Regulation & Governance (2007) 1, 88–97doi:10.1111/j.1748-5991.2007.00001.x RESEARCH FORUM Governing the ungovernable: The challenge of a global disaggregation of authority James N. Rosenau Political Science Department, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA Abstract The processes of globalization have led to a proliferation of spheres of authority and significant challenges for global governance. In this paper is discussed the concept of spheres of authority, the factors that encourage their proliferation, and the prospects for global governance in a world of disaggregated authority. The proliferation of spheres of authority does not mean that global governance is impossible, but that it will not result from a global government. Instead, governance will emerge from the interaction of overlapping spheres of authority; regulation will be achieved not through centralized authority but through the spread of norms, informal rules, and regimes. Keywords: authority, complexity, globalization, governance, regulation. Introduction There is a pervasive assertion in both popular and academic discussion that world affairs are organized and run by a sole superpower – the USA. However, another pervasive claim holds that the world is undergoing a profound disaggregation of authority. Is it possible, then, to reconcile these two claims? Can a world of disaggregated authority be dominated by a hegemonic superpower? I have argued elsewhere that the influence of the USA is greatly exaggerated and the assumption of dominance erroneous (Rosenau 2005). Instead, the disaggregation of power into myriad spheres of authority (SOA) is the central tendency in world affairs. This paper addresses the prospects for regulating and governing SOA as they proliferate at every level of community, in every realm of activity, and in every part of the world. Theories of authority Research in international relations typically follows one of the dominant theoretical perspectives in the field, and each theory has a different approach and answer to questions Correspondence: Professor James N. Rosenau, The George Washington University, Gelman 709C, 2130 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20052, USA. Email:
[email protected] Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the annual conference of the International Society for NeoInstitutional Economics, Tucson, Arizona, USA (30 September to 3 October 2004), and the conference sponsored by the Governance Research Group at the University of Ghent, Belgium (14–15 November 2005). Accepted for publication 25 June 2006. ª 2007 The Author Journal compilation ª 2007 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd however. an inclination that fluctuates with ª 2007 The Author Journal compilation ª 2007 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd 89 . there are countless SOA. but none of them satisfactorily resolves the question of authority and governance in an increasingly globalized world.g. pp. others are narrow. Keohane 1984). NGO. international. whereas others are formal and internationally recognized states. national. p. p. but most of which are not bound by strict rules of procedure and are thus able to adjust their procedures to the circumstances they are confronting. some are active within communities and initiate repercussions that span borders. and supranational ‘authorities’ simultaneously?’’ Indeed. counters that governance is indeed possible because cooperation is in the interest of the states and their interests are not always mutually exclusive (e. In all of these capacities. for example. Under realism. as an entirely subjective structure that exists only because of – and can be changed through – discourse. reflecting contemporary changes in global politics. Constructivist scholars go further. a perspective closely related to realism. It involves people knowing when. Hall and Biersteker (2002.2 Directives are usually framed and issued by policy-making bodies. some are informal networks of like-minded citizens. some are corporations and others are nongovernmental organizations (NGO). special interest organizations. 3.1 Some of the SOA consist of broad-gauged advocacy networks. not only are the local. ‘‘Is there any reason a post-modern person could not deal with subnational. but their success in overcoming difficult situations depends on the degree to which those targeted by the directives are ready to comply with them. some of which are formally constituted. In effect. N. Describing these phenomena as spheres helps deterritorialize the concept of authority. The distinguishing and prime characteristic of any SOA involves the issuance of directives by its leadership and the compliance of its adherents. Wendt 1999). regional. Other theories. national and global stages crowded with SOA. The term ‘‘sphere’’ indicates a particular realm or locus as. a theory widely taught and used by US academics. More than that. in the literal sense of the term. Compliance is the key to SOA that manage to persist and move to toward their goals. SOA see situations that require them to engage in regulatory activities. 67) asks.Governing the ungovernable J. civil society. are more sympathetic to the possibility of cooperation. no state has authority – ‘‘legitimized power’’ – over another and governance is impossible because those states exist in an anarchic system (Hall & Biersteker 2002. contending that interests and identities are not always given and so states can be shaped and adapted to encourage cooperation and reframe problems of authority (e. Both formal and informal types of decision mechanism are vulnerable to controversy and factional in-fighting. 4–5) distinguish between private and public spheres. These theories have their merits. Spheres of authority It was the poverty of the current vocabulary in international relations that led me to coin the phrase ‘‘spheres of authority’’ to describe the entities wherein authority is presently located and may undergo disaggregation. whereas others are transnational in scope with units in several countries. where and how to respond to requests for their compliance. Rosenau of authority and governance. but in every realm they are proliferating at an enormous but not easily calculable rate. Neoliberalism. intergovernmental organizations or. Critical theorists offer the most malleable vision of the state. none of them conceptualizes the nature of change and how it can be traced empirically. all SOA are here conceived to be either governments. see also Waltz 1979). As Kobrin (2002.g. Whether it is effective depends entirely on the relations between those who preside over the SOA and the compliantees. compliance is not automatic. can fall on the low end of the compliance continuum. the greater will be their difficulties in generating compliance. complex interdependency. but most of the situations in the world it faces are not amenable to the application of force. No matter how deep-seated compliance habits may be and irrespective of the degree to which the habits are subconscious. established to certify wood and paper products from responsibly managed forests. or immediate or halting. Gulbrandsen 2006). a number of diverse circumstances can lead individuals to resist directives and avoid compliance. modeling. Of course. normative commitments’’ and ‘‘capacity building’’ (Braithwaite & Drahos 2000. Some. SOA are no more effective than the degree to which they can evoke the compliance of their members/supporters. even paralyze. compliance can be coerced. a huge number of variables can shape compliance. compliance can be intentional or unintentional. Iraq and France indicate that public turmoil can greatly limit. generate favorable votes in international organizations. The USA has the military capacity to subdue any other SOA. persuade central banks to lower or raise their exchange rates. the capacity of states to generate compliance. Rosenau Governing the ungovernable the depth of compliance habits. some that stem from the conduct of the authorities and others that are embedded in the orientations and behavior of the compliantees. prevent adversaries from rearming or forming alliances. 555). or halt or reverse the spread of epidemics. the degree of commitment to the SOA goals and the resources available to both the SOA and the ‘‘compliantees’’. the enormous proliferation of SOA emphasizes the severe constraints on the ability of a superpower to generate the compliance necessary for it to maintain order on a global scale or. Superpower authority Viewed through the prism of authority relations. but it can also result from ‘‘institutionalized habit.J. Compliance To comply with a directive is to engage in an action that can stem from diverse sources. As implied. active in more than 40 countries. is another example of a nongovernmental SOA that generates the compliance of its adherents (Bernstein & Hannah 2006. The less formal the basis of their organization. p. produce desired outcomes in foreign elections. to mention only 90 ª 2007 The Author Journal compilation ª 2007 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd . In other words. the recent histories of Haiti. It follows that compliance is profoundly relational. a fundamental reality that is a prime source of the barriers to governability. like the political–Islamist organization Hizb-ut-Tahrir (HuT). nation-states. get leaders abroad to offer expressions of support. conscious or subconscious. Even the most formally organized SOA. to realize its goals in myriad situations. exact significant compliance from their followers. Indeed. The Forest Stewarship Council. foment public resistance to radical policies pursued by newly victorious foreign leaders. encourage governments to lower tariff barriers. N. at least. but lacking a territorial base or state sponsorship. Bombs and armies cannot compel allies to join coalitions of the willing. Importantly. redefining of interests. HuT seeks to unify Muslims in a global caliphate (Baran 2005). however. promote democratic institutions where none has existed before. the result of a host of interactive and reinforcing dynamics. the issues involved. Shared concerns about human rights are a major source of the organizational explosion and so are the challenges posed by the natural environment. To be sure. a mushrooming of organizations. 10) – the expanding ability of people in all walks of life to know their own value and perceive where they are best articulated in the competition that marks an ever-more crowded global stage. political agendas grow at a rate comparable to the ever-greater ª 2007 The Author Journal compilation ª 2007 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd 91 . such institutions lack the characteristics of superpowers. are SOA in the sense that they issue directives to which their members often comply. Does the absence of superpowers point to vacuums of authority. Authority vacuums occur when chaos is so prevalent that lines of authority are so obscure that no actor can issue directives with the hope of achieving compliance. N. These. Authority in deterritorialized worlds The limits within which authority can be generated and sustained are not confined to the superpower. Rather. but that attachment is more flexible and less binding than was the case before the acceleration of globalization since the end of the cold war in 1989–1991. jobs. the key question is whether the leadership of SOA can exercise the authority accorded them by their followers. More than that. Globalizing dynamics are numerous and varied. seize the opportunities to mobilize the support they need and regulate the course of events in their spheres. crime and drugs across their borders. in the absence of a superpower. the proliferation of SOA and the weakening of states reduces the relevance of territory and long-standing boundaries.Governing the ungovernable J. of people coming together to ensure movement toward their goals. to political spaces in which no actor or cluster of actors can effectively resort to authoritative action? Not at all: the vast proliferation of SOA portends less of the influence of superpowers and more of a pervasive competition for the attention and loyalty of compliantees. too. The result of these expanding skills is. Nevertheless. ideas.3 but in combination they weaken the ability of states to manage the flow of people. Ch. trade. Rosenau a few of the situations in which the USA cannot presently use its military resources and with respect to which it is no more powerful than any other country. The doldrums are unlikely to dominate the global stage because diverse SOA perceive diverse ways of getting onto the stage and persuading like-minded others to comply with their appeals for support. All states have had their capacities to exercise monopolistic control diminished at a rate comparable to the rapid acceleration of globalization. pollution. Indeed. the World Bank and the World Trade Organization as well as powerful states like the USA. money. Of course. are conceived to share their basic perspectives toward the dynamics that are sustaining and expanding globalization. what some might call ‘‘the hegemonic power structure’’ includes international organizations such the International Monetary Fund. in every realm of activity and in all regions of the world is the product of a number of dynamics presently at work on the world scene. independent of where they reside. territory – the homeland – remains an important attachment for people everywhere. Now it is possible – and perhaps increasingly likely – for people to be attached to nonterritorial and imagined or virtual worlds in which they feel close to people who. The organizational explosion The vast proliferation of organizations at every level of community. among other things. as some of their directives are ignored and unenforced. Perhaps the prime dynamic is what I call the ‘‘skill revolution’’ (Rosenau 2003. in turn. This in no way implies that the skill revolution involves people everywhere converging around the same values and interests. The directives may conflict with those of other SOA to which a person is responsive. they may seem hasty and ill-conceived. conservative and liberal. as noted. Some types of organization still retain high degrees of hierarchy. eventually some directives undergo sufficient modification to generate widespread compliance on the part of those who engage in the collective action. the cell phone and a number of other recent electronic technologies have had powerful consequences for the organizational explosion. Their lessened hierarchy may or may not make organizations more open and democratic. adherents are more able to 92 ª 2007 The Author Journal compilation ª 2007 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd . educated and undereducated. The recent trend in the USA toward shareholders seeking to alter the policies and boards of corporations is a quintessential example of the consequences that can flow from a diminution of organizational hierarchy. Contrariwise. but a preponderance of the preInternet organizations and virtually all new ones are founded on more horizontal lines of authority in which individuals can exercise greater influence over their organization’s directives and direction. Friedman 2005). To be sure. black and white – lacked the skills necessary to identify and pursue their goals. Put differently. they may appear unwise or counterproductive. Rosenau Governing the ungovernable complexity of modern life. each new organization evolves a SOA charged with protecting and advancing the common interests of its adherents. rich and poor. the fax machine. with the result that there are new organizations in virtually every realm of human activity. but however they are experienced and however long it may take for an individual to conclude the collective action is warranted. Indeed. to a flattening of most organizations which. It is clear that the organizational explosion is the central source underlying the pervasive processes whereby authority is undergoing continued disaggregation. And by definition. But these processes would not be so pervasive if people everywhere – young and old. of course. in the worst case. but for present purposes they have also led to horizontal networks. values and/or their nonterritorial orientations. has resulted in an empowerment of their adherents (Castells 1996. more susceptible to shifts in course or. The skill revolution is worldwide in scope and it rests on the growing capacity of individuals everywhere to know when. executives and workers. The influence of electronic technologies The Internet. organizations are increasingly able to inform and mobilize their adherents as well as recruit new adherents. thus rendering the distant very proximate (and vice versa). The global stage is crowded with SOA precisely because issues and the values that sustain them vary.J. more prone to decisional paralysis. N. such a readiness is not automatic. an awareness that in turn prods them into converging with others who are similarly inclined. where and how to engage in collective action and to comprehend that their pooled actions require a readiness to accede to their leaders who issue directives for them to follow. Rather. Not only have the various technologies greatly reduced time and distance. the skill revolution is a powerful source of the organizational explosion because people have become more aware of their own cultures. it can easily be argued that the ability of SOA to mobilize organizational support becomes increasingly difficult as the skill revolution becomes more engrained and widespread. with some that encompass large concerns and others that are limited to particularistic issues in particular locales. but their increased horizontality renders them more flexible and more erratic. Governing the ungovernable Assuming the organizational explosion. non-governmental mechanisms whereby those persons and organizations within its purview move ahead. along what dimensions can a modicum of external regulation be achieved? Or is the global stage so crowded with diverse SOA that they cannot be subjected to effective government? Indeed. whereas governance refers to activities backed by shared goals that may or may not derive from legal and formally prescribed responsibilities and that do not necessarily rely on police powers to overcome defiance and attain compliance. thus adding to the warp and woof of daily life on the global stage. and beyond the jurisdiction of sovereign states. satisfy needs. Effective governance can be as decentralized as the SOA over which control is sought. The record of human ingenuity is too impressive to conclude that the coordination of a jam-packed global stage is bound to fail. More accurately. Thus ‘governance’ can and does exist within. but it also subsumes informal. In the first place. Put more succinctly. not infrequently intraorganizational squabbles can lead to an organization splitting into two separate entities. Second. to systems of rule. and ‘global governance’ refers to the patterns of SOAs in the world and not to a form of world government’’ (Ferguson 2002). p. is a more encompassing phenomenon than government. thereby extending the trend toward disaggregation and further crowding the global stage. Both refer to purposive behavior. it is premature to offer a negative response to these questions. Indeed. the diminution of hierarchy and the disaggregation of authority is worldwide in scope – not an unreasonable assumption despite some exceptions to these trends – the question immediately arises as to how the disarray of an ever-more crowded global stage can be externally regulated and governed. across.Governing the ungovernable J. The order would appear as routine compliance with social norms and the collective infliction of sanctions on those who violate them. by definition all SOA govern ‘‘within their respective and often shared domains. in other words. N. But the criterion of global governance as a mechanism of coordination is plausible. As I have noted elsewhere. At the very least. by police powers to ensure the implementation of duly constituted policies. 4). one is inclined to examine alternative responses. Posner (2000. much less a government. Several grounds for a positive response are readily discernible. is it possible to envision even a modicum of coordination. to goal-oriented activities. It embraces governmental institutions. and fulfill their wants (Rosenau & Czempiel 1992. The world is too complex and diverse to evolve global government consisting of a single global authority. among them? Depressing as the evolving global scene may be. Governance. 3) describes such decentralized governance in societies as the operation of social norms: In a world with no law and rudimentary government. it is erroneous to posit regulation on a global scale – global government – as a criterion for promoting order in the global stage. but government suggests activities that are backed by formal authority. order of some sort would exist. given the density of the global stage. p. Rosenau mobilize opposition to their organization’s policies. the regulatory mechanisms required for effective governance need not be centralized to maintain coordination among them. governance is not synonymous with government. ª 2007 The Author Journal compilation ª 2007 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd 93 . a trend line that seems bound to lead eventually to ever-greater degrees of coordination. demands for transparency and accountability are being made across a wide swathe of the global stage. still others are international.4 The disaggregation of authority means that SOA develop in a world. moreover. Viewed thus.J. a complex structure that more often than not renders compliance with regime directives variable and tenuous. Rosenau Governing the ungovernable What is true of domestic society is also true for a society of SOA. domestic or even transnational governance. they can inform the development of regulations by governments and other SOA with law-making authority.5 and still others lack the financial resources to circumnavigate the crowded global stage. they consist of one or more SOA that seek compliance on the part of adherents that also adhere to SOA of their own. In short. At the core of complexity theory is the complex adaptive system: not a cluster of unrelated activities. 12–13) have persuasively argued for a ‘‘boomerang pattern.’’ Composed as they are of governments. whereas others are riven by internal tensions and conflict. a set of ideas originally developed by natural scientists and also used by some economists. This is complexity theory. Such a match does not presently prevail. others are national. Complexity theory In recent years. Whatever may be their links to regimes. In effect. however. ‘‘in which powerful commercial and activist groups shape the debate and often determine outcomes. p. but this reality need not hamper global governance if the match between the variability and the regulatory mechanisms is a good one. the structures of such regimes can have limited viability and most are marked by tensions and enduring conflicts between competing factions. as described by Haufler (2001.’’ In similar ways. whereas these norms are not themselves laws or regulations. always remain outside the matrix of coordination – such as crime syndicates or terrorist groups – but the mavericks are less a measure of the limits of global governance than the widening breadth of the coordination matrix. the innumerable SOA are marked by extensive variability. but all of them are transnational in the sense that their adherents can and do move across national boundaries in order to pursue or sustain the goals of their SOA.’’ wherein ‘‘domestic NGOs bypass their state and directly search out international allies to try to bring pressure on their states from outside. All too many SOA are either committed to goals that render them unresponsive to external regulatory mechanisms or they are too weak to effectively generate forms of cooperative compliance on the part of their adherents that enable them to act constructively on the global stage. 94 ª 2007 The Author Journal compilation ª 2007 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd . Keck and Sikkink (1998. and the operation of norms is an increasingly important focus for students of world politics. some of the SOA are coherent and effective. is in the right direction. For example. a theory and a method to investigate the disaggregation of authority have evolved that facilitate tracing movement along the trend line. corporations and interest groups. which is making inroads into other social sciences as well. emerging norms can be incorporated into local. some of the extant SOA are local in scope. The trend line. Some maverick SOA will. pp. from a monetary regime to one designed to exert control over the production and distribution of oil. 121). Likewise. Furthermore. it is hardly surprising that transnational regimes have evolved in a variety of realms of activity – from the protection of whales to the removal of land mines. doubtless. Increasingly. N. from efforts to reduce corruption to attempts to minimize pollution – not all of which are the result of concerted action by states. not a simple system. and all of which either engage in patterned behavior as they sustain day-to-day routines or break with the routines when new challenges require new responses and new patterns. N. that we have only the one world to analyze. There is. from efforts to preserve a nuclear proliferation ª 2007 The Author Journal compilation ª 2007 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd 95 . Like any complex adaptive system in the natural world. Such. from the formation of a global network of governments that contests terrorism to international courts of justice. is the modern urban community. and not a static. Still. A third methodology. How does one know if the global system is moving in this direction? The most obvious and immediate test is qualitative analysis. Rosenau but a system. they will not yield to the degree of regulation one might wish for. which used a computer simulation to show how cooperation can emerge among selfinterested actors.7 A classic example of this kind of research is Axelrod’s (1984) Evolution of Cooperation. in so doing. is simulation using agent-based models. and the international system.Governing the ungovernable J. The crowding of the global stage with an ever-greater number and variety of SOA bespeaks complexity on a grand scale. but a complex adaptive system. The interrelationships of the agents are what make them a system.6 The disaggregation of authority on a global scale is a quintessential instance of a complex adaptive system. through acting autonomously. In any case. even probably. The capacity of the agents to break with routines and thus initiate unfamiliar feedback processes is what makes the system complex (as in a simple system all the agents consistently act in prescribed ways). they coevolve through time. and nothing with which to compare it. unchanging set of arrangements. But complexity theory postulates that despite their number and variety. the technique helps solve a central dilemma of social science research. can have an influence on the others. The speed and capacity of modern computers allow for very complicated simulations – in effect. so that conceivably. each one of which is potentially capable of being an autonomous agent that. then. The capacity of the agents to cope collectively with the new challenges is what makes them adaptive systems. Another test might determine whether disaggregation of authority leads to heterogeneity or homogeneity among SOA as they evolve. the architecture for a modicum of global governance can be discerned in a variety of forms. the nation-state. no magic inherent in complexity theory or its methods. but as discussed this is limited or obscured by the proliferation of SOA. computer-based experiments – which give researchers control over a wide range of variables and the ability to create model systems reflecting the structural constraints of the real world. thereby becoming increasingly adaptive to each other and. The processes of coevolution and adaptation are slow and cumbersome. but a complex one. achieving a measure of coordination that may be increasingly subject to regulation. Such a system is distinguished by a set of interrelated parts. A similar experiment might test whether hierarchical or decentralized organizations are best able to interact with each other in a rapidly changing environment. unique to complexity theory. This technique allows those versed in it (which I am not) to observe the interaction and feedback processes through which the numerous and diverse SOA react to each other as they cope with challenges and seize opportunities. of course. More rigorous is the use of quantitative data. the agents that comprise world affairs are brought together into systemic wholes that consist of patterned structures that are ever subject to transformation as a result of feedback processes from their external environments or from internal stimuli that provoke the agents to break with their established routines. from SOA concerned with human rights to corporations that have committed to the Global Compact. 68–78. see Waldrop (1992). Rosenau Governing the ungovernable regime to sporadic efforts to address transnational environmental problems. Barringer F (2004) Bitter Division for Sierra Club on Immigration. Oxford. Hannah E (2006) Non-State Global Standard Setting and the WTO: Legitimacy and the Need for Regulatory Space. Ch. Baran Z (2005) Fighting the War of Ideas. A number of these dynamics are elaborated in Rosenau (2003. Palgrave. San Diego. New York. It is natural. for example. see Krasner (1983). Cambridge University Press. Notes 1 2 The rate is not easily estimated because many – perhaps even most – new SOA do not report their formation to centers that make such compilations. See. Presented at the 47th Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association. 3 4 5 6 7 8 References Axelrod R (1984) The Evolution of Cooperation. American Political Science Review 97. to focus on situations marked by crises and disarray. Yet. Acknowledgment My thanks go to Miles Townes (The George Washington University) for his assistance in revising the manuscript for publication. the continued disaggregation and proliferation of SOA ought not be discounted in assessing the prospects of a world without a superpower. For the contention that an intergovernmental global architecture is slowly emerging. Foreign Affairs 84. N. see Etzioni (2004). Barringer (2004). it is patterned and parts of it are susceptible to regulation. The absence of a superpower does not necessarily inhibit trends toward governance on a global scale. See. employees or citizens. Castells M (1996) The Information Age: The Rise of the Network Society. Cederman (2003). Drahos P (2000) Global Business Regulation. even easy. For a cogent discussion of complexity theory. Rather. New York Times. for example. New York. to come together to work on mutual problems. The probability of pervasive regulatory mechanisms evolving may not be very great. Blackwell. Cederman L-E (2003) Modeling the Size of Wars: From Billiard Balls to Sandpiles. in particular regions. Cambridge. Braithwaite J.8 Summing up In short. 135–150. UK. it seems preferable to refer to the persons they encompass by the generic label of ‘‘adherents’’ rather than as members. Given the variety of types of formal and informal SOA. from accelerating proposals to reform the United Nations to a growing tendency for countries. 96 ª 2007 The Author Journal compilation ª 2007 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd . Basic Books. Etzioni A (2004) From Empire to Community: A New Approach to International Relations. disaggregated global authority is not the same as global chaos. but there is a potential for more and more of them coming into being even as it sometimes seems that the world is on the brink of sheer disarray. For an early and broad formulation of the regime concept. Bernstein S.J. 3). Waltz KN (1979) Theory of International Politics. Cornell University Press. Cambridge University Press. Random House. In: Hall RB and Biersteker TJ (eds) The Emergence of Private Authority in Global Governance. N. Washington. Princeton University Press. Cambridge University Press. Sikkink K (1998) Activists Without Borders. 73–87. Straus. Princeton. Simon & Schuster. Cambridge University Press. MA. Rosenau Ferguson YH (2002) Illusions of Superpower. Friedman T (2005) The World is Flat: A Brief History of the 21st Century. Posner EA (2000) Law and Social Norms. Princeton. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Cambridge. UK. and Giroux. Rosenau JN (2005) Illusions of Power and Empire. Rosenau JN (2003) Distant Proximities: Dynamics Beyond Globalization. Haufler V (2001) Public Role for the Private Sector. Kobrin S (2002) Economic Governance in a Global Economy. Krasner SD (ed. Wendt A (1999) Social Theory of International Politics. Biersteker TJ (eds) (2002) The Emergence of Private Authority in Global Governance. Keck ME. Keohane RO (1984) After Hegemony. Harvard University Press. Cambridge. Cambridge. Czempiel E-O (eds) (1992) Governance Without Government: Order and Change in World Politics. New York. Ithaca. History and Theory 44. NJ. Farrar. Cambridge. Hall RB. New York. Rosenau JN. UK. UK. NY. Waldrop MM (1992) Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order of Chaos. Princeton University Press. Cambridge University Press. San Diego. UK. Presented at the 47th Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association. ª 2007 The Author Journal compilation ª 2007 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd 97 .) (1983) International Regimes. Cornell University Press.Governing the ungovernable J. Gulbrandsen LH (2006) Organizing Accountability in Non-State Certification Schemes: The Forest Stewardship Council as a Good Governance Model. Cambridge. New York. NY. Ithaca. NJ. Asian Journal of Political Science 11.