one nation, as one nation (the strongest potential nation) has conquered everything possible on this planet.
Have you read the New Testament? One world government will happen. God already said it would come. However, it will be hell on earth when the anti christ rules the world.
Lord, another utopian philosopher. The fact that other countries have governing bodies that oppress their citizens is by no means a justifying reason for such a radical conversion. We live with “free trade” as a measure to compete for and thrive and if thriving means being bigger than the next ant so be it. National debt levels, military might, industrialization/trade, etc. I haven’t even begun to thrash the differences in culture that you seem to ignore. Imagine a globalized federal system with a majority deriving from one set of cultural norms that overrides citizens with yet another form of cultural norms. Hmmmm, somehow I don’t think such a plan ends very well for our Jewish friends. I can see the likes of Islam licking its lips at such a notion. No Thanks but thanks for thinking positively…..It is for these ideals that I thank God for the Enlightenment lol
So tired of reading and listening to people who refuse to learn the lessons of history, I will respond to your comments about corruption, inequality reduction, poverty alleviation and equal access in the only manner that socialistic attitudes like this deserve. Man has proved he is corrupt. Throughout the ages and regardless of the size of influence, no form of government has ever been able to side step man’s evil. The only axiom that cannot be denied is that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The notion that all our problems would be collectively reduced under a one-world government is completely and absolutely absurd.
We are ferociously ambitious and extremely lazy. We have tendencies as well as the will to cheat while some painfully follow the most insignificant rules for the sake of loving rules. Some are driven to lead while others are comfortable to follow. We physically, verbally, financially and emotionally hurt and even kill each other and in such a world dreamers want to define equality in terms of wealth, stature, influence and access. It’s truly time to wake up that equality (defined in this manner) is not in man’s wheelhouse. For far too many, the personal responsibility to live within the limits of justice, truth, honesty and respect for others does not exist and no government designed by man has the ability to avoid the pain of these misgivings.
And I’m so tired of people like you who thinks that a zombie is going to take you to your holy utopia! Religion doesn’t work, there is NO GOD! You’ve given up on humanity… that’s the problem. Change is difficult, but we have to evolve as a species. Some of us on this planet have realized this; people like you need to get on board. But people like you don’t care, with your religious “get out of jail free” cards. Transhumanism/World Democracy is the only way we will survive.
What a debate we could have about NO GOD! This is not the place for it, but proof that there is a God is everywhere around you. This world is heading for the worst time possible under a One World Government. You won’t like it when it comes. All your freedom will be gone, very quickly indeed.
You don’t realize how stupid you sound, sheep. Your statements are opinions/belief systems. 80% of the science you worship is a belief. In the eyes of masons, you are beyond stupid. Also Planet… so a radius value of 3,950 miles should curve somewhere. Nevermind…. I just found your post ironic. BTW, there already is a world government. It’s kind of how you’re a modern day serf, but you believe you’re free.
A one word government is the very last goddamned thing that should exist. Governments are already the worlds biggest criminal enterprises on the entire planet. Why in the hell would one want to create a global criminal enterprise with more power and authority than any institution of governance should ever have preying upon humanity?
The bulk of the planetary population has already been conditioned into serfs under the rule of their governments.
The sheer stupidity of wanting a global government is the equivalent of those who’d want artificial intelligence or self driven cars. All of which a very bad idea with a very long list of very real and disastrous totalitarian consequences.
Goddamned, it’s like humanity is trying to enslave itself on purpose.
Like the nanny state hasn’t already caused enough damage and retardation upon the masses.
Might as well just strike a match and watch the entire planet go up in smoke. I’d rather be dead than be a goddamned slave to a globalized government. Free this and that isn’t worth the cost of what little bit is left of Liberty and freedom.
It’s sickening to see that humanity’s once again heading down the road to totalitarianism. All governments seek totalitarianism no matter how democratic they pretend to be and global government would be a totalitarian nightmare that would inevitably lead to mankind’s enslavement or extinction.
World’s yearly defence budget is almost 2 Trillion Dollar. World’s one government will eliminate this. Our population is 7.5 billion so each human will get approx 300 dollars only by eliminating defence budget.
America removed GOD from everything and that’s the main problem.
When you see what globalisation at the supply chain level did to the fragility of our access to goods, can you imagine the fragility that the globalisation of government would add? That fragility would manifest as poor policy (already apparent in all so-called global organisations like WHO, UN) and authoritarianism (crushing diversity of opinion which is the lifeblood of human ingenuity). Russia is on the UN’s security council for heaven’s sake. Hmmmmm – what could possibly go wrong.
Instead of some countries run by tyrants, “One World Government”, a planet run essentially by the most dysfunctional organization ever conceived, the UN would be an open door to corrupt elitist ruling the entire population of planet earth. If you want to find out what a world like that would be like for most, look at Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, and China. Arvind Ashta is an elite French Socialist, who never held a real job and has lived his entire adult life in the bubble of academia totally isolated from the real world. Good intentions I am sure. But good intentions like his lead to bad outcomes.
You miss the most critical reason unfortunately.
We are rapidly seeing that the major blockade for humans surviving into the future is the rapid research into and investment towards a.i. Once a.i. reaches a critical breaking point it will no longer be under human control and many of the conceivable paths forward end poorly for humans. It is impossible for one government to legislate a.i. away, it would require a one world governing agency to diligently pursue and destroy any and all research into a.i. to protect future generations.
It will be difficult to focus humans on this goal but there’s no greater concern that we as a species should have than the elimination of a.i.
A world government is the single worst and most dangerous idea ever fostered, in my opinion. It would never work. Humanity has proven conclusively throughout its history that it could never be trusted with such power. If a world government screws up – which it would – it would screw up the entire world. Then what? We either become slaves to authoritarianism or we fight for the re-emergence of the nation state all over again. It would be a Darwinian nightmare. Take your pick!
No one will agree to this madness let alone the United States, the UK, Russia, China, Japan, India,
Excellent ideas, well presented!
This is the worst idea in the history of ideas. Free markets and free people is the best way to proceed because free people know better than one govt.