141
8 Applying the Governability Concept in Fisheries…
objects of a lower one (e.g. a food chain). In contrast, higher levels in inclusive, or
aggregational, hierarchies such as taxonomic classi fi cations, do embrace lower levels.
There is, however, no interaction between them. Constitutive hierarchies are the most
interesting type for our purposes, because the lower levels are not only included in
higher ones, but all these units have functional relationships and continuously affect
one another (Gibson et al. 2000 ) . Bureaucracy provides a good example. Each unit in,
for example, a department of fi sheries has a specialized task that encompasses or is
encompassed by other administrative units. However, the incidence of substantial
interaction between units at different levels results in new governance forms and
processes. In the literature constitutive hierarchies are often connected with complex
systems theories and the way these systems emerge (Gibson et al. 2000 ) .
As governors and governing issues are situated at various geographical scale
levels, nestedness is also an issue of scale. Not only do perspectives change as one
moves up from one level to the next, so too do mandates, tools and action potential.
Increasing scale coincides with what is called multi-level governance, or “the dispersion of authoritative decision making across multiple territorial levels” (Hooghe
and Marks 2001 , xi). Young ( 2002 in Marshall 2008 , 79) points out that multi-level
governance generates two important challenges: (1) how to assign governance tasks
across different levels, and (2) how to manage cross-level interactions arising in
governing activity. Institutional nesting, or smaller organizations becoming “part
of a more inclusive system without giving up their essential autonomy” (Marshall
2005 , 47 in Marshall 2008 ) , is one of the approaches used to address such challenges. We argue that multi-level governance in general, and nested governance in
particular, generates different levels of complexity in the governing system with
concomitant issues of governability.
In the examples that follow this section, we take nestedness to refer to the relationship between institutions at different levels. Lower complexity refers to the situation
where local institutions are not nested in institutions at higher scale levels and governance efforts are channelled separately. Higher complexity, on the contrary, exists
when institutions at various scale levels have been designed to interconnect. First,
however, we consider issues pertaining to the dynamics of governing systems.
Institutional Dynamics
Governing is a spatial but also a temporal phenomenon – it is a process rather than a
stable condition. The people and organizations involved in governing, and the rules
that they apply, change with time. We know that some governing institutions are characterized by extreme fl ux, while others stagnate, atrophy or display robustness (Jentoft
2004 ) . Institutional dynamics sometimes derive from challenges in the fi sheries themselves. Managers, for example, re fl ect on the needs of fi shers and others in the fi sh
chain and take corrective action. In many instances, however, institutional dynamics
have other origins. Scholars use the term ‘path dependence’ to indicate that present
governing efforts are shaped by past choices (Page 2006 ) . In reality, managers often
8 Applying the Governability Concept in Fisheries…
objects of a lower one (e.g. a food chain). In contrast, higher levels in inclusive, or
aggregational, hierarchies such as taxonomic classi fi cations, do embrace lower levels.
There is, however, no interaction between them. Constitutive hierarchies are the most
interesting type for our purposes, because the lower levels are not only included in
higher ones, but all these units have functional relationships and continuously affect
one another (Gibson et al. 2000 ) . Bureaucracy provides a good example. Each unit in,
for example, a department of fi sheries has a specialized task that encompasses or is
encompassed by other administrative units. However, the incidence of substantial
interaction between units at different levels results in new governance forms and
processes. In the literature constitutive hierarchies are often connected with complex
systems theories and the way these systems emerge (Gibson et al. 2000 ) .
As governors and governing issues are situated at various geographical scale
levels, nestedness is also an issue of scale. Not only do perspectives change as one
moves up from one level to the next, so too do mandates, tools and action potential.
Increasing scale coincides with what is called multi-level governance, or “the dispersion of authoritative decision making across multiple territorial levels” (Hooghe
and Marks 2001 , xi). Young ( 2002 in Marshall 2008 , 79) points out that multi-level
governance generates two important challenges: (1) how to assign governance tasks
across different levels, and (2) how to manage cross-level interactions arising in
governing activity. Institutional nesting, or smaller organizations becoming “part
of a more inclusive system without giving up their essential autonomy” (Marshall
2005 , 47 in Marshall 2008 ) , is one of the approaches used to address such challenges. We argue that multi-level governance in general, and nested governance in
particular, generates different levels of complexity in the governing system with
concomitant issues of governability.
In the examples that follow this section, we take nestedness to refer to the relationship between institutions at different levels. Lower complexity refers to the situation
where local institutions are not nested in institutions at higher scale levels and governance efforts are channelled separately. Higher complexity, on the contrary, exists
when institutions at various scale levels have been designed to interconnect. First,
however, we consider issues pertaining to the dynamics of governing systems.
Institutional Dynamics
Governing is a spatial but also a temporal phenomenon – it is a process rather than a
stable condition. The people and organizations involved in governing, and the rules
that they apply, change with time. We know that some governing institutions are characterized by extreme fl ux, while others stagnate, atrophy or display robustness (Jentoft
2004 ) . Institutional dynamics sometimes derive from challenges in the fi sheries themselves. Managers, for example, re fl ect on the needs of fi shers and others in the fi sh
chain and take corrective action. In many instances, however, institutional dynamics
have other origins. Scholars use the term ‘path dependence’ to indicate that present
governing efforts are shaped by past choices (Page 2006 ) . In reality, managers often