The public face of private security is the visible work of patrolling, guarding, door attendants, transport security, and cash transit. Private security is in its nature entrepreneurial; it springs up where opportunity arises. However, understanding that a key feature of the private security industry is that it fulfills functions historically assumed to be a state monopoly (i.e. the criminal justice system), it is surprising that the state has been slow to regulate this industry. Private security is marked by high levels of corruption, violence, rapid staff turnover, and high customer churn. With that said, the industry cannot maintain consumer confidence or public respect. Three informal sources of governance discussed include: community (or self-regulation), market (or competition), and architecture (or design). The power and limitations of each of these mechanisms for governing the private security industry are discussed in order to explain the recent proliferation of formal regulation, its meanings, and its ends. The present governance of private security rests on the capacity of regulatory hybrids or mixtures. The interpretation made is that governments simply have to play the commercial card if they are to have any chance of success. Governments cannot hope to govern the private security industry by wielding big sticks. In order to secure private industry compliance, the state must inspire cooperation on the part of its industry partners. References