The emergence of one or more alternatives to hierarchical and market mechanisms has been one of the most prominent themes of public management literature over the past decade. The intellectual sources of this analysis are diverse and the proliferation of labels for the third mode (networks, professionalism, egalitarianism, communitarianism) generates some confusion. This article outlines and compares and contrasts the range of theoretical approaches to defining the third (and fourth) mode. On the basis of this comparison, I argue that there are two important alternative modes to hierarchies and markets that need to be distinguished from each other, namely provider-based governance and community governance. The modes of governance heuristic will be most useful when the focus of analysis is shifted away from the <italic>achievement</italic> of governance and co-ordination to <italic>attempts</italic> to steer public management. This requires that we pay attention to the types of power and knowledge that are necessary to support different governance mechanisms. Finally, I suggest the metaphor of a card game involving suits provides a useful way of re-labelling the four modes. This metaphor can be applied to help think about how multiple modes are used by those who attempt to steer.
