Ever since the end of the Cold War, in many different places around the world, scholars have set up new centres for the study of something called ‘global governance’. The words are supposed to convey some kind of alternative to the system of states, yet something subtly different from world government. The dictionary definitions of governance – ‘a system of rules’ – however, fails to make a clear distinction between governance and government. Perhaps deliberately, ‘governance’ sounds rather vague, while government is more precise and familiar. If there is a clear and essential difference between the two, it remains elusive.

What the sudden mushrooming of these new centres suggests, though, is that the search is on for better ways of managing society and economy than has so far been achieved through the unaided efforts of the individual nation-states. Foundations have readily provided the resources for research into ‘global governance’ – often without any clear idea of what it may mean. New journals and a great many conferences with similar titles have proliferated. At the same time, there has been a parallel revival of interest among policymakers as well as academics in the possibilities for reform of existing international organisations from the United Nations to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

Few would disagree, I think, that the results of this spate of intellectual activity have been extremely meagre. There has been a great deal of political rhetoric.