In the contemporary era of globalization, the world faces many dispersed global problems that transcend national boundaries and challenge the traditional capabilities of nation-states (Hirst and Thompson, 1995). Issues such as climate change, economic inequality and pandemics have become global challenges that require concerted efforts across multiple regions. Therefore, there has been a paradigm shift in governance strategies, with many countries transforming their power by decentralizing power and transferring authority to local governments (Hameiri et al, 2017). For example, post-Suharto decentralization reforms in Indonesia have allowed provinces like Bali to manage their tourism strategies independently, ensuring that development aligns with local cultural and environmental priorities. This decentralization is driven by the recognition that local entities are often better placed to understand and respond to the specific needs of their communities, thereby promoting more tailored and context-specific solutions (Hanka and Downs, 2010).
The concept of glocalization emerges as a vital framework for adapting global ideas and practices to local conditions. Glocalization refers to the simultaneous appearance of universalizing and particularizing tendencies in contemporary social, political and economic systems (Robertson, 1994; Swyngedouw, 2010). This means that even as globalization spreads ideas and practices around the world, local values adapt these influences to their unique contexts. In a sense, this is similar to international brands, such as McDonald’s, which adapt their products to local cultures and needs (Ritzer, 2002). As a conceptual framework, glocalization is a useful lens through which global phenomena are interpreted and enacted at the local level.
Another consequence of this “glocalization” phenomenon is the emergence of the practice of paradiplomacy. A relatively new concept, paradiplomacy refers to international relations conducted by subnational or regional governments. This involves local governments engaging in diplomatic activities to promote their interests by establishing partnerships with other regions or countries. This activity is now considered a normal diplomatic activity (Cornago, 2010), going hand in hand with traditional diplomacy carried out by central governments (Wolff, 2007). A famous example is the collaboration between California and Quebec on climate change policies. These subnational entities have circumvented national diplomacy by engaging in paradiplomacy. This means that local governments can assert their influence on the international stage, fostering collaboration on common challenges and facilitating the exchange of best practices in specific policy areas. The process involves collaboration on common challenges and an exchange of best practices on particular topics. Thus, by using paradiplomacy, local governments can make their voice heard in global governance processes.
The synergy between glocalization and paradiplomacy lies in the ability of local governments to contextualize global agendas to suit local needs while simultaneously influencing these agendas through international partnerships. For example, cities like Surabaya, Indonesia, have integrated the SDGs into local urban planning while establishing partnerships for best practices with their sister cities around the world. Glocalization provides the framework for local governments to adapt global standards and practices, ensuring that they resonate with local populations. Paradiplomacy, in turn, provides the mechanism by which local governments can respond to their national interests by forming alliances and networks that enhance their global influence. This dynamic allows local governments to advance their interests through regional partnerships and networks, thereby contributing to global affairs while responding to local needs.
Several examples illustrate how local governments can use the power of glocalization through paradiplomacy to address global challenges. A prominent example is the Local2030 initiative, a UN platform that supports “on-the-ground implementation” of the SDGs. This initiative allows cities and regions to contextualize the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) based on their unique circumstances. Local2030 was created through the recognition that the SDGs rely on collaboration with relevant local stakeholders. Therefore, aligning the SDGs with the local context allows municipalities to more effectively tackle issues such as poverty, inequality and climate change stipulated in the SDG targets. Local2030 serves as a platform for local leaders, national governments, the private sector and civil society to collaborate, providing tools, resources and networks that make it easier to localize global goals.
Thanks to Local2030, local governments can translate global goals into concrete strategies. This platform illustrates the principles of paradiplomacy by providing a space for cities and regions to engage in international partnerships to contextualize and implement the SDGs. A good example of Local2030 programs is Global Goals Week, an initiative led by Liverpool City Government in the form of environmental workshops and networking sessions. Through such programs, local governments can use collective resources and expertise to improve their ability to solve complex global problems. Furthermore, the initiative shows the importance of cultural and social considerations in sustainable development, in that efforts resonate with local communities and promote engagement (Moallemi et al, 2019). As the world continues to face complex challenges, localizing the SDGs through initiatives such as Local2030 will be increasingly critical to driving positive change at the local level.
In the changing landscape of international relations, traditional state-centric governance models are increasingly challenged by the complexities of global interconnectivity, meaning that many problems cannot be solved at the national level alone . As Gumplova (2015) suggests, states are no longer distinct or autonomous political and legal entities. Through globalization and technological advances, states are embedded in a more complex web of connections, encompassing networks, exchanges of goods, ideas and people, and transnational governance frameworks. These emerging structures are gradually taking over the state’s traditional role of establishing rules for its citizens. Therefore, this transformation requires a shift towards more decentralized approaches that enable local entities to effectively address global challenges. In this context, glocalization and paradiplomacy offer valuable insights into how local governments can participate in shaping international agendas while advancing their own interests.
The study of glocalization and paradiplomacy offers invaluable insights into the mechanisms that allow local entities 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 inclusiveness is particularly important in regions that remain understudied in international relations. For example, in the Global South, where democracy continues to consolidate, central governments may not fully grasp the nuances of local issues. Here, glocalization plays a crucial role in enabling local governments to adapt global ideas and initiatives to their unique cultural, economic and social realities. By empowering local governments to participate in international relations, these concepts help democratize the global governance landscape. On the other hand, paradiplomacy ensures that the interests and needs of diverse local communities are represented and taken into account.
References
Cornago, Noah. “On the normalization of sub-state diplomacy. » The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 5, no. 1-2 (2010): 11-36.
Gümplova, Petra. “On sovereignty and post-sovereignty.” Philosophical criticism 1, no. 2 (2015): 3-18.
Hameiri, Shahar, Caroline Hughes and Fabio Scarpello. International intervention and local politics: fragmented states and politics of scale. Cambridge University Press, 2017.
Hankla, Charles and William Downs. “Decentralization, governance and structure of local political institutions: lessons for reform?. » Local government studies 36, no. 6 (2010): 759-783.
Hirst, Paul and Grahame Thompson. “Globalization and the Future of the Nation-State.” 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. “Local Agenda 2030 for sustainable development”. Lancet Planetary Health 3, no. 6 (2019): e240-e241.
Ritzer, Georges. “An Introduction to McDonaldization.” McDonaldization: the reader 2 (2002): 4-25.
Robertson, Roland. “Globalization or glocalization? » International Communication Review 1, no. 1 (1994): 33-52.
Swyngedouw, Erik. “Globalization or “glocalization”? Networks, territories and resizing. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 17, no. 1 (2004): 25-48.
Wolff, Stéphane. “Paradiplomacy: scope, opportunities and challenges.” » The International Affairs Journal of the Bologna Center 10, no. 1 (2007): 141-150.
Further reading on international electronic relations