environment. This reality poses an issue that has been called ‘multi-level governance’. Blomquist and Schlager (1999: 7, 39–43) also emphasize the relation
between the many facets of the problem and the horizontal and vertical coordination
this requires. The same goes for Rosenau (2000: 10–11).
As done in this book, O’Toole (2000: 276–279) treats governance in the context
of studies of the implementation of policy strategies. He adds to the multi-level,
multi-actor, multi-problem perception aspects ‘the multivariate character of policy
action’. He refers to Milward and Provan (1999: 3), who state: ‘The essence of
governance is its focus on governing mechanisms—grants, contracts, agreements—
that do not rest solely on the authority and sanctions of government.’ The instruments and strategies available and required therefore also increase.
O’Toole (2000) also points to the work of Lynn et al. (2000a, b), who approach
governance from the public management perspective. They begin by noting that
policy programs are implemented in a web of many diverse actors. As a consequence, the model of governance they develop concentrates not only on the
objectives and instruments of policy, but also the resources and organization of
implementation. Their model differs from usual overviews mainly because it clearly
shows that these aspects of organization and resources can take a wide variety of
forms and have a multi-functional character (pp. 257–258). Peters and Pierre (1998:
226–227) also consider a/o. the ‘blending of public and private resources’ to be
features of the governance concept. This brings a fifth element into the picture,
namely that of the available resources and responsibilities.
A classical definition of the concept of ‘policy’ is that of an actor striving to
attain certain goals with certain means. Compared to this concept the multiplicity of
all elements is striking in the discussion on ‘governance’. No longer is one dominant actor supposed to govern a certain sector, but a multiplicity of them, operating
at multiple levels simultaneously influencing developments in the sector.
Furthermore goals are not rationally chosen purposes, but often the result of clashes
and compromise from different problem perspectives. Means not only consist of the
multiplicity of policy instruments that blend in various strategies, but also of the
responsibilities and resources given to again often multiple organizations to use
them in practice.
Applied on implementation processes, this exploration of the governance literature leads in our opinion to the following elements of governance (Bressers and
Kuks 2003):
1. Levels and scales (not necessarily administrative levels): governance assumes
the general multi-level character of policy implementation.
2. Actors and networks: governance assumes the multi-actor character of policy
implementation.
3. Problem perception and goal ambitions: governance assumes the multi-faceted
character of the problem perceptions and resulting goal ambitions of policy
implementation.
1 Introduction
5
between the many facets of the problem and the horizontal and vertical coordination
this requires. The same goes for Rosenau (2000: 10–11).
As done in this book, O’Toole (2000: 276–279) treats governance in the context
of studies of the implementation of policy strategies. He adds to the multi-level,
multi-actor, multi-problem perception aspects ‘the multivariate character of policy
action’. He refers to Milward and Provan (1999: 3), who state: ‘The essence of
governance is its focus on governing mechanisms—grants, contracts, agreements—
that do not rest solely on the authority and sanctions of government.’ The instruments and strategies available and required therefore also increase.
O’Toole (2000) also points to the work of Lynn et al. (2000a, b), who approach
governance from the public management perspective. They begin by noting that
policy programs are implemented in a web of many diverse actors. As a consequence, the model of governance they develop concentrates not only on the
objectives and instruments of policy, but also the resources and organization of
implementation. Their model differs from usual overviews mainly because it clearly
shows that these aspects of organization and resources can take a wide variety of
forms and have a multi-functional character (pp. 257–258). Peters and Pierre (1998:
226–227) also consider a/o. the ‘blending of public and private resources’ to be
features of the governance concept. This brings a fifth element into the picture,
namely that of the available resources and responsibilities.
A classical definition of the concept of ‘policy’ is that of an actor striving to
attain certain goals with certain means. Compared to this concept the multiplicity of
all elements is striking in the discussion on ‘governance’. No longer is one dominant actor supposed to govern a certain sector, but a multiplicity of them, operating
at multiple levels simultaneously influencing developments in the sector.
Furthermore goals are not rationally chosen purposes, but often the result of clashes
and compromise from different problem perspectives. Means not only consist of the
multiplicity of policy instruments that blend in various strategies, but also of the
responsibilities and resources given to again often multiple organizations to use
them in practice.
Applied on implementation processes, this exploration of the governance literature leads in our opinion to the following elements of governance (Bressers and
Kuks 2003):
1. Levels and scales (not necessarily administrative levels): governance assumes
the general multi-level character of policy implementation.
2. Actors and networks: governance assumes the multi-actor character of policy
implementation.
3. Problem perception and goal ambitions: governance assumes the multi-faceted
character of the problem perceptions and resulting goal ambitions of policy
implementation.
1 Introduction
5