Posted Content•
Debating Governance: Authority, Steering, and Democracy
TL;DR: The authors examine the effectiveness of different non-institutional strategies at the disposal of modern governments in tackling issues of urban decline, public administrations, governmental regionalization, budget deficits and global economics.
Abstract: Leading scholars in the field of governance examine the effectiveness of the different non-institutional strategies at the disposal of modern governments in tackling issues of urban decline, public administrations, governmental regionalization, budget deficits and global economics. The governance approach to political science yields a new perspective on the role of the state, domestically as well as in the international arena. Globalization, internationalization, and the growing influence of networks in domestic politics means that the notions of state strength and the role of the state in society must re-examined.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: In this article, the authors draw on several literatures to distinguish two types of multi-level governance: dispersion of authority to general-purpose, nonintersecting, and durable jurisdictions, and task-specific, intersecting and flexible jurisdictions.
Abstract: The reallocation of authority upward, downward, and sideways from central states has drawn attention from a growing number of scholars in political science. Yet beyond agreement that governance has become (and should be) multi-level, there is no consensus about how it should be organized. This article draws on several literatures to distinguish two types of multi-level governance. One type conceives of dispersion of authority to general-purpose, nonintersecting, and durable jurisdictions. A second type of governance conceives of task-specific, intersecting, and flexible jurisdictions. We conclude by specifying the virtues of each type of governance.For comments and advice we are grateful to Christopher Ansell, Ian Bache, Richard Balme, Arthur Benz, Tanja Borzel, Renaud Dehousse, Burkard Eberlein, Peter Hall, Edgar Grande, Richard Haesly, Bob Jessop, Beate Kohler-Koch, David Lake, Patrick Le Gales, Christiane Lemke, David Lowery, Michael McGinnis, Andrew Moravcsik, Elinor Ostrom, Franz U. Pappi, Thomas Risse, James Rosenau, Alberta Sbragia, Philippe Schmitter, Ulf Sverdrup, Christian Tusschoff, Bernhard Wessels, the political science discussion group at the University of North Carolina, and the editor and three anonymous reviewers of APSR. We received institutional support from the Center for European Studies at the University of North Carolina, the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, and the Wissenschaftszentrum fur Sozialforschung in Berlin. Earlier versions were presented at the European Union Studies Association meeting, the ECPR pan-European Conference in Bordeaux, and Hannover Universitat, Harvard University, Humboldt Universitat, Indiana University at Bloomington, Mannheim Universitat, Sheffield University, Sciences Po (Paris), Technische Universitat Munchen, and the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. The authors' names appear in alphabetical order.
1,956 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors develop a conceptual framework addressing the dynamics and adaptive capacity of resource governance regimes as multi-level learning processes, where the influence of formal and informal institutions, the role of state and non-state actors, the nature of multilevel interactions and the relative importance of bureaucratic hierarchies, markets and networks are identified as major structural characteristics of governance regimes.
Abstract: Governance failures are at the origin of many resource management problems. In particular climate change and the concomitant increase of extreme weather events has exposed the inability of current governance regimes to deal with present and future challenges. Still our knowledge about resource governance regimes and how they change is quite limited. This paper develops a conceptual framework addressing the dynamics and adaptive capacity of resource governance regimes as multi-level learning processes. The influence of formal and informal institutions, the role of state and non-state actors, the nature of multi-level interactions and the relative importance of bureaucratic hierarchies, markets and networks are identified as major structural characteristics of governance regimes. Change is conceptualized as social and societal learning that proceeds in a stepwise fashion moving from single to double to triple loop learning. Informal networks are considered to play a crucial role in such learning processes. The framework supports flexible and context sensitive analysis without being case study specific. First empirical evidence from water governance supports the assumptions made on the dynamics of governance regimes and the usefulness of the chosen approach. More complex and diverse governance regimes have a higher adaptive capacity. However, it is still an open question how to overcome the state of single-loop learning that seem to characterize many attempts to adapt to climate change. Only further development and application of shared conceptual frameworks taking into account the real complexity of governance regimes can generate the knowledge base needed to advance current understanding to a state that allows giving meaningful policy advice.
1,783 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors argue that the emerging innovative horizontal and networked arrangements of governance-beyond-the-state are decidedly Janus-faced, particularly under conditions in which the democratic character of the political sphere is increasingly eroded by the encroaching imposition of market forces that set the "rules of the game".
Abstract: Summary. This paper focuses on the fifth dimension of social innovation—i.e. political governance. Although largely neglected in the mainstream ‘innovation’ literature, innovative governance arrangements are increasingly recognised as potentially significant terrains for fostering inclusive development processes. International organisations like the EU and the World Bank, as well as leading grass-roots movements, have pioneered new and more participatory governance arrangements as a pathway towards greater inclusiveness. Indeed, over the past two decades or so, a range of new and often innovative institutional arrangements has emerged, at a variety of geographical scales. These new institutional ‘fixes’ have begun to challenge traditional state-centred forms of policy-making and have generated new forms of governance-beyond-thestate. Drawing on Foucault’s notion of governmentality, the paper argues that the emerging innovative horizontal and networked arrangements of governance-beyond-the-state are decidedly Janus-faced. While enabling new forms of participation and articulating the state‐ civil society relationships in potentially democratising ways, there is also a flip side to the process. To the extent that new governance arrangements rearticulate the state-civil society relationship, they also redefine and reposition the meaning of (political) citizenship and, consequently, the nature of democracy itself. The first part of the paper outlines the contours of governance-beyond-the-state. The second part addresses the thorny issues of the state‐civil society relationship in the context of the emergence of the new governmentality associated with governance-beyond-the-state. The third part teases out the contradictory way in which new arrangements of governance have created new institutions and empowered new actors, while disempowering others. It is argued that this shift from ‘government’ to ‘governance’ is associated with the consolidation of new technologies of government, on the one hand, and with profound restructuring of the parameters of political democracy on the other, leading to a substantial democratic deficit. The paper concludes by suggesting that socially innovative arrangements of governance-beyond-the-state are fundamentally Janus-faced, particularly under conditions in which the democratic character of the political sphere is increasingly eroded by the encroaching imposition of market forces that set the ‘rules of the game’.
1,407 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors introduce transition management as a new governance approach for sustainable development, which is used here as a common notion referring to those persistent problems in (western industrialized) societies that can only be dealt with on the very long term through specific types of network and decision-making processes.
Abstract: This article introduces transition management as a new governance approach for sustainable development. Sustainable development is used here as a common notion referring to those persistent problems in (Western industrialized) societies that can only be dealt with on the very long term (decades or more) through specific types of network and decision-making processes. Based on interdisciplinary research into complex processes of long term, structural change in society, basic tenets for complexity-based governance are formulated. These tenets are translated into a framework that distinguishes between four different types of governance activities and their respective roles in societal transitions. This framework can be used for implementation of governance strategies and instruments. The approach and framework have been developed deductively and inductively in the Netherlands since 2000. This article presents the theoretical basis of transition management and will be illustrated by examples from transition management practice, especially the Dutch national energy transition program.
1,295 citations
TL;DR: In recent decades, a number of changes in the forms and mechanisms of governance by which institutional and orga- nizational societal sectors and spheres are governed, as well as in the location of governance from where command, administration, management and control of societal institutions and spheres were conducted as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: Modern societies have in recent decades seen a destabilization of the traditional governing mechanisms and the advancement of new arrangements of governance. Con- spicuously, this has occurred in the private, semi-private and public spheres, and has involved local, regional, national, transnational and global levels within these spheres. We have wit- nessed changes in the forms and mechanisms of governance by which institutional and orga- nizational societal sectors and spheres are governed, as well as in the location of governance from where command, administration, management and control of societal institutions and spheres are conducted. We have also seen changes in governing capabilities (i.e., the extent to which societal institutions and spheres can, in fact, be steered), as well as in styles of gov- ernance (i.e., the processes of decision making and implementation, including the manner in which the organizations involved relate to each other). These shifts tend to have signifi- cant consequences for the governability, accountability, responsiveness and legitimacy of governance institutions. These developments have been generating a new and important research object for political science (including international relations). One of the crucial features of these developments is that they concern a diversity of sectors. In order to get a thorough understanding of 'shifts in governance', political science needs, and is also likely to adopt, a much stronger multidisciplinary orientation embracing politics, law, public admin- istration, economics and business administration, as well as sociology, geography and history.
862 citations