In the era of modern globalization, the world faces many distributed global problems that transcend national borders and challenge the traditional capabilities of nation-states (Hirst and Thompson, 1995). Issues such as climate change, economic inequality, and infectious diseases have become global challenges that require joint efforts across multiple regions. As a result, there has been a paradigm shift in governance strategies, with many countries transforming power by decentralizing power and devolving authority to local governments (Hameiri et al, 2017). For example, Indonesia’s post-Suharto decentralization reforms allowed provinces such as Bali to manage their tourism strategies independently and ensured that development was consistent with local cultural and environmental priorities. This decentralization is driven by the recognition that local authorities are often better positioned to understand and address the specific needs of their communities, thereby fostering more tailored and context-sensitive solutions ( Hanka and Downs, 2010 .
The concept of glocalization emerges as an important framework for adapting global ideas and practices to local contexts. Glocalization refers to the simultaneous occurrence of universalizing and particularizing tendencies in modern social, political, and economic systems (Robertson, 1994; Swyngedouw, 2010). This means that while globalization spreads ideas and practices around the world, local values adapt these influences to unique circumstances. In a sense, this is similar to how international brands such as McDonald’s adapt their products to local cultures and needs (Ritzer, 2002). As a conceptual framework, glocalization is a useful lens for interpreting and implementing global phenomena at the local level.
Another consequence of this “glocalization” phenomenon is the emergence of paradiplomacy practices. Paradiplomacy, a relatively new concept, refers to international relations conducted by subnational or regional governments. This is when local governments form partnerships with other regions or countries to engage in diplomatic activities to promote their own interests. This activity is now considered a normal diplomatic activity (Cornago, 2010), parallel to the traditional diplomacy carried out by central governments (Wolff, 2007). A famous example is the cooperation between California and Quebec on climate change policy. These subnational groups avoided national-level diplomacy by engaging in paradiplomacy. This means that local governments can exert influence on the international stage, foster cooperation on common challenges and facilitate the exchange of best practices in specific policy areas. This process involves collaborating on shared challenges and exchanging best practices on specific topics. Therefore, by leveraging paradigm diplomacy, local governments can have a voice in global governance processes.
The synergy of glocalization and paradigm diplomacy lies in the ability of local governments to contextualize global agendas to local needs while simultaneously influencing these agendas through international partnerships. For example, cities like Surabaya, Indonesia, are integrating the SDGs into local urban planning while collaborating on best practices with sister cities around the world. Glocalization provides a framework for local governments to adapt global norms and practices to resonate with local populations. Paradiplomacy provides a mechanism for local governments to realize domestic interests by forming alliances and networks that enhance their global influence. This dynamic allows local governments to pursue their own interests and serve local needs through local partnerships and networks, while also contributing to global issues.
Several examples demonstrate how local governments can use the power of glocalization through paradigm diplomacy to address global challenges. One prominent example is the Local2030 initiative, a UN platform supporting ‘on the ground delivery’ of the SDGs. This initiative helps cities and regions contextualize the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to their unique circumstances. Local2030 was founded with the recognition that the SDGs are built on collaboration with relevant local actors. Therefore, adapting the SDGs to local contexts can help local governments more effectively address the issues such as poverty, inequality, and climate change specified in the SDG goals. Local2030 serves as a platform for local leaders, national governments, the private sector and civil society to collaborate, providing tools, resources and networks to promote localization of the Global Goals.
Local2030 helps local governments translate global goals into actionable strategies. This platform exemplifies the principles of paradiplomacy by providing a venue for cities and regions to engage in international partnerships to contextualize and implement the SDGs. A good example of a Local2030 program is Global Goals Week, an initiative run by Liverpool City Government in the form of environmental workshops and networking sessions. These programs enable local governments to leverage their collective resources and expertise to improve their ability to solve complex global problems. Additionally, the plan demonstrates the importance of cultural and social considerations in sustainable development, as it ensures that efforts resonate with local communities and promote participation (Moallemi et al, 2019). As the world continues to grapple with complex challenges, localization of the SDGs through initiatives such as Local2030 will become increasingly important to drive positive change at the local level.
In the changing landscape of international relations, traditional state-centric governance models are increasingly challenged by the complexity of global interconnections. This means that many problems cannot be solved at the national level alone. As Gumplova (2015) suggests, states are no longer separate political and legal entities and cannot be self-sufficient. Through globalization and technological advancement, nations are becoming more integrated into ever more complex webs of networks, exchanges of goods, ideas, and people, as well as transnational governance frameworks. These emerging structures increasingly take over the traditional role of the state in establishing rules for citizens. This change therefore requires a shift to a more decentralized approach that empowers local institutions to effectively address global challenges. In this context, glocalization and paradigm diplomacy provide valuable insights into how local governments can participate in shaping the international agenda while promoting their own interests.
The study of glocalization and paradiplomacy provides valuable insights into the mechanisms that enable local groups to assert their presence on the global stage. By understanding these mechanisms, scholars and practitioners can contribute to a more balanced and inclusive international order. This comprehensiveness is especially important in areas where international relations is still understudied. For example, in countries in the Global South where democracies continue to strengthen, central governments may not fully capture the nuances of local issues. Here, glocalization plays an important role by enabling local governments to adapt global ideas and initiatives to their own cultural, economic and social realities. This concept of empowering local governments to participate in international relations helps democratize the global governance environment. Paradiplomacy, on the other hand, ensures that the interests and needs of diverse local communities are expressed and addressed.
References
Cornago, Noé. “On the normalization of state diplomacy.” The Hague Diplomatic Journal 5, no. 1-2(2010): 11-36.
Gümplová, Petra. “Sovereignty and after sovereignty.” philosophical criticism 1, no. 2 (2015): 3-18.
Hamairi, Shahar, Caroline Hughes, Fabio Scarpello. International intervention and regional politics: divided states and the politics of scale.. Cambridge University Press, 2017.
Hankla, Charles, and William Downs. “Decentralization, governance, and the structure of local political institutions: Lessons for reform?” Local government research 36, no. 6 (2010): 759-783.
Hirst, Paul, and Graham Thompson. “Globalization and the future of nation-states.” 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. “Regional Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development.” Lancet Planetary Health 3, no. 6 (2019): e240-e241.
Richer, George. “An Introduction to McDonaldization.” McDonaldization: The Reader 2 (2002): 4-25.
Robertson, Roland. “Globalization or regionalization?” International Journal of Communication 1, no. 1 (1994): 33-52.
Swingdough, Eric. “Globalization or ‘localization’? Networks, Regions and Realignment.” Cambridge Review of International Affairs 17, no. 1 (2004): 25-48.
Wolff, Stephen. “Paradiplomacy: Scope, Opportunities and Challenges.” Bologna Center Journal of International Affairs 10, no. 1 (2007): 141-150.
Additional Resources on E-International Relations
