How does global governance differ from world government?
• Governance, broadly, refers to the various ways in which social life is co-ordinated, of which government is merely one. Global governance refers to the various processes through which decision-making and co-operation at a global level is facilitated, operating through multilateral systems of regulation. At the heart of the emerging system of global governance is the UN and its various bodies, together with the institutions of global economic governance, notably the WTO, the World Bank and the IMF. Rather than imposing their will on individual states, the processes provide the framework for the development of intergovernmental relationships, reflecting a growing acceptance of global interdependence. Global governance does not only involve intergovernmental bodies, but also the participation of non-governmental actors such as NGOs, national corporations, global capital markets, citizens’ movements and so on.
• World government, by contrast, refers to the idea of centralised authority operating through a single, supranational body. Strictly speaking, such a government would involve the establishment of a monopoly of the use of force worldwide, as well as the surrendering of sovereignty by individual states. However, the most versions of world government are based on the idea of world federalism, in which the central authority is vested with supreme authority in relation to certain functions, while state governments continue to have jurisdiction in relation to other functions. While global governance aims to containing the pressures generated by anarchy, world government would banish anarchy altogether by establishing and enforcing an international rule of law, sometimes seen as world law. Although the League of Nations and the United Nations were often presented as early prototypes of world government, neither has come close to realising this goal.