In this article we explore how much state is necessary to make governance work. We begin by clarifying concepts of governance and the “shadow of hierarchy” and we follow this clarification with a brief overview of empirical findings on governance research in developed countries. We then discuss the dilemmas for governance in areas of limited statehood, where political institutions are too weak to hierarchically adopt and enforce collectively binding rules. While prospects for effective policymaking appear to be rather bleak in these areas, we argue that governance research has consistently overlooked the existence of functional equivalents to the shadow of hierarchy. We assert that governance with(out) government can work even in the absence of a strong shadow of hierarchy, we identify functional equivalents to the shadow of hierarchy, and we discuss to what extent they can help overcome issues of legitimacy and effectiveness in areas of limited statehood.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1748-5991.2010.01076.x

Governance without a state: Can it work?

Introduction: Exploring Governance Governance in Public Administration and Political Science Governance and the New Institutional Economics International Relations Governance in Development Studies Governance in Socio Legal Studies Corporate Governance (with Damian Tobin) Participatory Governance Environmental Governance Governance: From Theory to Practice

/pdf/governance-theory-and-practice-a-cross-disciplinary-approach-4zznscmw32.pdf

Governance Theory and Practice: A Cross-Disciplinary Approach

The article examines the politics and patterns of public-private partnerships for the environment in the multilateral system. It argues that two kinds of dynamics have contributed to the hybridization of environmental authority at the global level. On one hand, the fragmentation of environmental regimes and the parallel growth of non-state actors have resulted in structural pressures and opportunities for public-private collaboration. More significantly, however, international organizations have responded to the pluralization of global environmental politics selectively and acted as entrepreneurs of collaborative governance. The analysis uses a principal-agent perspective of international organizations to specify the conditions for organizational entrepreneurship of public-private partnerships. The theoretical propositions inform the comparative analysis of three "meta" partnership programs in the multilateral system: the Small Grants Program, the Prototype Carbon Fund, and the environmental portfolio of the United Nations Fund for International Partnerships. The study demonstrates that public-private partnerships represent neither a radical "powershift" from established institutions, nor are partnerships a marginal governance fad. The three partnership programs examined here emerged out of the mandates and expertise of their lead organizations and partners, but established and diffused new niches of environmental governance, particularly around community-based biodiversity management and climate-change related technology diffusion.

Public-Private Partnerships for the Earth: Politics and Patterns of Hybrid Authority in the Multilateral System

What makes a well-functioning governmental crisis management system, and how can this be studied using an organization theory–based approach? A core argument is that such a system needs both governance capacity and governance legitimacy. Organizational arrangements as well as the legitimacy of government authorities will affect crisis management performance. A central argument is that both structural features and cultural context matter, as does the nature of the crisis. Is it a transboundary crisis? How unique is it, and how much uncertainty is associated with it? The arguments are substantiated with empirical examples and supported by a literature synthesis, focusing on public administration research. A main conclusion is that there is no optimal formula for harmonizing competing interests and tensions or for overcoming uncertainty and ambiguous government structures. Flexibility and adaptation are key assets, which are constrained by the political, administrative, and situational context. Furthermore, a future research agenda is indicated.

Organizing for Crisis Management: Building Governance Capacity and Legitimacy

Policy makers can use four different modes of governance: 'hierarchy', 'markets', 'networks' and 'persuasion'. In this article, it is argued that 'nudging' represents a distinct (fifth) mode of governance. The effectiveness of nudging as a means of bringing about lasting behaviour change is questioned and it is argued that evidence for its success ignores the facts that many successful nudges are not in fact nudges; that there are instances when nudges backfire; and that there may be ethical concerns associated with nudges. Instead, and in contrast to nudging, behaviour change is more likely to be enduring where it involves social identity change and norm internalisation. The article concludes by urging public policy scholars to engage with the social identity literature on 'social influence', and the idea that those promoting lasting behaviour change need to engage with people not as individual cognitive misers, but as members of groups whose norms they internalise and enact.

Why a nudge is not enough: a social identity critique of governance by stealth

This special issue about sectoral governance in the shadow of hierarchy focuses on two sets of questions. Firstly, do new modes of sectoral governance in themselves contribute to the efficacy of policymaking or do they require the shadow of hierarchy, i.e. legislative and executive decisions, in order to deal effectively with the problems they are supposed to solve? And, secondly, what are the institutional links between sectoral governance and territorially bounded democratic governments? How do different links contribute to the efficacy of policymaking and how do they change over time? Is there a retreat of government from policymaking and a corresponding increase of sectoral governance, or just the opposite?

The shadow of hierarchy and new modes of governance: sectoral governance and democratic government

. The aim of this article is to propose a theoretical theme to explain coherence in legal reasoning. The main argument that this paper wants to put forward is that theories of coherence in the legal system should be differentiated from theories of coherence in legal reasoning. These focus on arguments, and on how the given arguments are connected. In particular, the notion of coherence in legal reasoning proposed here is a modest one. The article applies this theme to the case-law of the European Court of Justice in environmental matters. This provides an example of how to deal with conflicts between incommensurable goods, and how to promote coherence by justifying decisions.

Leonor Moral Soriano

Papers

The shadow of hierarchy and new modes of governance: sectoral governance and democratic government

A modest notion of coherence in legal reasoning: A model for the European Court of Justice

Contested Competences in Europe: Incomplete Contracts and Interstitial Institutional Change

El precedente judicial

How Proportionate should Anti-competition State Intervention be?