“…This distinction opens up for the investigation of questions that are central to understanding businesssociety relations and their governance. These include (a) how state actors, for deep-seated historical, economic, and political reasons, are generally limited if not structurally constrained in terms of setting and enforcing rules, and providing collective goods; nor do they (fully) control the monopoly of the use of force, and (b) how non-state actors, including businesses, NGOs, international organizations, but also violent non-state actors (rebel groups, war lords, criminal networks) can make collectively binding rules and act as providers of collective goods (Berti & Gutiérrez, 2016;Cammett, 2014;Felbab-Brown et al, 2018;Jo, 2015;Magaloni et al, 2020;Reno, 2010;Roy, 2011). In some cases, violent non-state actors even engage in full-scale governance in a given territory ("rebelocracy"), while in other cases they provide and maintain security, but leave broader rulemaking and service provision to others ("aliocracy," see Arjona, 2015Arjona, , 2016.…”