132
M. Bavinck and J. Kooiman
Introduction
Fisheries differ in many respects, natural and social, between and within countries.
It is therefore quite logical to expect that these differences affect the opportunities
available for successful steering, or governance. Similarly, some styles of governance may be more conducive to addressing particular circumstances than others.
The challenge, as Ostrom ( 2007 ) points out, is to move beyond policy panaceas and
develop a fi ne-tuned diagnostic approach for problems and potentialities in linked
social-ecological systems. Such systems are invariably complex, nonlinear, multiscale and changing (cf. Berkes et al. 2003 ) . They require appropriate governance
solutions. After all, “many variables affect the patterns of interactions and outcomes
observed in empirical studies” (Ostrom 2007 , 15181).
Interactive governance theory suggests that the governability of any societal system,
such as fi sheries, depends on the condition of its three parts: the system-to-begoverned, the governing system, and the realm of governing interactions (Kooiman
2008 ) . The system-to-be-governed consists of a social and a natural sub-system,
which are joined together by the act of fi shing. After all, each fi sher is part of an
economic and social world, which drives him to fi sh the way he does, and also a
natural world (including an ecosystem) that affects and is affected by him.
Cumulatively, a collection of fi shers within a particular sub-sector, or métier, fi lls up
a speci fi c niche in the natural sub-system to make up a system-to-be-governed.
Various systems-to-be-governed possess different governance requirements as well
as different levels of governability. Interactive governance theory ascribes a special
in fl uence to four features that affect both natural and social sub-systems and are
present in different degrees – diversity, complexity, dynamics, and scale.
This chapter explores the consequences of diversity, complexity and dynamics for the governability of fi sheries systems, and also considers the implications
of geographical scale.
1 To enliven and illustrate what might easily become an
abstract discussion, we provide examples at each step of the analysis. Almost all
of these examples derive from fi eld studies undertaken by the fi rst author in the
state of Tamil Nadu, India over a period of 15 years (1995–2010). The fact that
one geographical region, and one ‘collection’ of fi sheries, is capable of delivering a full set of examples of governability is noteworthy and indicative of diversity at a national scale level.
2 We also note that the examples connect different
1 Gibson et al. ( 1998 ) provide a useful overview of the use of scale in the social sciences.
They de fi ne scale simply as “the dimension used in any effort to measure a phenomenon”, and
distinguish three basic types: space, time and quantity (Gibson et al. 1998 , 6). In this chapter we
highlight the implications of spatial scale. Johnson ( 2006 ) discusses facets of scale with regard to
fi sheries.
2 The fact that one setting is capable of delivering illustrations of almost the full set of governability
options raises important questions regarding societal coherence. Is Tamil Nadu a particularly chaotic
fi sheries setting? Could other settings provide a similarly broad range of examples? We are inclined
to believe that most fi sheries settings, if investigated carefully, actually contain a large variety of
governability arrangements, not dissimilar to Tamil Nadu. We must also point out, however, that the
fi sheries of Tamil Nadu may actually be more structured than this array of examples suggest.
M. Bavinck and J. Kooiman
Introduction
Fisheries differ in many respects, natural and social, between and within countries.
It is therefore quite logical to expect that these differences affect the opportunities
available for successful steering, or governance. Similarly, some styles of governance may be more conducive to addressing particular circumstances than others.
The challenge, as Ostrom ( 2007 ) points out, is to move beyond policy panaceas and
develop a fi ne-tuned diagnostic approach for problems and potentialities in linked
social-ecological systems. Such systems are invariably complex, nonlinear, multiscale and changing (cf. Berkes et al. 2003 ) . They require appropriate governance
solutions. After all, “many variables affect the patterns of interactions and outcomes
observed in empirical studies” (Ostrom 2007 , 15181).
Interactive governance theory suggests that the governability of any societal system,
such as fi sheries, depends on the condition of its three parts: the system-to-begoverned, the governing system, and the realm of governing interactions (Kooiman
2008 ) . The system-to-be-governed consists of a social and a natural sub-system,
which are joined together by the act of fi shing. After all, each fi sher is part of an
economic and social world, which drives him to fi sh the way he does, and also a
natural world (including an ecosystem) that affects and is affected by him.
Cumulatively, a collection of fi shers within a particular sub-sector, or métier, fi lls up
a speci fi c niche in the natural sub-system to make up a system-to-be-governed.
Various systems-to-be-governed possess different governance requirements as well
as different levels of governability. Interactive governance theory ascribes a special
in fl uence to four features that affect both natural and social sub-systems and are
present in different degrees – diversity, complexity, dynamics, and scale.
This chapter explores the consequences of diversity, complexity and dynamics for the governability of fi sheries systems, and also considers the implications
of geographical scale.
1 To enliven and illustrate what might easily become an
abstract discussion, we provide examples at each step of the analysis. Almost all
of these examples derive from fi eld studies undertaken by the fi rst author in the
state of Tamil Nadu, India over a period of 15 years (1995–2010). The fact that
one geographical region, and one ‘collection’ of fi sheries, is capable of delivering a full set of examples of governability is noteworthy and indicative of diversity at a national scale level.
2 We also note that the examples connect different
1 Gibson et al. ( 1998 ) provide a useful overview of the use of scale in the social sciences.
They de fi ne scale simply as “the dimension used in any effort to measure a phenomenon”, and
distinguish three basic types: space, time and quantity (Gibson et al. 1998 , 6). In this chapter we
highlight the implications of spatial scale. Johnson ( 2006 ) discusses facets of scale with regard to
fi sheries.
2 The fact that one setting is capable of delivering illustrations of almost the full set of governability
options raises important questions regarding societal coherence. Is Tamil Nadu a particularly chaotic
fi sheries setting? Could other settings provide a similarly broad range of examples? We are inclined
to believe that most fi sheries settings, if investigated carefully, actually contain a large variety of
governability arrangements, not dissimilar to Tamil Nadu. We must also point out, however, that the
fi sheries of Tamil Nadu may actually be more structured than this array of examples suggest.