John S. Dryzek’s review is valuable and constructive on numerous points. It clearly points to needs for further elaboration and research, for example, on the justice implications of earth system governance or on the question of how to raise its democratic quality and reflective potential (an area where Dryzek himself has laid much of the groundwork over the last decades). I also agree with Dryzek’s point that more attention is needed on the role of economic interests in earth system governance, from the study of capitalist economies as drivers of the Anthropocene to the discursive power of business-related interests.
Other comments invite further clarifications of key concepts. For instance, I do not agree that my argument necessarily supports a stronger “centralization” of governance. As I write in Chapter 2, “Global stewardship for the planet is different from centralized management. [It] must be based on cooperation, coordination, and consensus building among actors at all levels [and] must include complex architectures of interlinked institutions and decision-making procedures, but also different forms of collaboration, such as partnerships and networks.” I have no doubt that different governance systems need to coexist at different levels and in different functional areas. Yet what is important, as one part of a broader reform agenda, is to strengthen the effectiveness, legitimacy, and accountability of multilateral decision-making. My focus is here less on centralization but rather on inclusiveness—in rejecting dominant strands in the literature that call for (U.S.-led) “mini-clubs” of a few powerful countries that would exclude poorer and smaller countries under the guise of decentralization, deregulation and debureaucratization. I thus also do not seek to argue against “polycentric” governance, and indeed use this term in my book. Global governance has been marked by different poles of authority and power for long, and is likely to remain so. Yet what is important, I argue, is to strengthen intergovernmental decision-making by a careful redesign of international institutions, all within a broader governance architecture that works as well through local authorities, private actors, transnational arrangements, and so forth.
A recurrent concern with all writing on policy advocacy and redesigning institutions remains the political feasibility of reform propositions and the often-cited lack of “political will” among decision-makers. These are important considerations indeed, and counterweighing forces must be carefully included in the institutional analysis. Yet we also ought to resist current strands in political science that plainly reject policy advocacy with reference to overwhelming capitalist forces, persistent political inertia, or the impossibility of finding any global agreement. The advent of the Anthropocene, as a highly volatile epoch in planetary evolution that is shaped by accelerating human influences, changes also the context of political science, which needs to engage more forcefully with the search for governance systems that better cope with the new political context. In this, Dryzek and I share the same basic motivation and commitment to exploring innovative ways towards more effective, equitable, and legitimate earth system governance—despite our (maybe substantial) disagreements about the right direction to pursue.
