context with a normative foundation (summary from Bressers 2011: 25; based on
Kooiman 2003: 4). Government is thus no longer the sole decision-maker, and
allows for direct influence of other parties. The advantages of this are numerous, for
instance greater support from stakeholders, higher quality of work as a result of
expert and layman input, and greater legitimacy of decisions (van Schie 2010: 33;
Termeer 2009: 300). Another effect of the shift to governance is the increase in
organizational adaptivity (Teisman 2008: 358). Flexibility and changeability are
more included from the start onwards in decision-making processes. At the same
time, the inclusion of other stakeholders besides government is not risk-free.
Accountability is a real issue when decision-making is shared (Koliba et al. 2011:
35–36; van Kersbergen and van Waarden 2004; Sørensen and Torfing 2005).
Furthermore, some stakeholders are more vocal than others, which might result in
an unrealistic representation of some interests above others.
Water governance—drought governance being a part of that—concerns the same
multi-actor approach in the field of water. For water, governance is very important,
because water is a complex and highly interconnected system which touches upon
many others domains and fields such as agriculture, economic development, social
development, ecology and health (Edelenbos et al. 2013: 2). This means many
stakeholders are involved, each with very different stakes (Leach and Pelkey 2001;
Kuks 2004). In such a field it is almost impossible to realize change in just a
top-down hierarchical manner. Rather, more bottom-up, horizontal and
multi-stakeholders approaches are required (Edelenbos et al. 2013: 2). Especially in
the light of the fact that even though numerous methods and technologies exist to
solve water problems such as water pollution, water supply and water surpluses, it
is highly noteworthy that implementation is often still lacking. That has led some to
argue that not a lack of water technology is what causes the current ‘water crisis’
(UNDP 2013: iv) but rather a lack of water governance (UNESCO 2006). Perhaps
as a result of that, water governance is an upcoming theme in the field of public
administration (Edelenbos et al. 2013; de Boer et al. 2013; Edelenbos and Teisman
2011; Teisman and Edelenbos 2011; Bressers and Lulofs 2010; Huitema et al.
2009; Kampa 2007; Pahl-Wostl 2007; Gopalakrishnan et al. 2005; Kuks 2004).
The rationale for the shift from government to governance is the fact that
awareness has increased that monocentric government models and approaches are
incapable of handling persistent uncertain and complex situation (Edelenbos et al.
2013; Kickert et al. 1997; Koppenjan and Klijn 2004; Van Buuren et al. 2010). The
required adaptivity cannot be found in solely governmental steering. Koppenjan
and Klijn (2004: 95–100) define governance as a fundamentally different form of
response to uncertainty than traditional responses. Governance then is a way of
linking complex interactions between actors in solving difficult problems (ibid.: 99),
whereas more traditional responses rely more on research, go alone strategy, only
limited consultation, and top-down steering.
The degree of actor involvement is therefore an important characteristic of the
governance approach. But governance is more than ‘just’ including more actors. It
also concerns the multiplicity of all levels and scales involved and the varying
problem perceptions and objectives that occur in such a multi-scale, multi-actor
4
N. Bressers et al.
Kooiman 2003: 4). Government is thus no longer the sole decision-maker, and
allows for direct influence of other parties. The advantages of this are numerous, for
instance greater support from stakeholders, higher quality of work as a result of
expert and layman input, and greater legitimacy of decisions (van Schie 2010: 33;
Termeer 2009: 300). Another effect of the shift to governance is the increase in
organizational adaptivity (Teisman 2008: 358). Flexibility and changeability are
more included from the start onwards in decision-making processes. At the same
time, the inclusion of other stakeholders besides government is not risk-free.
Accountability is a real issue when decision-making is shared (Koliba et al. 2011:
35–36; van Kersbergen and van Waarden 2004; Sørensen and Torfing 2005).
Furthermore, some stakeholders are more vocal than others, which might result in
an unrealistic representation of some interests above others.
Water governance—drought governance being a part of that—concerns the same
multi-actor approach in the field of water. For water, governance is very important,
because water is a complex and highly interconnected system which touches upon
many others domains and fields such as agriculture, economic development, social
development, ecology and health (Edelenbos et al. 2013: 2). This means many
stakeholders are involved, each with very different stakes (Leach and Pelkey 2001;
Kuks 2004). In such a field it is almost impossible to realize change in just a
top-down hierarchical manner. Rather, more bottom-up, horizontal and
multi-stakeholders approaches are required (Edelenbos et al. 2013: 2). Especially in
the light of the fact that even though numerous methods and technologies exist to
solve water problems such as water pollution, water supply and water surpluses, it
is highly noteworthy that implementation is often still lacking. That has led some to
argue that not a lack of water technology is what causes the current ‘water crisis’
(UNDP 2013: iv) but rather a lack of water governance (UNESCO 2006). Perhaps
as a result of that, water governance is an upcoming theme in the field of public
administration (Edelenbos et al. 2013; de Boer et al. 2013; Edelenbos and Teisman
2011; Teisman and Edelenbos 2011; Bressers and Lulofs 2010; Huitema et al.
2009; Kampa 2007; Pahl-Wostl 2007; Gopalakrishnan et al. 2005; Kuks 2004).
The rationale for the shift from government to governance is the fact that
awareness has increased that monocentric government models and approaches are
incapable of handling persistent uncertain and complex situation (Edelenbos et al.
2013; Kickert et al. 1997; Koppenjan and Klijn 2004; Van Buuren et al. 2010). The
required adaptivity cannot be found in solely governmental steering. Koppenjan
and Klijn (2004: 95–100) define governance as a fundamentally different form of
response to uncertainty than traditional responses. Governance then is a way of
linking complex interactions between actors in solving difficult problems (ibid.: 99),
whereas more traditional responses rely more on research, go alone strategy, only
limited consultation, and top-down steering.
The degree of actor involvement is therefore an important characteristic of the
governance approach. But governance is more than ‘just’ including more actors. It
also concerns the multiplicity of all levels and scales involved and the varying
problem perceptions and objectives that occur in such a multi-scale, multi-actor
4
N. Bressers et al.