It can be argued that we are witnessing the transition from a single world of states to a multiple world of states and regions. Important actors in this new world order are the world regional organizations and regional arrangements between states that have resulted from regional integration processes. This paper explores how governance has evolved from an essentially state-led pre-occupation into a complex phenomenon that involves many other actors and that is characterized by inter-linkages between different (geographical) levels of policy-making. This paper discusses three main varieties of regional integration that currently exist. First, there is the regional integration by removing economic obstacles, a process that has resulted in a multitude of regional trade arrangements across the world. Secondly, there is the regional integration by building institutions and regulations that often go beyond economic and trade policies and that can be described as a `pooling' of sovereignty at a transnational level. Thirdly, there is regional integration by building a geopolitical identity and actorness. Here the `world region' behaves as an actor at the global scene, both through its own `foreign' policy and through its presence in global institutions. And at last this paper begins the exploration of the consequences of these varieties of regionalism for social policy. It will be argued that regionalism aimed at only creating free trade areas can put severe pressures on existing national social policies of the countries involved. On the other hand the development of a broader and deeper form of regionalism (often referred to as `new regionalism') can act as a driver towards regional social policies. Moreover, in those rare cases where regionalism involves global actorness, the regional external policy can contribute to the development of global social policies as well.

This may seem surprising as at first sight it could only be the UN who as a global institution offers a political answer to globalization. After all, the UN was founded in 1945 in an attempt to create a multilateral world forum where sovereign states can resolve differing opinions and where common actions about peace and development can be stimulated. Today, however, the world is dramatically different from that of the post World War II period after which the UN was founded. First of all, the geopolitical stability of that system disappeared with the end of the Cold War. Secondly, a lot more countries are now members of the UN than used to be the case (from the original 51, the number has raised nowadays to 192 member states), which means that the functioning of the General Assembly is not getting easier. Thirdly, states now have to share their hegemony on governance and their capacity to regulate economic transformation more and more with local governments, supranational groupings and non-governmental actors.

One can observe that nowadays there are emerging problems that are beyond the national or regional borders. Therefore, how to deal with the rapid emergence of collective problems with cross border dimensions is problematic, in particular those that are global in scope and potential. Global governance can be an answer to this problem, as it refers to `cooperative problem-solving arrangements on a global plane' (Thakur and Van Langenhove, 2006, p. 233). Global governance is characterized by a complex matrix of institutions, both formal and informal, of mechanisms, and of processes between and among states, markets, citizens, and of organizations, both intergovernmental and nongovernmental ones. In the global governance system the collective interests are wrought, the rights and obligations are set up, and the differences are mediated (Thakur and Van Langenhove, 2006). The need for global governance is very present in today's world; however, the idea of a centralized global government is not embraced by many people. In this respect, as underlined by Thakur and Van Langenhove (2008, p. 22) the goal of global governance `is not the creation of a global government, but an additional layer of consultation and decision-making', of governments and intergovernmental organizations. The organizing principle of global governance is multilateralism, and the UN represents the hub of multilateral system of global governance.

The world needs global governance in order to deal with non-passport issues, like human rights, chronic poverty, migration and other social problems. Global governance can be seen as a `chameleonic-like' concept that can be adapted to different meanings. The goal of global economic governance for instance, is to manage the economic activity of the world without undermining state sovereignty, preserve international financial stability, and promote cooperative solutions to global problems, among others. Governance of global security aims to minimize conflicts and violence across the planet, again respecting the sovereignty of the nation state (Thakur and Van Langenhove, 2006). By the same token, global social governance, without harming the sovereignty of the nations, seeks to protect the well-being of all people, including issues like social protection, education, health, and try to solve the inequality and poverty via intergovernmental modalities. Global redistribution can be achieved via tax and income transfers, regional funds, Overseas Development Assistance (ODA). Global social regulation is encompassing the core labor standards advanced by the ILO in 1998 and the UN Conventions. Global social rights are about citizenship empowerment, which refers to UN Conventions of the Rights of the Child, UN International Covenant on Economics, and Social and Cultural Rights (Deacon, 2007 and 2008).

International Relations Journal, Regional Formations, Global Governance, Social Policy, Overseas Development Assistance, ODA, Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation, APEC, Southern African Development Community, SADC, Geopolitical Stability, Global Governance, Authoritative Decision-Making, Multi-Level Governance.