Compare and Contrast Nayan Chanda's argument and Robert Goodin's arguments about the nature of global governance. Chanda argues global governance today is, as has often been the case throughout history, not keeping up with actual globalization. Goodin argues that a system of not just global governance, but world government, is actually in the process of emerging.

Based on what you've learned this semester, write a 5-6 page (double spaced) paper in which you evaluate this controversy--is Goodin correct, or Chanda? Or are they both partially correct? (If you argue they are both partially correct, it's important to be very specific about exactly how each is partly correct.) Defend your argument with specifics and examples. Your paper should cite at least 2-3 reading sources from this course (not counting Goodin and Chanda's essays) and 3-4 sources from outside this course, including at least two peer reviewed journal articles from the social sciences (you can include the one you wrote about earlier, if it's helpful for this assignment.)

The important feature to this paper is to construct a clear argument (in the form of "Goodin is correct because X" or "Goodin is right about X, but Chanda has an important point Y") and to spell it out in your first paragraph. Each subsequent paragraph should help make the case to your readers, using evidence from various readings, and your interpretation of that evidence.

Covered materials:

Main readings: Snarr and Snarr, ch. 16; Jussi Hanhimaki, The United Nations: A Very Short Introduction, ch. 1-2, Robert Goodin, "World Government is Here!" and Nayan Chanda, "Runaway Globalization Without Governance"

the books for this course:

1- Michael Snarr and D. Neil Snarr, eds. Introducing Global Issues, 5th ed.

2-Robert Bates, Prosperity and Violence: The Political Economy of Development

3- if you need some materials just ask me .