Effectiveness, reform and global civil society | Edexcel A-Level Politics
Updated: Sep 29
For Specification 9PL0
Edexcel A-Level Politics | Free Revision Notes
Estimated study time: 80–90 minutes
Global governance institutions are designed to address problems that cross national borders, but their effectiveness is often restricted by their own structures and by the continuing power of sovereign states. This Effectiveness, reform and global civil society A-Level Politics revision page examines how Security Council membership and the veto can obstruct action, why the IMF and World Bank face pressure for reform, and how NGOs and other non-state actors contribute to global governance. It builds directly on UN institutions [The United Nations] and international economic governance [The IMF and World Bank].
Learning Objectives 🎯
By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:
Explain how the membership and structure of the UN Security Council can affect its effectiveness.
Analyse how the veto can prevent the Security Council from addressing contemporary global issues.
Explain criticisms of the IMF and World Bank, including Structural Adjustment Programmes and their performance during global economic crises.
Explain why these criticisms create pressure for reform of global governance institutions.
Define non-state actors and non-governmental organisations and explain their roles.
Assess the significance of NGOs and other non-state actors in addressing conflict, poverty, human rights and environmental issues.
The specification requires students to examine the ways and extent to which political and economic global governance institutions address and resolve contemporary global issues, particularly conflict, poverty, human rights and the environment. It specifically identifies Security Council membership, structure and veto power, IMF and World Bank criticism, Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs), global economic crisis, and the contribution of global civil society and non-state actors.
Revision Notes 📚
What does effectiveness mean in global governance?
Global governance is the broad and complex process of decision making at a global level.
An institution can therefore be judged by whether it is able to address and resolve problems that individual states may struggle to deal with independently.
In this part of the specification, the relevant contemporary global issues include:
conflict
poverty
human rights
the environment
The central issue is not simply whether global institutions exist. You need to assess whether their structure and behaviour allow them to achieve their purposes.
A useful distinction is:
Significance = how much influence an actor or institution has.
Effectiveness = how successfully it achieves its purposes.
An institution can therefore be highly significant while also being criticised as ineffective.
This lesson develops ideas introduced in globalisation and global problems [Globalisation and contemporary global issues].
The Security Council and effectiveness
The UN Security Council is the United Nations' most powerful body and has primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security.
Its ability to respond to global problems is nevertheless affected by:
its membership
its structure
the veto
These are explicitly identified by the specification as factors that can prevent the Security Council from effectively addressing and resolving contemporary global issues.
Security Council membership
The most important structural feature is the privileged position of the five permanent members.
They are:
the United States
Russia
China
the United Kingdom
France
The permanent members include several of the world's most significant economic and military powers.
This creates both an argument for the Security Council's effectiveness and a criticism of it.
Why powerful permanent members can strengthen the Security Council
Including major powers gives the Security Council considerable political importance.
These states possess substantial:
military power
economic power
diplomatic influence
structural power within global politics
An international security institution that excluded the most powerful states would struggle to take meaningful action against major threats.
The presence of powerful states can therefore increase the resources and influence available to collective security.
Why restricted permanent membership can weaken the Security Council
The same structure creates questions of representation and legitimacy.
Permanent membership is restricted to five states.
This gives those countries privileges that other UN members do not possess.
The issue becomes:
Why should a small number of states have greater influence over international security than the rest of the international community?
Pearson examiner material has described the Security Council as effectively recognising and privileging five states with considerable hard power.
This can weaken legitimacy because global security decisions may appear to reflect the interests of a small group of powerful countries.
Structure and structural power
The Security Council demonstrates an important form of structural power.
Power in global politics does not only mean possessing weapons or economic resources. States can also possess influence because of the position they occupy within important institutions.
A permanent Security Council member has opportunities to influence decisions that are unavailable to most states.
This links with later study of different forms of power [Hard and soft power].
The structure can therefore reinforce inequalities between states.
A powerful state may possess:
military power
economic power
permanent Security Council membership
veto power
These different forms of influence can reinforce one another.
The Security Council veto
The veto is particularly important because the specification explicitly requires you to explain how its use can prevent effective action.
Permanent members can use the veto to block Security Council action.
This creates a fundamental tension.
The Security Council is intended to promote collective international security, but one permanent member can prevent a collective decision from proceeding.
How the veto reduces effectiveness
The basic analytical chain is:
international crisis develops
↓
Security Council considers collective action
↓
a permanent member opposes the proposal
↓
veto prevents the proposal from proceeding
↓
the Security Council cannot take the intended collective action
The result may be paralysis even when action is supported by other states.
National interest versus collective security
The veto demonstrates the continuing importance of state sovereignty and national interest.
Permanent members do not stop being sovereign states when they participate in the UN.
They may use their institutional power to protect their own interests or those of allies.
This means the Security Council can sometimes become an arena for great-power competition rather than a body able to act independently of powerful states.
Pearson examiner material has used veto-related discussion involving Syria, Georgia and Ukraine as relevant evidence when assessing UN effectiveness.
The examination value of these examples is the wider principle:
great-power disagreement can prevent collective action.
Why the veto can also be defended
A balanced assessment should not assume that the existence of the veto makes the Security Council automatically worthless.
The permanent members are among the world's most powerful states.
A system that regularly forced major powers to accept security decisions completely against their interests might lose their participation or support.
The veto can therefore be interpreted as part of the compromise required to keep great powers within a collective-security system.
This creates a useful evaluative tension:
Argument for the veto structure | Argument against the veto structure |
Keeps major powers involved in global security decision making | Allows individual permanent members to prevent collective action |
Recognises the practical importance of powerful states | Creates inequality between states |
Can give agreed decisions greater political weight | Can produce paralysis when great powers disagree |
Protects the interests of powerful sovereign states | May place national interest ahead of global problems |
💡 Exam point: Avoid writing that the veto is simply "bad". Explain why it exists, then assess whether the cost to effectiveness outweighs its contribution to great-power participation.
When the Security Council can be effective
The Security Council's structural weaknesses do not mean it is incapable of action.
Pearson assessment material identifies occasions on which it has authorised significant military action, including responses to:
the Korean conflict in the 1950s
Iraq's invasion of Kuwait
It has also passed resolutions concerning wider issues such as:
nuclear non-proliferation
children in armed conflict
support for criminal tribunals
The key difference is therefore often agreement between powerful states.
When permanent members broadly agree, the Security Council can possess considerable authority.
When they strongly disagree, the veto may prevent meaningful action.
A useful judgement
Security Council effectiveness is therefore conditional rather than absolute.
Its structure gives it access to the world's most powerful states, making agreement highly significant.
However, that same structure gives those states the ability to obstruct collective action.
This is one of the clearest examples in the course of an institution's main strength also being the source of its main weakness.
Pressure for Security Council reform
The specification asks students to consider institutional effectiveness and the pressure for reform.
Pressure for reform can logically arise from criticisms of:
restricted permanent membership
unequal structural power
the veto
difficulties in responding to global crises
questions over legitimacy
The argument is:
institutional structure produces repeated criticism
↓
criticism damages legitimacy or effectiveness
↓
pressure develops for the institution to change
The IMF and World Bank: why effectiveness is contested
Economic global governance is also subject to major criticism.
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) seeks to promote monetary co-operation, financial stability, international trade, employment, sustainable growth and poverty reduction.
The World Bank provides concessional loans and grants to poorer developing countries, with poverty reduction as a central purpose.
Their significance was considered in their institutional roles [The IMF and World Bank].
This lesson focuses on why their ability to address global problems is questioned.
The main specification areas are:
pressure for reform and criticism
Structural Adjustment Programmes
global economic crisis
Structural Adjustment Programmes
A Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) is a conditional loan provided by the IMF or World Bank to a country that has experienced an economic crisis.
The word conditional is the key to understanding the controversy.
A state receives financial support, but the assistance can be linked to changes in economic policy.
Pearson assessment material identifies conditions including:
privatisation
deregulation
opening internal markets
These measures are intended to alter how the recipient economy operates.
The argument for conditionality
Supporters can argue that simply providing money may not resolve the causes of an economic crisis.
If existing economic policies contributed to instability, reform may be necessary.
The reasoning is:
economic crisis
↓
international financial assistance
↓
economic reforms
↓
greater stability and growth
↓
reduced likelihood of further crisis
From this perspective, conditions attempt to ensure that international assistance produces longer-term improvement rather than only short-term relief.
Criticism of SAPs: state sovereignty
The strongest political criticism concerns sovereignty.
If a state desperately needs financial assistance, it may have limited freedom to reject the conditions attached to a loan.
The chain is:
state faces economic crisis
↓
state requires IMF or World Bank assistance
↓
loan is conditional
↓
government must alter domestic economic policy
↓
independent policy choice is reduced
This can be viewed as a challenge to national economic sovereignty.
The government technically remains sovereign, but its practical freedom to choose economic policies may be restricted.
This links back to challenges to state control [Globalisation and the state system].
Criticism of SAPs: who benefits?
Pearson assessment material identifies criticism that conditions favouring:
foreign investment
trade liberalisation
privatisation
deregulation
may benefit powerful global economic actors, including multinational companies.
This creates a distributional question.
Even if reforms increase economic activity overall, critics ask:
Who receives the benefits of that economic growth?
If powerful businesses and economically dominant states gain disproportionately, SAPs may be criticised for reinforcing rather than reducing existing inequalities.
This connects directly to poverty and unequal development [Global economic governance and poverty].
Criticism of US influence
The IMF and World Bank have also faced criticism over unequal influence within their structures.
Pearson's 2024 mark scheme identifies the United States as a particularly influential actor.
It notes that:
both institutions are headquartered in Washington, D.C.
in 2022 the United States held approximately 16.5% of IMF voting power
the United States held a similar voting proportion in the World Bank
The examination significance of these details is the question of credibility and legitimacy.
The analytical chain is:
one powerful state possesses particularly large institutional influence
↓
decision making may appear unequal
↓
less powerful states may question whether institutions represent them fairly
↓
institutional legitimacy can be weakened
This does not prove that every IMF or World Bank decision is controlled by the United States.
It does, however, provide a basis for criticism that global economic governance reflects unequal distributions of power.
Criticism: economic priorities and other global concerns
The IMF and World Bank are primarily economic institutions.
Pearson mark schemes identify criticism that their emphasis on economic growth may conflict with other concerns.
These criticisms include:
engaging with governments facing accusations of human-rights abuses
questions about the legitimacy of governments receiving support
environmental costs associated with economic growth
This demonstrates the difficulty of judging global governance using only one criterion.
An economically successful policy might still be criticised because of its:
political consequences
human-rights implications
environmental consequences
Global governance therefore involves choices between competing priorities.
Global economic crisis
The specification explicitly requires criticism of the IMF and World Bank in connection with global economic crisis.
Pearson material identifies criticism relating to major periods of instability including:
the 1973 oil shock
the 1997 Asian financial crisis
the 2007–08 global financial crisis
The institutions have been criticised as:
too slow to respond
underfunded
too weak in the face of major crises
The central criticism is powerful:
If institutions exist partly to promote economic stability, the continuing occurrence of major crises raises questions about their effectiveness.
Prevention is different from response
However, this criticism needs careful evaluation.
A major economic crisis can demonstrate failure to prevent instability while still leaving an important role for institutions in the response.
You should distinguish between:
prevention, did the institution prevent the crisis?
management, did it reduce the damage once the crisis occurred?
recovery, did it help states rebuild economic stability afterwards?
An institution may perform differently against each criterion.
This is much stronger analysis than simply saying:
There was a financial crisis, therefore the IMF failed.
The wider criticism of global economic governance
Pearson assessment material also identifies claims that the IMF, World Bank and other economic institutions may have contributed to uneven development.
Critics argue that:
benefits of economic globalisation have not been distributed equally
some developing states have experienced restricted growth
major institutions may reflect Western economic priorities
poorer states may become dependent upon international financial institutions
These ideas connect criticism of institutions with the wider North-South divide.
The debate is therefore not merely about whether the institutions produce economic growth.
It is about whether global governance produces:
stable growth
fair growth
sustainable growth
poverty reduction
legitimate decision making
Why pressure for IMF and World Bank reform exists
Pressure for reform arises when institutions are widely used and significant but face repeated criticism.
For the IMF and World Bank, reform pressures arise from claims concerning:
unequal voting influence
powerful-state dominance
loan conditionality
Structural Adjustment Programmes
challenges to state sovereignty
the effects of economic liberalisation
engagement with governments criticised over human rights
environmental consequences
responses to global economic crises
The very existence of reform pressure demonstrates an important point.
Critics do not necessarily argue that global economic governance is unnecessary.
They may instead argue that existing global governance does not operate fairly or effectively enough.
Reform and legitimacy
Reform can therefore be connected to legitimacy.
An institution may become less legitimate when states or populations believe that:
decision making is unequal
particular states dominate
policies are imposed rather than agreed
outcomes are unfair
crises are not managed successfully
Pressure for reform is therefore often pressure to make global governance more:
representative
credible
effective
responsive
For this specification lesson, focus on the criticisms that generate pressure for reform, particularly SAPs and economic crises.
Comparing Security Council and economic-governance weaknesses
The Security Council, IMF and World Bank operate in very different areas, but their criticisms reveal several common themes.
Issue | Security Council | IMF and World Bank |
Unequal power | Five permanent members hold privileged positions | Powerful states have unequal institutional influence |
Sovereignty | Permanent states protect national interests through the veto | Loan conditions may restrict recipient-state economic policy |
Representation | Restricted permanent membership raises legitimacy questions | Voting influence can be distributed unequally |
Effectiveness | Veto can prevent action during crises | Criticised for responses to major economic crises |
Pressure for reform | Membership, structure and veto generate criticism | SAPs, influence, crisis performance and conditionality generate criticism |
Core tension | Collective security versus national interest | Global economic management versus national economic autonomy |
This reveals a central theme across the Edexcel Global Politics course:
Global governance depends upon states, but the continuing power of states can also restrict global governance.
Global civil society
The specification requires students to understand the role and significance of global civil society and non-state actors in addressing and resolving contemporary global issues.
These actors matter because global politics is not carried out only by governments and intergovernmental institutions.
The specification defines non-state actors as participants in international relations that possess significant power and influence but are not states.
This broadens the study of global politics beyond national governments.
Non-governmental organisations
A non-governmental organisation (NGO) is defined in the Edexcel specification as a:
non-profit, voluntary citizens' group organised at local, national or international level.
The specification gives Christian Aid as an example.
NGOs can perform several important functions.
They:
provide service and humanitarian functions
bring citizens' concerns to governments
advocate policies
monitor policies
encourage political participation
provide information
These functions explain how actors without sovereign governmental authority can still possess political influence.
NGOs as service providers
One role is the direct provision of services and humanitarian assistance.
This means global civil society is not limited to lobbying governments.
NGOs can become involved directly in dealing with consequences of global problems.
This gives them potential importance in areas involving:
poverty
humanitarian crises
human welfare
The important distinction is between:
direct assistance, where an organisation provides a service,
and
political influence, where it attempts to change government or institutional policy.
NGOs may perform both functions.
NGOs and advocacy
NGOs can bring citizens' concerns to governments.
This gives individuals and groups another channel through which to influence global politics.
The chain is:
citizens are concerned about a global issue
↓
NGO organises and communicates those concerns
↓
government or international institution faces increased pressure
↓
policy may be debated or altered
NGOs can therefore help connect populations to decision makers.
This is important because global institutions are often criticised for being distant from ordinary citizens.
NGOs and policy monitoring
The specification explicitly identifies monitoring policies as an NGO function.
Monitoring matters because making an international promise is not the same as fulfilling it.
NGOs can draw attention to:
what governments have promised
whether policies are being implemented
whether international commitments are being respected
This can increase political pressure on states even where an NGO lacks formal legal authority.
Their power is therefore often based on:
information
campaigning
public pressure
visibility
rather than military or governmental authority.
NGOs and political participation
NGOs may also increase political participation through the provision of information.
This can expand global politics beyond governments and diplomats.
Citizens may participate through:
organisations
campaigns
social movements
advocacy
The result is a broader global civil society operating alongside state institutions.
This is important when assessing whether contemporary global governance has become less state-centred.
Environmental NGOs and movements
Pearson assessment material provides particularly clear examples in the environmental field.
It has identified growth in NGOs and social movements concerned with environmental problems, including:
Friends of the Earth
Extinction Rebellion
the global Schools' climate strike
Pearson used the increased number of environmental organisations and movements as evidence of the growing political attention given to environmental problems.
The importance of these examples is not simply that campaigns exist.
They demonstrate how actors outside governments can:
raise an issue's profile
mobilise political participation
put pressure on political parties and governments
contribute to changes in the political agenda
Environmental non-state actors are studied in greater depth in environmental governance [Obstacles and non-state actors].
NGOs and human rights
The NGO definition is also directly relevant to human-rights governance.
Functions such as:
bringing citizens' concerns to governments
advocating policies
monitoring policies
providing information
allow non-state actors to draw attention to human-rights issues.
Their significance comes partly from their ability to focus attention on problems that states may be unwilling to prioritise.
However, influencing governments is not the same as possessing governmental authority.
This distinction is important when connecting NGOs with sovereignty and rights protection [Human rights and state sovereignty].
NGOs and poverty
NGOs' service and humanitarian functions make them potentially significant in addressing poverty.
They may operate alongside, rather than replacing, major economic institutions.
This means different actors within global governance can perform different functions:
the IMF and World Bank operate through large-scale international economic governance
NGOs can provide services, advocacy, monitoring and information
states continue to make many of the most important economic decisions
You should therefore avoid treating global governance as a competition in which only one type of actor can matter.
NGOs and conflict
Conflict creates another area in which non-state actors may contribute through humanitarian and advocacy functions.
However, the specification's definition of the Security Council makes clear that primary responsibility for international peace and security rests with a state-based UN institution.
This creates an important limitation on NGO power.
NGOs may:
provide assistance
communicate concerns
monitor policy
advocate action
but they do not replace the Security Council's formal political and security role.
Strengths of NGOs and global civil society
1. They broaden participation
Global governance would otherwise be dominated even more heavily by governments and intergovernmental organisations.
NGOs give citizens another route into political activity.
2. They can raise neglected issues
Advocacy can place pressure on governments to consider issues that might otherwise receive less attention.
Environmental campaigning is a useful source-supported example.
3. They can monitor governments and institutions
Monitoring can expose differences between official commitments and political action.
This can increase accountability through public pressure.
4. They provide information
Information can affect:
public awareness
political participation
campaigning
government pressure
Knowledge can therefore become a source of influence.
5. They can provide direct humanitarian services
NGOs can act directly rather than waiting for states to reach political agreement.
This is particularly significant when global problems create urgent human needs.
Limitations of NGOs and global civil society
The significance of NGOs should not be exaggerated.
They are influential rather than sovereign
The specification defines non-state actors as possessing power and influence, not as replacing states.
Most major formal decisions in global politics continue to be made through states and state-created institutions.
Pearson assessment material continues to identify:
the Security Council as a major political decision maker
the IMF and World Bank as major economic institutions
states as central participants in global governance
NGOs therefore often influence decision makers rather than becoming the final decision makers themselves.
Advocacy does not guarantee policy change
An NGO can:
campaign
monitor
inform
mobilise
but governments may still reject its demands.
This is particularly important where powerful sovereign states consider a policy to conflict with their national interests.
They cannot remove structural weaknesses in institutions
Environmental movements cannot remove a Security Council veto.
An NGO campaign cannot itself change unequal IMF voting influence.
Global civil society may therefore expose institutional problems and increase pressure for reform without possessing the formal authority required to implement reform.
Their significance varies by issue
NGO influence may be especially visible where:
public mobilisation matters
information affects political pressure
humanitarian services are needed
In other areas, especially military security and high-level economic decision making, state institutions remain particularly powerful.
NGOs compared with states and international institutions
NGOs and non-state actors | States and intergovernmental institutions |
Influence through advocacy, information, monitoring and services | Possess formal governmental or institutional decision-making powers |
Can mobilise citizens | States possess sovereignty |
Can raise neglected issues | Governments control major state resources |
May provide humanitarian assistance | Institutions such as the Security Council make major security decisions |
Can pressure decision makers | IMF and World Bank can provide large-scale international economic assistance |
Help broaden global political participation | Remain central to formal global governance |
The strongest conclusion is therefore not that one type of actor has replaced another.
Global governance increasingly involves multiple types of actor, but they possess different forms of power.
Does global civil society weaken the importance of states?
There is an important theoretical debate here.
Argument that non-state actors have become increasingly important
The growth of NGOs and social movements demonstrates that states no longer have a monopoly over political influence.
Global problems can generate networks of:
campaigners
citizens
voluntary organisations
international movements
These may operate across national boundaries.
This supports the argument that global politics has become more complex and interconnected.
Argument that states remain dominant
The strongest formal powers remain concentrated in state-led institutions.
For example:
permanent Security Council members possess veto powers
states determine their participation in economic institutions
governments ultimately control national economic and military resources
NGOs may influence these structures but generally cannot compel them.
This debate prepares you to compare state-centred and institutional approaches [Realism and liberalism compared].
Reform and global civil society
Global civil society can contribute to reform pressure because NGOs can:
identify weaknesses
monitor institutional behaviour
communicate citizens' concerns
advocate policy change
provide information
mobilise participation
This means institutional reform does not have to originate solely inside institutions.
Pressure may come from actors outside formal government.
However, the relationship is uneven:
NGOs can create pressure for change, but states and institutions usually control whether formal structural change occurs.
This helps explain why global civil society can be politically significant even where it lacks final decision-making authority.
The common problem of sovereignty
The different parts of this lesson are connected by sovereignty.
Security Council
Permanent members use institutional privileges, including the veto, to protect national interests.
IMF and World Bank
Loan conditions may place pressure on the economic sovereignty of recipient states.
NGOs
NGOs can challenge and influence governments but do not possess sovereign authority themselves.
This gives you a useful organising principle for essays:
Actor or institution | Relationship with sovereignty |
Security Council permanent members | State sovereignty is reinforced through privileged decision-making power |
IMF and World Bank | International economic conditions may restrict practical national policy autonomy |
NGOs | Influence sovereign states from outside formal government |
Global civil society | Broadens political participation without replacing state sovereignty |
Effectiveness across contemporary global issues
The specification expects these actors and institutions to be applied to conflict, poverty, human rights and the environment.
Conflict
The Security Council has major formal responsibility for international peace and security.
Strength: it can authorise significant collective action.
Weakness: vetoes and great-power disagreement can prevent action.
NGOs may contribute humanitarian assistance, advocacy and monitoring, but they do not possess the Security Council's formal security authority.
Poverty
The IMF and World Bank provide global economic governance and financial support.
Strength: they can provide resources and economic support.
Weakness: SAPs, unequal influence and development outcomes generate criticism.
NGOs can contribute services, advocacy, information and citizen participation.
Human rights
Global institutions can create political and legal mechanisms for human-rights protection.
However, sovereign-state resistance remains important.
NGOs can monitor policy and bring concerns to governments, helping keep human-rights issues on the political agenda.
Environment
International action requires co-operation between states.
Non-state environmental actors can help mobilise public opinion and political participation.
Pearson assessment material's use of Friends of the Earth, Extinction Rebellion and the Schools' climate strike demonstrates the significance of global civil society in this area.
Which actors are most effective?
There is no single answer because effectiveness depends on the task.
For binding security decisions
State-based institutions such as the Security Council possess greater formal power.
For major economic intervention
The IMF and World Bank possess resources and institutional influence unavailable to most NGOs.
For campaigning and agenda setting
NGOs and social movements can possess substantial influence.
For monitoring
Non-state actors can scrutinise governments and institutions and increase public pressure.
For humanitarian service
NGOs may be able to provide direct assistance.
A strong judgement should therefore compare types of effectiveness rather than assuming every actor is trying to perform the same function.
Does reform make global governance more effective?
The need for reform reflects a basic problem.
Global governance institutions are necessary partly because problems such as:
conflict
poverty
economic instability
human-rights abuses
environmental degradation
cross national borders.
However, the institutions created to address these problems are themselves shaped by political power.
The Security Council reflects unequal state power.
The IMF and World Bank face criticism over voting influence and economic conditionality.
NGOs can challenge these structures but usually lack formal authority to redesign them.
Reform therefore involves a continuing tension between:
effective international decision making
and
fair representation and state sovereignty.
Overall assessment
The effectiveness of global governance depends not simply upon creating international institutions but upon whether those institutions can act when major states disagree and whether their decisions are viewed as legitimate.
The Security Council is extremely significant, but its restricted permanent membership and veto system can allow national interests to obstruct collective action.
The IMF and World Bank possess substantial economic influence, but Structural Adjustment Programmes, unequal voting power, sovereignty concerns and criticisms of their performance during major economic crises create pressure for reform.
Global civil society adds another dimension. NGOs and other non-state actors can provide services, monitor policies, communicate citizens' concerns, advocate reform, supply information and increase political participation. Environmental movements demonstrate how non-state actors can help change the political agenda.
However, global civil society has not replaced state power. Major political, security and economic decisions remain concentrated largely in states and state-created institutions.
The most convincing judgement is therefore that modern global governance is increasingly multi-actor, but not post-state. NGOs can challenge, supplement and pressure formal institutions, while states continue to possess the greatest formal decision-making authority.
Key Words 🔑
Key word | Student-friendly definition | How it may be used in an exam |
Security Council | The UN's most powerful body, with primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. | Use when analysing how membership, structure and the veto affect the UN's ability to respond to global problems. |
Veto | The power of permanent Security Council members to prevent proposed Council action from proceeding. | Use when analysing great-power influence, paralysis and limitations of collective security. |
Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) | A conditional IMF or World Bank loan provided to a country experiencing economic crisis. | Use when analysing conditionality, sovereignty and criticism of global economic governance. |
Non-governmental organisation (NGO) | A non-profit voluntary citizens' group operating locally, nationally or internationally, for example Christian Aid. | Use when assessing humanitarian services, advocacy, monitoring, information and political participation. |
Non-state actor | A participant in international relations with significant power and influence that is not a state. | Use when assessing whether global politics is becoming less dominated by sovereign governments. |
Hints from the Examiner Reports 💡
Examiner hint: Use knowledge to develop analysis rather than stopping at description. Across Paper 3B, stronger responses combine accurate AO1 with coherent chains of AO2 reasoning. A fact such as "permanent members possess a veto" needs to be followed by an explanation of how this affects the Security Council's ability to act.
Examiner hint: Examples should support the political argument. The 2023 examiner report praised candidates who used Security Council examples to both support and criticise the effectiveness of global governance rather than simply naming cases.
Examiner hint: Keep returning to the exact question. In the 2023 report, stronger candidates used examples and then explicitly connected them back to the issue being assessed. This helps prevent a knowledgeable answer from becoming descriptive.
Examiner hint: Compare relative effectiveness directly. The 2023 report found that some candidates knew a great deal about human-rights and environmental governance but struggled to evaluate which had been more successful. When the question asks "more effective", establish a criterion and compare both sides against it.
Examiner hint: NGOs need to be analysed, not merely mentioned. Examiner material has positively identified responses that discussed the impact of NGOs with human-rights examples and included non-state actors when evaluating global governance. Explain what the actor does and what political consequence follows.
Examiner hint: In a 30-mark essay, AO3 must run through the response. Pearson's examiner reports consistently reward substantiated judgements and focused conclusions. Make mini-judgements after major arguments instead of saving all evaluation for the final paragraph.
Examiner hint: Do not spend too long defining terms in the introduction. Strong examiner examples often move quickly into the issue being debated, using accurate terminology within the argument itself.
Common Mistakes ⚠️
Mistake: Saying that the veto makes the Security Council completely ineffective
Why this is incorrect: The Security Council has been capable of significant action when permanent members have been able to reach sufficient agreement.
How to improve: Use conditional language:
The veto can make the Security Council ineffective when major-power interests conflict, but agreement between permanent members can allow substantial collective action.
Mistake: Confusing membership with the veto
Why this is incorrect: They are related but separate criticisms.
Membership and structure concern which states possess privileged positions.
The veto concerns the special decision-making power of permanent members.
How to improve: Treat them as different analytical paragraphs before explaining how they reinforce one another.
Mistake: Defining an SAP but not explaining why it is controversial
Why this is incorrect: Definition is AO1 knowledge. The question is often about effectiveness or criticism.
How to improve: Develop the chain:
conditional loan → required economic reforms → reduced national policy choice → sovereignty and legitimacy concerns
Mistake: Treating every IMF or World Bank loan as a SAP
Why this is incorrect: The specification defines a SAP specifically as a conditional loan provided to a country experiencing economic crisis.
How to improve: Use the term only when discussing conditional economic assistance.
Mistake: Saying that financial crises prove the IMF and World Bank have no value
Why this is incorrect: Failure to prevent a crisis and contribution to managing or recovering from a crisis are different criteria.
How to improve: Separate:
prevention
response
recovery
before reaching a judgement.
Mistake: Treating NGOs as governments
Why this is incorrect: NGOs are non-profit voluntary citizens' groups and are non-state actors.
They may possess significant influence, but they do not possess state sovereignty.
How to improve: Use verbs such as:
advocate
monitor
inform
pressure
provide services
mobilise
rather than assuming NGOs can simply order governments to act.
Mistake: Assuming non-state actors have replaced states
Why this is incorrect: The growth of global civil society has broadened political participation, but states and state-created institutions retain major formal security and economic powers.
How to improve: Conclude that global governance has become more multi-actor, rather than claiming it has become completely non-state.
Mistake: Describing an NGO without explaining its significance
Why this is incorrect: Naming an environmental organisation is only an example.
How to improve: Develop the impact:
campaign → increased public awareness → greater political participation or government pressure → potential influence on policy
Exam-Style Questions ✍️
Question 1
Define a non-governmental organisation (NGO). (2 marks)
Answer:
An NGO is a non-profit, voluntary citizens' group organised at local, national or international level.
Mark scheme:
Award up to 2 marks for:
recognising its voluntary, non-profit nature
recognising that it is a citizens' organisation operating outside the state
Question 2
Explain one reason why the veto can reduce the effectiveness of the UN Security Council. (4 marks)
Indicative answer:
A permanent Security Council member can use its veto to prevent proposed collective action. Where a permanent member's national interests conflict with a proposed response to a crisis, the Council may therefore be unable to act even when other states support action.
Mark scheme:
1–2 marks: identifies veto power
3–4 marks: develops how the veto can create paralysis or prevent collective action
Question 3
Explain two criticisms of Structural Adjustment Programmes. (6 marks)
Indicative content:
Responses may explain:
conditions may restrict national economic sovereignty
requirements such as privatisation and deregulation can change domestic policy
opening markets may benefit powerful multinational companies
economic policy can appear to be imposed by international institutions
conditionality may weaken the legitimacy of the IMF and World Bank
Credit developed explanations rather than simply naming conditions.
Question 4
A large majority of states represented in the UN favour collective action in response to an international crisis. One permanent Security Council member considers the proposal contrary to its national interests and prevents the Council from proceeding.
Analyse what this scenario demonstrates about Security Council membership, structure and effectiveness. (8 marks)
Indicative answer:
The scenario demonstrates that the Security Council's structure gives permanent members significantly greater influence than other states. This can weaken legitimacy because one powerful state can prevent action supported more widely.
It also demonstrates how the veto may reduce effectiveness. The Council has responsibility for international peace and security, but great-power national interests may prevent it from carrying out collective action.
However, the privileged position of major powers also keeps highly influential states at the centre of global security decision making, which can make agreement particularly significant when it occurs.
Mark scheme:
Credit:
understanding of permanent membership
explanation of unequal structural influence
understanding of the veto
analysis of effectiveness
balanced recognition of why major-power participation may still be significant
Question 5
Examine how membership, structure and the veto can prevent the UN Security Council from effectively addressing contemporary global issues. (12 marks)
Indicative content:
Responses may examine:
restricted permanent membership
privileged position of five permanent members
representation and legitimacy
structural power
veto power
national interests of permanent members
great-power disagreement
Security Council paralysis
contrast between inability to act in some cases and meaningful action where permanent members agree
Mark scheme guidance:
A higher-level answer should create a clear chain:
structural feature → political consequence → impact on effectiveness
For example:
Permanent members possess veto powers, allowing national interest to obstruct collective decision making. This can prevent the Security Council from responding even where an issue threatens international peace and security, reducing its effectiveness as a global governance institution.
Question 6
Examine the criticisms that have been made of both the IMF and World Bank. (12 marks)
Indicative content:
Responses may examine:
unequal US influence
questions about credibility and legitimacy
conditionality
Structural Adjustment Programmes
privatisation
deregulation
opening internal markets
impact on state sovereignty
potential benefit to powerful global economic actors
involvement with governments criticised over human rights
prioritisation of economic growth
environmental concerns
the 1973 oil shock
the 1997 Asian financial crisis
the 2007–08 global financial crisis
criticism that the institutions can be slow, underfunded or weak during crises
Mark scheme guidance:
Address both institutions.
For each criticism:
state accurate evidence
explain why it is regarded as a weakness
connect it to effectiveness, sovereignty or legitimacy
Do not simply produce a list of economic crises.
Question 7
Examine the role and significance of NGOs and other non-state actors in addressing contemporary global issues. (12 marks)
Indicative content:
Responses may examine:
humanitarian and service functions
communicating citizens' concerns to governments
advocacy
monitoring policy
provision of information
encouraging political participation
environmental campaigning and social movements
contribution to human-rights awareness
pressure for institutional reform
limitations caused by lack of sovereign authority
continuing dominance of states and state-created institutions in formal decision making
Mark scheme guidance:
Do not simply describe several NGOs.
Organise the answer around functions.
For example:
NGOs can monitor government policies and publish information. This may increase public awareness and political pressure, giving non-state actors influence over governments even though they lack formal sovereign authority.
Question 8
Evaluate the view that non-state actors and global civil society are now more effective than state-led institutions in addressing contemporary global issues. (30 marks)
Indicative content:
Arguments supporting the view may include:
growth of NGOs and social movements
humanitarian and service functions
ability to communicate citizens' concerns
advocacy
policy monitoring
provision of information
increased political participation
environmental mobilisation
ability to pressure governments
ability to act even when state institutions are divided
contribution to pressure for reform
Arguments challenging the view may include:
states retain sovereignty
the Security Council possesses major formal authority over international peace and security
permanent members possess substantial structural power
IMF and World Bank possess large-scale economic influence and resources
NGOs generally influence rather than compel states
non-state advocacy does not guarantee policy change
global civil society cannot itself remove institutional vetoes or reform voting structures
major military and economic decisions remain dominated by states and state-created institutions
Mark scheme guidance:
A high-level answer needs clear criteria for effectiveness.
Possible criteria include:
Formal authority: Who can make decisions?
Speed: Who can act without lengthy international agreement?
Resources: Who possesses the means to implement action?
Agenda setting: Who can raise neglected global issues?
Accountability: Who can monitor states and institutions?
Outcomes: Who can actually resolve a problem rather than only highlight it?
For AO1, use accurate knowledge of the Security Council, IMF, World Bank, NGOs and non-state actors.
For AO2, explain the political consequences of each actor's powers and limitations.
For AO3, compare the competing arguments directly and make substantiated mini-judgements throughout.
A strong overall judgement could argue that global civil society has become increasingly significant because NGOs can mobilise people, monitor governments, provide services and influence political agendas. However, this influence is different from formal authority. States and state-created institutions still control the most powerful military, economic and legal mechanisms of global governance.
Non-state actors therefore supplement, challenge and pressure state-led governance rather than replacing it.
Comments