data may be overwhelming and too time consuming to process. The development of
information needs some focusing of attention (creating selective perception as a
bias). The actions for which an actor is motivated require resources, and the
availability of those resources is bound to influence the actors’ ambition, for
instance because a lack of necessary resources creates a low self-effectiveness
assessment (Bandura 1986). While ‘knowledge is power’ (attributed to Francis
Bacon 1561–1626) may be one-sided, it is certainly true that information can serve
strategic purposes and hence can be used as one of the bases of power. On the other
hand the gathering and processing of data is also an activity that needs resources.
Lastly, the three factors are not only shaping, but are also (re)shaped by the
activities and interactions that happen in the process.
Above we explained the model of social interaction processes in Contextual
Interaction Theory. It is applied to the implementation of drought resilience measures in this book. It has been used extensively in implementation case studies on
various fields, also outside of the water sector. Its treatment in this section served to
show what our understanding is of the nature of the processes that may find more or
less supportive governance and other contexts in practice. Contextual Interaction
Theory contains not only this part on the interaction process of implementation and
realisation but also a part on these contexts and their relevance. In the next section
we will explain the layers of context further and how they may be supportive or
restrictive for the success of the interaction processes under study. In doing this we
will concentrate on the layer of governance characteristics.
Governance is often said to differ from earlier developed concepts like government or policy in that it emphasises the multi-level and multi-actor character of
all forms of steering of any specified (sub)sector of society. In our approach to the
concept of governance we do not only discern the multiplicity of the levels and of
the actors involved, but also apply the idea that the concept of governance assumes
multiplicity to the dimensions of the older concept of policy: goals, instruments and
the means to apply them (Howlett 2011). In each governance context there will
likely be multiple goals involved, multiple instruments and multiple means to apply
them. In Chap. 1 it was explained how this led to a conceptualization of governance
in five dimensions (Bressers and Kuks 2003).
In Fig. 3.4 these dimensions are listed as filling the structural layer of context for
the implementation processes. The structural context at for instance national level is
much more stable than the specific case context. The structural context will to a far
lesser degree be influenced back by individual implementation cases. In fact it is the
essence of the difference between the specific and the structural context that the
latter holds for in principle all similar cases and not only for any specific case. This
is not to say that the structural context is not changing over time, just that these
changes are even more the emergent result of many actors and factors than changes
in the specific context.
3 The Governance Assessment Tool and Its Use
51
information needs some focusing of attention (creating selective perception as a
bias). The actions for which an actor is motivated require resources, and the
availability of those resources is bound to influence the actors’ ambition, for
instance because a lack of necessary resources creates a low self-effectiveness
assessment (Bandura 1986). While ‘knowledge is power’ (attributed to Francis
Bacon 1561–1626) may be one-sided, it is certainly true that information can serve
strategic purposes and hence can be used as one of the bases of power. On the other
hand the gathering and processing of data is also an activity that needs resources.
Lastly, the three factors are not only shaping, but are also (re)shaped by the
activities and interactions that happen in the process.
Above we explained the model of social interaction processes in Contextual
Interaction Theory. It is applied to the implementation of drought resilience measures in this book. It has been used extensively in implementation case studies on
various fields, also outside of the water sector. Its treatment in this section served to
show what our understanding is of the nature of the processes that may find more or
less supportive governance and other contexts in practice. Contextual Interaction
Theory contains not only this part on the interaction process of implementation and
realisation but also a part on these contexts and their relevance. In the next section
we will explain the layers of context further and how they may be supportive or
restrictive for the success of the interaction processes under study. In doing this we
will concentrate on the layer of governance characteristics.
Governance is often said to differ from earlier developed concepts like government or policy in that it emphasises the multi-level and multi-actor character of
all forms of steering of any specified (sub)sector of society. In our approach to the
concept of governance we do not only discern the multiplicity of the levels and of
the actors involved, but also apply the idea that the concept of governance assumes
multiplicity to the dimensions of the older concept of policy: goals, instruments and
the means to apply them (Howlett 2011). In each governance context there will
likely be multiple goals involved, multiple instruments and multiple means to apply
them. In Chap. 1 it was explained how this led to a conceptualization of governance
in five dimensions (Bressers and Kuks 2003).
In Fig. 3.4 these dimensions are listed as filling the structural layer of context for
the implementation processes. The structural context at for instance national level is
much more stable than the specific case context. The structural context will to a far
lesser degree be influenced back by individual implementation cases. In fact it is the
essence of the difference between the specific and the structural context that the
latter holds for in principle all similar cases and not only for any specific case. This
is not to say that the structural context is not changing over time, just that these
changes are even more the emergent result of many actors and factors than changes
in the specific context.
3 The Governance Assessment Tool and Its Use
51