From Governance to Governmentality: A critique of (neo-)liberal theory and practice in international relations.

Over the last ten years or so, ‘global governance’ has emerged as a (neo-)liberal research agenda in international relations theory. This theorizing is closely related to emerging neo-liberal practices, where market mechanisms and civil society have assumed an important role in the governance of society. Following the lead of James Rosenau and others, this literature seeks to theorize about the content and dynamics of governance without government . Or, in the words of Ernst-Otto Czempiel, governance is defined as the capacity to get things done without the legal competence to command that they be done (1992: 250). It is precisely in its lack of a formal-juridical backing that governance is rendered a useful analytical intake, it is argued, to the study of international politics. There is also a dialogue between theory and practice: International commissions and inter-governmental processes have identified both global governance and good governance as central themes and objectives, while journals such as Global Governance have served as sites for the conceptual clarification and empirical substantiation of what governance is. Concurrently, the more theoretically oriented literature in IR theory has done much to identify how governance operates through a host of formal and informal, state and non-state, national and transnational practices. A central theme has been the role of so-called civil society organizations, particularly through the norms-based advocacy that these perform and thus influence state behavior (see Risse, Ropp and Sikking (1999), FInnemore and SIkkink (1998). The first part of the paper presents this literature and deducts from it certain hypotheses about state-society relations and the functioning of power that is embedded in this literature. The second part proceeds to introduce a different theoretical reading of these same practices with inspiration from the literature on governmentality that was first introduced by Michel Foucault, and has later been developed by Nikolas Rose, Peter Miller and Barry Hindess. Within this theoretical framework, various (neo-)liberal practices of rule are conceptualized in a different way with respect, first, to state-society relations, and, second, to the functioning of power. The third part of the paper proceeds to test two sets of hypotheses derived from this theoretical perspective about state-society relations and about the functioning of power against two case studies that goes to the heart of what global governance is said to be, namely international conferences resulting in plans for action and legislation adopted by states. One case study concerns the role of civil society organizations in the formulation of international population policy (1984-1994), and the other the role of civil society organizations in the campaign to ban landmines (1989-1999). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]