fter “the era of big government” ended in the 1990s, the 2000s and 2010s exposed the limits and discontents of globalization and market–oriented reforms. Left in their wake is a rising wave of populism capitalizing on neoliberal shortcomings and a fragmented, often chimera–like hybrid governance:
- Neonationalism is gaining ground, even as external shocks demand global cooperation and threaten the durability of local innovation.
- Trade and geopolitical alliances are shifting and increasingly transactional, further complicating collective action.
- The “Mag 7” tech giants hold market capitalizations exceeding the nominal GDP of most governments, driving borderless innovation that often outpaces regulation.
- Governments face deep resource constraints, including persistent deficits and sovereign debt crises, hindering delivery of basic public goods.
- Bilateral and multilateral aid are in decline, and philanthropy is insufficient to fill the gaps.
In theory, the resources exist to navigate this landscape. But it is unrealistic to expect governments and intergovernmental organizations—constrained by politics and competing interests—to raise and manage them effectively alone. If communities, private–sector partners, and social impact organizations are not systematically engaged to understand local context and mobilize capital and expertise, the future of hybrid governance will exclude populations who need it most.
A glocal approach, rooted in the ethos “think globally, act locally,” can help avoid this pitfall. By linking locally led development with global systems reform, it enables underserved communities to navigate market, governmental, and transnational forces on their own terms. It also addresses the tendency of place–based models to operate in silos, treating global integration as an abstract concept disconnected from local realities.
Community–centered blended finance offers one way to operationalize this approach. Place–based interventions in frontier, emerging, and developed markets are often too small to attract catalytic capital alone. However—if bundled, de–risked with concessional capital, and diversified across geographies—they can become more viable for commercial and impact investors. Such structures can expand over time by incorporating additional communities with shared challenges, increasing scale and diversification. In parallel, they can generate evidence for policymakers to inform more inclusive and responsive global norms and commitments.
Reorienting aid and investment toward community–driven, financeable, cross–border solutions is only one step toward helping the future of governance arrive well. For hybrid governance to succeed, it will require ongoing collaboration, innovation, adaptation, and coherent policymaking and capacity building among all actors shaping governance systems. There are no silver bullets, only shared accountability and learning.
a global affairs media network
A glocal approach to hybrid governance
Image via Adobe Stock.
July 23, 2025
As non–government actors get more involved in governance, a “glocal” approach that privileges shared accountability and learning is required to ensure the future of governance doesn’t exclude populations who need it most, writes Craig Grunwald.
A
fter “the era of big government” ended in the 1990s, the 2000s and 2010s exposed the limits and discontents of globalization and market–oriented reforms. Left in their wake is a rising wave of populism capitalizing on neoliberal shortcomings and a fragmented, often chimera–like hybrid governance:
- Neonationalism is gaining ground, even as external shocks demand global cooperation and threaten the durability of local innovation.
- Trade and geopolitical alliances are shifting and increasingly transactional, further complicating collective action.
- The “Mag 7” tech giants hold market capitalizations exceeding the nominal GDP of most governments, driving borderless innovation that often outpaces regulation.
- Governments face deep resource constraints, including persistent deficits and sovereign debt crises, hindering delivery of basic public goods.
- Bilateral and multilateral aid are in decline, and philanthropy is insufficient to fill the gaps.
In theory, the resources exist to navigate this landscape. But it is unrealistic to expect governments and intergovernmental organizations—constrained by politics and competing interests—to raise and manage them effectively alone. If communities, private–sector partners, and social impact organizations are not systematically engaged to understand local context and mobilize capital and expertise, the future of hybrid governance will exclude populations who need it most.
A glocal approach, rooted in the ethos “think globally, act locally,” can help avoid this pitfall. By linking locally led development with global systems reform, it enables underserved communities to navigate market, governmental, and transnational forces on their own terms. It also addresses the tendency of place–based models to operate in silos, treating global integration as an abstract concept disconnected from local realities.
Community–centered blended finance offers one way to operationalize this approach. Place–based interventions in frontier, emerging, and developed markets are often too small to attract catalytic capital alone. However—if bundled, de–risked with concessional capital, and diversified across geographies—they can become more viable for commercial and impact investors. Such structures can expand over time by incorporating additional communities with shared challenges, increasing scale and diversification. In parallel, they can generate evidence for policymakers to inform more inclusive and responsive global norms and commitments.
Reorienting aid and investment toward community–driven, financeable, cross–border solutions is only one step toward helping the future of governance arrive well. For hybrid governance to succeed, it will require ongoing collaboration, innovation, adaptation, and coherent policymaking and capacity building among all actors shaping governance systems. There are no silver bullets, only shared accountability and learning.
