This article sketches an analytical framework to account for new patterns of global governance. We characterize the emergent postliberal international order as a new age of hybridity, which signifies that no overriding set of paradigms dominate global governance. Instead, we have a complex web of competing norms, which creates new opportunities as well as major elements of instability, uncertainty, and anxiety. In the age of hybridity, non-Western great powers (led by China) play an increasingly counter-hegemonic role in shaping new style multilateralism—ontologically fragmented, normatively inconsistent, and institutionally incoherent. We argue that democracy paradox constitutes the fundamental issue at stake in this new age of hybridity. On the one hand, global power transitions seem to enable “democratization of globalization” by opening more space to the hitherto excluded non-Western states to make their voices heard. On the other hand, emerging pluralism in global governance is accompanied by the regression of liberal democracy and spread of illiberalism that enfeeble “globalization of democratization.”
AcharyaA. (2017). After liberal hegemony: The advent of a multiplex world order. Ethics & International Affairs, 31(3), 271–285.
2.
AcharyaA. (2018). The end of American world order. Polity Press.
3.
AmbrosioT. (2012). The rise of the “China Model” and “Beijing Consensus”: Evidence of authoritarian diffusion?Contemporary Politics, 18(4), 381–399.
4.
BabbS.ChorevN. (2016). International organizations: Loose and tight coupling in the development regime. Studies in Comparative International Development, 51(1), 81–102.
5.
BanC.BlythM. (2013). The BRICs and the Washington consensus: An introduction. Review of International Political Economy, 20(2), 241–255.
6.
BeesonM.LiF. (2015). What consensus? Geopolitics and policy paradigms in China and the United States. International Affairs, 91(1), 93–109.
7.
BoixC. (2011). Democracy, development, and the international system. American Political Science Review, 105(4), 809–822.
8.
BremmerI. (2010). The end of the free market. Portfolio.
9.
Bresser-PereiraL. C. (2011). An account of new developmentalism and its structuralist macroeconomics. Brazilian Journal of Political Economy, 31(3), 493–502.
CooperA. F.FarooqA. B. (2013). BRICS and the privileging of informality in global governance. Global Policy, 4(4), 428–433.
14.
CrottyJ. (2009). Structural causes of the global financial crisis: A critical assessment of the new financial architecture. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 33(4), 563–580.
GüvenA. B. (2017). Defending supremacy: How the IMF and the World Bank navigate the challenge of rising powers. International Affairs, 93(5), 1149–1166.
24.
GüvenA. B. (2018). Whither the post-Washington consensus? International financial institutions and development policy before and after the crisis. Review of International Political Economy, 25(3), 392–417.
25.
HaggardS. (2000). The political economy of Asian financial crisis. Institute for International Economics.
MilanovicB. (2016). Global inequality: A new approach for the age of globalization. Harvard University Press.
45.
MounkY.FoaR. S. (2018). The end of the democratic century. Foreign Affairs, 97(3), 29–36.
46.
NathanA. J. (2015). China’s challenge. Journal of Democracy, 26(1), 156–170.
47.
NaughtonB. (2010). China’s distinctive system: Can it be a model for others?Journal of Contemporary China, 19(65), 437–460.
48.
NölkeA. (2015). Second image revisited: The domestic sources of China’s foreign economic policies. International Politics, 52(6), 657–665.
49.
NölkeA.ten BrinkT.ClaarS.MayC. (2015). Domestic structures, foreign economic policies and global economic order: Implications from the rise of large emerging economies. European Journal of International Relations21(3), 538–567.
50.
NölkeA.ten BrinkT.MayC.ClaarS. (2019). State-permeated capitalism in large emerging economies. Routledge.
51.
ÖnişZ. (1991). The logic of developmental state. Comparative Politics, 24(1), 109–126.
52.
ÖnişZ. (2017). The age of anxiety: The crisis of liberal democracy in a post-hegemonic global order. The International Spectator, 52(3), 18–35.
53.
ÖnişZ.AysanA. F. (2000). Neoliberal globalisation, the nation-state and financial crises in the semi-periphery: A comparative analysis. Third World Quarterly, 21(1), 119–139.
54.
ÖnişZ.GençerS. A. (2018). Democratic BRICS as role models in a shifting global order: Inherent dilemmas and the challenges ahead. Third World Quarterly, 39(9), 791–1811.
55.
ÖnişZ.KutlayM. (2019a). Global shifts and the limits of the EU’s transformative power in the European periphery: Comparative perspectives from Hungary and Turkey. Government and Opposition, 54(2), 226–253.
56.
ÖnişZ.KutlayM. (2019b). Reverse transformation? Global shifts, the core-periphery divide and the future of the EU. Journal of Contemporary European Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/14782804.2019.1708280
57.
ÖnişZ.ŞensesF. (2005). Rethinking the emerging post-Washington consensus. Development and Change, 36(2), 263–290.
58.
PayneA. (2010). How many Gs are there in “global governance” after the Crisis? The perspectives of the “marginal minority of the world’s states?”International Affairs, 86(3), 729–740.
RamoJ. C. (2004). The Beijing Consensus. Foreign Policy Centre.
61.
RodrikD. (1997). Has globalization gone too far?Institute of International Economics.
62.
RodrikD. (2007). How to save globalization from its cheerleaders? (Harvard University Faculty Research Working Paper Series No. RWP07-038, 2007). Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, United States.
63.
RodrikD. (2012). Globalization Paradox. Oxford University Press.
64.
SakwaR. (2017). Russia against the rest. Cambridge University Press.
Thirkell-WhiteB. (2005). The IMF and the politics of financial globalization: From Asian crisis to a new international financial architecture. Palgrave Macmillan.
74.
ToozeA. (2018). Crashed: How a decade of financial crises changed the world. Allen Lane.
75.
WadeR. (2011). Emerging world order? From multipolarity to multilateralism in the G20, the World Bank, and the IMF. Politics & Society, 39(3), 347–378.
76.
WadeR.FrankV. (1998). The Asian crisis: The high debt model versus the wall street-treasury-IMF complex. New Left Review, 228, 3–23.
77.
WaltS. M. (2018). The hell of good intentions: America’s foreign policy elite and the decline of U.S. supremacy. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
78.
WilliamsonJ. (1990). What Washington means by policy reform. In WilliamsonJ. (Ed.), Latin American adjustment: How much has happened?Institute for International Economics.
WolfM. (2015). The shifts and shocks: What we’ve learned–and have still to learn–from the financial crisis. Penguin Press.
81.
WoodsN. (2008). Whose aid? Whose influence? China, emerging donors and the silent revolution in development assistance. International Affairs, 84(6), 1205–1221.
82.
World Bank, (1997). The state in a changing world. Oxford University Press.
83.
XinboW. (2018). China in search of a liberal partnership international order. International Affairs, 94(5), 995–1018.
YağcıM. (2016). A Beijing consensus in the making: The rise of Chinese initiatives in the international political economy and implications for developing countries. Perceptions: Journal of International Affairs, 21(2), 29–56.
86.
ZakariaF. (1997). The rise of illiberal democracy. Foreign Affairs, 76(6), 22–43.
87.
ZengJ. (2017). Is China committed to peaceful rise? Debating how to secure core interests in China. International Politics, 54(5), 618–636.
