In today’s complex and interconnected world, the existing nation-state system faces significant challenges in addressing global issues and promoting international cooperation. In this essay, we elaborate upon the notion of “coordi-nations” as a new institutional structure with the potential to foster cooperation at a global scale. Coordi-nations present themselves as an alternative to the nation-state system that recognize new ways of organizing and facilitating collective action. By leveraging the opportunities presented by the information and communication revolution, coordi-nations have the ability to tackle global challenges while promoting inclusivity, participation, and diversity.
Nation-states, despite their historical significance, exhibit several limitations. Membership in traditional nation-states are determined by blood or by land, without easy mechanisms to opt-in or opt-out. This can lead to a sense of exclusion, or coercion into a particular jurisdiction. Moreover, nation-states struggle to address global challenges such as climate change, due to institutional inertia and the territorial limitations of governance and authority. These limitations have contributed to a decline of trust in the institution of the state, especially in the international arena, a decreasing sense of agency and shared identity among individual citizens.
Coordi-nations, as a novel institutional structure, offer an innovative and collaborative approach to global cooperation. They tap into the potential of information and communication technologies, providing opportunities for coordination, governance, and collective agency that were previously unexplored. Coordi-nations do not seek to replace nation-states but rather offer a new take on the existing concept of the “nation” (as opposed to the “state”), that supports and cultivates emergent national identities (i.e. digital nations). Coordi-nations rely on networked communication in order to create infrastructures of sovereignty, which allows for the growth and adaptation of the coordi-nation over time.
Coordi-nations share some similarities with Balaji Srinivasan's concept of the network state, as both relate to alternative forms of governance and coordination beyond the Westphalian state system. However, they also differ in their underlying principles and approaches. Here's a comparative analysis between the two concepts:
-
Scope: The network state concept envisions a comprehensive replacement or alternative to traditional nation-states. It seeks to create a parallel state infrastructure that operates through digital networks and platforms. Coordi-nations, on the other hand, do not necessarily aim to replace nation-states but rather explore new ways in which existing and emerging national identities can be supported or formed via digital technologies. Coordi-nations can coexist with nation-states, introducing new layers of sovereignty that are not inherently territorial.
-
Approach to Identity: The network state concept does not specifically address the formation of collective identities or national identities but rather focuses on the use of technology to coordinate groups of aligned individuals. Coordi-nations, on the other hand, emphasize the formation of collective identities and belonging based on shared values, solidarity, mutualization, agentic governance and voluntary association..
-
Technological Emphasis: Balaji Srinivasan's network state concept heavily relies on technology, particularly blockchain and digital platforms, to enable new forms of governance and coordination. It envisions the use of digital currencies, smart contracts, and decentralized applications as core infrastructure of the network state. Coordi-nations may or may not rely specifically on blockchain technology for coordination, but also acknowledges the many ways in which networked communication and digital tools have introduced new forms of coordination and decision making, that instrument indentity formation and belonging.
-
Relationship to Existing Institutions: The network state concept does not propose a significant departure from the institutional form of the state, nor does it encompass a complete replacement or transformation of existing governance structures. Because a network state ultimately qualifies as a state, it can enter into partnership with other nation states as any other actor in international relations. Coordi-nations, on the other hand, do not try to replicate the existing infrastructure of the state, but rather intend to support and cultivate new layers of sovereignty associated with nation-like communities. Coordi-nations cultivate opportunities for mutualism and solidarity outside the framework of existing institutions, without necessarily competing with them.
Although coordi-nations are organized around kinship, shared identity and belonging that have nation-like qualities, they also differ from traditional national identity in a variety of ways:
Foundation: Traditional nations are typically territorially bound, where a defined geographic area is considered the homeland of the nation. Coordi-nations, on the other hand, are normatively non-territorial in nature. They are formed through voluntary association, shared values, and mutualism rather than geographic boundaries.
Membership: In traditional nations, membership is determined by birthright or citizenship tied to a territory. Individuals born into a nation are implicitly subject to its customs and traditions. In coordi-nations, membership is based on voluntary association and shared sense of belonging. People voluntary join or associate with one or more coordi-nation based on their affinity with that coordination's activities and values.
Relationship to Power: Traditional national identity is often closely tied to the nation-state and its exercise of power and governance. It can reinforce the authority and legitimacy of the state, and the state, in turn, may use national identity to maintain social cohesion and political control. Coordi-nations, on the other hand, prioritize participatory governance and decentralized decision-making in a self contained domain that exists in parallel to the state. They seek to distribute power among their members and promote a sense of autonomy and agency.
Plurality: Traditional national identity tends to emphasize a singular shared identity, positioned as a singular, overarching organizing principle of a person’s identity. Coordi-nations, on the other hand, recognize and embrace plurality. Individuals and communities within the coordination may have different backgrounds, identities, and perspectives, and identify with multiple coordi-nations. At the same time, coordi-nations strive to foster inclusivity, allowing for the coexistence of multiple identities and promoting dialogue, cooperation, and mutual understanding through shared projects, collectivization of resources, and participatory governance mechanisms.
Coordi-nations provide a range of benefits that can enhance global cooperation. Coordi-nations encourage the production of co-created value, fair and empowering modes of production, and polycentric provisioning of shared needs. At scale, this can lead to the creation of meaningful public infrastructure and institutions with agentic bottom up governance. These features offer a new approach to addressing complex global challenges, such as climate change, by leveraging the collective intelligence and resources of networked communities.
Coordinations build upon the existing concept of nations and introduce a novel means for producing nation-like kinship. They rely on new forms of institutional scaffolding to enable and support of these national identities, which may look very different from the Westphalian state structure. Coordi-nations research seeks to explore new institutional designs that meet these goals. By emphasizing bottom-up design, adaptability, and interconnectedness, coordinations enable the exploration of new possibilities while maintaining a symbiotic relationship with the existing state system.
Exclosures can be a useful way for coordinations to coexist with existing nation-states by creating a self-contained domain of social dynamics in which new power structures, new governance models, autonomy, and self-determination can be developed, ensuring flexibility and adaptability, promoting innovation and diversity. Through exclosures, coordinations can carve out spaces where their unique approaches to cooperation and governance can thrive, while still maintaining connections and engaging in constructive relationships with the wider societal and governmental contexts. More specifically, exclosures may be useful for the following reasons:
-
Testing and Prototyping: Coordinations, as new institutional structures, require the flexibility to test and prototype different forms of governance and organization. Exclosures allow coordinations to create and operate in specific domains independent of territorial laws and regulations, creating an environment conducive to experimentation. This enables coordinations to experiment with governance, adapt to emerging challenges, and identify effective practices. These innovations can potentially influence and inspire broader societal and governmental systems, contributing to the evolution of governance structures at all levels.
-
Autonomy and Self-Determination: Coordinations seek to provide individuals with a greater sense of autonomy and self-determination. Exclosures allow coordinations to establish their own set of rules and norms, enabling participants to collectively shape their desired system of governance. This autonomy ensures that the coordination can align its practices and decision-making processes with the values and interests of its members without undue interference from external authorities.
-
Flexibility and Adaptability: Exclosures provide coordinations with the flexibility to respond to changing circumstances and evolving needs. Adaptability allows coordinations to remain agile and responsive, fostering their capacity to cooperate with other stakeholders, including nation-states, while maintaining their distinct identities and goals.
In conclusion, coordinations represent a new institutional structure that can foster cooperation at a global scale. By addressing the limitations of the nation-state system and leveraging the opportunities presented by the information and communication revolution, coordinations empower individuals, promote inclusivity and symbiotic relationships with their external environment, enable mutualization, and facilitate collective action. Through their bottom-up design, adaptability, and emphasis on opt-in participation, coordinations have the potential to efficiently address global challenges, nurture diverse national identities, and contribute to a more cooperative and collaborative society.
