Understanding Transnational Governance

Everyday Extremism and Its Connection to Governance

The concept of everyday extremism is central to understanding the broader implications of these governance models. Everyday extremism refers to the subtle, often unnoticed ways in which extremist behaviors, attitudes, or ideologies become normalized within daily life, gradually influencing societal structures and interactions. This normalization can result in polarized communities, weakened democratic institutions, and an increase in hostile or exclusionary behaviors.

Governance models in effect to protectionism, whether focused on reshoring, offshoring or hybrid systems, could influence how societies would respond to everyday extremism. They would also be affected by protectionist politics that may call for extremist solutions for global economy related implications on job markets and production. Policies that regulate both the economy and social life also shape how extremist ideologies are either curbed or inadvertently encouraged (see case On Being an Ally). By focusing on regulatory frameworks, social rights, and policy outcomes, the interactive map highlights how different governance approaches can either mitigate or exacerbate everyday extremism within various contexts.

Reshoring: National Governance in a Globalized World

In the reshoring scenario, governance is predominantly centered on the nation-state. Companies and industries that were once operating abroad are brought back to their home countries. This model is driven by the idea that national control over production, labor, and economic policies fosters greater stability and security. It also offers more localized conditions to managing issues covering extremism, where the state or locally-headquartered companies would have more direct control over the regulatory environment, production processes at home and the social rights of its citizens.

However, reshoring also presents challenges. While it may provide greater national control, it can lead to isolationist policies that neglect the interconnected nature of the global economy. Moreover, focusing primarily on domestic policies may overlook the transnational influences that contribute to extremism, such as online radicalization or international political movements. This scenario encourages reflection on the balance between national security and global cooperation, particularly in the context of regulating everyday extremism.

Offshoring: Navigating Global Governance and Transnational Influences

Offshoring is rooted in the idea of global economic production which is the underlying element of globalisation. By moving operations to other countries, companies may take advantage of lower costs, skilled labor, and favorable regulatory environments. This governance model emphasizes the importance of international agreements, trade policies, and global cooperation to manage cross-border economic activities.

From the perspective of extremism and social cohesion, offshoring presents unique challenges. Transnational governance requires coordination between countries with different legal, cultural, and political frameworks, which can make it difficult to address localized issues such as everyday extremism. Furthermore, the lack of consistent regulatory oversight across borders may create opportunities for extremist ideologies to spread unchecked. The offshoring scenario highlights the importance of developing transnational governance mechanisms that can effectively address both economic integration and the rise of extremist narratives.

Hybrid Governance: Bridging National and Global Approaches

The hybrid governance scenario in effect to economic production offers a middle ground, combining elements of both reshoring and offshoring. In this model, national and international regulations co-exist, creating a layered governance system that addresses both local and global challenges. Hybrid governance reflects the reality that many industries, especially in sectors like technology and finance, cannot be easily confined to national borders. Instead, they operate within a fluid space where governance is shaped by both domestic laws and international agreements.

In terms of addressing extremism, hybrid governance offers the potential for more comprehensive solutions. By integrating local regulatory frameworks with global governance structures, hybrid systems can create more adaptive and responsive policies. This allows for the development of regulatory responses that are attuned to the complexities of everyday extremism, where extremist behaviors and ideologies can be influenced by both local and global factors.

We use the framework suggested by the American philosopher Nancy Fraser in her book Scales of Justice: Reimagining Political Space in a Globalizing World, and particularly in chapter 4 entitled Abnormal Justice, in which she explains that until recently, struggles for justice proceeded against the background of a taken-for-granted frame: the bounded territorial state, in which the scope of justice was rarely subject to open dispute. Today however, the view that justice can only be a domestic relation among fellow citizens is challenged. Fraser asks: What is the proper frame for theorizing justice? Faced with a plurality of competing scales, how do we know which one is truly just? Our interactive map aims to depict these challenges in a user-friendly way, thus combining theory and real-world examples and data. Our aim is to invite the general public and policy makers to think through these challenges together, that left unanalyzed and unattended often result in extremism and erosions of democracy,

Exploring the Map: A Tool for Dialogue and Policy Development

This interactive map is more than just a visual guide—it is a tool designed to foster dialogue and engagement with the complexities of transnational governance. As users navigate through the different scenarios of reshoring, offshoring, and hybrid governance, they are invited to consider how these models impact real-world challenges, including extremism, human rights, and social cohesion. The map also serves as a practical tool for policymakers, analysts, and scholars, offering insights into how governance systems can be adapted to better address the rise of everyday extremism.
By presenting case studies, real-world examples and data, the map encourages users to think critically about the relationship between governance models and societal outcomes. It highlights the need for a nuanced approach to policy development, where the interplay between national and international governance is carefully considered in order to create more effective regulatory responses.

Conclusion

The interactive map on transnational governance scenarios provides a valuable resource for understanding how different governance models—reshoring, offshoring, and hybrid governance—shape the world we live in. Through the lens of everyday extremism, it emphasizes the importance of developing policies that are responsive to both local and global challenges. By navigating the intricacies of these governance models, users can gain a deeper appreciation for the complexities of transnational governance and its impact on social cohesion, human rights, and the regulation of extremist behaviors.