SOME CRITICAL NOTES ON “ GOVERNANCE ” William Walters Long used as a synonym for “government,” the word “governance” has, in the last 10 years or so, been given a new theoretical status and centrality within political studies. 1 A growing body of work whose concern is to chart the transformation of political order is taking shape under the rubric of gov- ernance. 2 At its core, this governance or “new” governance literature suggests that the nature of political rule has changed quite fundamentally. Contrary to those who once called for political studies to “bring back the state,” 3 research on governance is skeptical about the conceptual centrality and valid- ity of the state. 4 Theorists of governance argue that the age when the state monopolized and was synonymous with governance is passing, the image of authority flowing from a fixed, institutional centre outmoded. Instead, they insist we inhabit a world characterized by governance. As societies have become more complex, and social demands have proliferated, politi- cal authority has become polycentric and multileveled. Rule operates not over but in a complex relationship with a dense field of public and private actors. Lines between public and private have become blurred. Given the prominence of governance and its growing use in policy circles, it is surprising that the critical literature in this area is not more extensive. There is a striking imbalance between the exponential growth of a literature applying governance to particular cases and areas, and research that critically examines the foundational assumptions and political impli- cations of governance. There have certainly been a number of helpful overviews of governance which have sought to clarify many of its ambigu- ities. For instance, these have surveyed different uses of governance, such as “corporate governance” and governance as “new public management,” 5 and Studies in Political Economy 73 SPRING / SUMMER 2004 27