Governance is a (somewhat archaic) method of organisation.
No, govern
ance is merely that something is controlled. Like a govern
or on an engine being a mechanism for limiting its speed.
Govern
ment is the institution with the monopoly on "legitimate" coercion.
I've heard people say that the "state" and "govern
ment" are separate, but that is only true in situations such as England or Japan where there is a "head of state", the Queen, the Emperor, etc, as opposed to their prime minister who is "head of government".
Personally, I think it's an esoteric separation. The State claims all power, the "govern
ment" then holds the monopoly on coercion. Sure. Divine right and all that.
Bureaucracy has broken down a lot in our personal and economic lives, the State is the only existing functionality of governance on a large scale these days.
Huh? Bureaucratic management is alive and well, it's just not as efficient as entrepreneurial management. The reason you can see a difference is because we HAVE large-scale entrepreneurial management to compare to, such as FedEx and UPS compared to the USPS.
However it is still possible to govern an area without resorting to the use of a state. This is referred to as Panarchy, and is actually what many anarchists want, not the dissolution of society as many people seem to believe.
Just repeal the monopoly on coercion. That's all "anarchists" are calling for. The rules of society remain, because "we" have come up with those rules independent of any govern
ment". Govern
ance has very little to do with govern
ment, people generally govern themselves (or not).
"A government is just people, most, notably, ungoverned."