The concept of global governance crystallizes and complicates the understanding of the global political economy as transparency and ambiguity reign over it. (Rosenau 1995) states that “anticipating the prospects of global governance… means discerning powerful tensions, profound contradictions and disconcerting paradoxes. It is seeking order in disorder, coherence in contradiction, and continuity in change… (in) dark authorities, in ever-shifting borders, and in emerging systems of government.” The concept of governance is also a highly problematized term as it has traditionally never been truly inclusive as its orientation is centered on the United States and developed countries. The Council of Rome defines governance as the command mechanism of a social system…to provide security, prosperity, coherence, order and continuity to the system. In its broadest application, it includes not only national and international systems, but also encompasses local and regional social structures with a focus on sectoral development issues such as education, healthcare, military, business and family (Rosenau 1995). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Global governance has been employed in broad and variable contexts that cast much ambiguity on the term in relation to the global political economy. Global governance, as used by several international academics and practitioners, denotes “a complex set of both public and private structures, while more popular writers tend to use it synonymously with government” (Weiss 2000). As a result, the unqualified application of the concept clouds any clear definition, making it hopelessly vague (Bernstein 2010). (Overbeek 2005) agrees, noting that the oft-used concept of global governance is rarely clear, obscuring the very character of governance. Furthermore, Lawrence Finkelstein confirms the confusing and misleading confusion by stating that “we say governance because we don't really know what to call what's going on” (Finkelstein 1995, Kumar 2010). Another confusing element of global governance is that using concepts divorced from historicity usually leads to further misunderstandings. Marx states that most abstract concepts, while valid, derive from a series of historical relationships and are more effective and understood when properly contextualized (Overbeek 2005). In addition to the innate nebulousness of global governance, multidisciplinary interconnections and interdependencies have heavily complicated the concept. The plurality, heterogeneity, and intricate webs of postmodernity blur the term to include so many elements. As (Kumar 2011) comments, “there is no single organizing principle on which global governance rests… no emergent order around which communities and nations can converge… it is the sum of myriad control mechanisms driven by stories, goal structures and different processes. Even the field of global political economy or IPE, which traditionally and initially encompassed six aspects: international trade, international finance, North-South relations, multinational corporations (MNCs), hegemony and globalization, now encompasses innumerable interests and concerns. Furthermore, the optimal way of analyzing IPE problématique is to follow a complex approach: multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary point of view (Veseth 2002). The result of the dynamics of globalization, the spiral of knowledge models, the circulation of goods and services and the proliferation of non-governmental organizations and pressure groups have generated a cumulative interdependence and 2010)