target groups to play the implementers off against each other and more standard
operation procedures for the solution of conflict).
While in stable and relatively simple situations extent and coherence might be
sufficient to evaluate the degree to which the governance context is supportive or
restrictive for the implementation of policies and projects, more complex and
dynamic situations require extra criteria (De Boer and Bressers 2011). For the
success and failure of complex spatial projects and policy implementation in
complex situations in general, some form of ‘adaptive implementation’ is important, trying not only to see the reality as a field of obstacles, but also as a terrain of
potential—often unexpected—opportunities and being adaptive enough to use
every ‘window of opportunity’ to bring the ultimate purpose closer to realisation.
Therefore it is essential that the somewhat static factors of extent and coherence are
supplemented with the factor of flexibility, indicating to what degree the relevant
actors have formal and informal liberties and stimuli to act.
Flexibility is defined here as “the degree to which the regime elements support
and facilitate adaptive actions and strategies in as far as the integrated (et al.
multi-sectoral) ambitions are served by this adaptiveness”. Consequently it is also
the degree to which hindrances for such adaptive behaviour are avoided. Like
extent and coherence, the flexibility of the regime as such could be understood in
terms of the five elements of governance described above. A regime is more flexible
in as far as the relationships between the levels and scales involved are more based
on decentralisation of power, without upper levels withdrawing support. This is
closely related to empowering rather than controlling relations, and thus on trust.
A similar feature describes flexible regimes in terms of actor relations in the policy
network. Here too the combination of giving leeway to each actor group to optimise
its contribution to the whole programme while still viewing the programme as a
joint effort qualifies as flexibility. In terms of general problem perception and goal
ambitions flexibility implies that these in their variety are not only integrated into a
sort of common denominator (like with coherence), but also that these mixtures are
allowed to be different in emphasis according to the opportunities of the context in
the various concrete situations. This implies some acceptance of uncertainty and
openness to emergent options, which again relates to trust. The instruments and
their combinations in policy strategies or mixes are more flexible in as far as means
from different sources (like public policies and private property rights) may be used
as well as indirect means (here relating to opening or improving options for the use
of means that more directly serve the goals) are available and allowed to be used.
Lastly the flexibility of the organisation responsible for the implementation—the
responsibilities and resources given by the policy programme(s)—can be measured
by the discretion available to pool resources like funds and people with those of
others to serve integrated projects and to be held accountable on the basis of the
balanced virtues of the achievements (as in an integrated project), rather than on the
basis of separate performance criteria.
Given the dynamic and change oriented nature of some policies, like realising
more drought resilience in the water system, there is yet another regime quality that
can be influential for the practical process. That is the obvious, but no less important
3 The Governance Assessment Tool and Its Use
55
operation procedures for the solution of conflict).
While in stable and relatively simple situations extent and coherence might be
sufficient to evaluate the degree to which the governance context is supportive or
restrictive for the implementation of policies and projects, more complex and
dynamic situations require extra criteria (De Boer and Bressers 2011). For the
success and failure of complex spatial projects and policy implementation in
complex situations in general, some form of ‘adaptive implementation’ is important, trying not only to see the reality as a field of obstacles, but also as a terrain of
potential—often unexpected—opportunities and being adaptive enough to use
every ‘window of opportunity’ to bring the ultimate purpose closer to realisation.
Therefore it is essential that the somewhat static factors of extent and coherence are
supplemented with the factor of flexibility, indicating to what degree the relevant
actors have formal and informal liberties and stimuli to act.
Flexibility is defined here as “the degree to which the regime elements support
and facilitate adaptive actions and strategies in as far as the integrated (et al.
multi-sectoral) ambitions are served by this adaptiveness”. Consequently it is also
the degree to which hindrances for such adaptive behaviour are avoided. Like
extent and coherence, the flexibility of the regime as such could be understood in
terms of the five elements of governance described above. A regime is more flexible
in as far as the relationships between the levels and scales involved are more based
on decentralisation of power, without upper levels withdrawing support. This is
closely related to empowering rather than controlling relations, and thus on trust.
A similar feature describes flexible regimes in terms of actor relations in the policy
network. Here too the combination of giving leeway to each actor group to optimise
its contribution to the whole programme while still viewing the programme as a
joint effort qualifies as flexibility. In terms of general problem perception and goal
ambitions flexibility implies that these in their variety are not only integrated into a
sort of common denominator (like with coherence), but also that these mixtures are
allowed to be different in emphasis according to the opportunities of the context in
the various concrete situations. This implies some acceptance of uncertainty and
openness to emergent options, which again relates to trust. The instruments and
their combinations in policy strategies or mixes are more flexible in as far as means
from different sources (like public policies and private property rights) may be used
as well as indirect means (here relating to opening or improving options for the use
of means that more directly serve the goals) are available and allowed to be used.
Lastly the flexibility of the organisation responsible for the implementation—the
responsibilities and resources given by the policy programme(s)—can be measured
by the discretion available to pool resources like funds and people with those of
others to serve integrated projects and to be held accountable on the basis of the
balanced virtues of the achievements (as in an integrated project), rather than on the
basis of separate performance criteria.
Given the dynamic and change oriented nature of some policies, like realising
more drought resilience in the water system, there is yet another regime quality that
can be influential for the practical process. That is the obvious, but no less important
3 The Governance Assessment Tool and Its Use
55