Introduction

The early 1900s brought tough times to many. The Great Depression (1929-1939) and the Second World War troubled world leaders. Leaders looked for solutions to global conflict, poverty, injustice and instability.

Several new institutions were created. An institution is an organized social structure. It tends to be complex and long-lasting. Institutions affect how communities are organized. They influence behavior, customs, and laws. In this case, leaders wanted to create institutions that would help communities or networks of people.

We’ll consider how effective these institutions were at influencing people’s lives. Did they change the world? How?

A world government? The development of political institutions

The League of Nations, formed in 1918, had been intended to prevent another world war. But in 1943, World War II peaked. It had obviously failed. Global leaders knew they needed a new institution with similar goals. So, in 1945, they formed the United Nations (UN).

With the United Nations, all member nations had a duty to come together as an international community. They had to resist aggressive behavior to ensure overall security. One of the UN’s tools to prevent conflict is its judicial arm: the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Netherlands. The Court’s role is to solve disputes between member states.¹ It also advises the United Nations’ various agencies.

The United Nations has also created measures for protecting global health and human rights. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is one example. It set standards for human rights, the treatment of women and children, and labor. Another example was the World Health Organization (WHO). This agency ensures public health globally.

So, the UN clearly serves many different functions. All are aimed at a better, healthier, fairer, and more peaceful world. Some try to describe the UN as a “world government.” But it’s quite different from a government. The UN is not like an independent nation. It cannot punish its citizens. Instead, it must use influence. Treaties, monitoring, special procedures, and commissions are examples.

Has the United Nations met these goals? The language of rights that it sponsored has certainly shifted how people think about individuals, citizens, and states. The United Nations isn’t always able to enforce humanitarian standards. Still, these standards seem to have affected beliefs and behaviors.

Has the United Nations ended conflict and human rights abuses? No. Violence and corruption still exists today. But does evidence show that violence has lowered overall? How about human rights abuses? And for whom have these measures been most effective? To answer these questions, we can consider human rights reports, changes in population, and death rates. We know the shifts are occurring. Still it’s trickier to figure out what’s causing them.

Globalizing trade: the economic institutions

After World War II, many leaders were also worried about economic instability and poverty. After the Great Depression, most world economies were still struggling. Even before the war ended in 1944, some leaders met in the United States. Their goal was to regulate the global economy.

Out of these discussions, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) was formed. So was the World Bank.

Originally the IMF and the World Bank aimed at protecting employment and standards of living. They also wanted to keep trade balanced. Both institutions wanted to help member countries develop their resources and productive powers.

Working together, the idea was that they would help member states share risk, resources, and information. This was meant to be non-political. Each state’s voting power lined up to how much money it would put into the project. This non-political style was important. Member states wanted to avoid nationalist policies. In that outlook, countries only look out for their own interests. Such “me-first” focus had made the Great Depression worse. Instead, these institutions created more cooperation. The IMF, for example, gave loans to poorer, developing countries. These helped cover trade deficits (shortages). The World Bank made huge investments. It helped relieve debt and reconstruction projects, particularly in Europe.

Over time, the original goals changed. It became about opening up markets around the world. This concept is called economic liberalization. The idea is that markets would be less held back by rules on trade. In turn networks of exchange could operate more freely. The World Trade Organization (WTO), founded in 1995, greatly pushed for liberalization.

How did these institutions change the world? Over several decades, the global markets did in fact become increasingly connected to broad networks. Money and investment moved much more easily. These institutions also helped manage financial meltdowns and economic transitions.

Non-Governmental Institutions

International non-governmental organizations (INGOs) also create global change. From the nineteenth century, such organizations have tackled global health problems and poverty. The International Committee of the Red Cross and Oxfam International are examples. More recently, human rights advocacy organizations have allowed many more people to see themselves as global citizens participating in an international community. Environmental activist organizations like Greenpeace have had a similar effect.

This belief in the importance of common action highlights the ways these institutions shape communities. This can be a powerful—and effective—belief. INGOs² like Amnesty International have effectively called attention to abuses. They’ve pushed for violent acts to be defined as war crimes. The groups also helped build world opinion against nuclear testing. Apartheid, the racist system in South Africa, was also targeted.

Changing world opinion such as this creates a powerful feeling of connectedness and shared responsibility.

Some conclusions

The world is now connected in a never-before-seen way. International political and economic institutions and global NGOs influenced that.

But these connections have not always been even. The effects have been partial or inconsistent. Some haven’t worked long. Some have been hurtful, even. They haven’t always managed to prevent problems. Many people get left behind. Also, in pushing economic liberalization, these institutions have resulted in fewer social protections. Some countries have gotten debt relief, loans, or other investments from the institutions. However, first, the countries are often forced to reduce social protections like healthcare. Altogether, these changes have created more sameness on a global scale. That could be bad or good, depending on several factors.

1 A state is any region with its own government. A nation, meanwhile, has that and a population who unified in many ways, i.e. culturally, socially, economically, ancestrally, etc.
2 When a non-governmental institution does not deal with international issues, it’s just called NGO. But it’s worth noting that people very often say NGO when they are actually talking about INGO’s like the Red Cross and Amnesty International.