168
P. Onyango and S. Jentoft
Governance Orders
The three systems model illustrated above for the case of Lake Victoria, i.e. the
systems-to-be-governed, governing system and governing interaction, provides a
means through which the poverty and poverty alleviation experiences can be analyzed. It indicates the conditions and challenges that governors face as they try to
address the poverty problem through what interactive governance theory calls, the
three orders of governance. As argued by Kooiman ( 2003 ) , the three orders of governance provide a clearer understanding of how governing activities takes place.
At the fi rst order, poverty alleviation governors are involved in addressing daily
problems and identifying or creating opportunities. The second order regards the
construction of institutions for governing in the fi rst order. The third order, or metagovernance, is about the constitutive values, norms and principles upon which governing activities and institutions are founded. In the interactive governance
perspective, understanding poverty and designing strategies to eradicate it requires
initiatives at all orders. These range from the more contemplative re fl ections that occur
about what kind of concern poverty is and what approaches would be ethically
sound at the meta-order level, to the actions and institutions (organizations, rules,
mechanisms) that represent instruments, right down to the actual implementation of
poverty alleviation strategies at the level of the administration and community.
Therefore, an assessment of poverty requires an examination of the role basic societal values, norms and principles among governing actors and fi shers/stakeholders
play in de fi ning and alleviating the poverty problem (Jentoft and Midré 2011 ) .
When poverty alleviation governors and stakeholders tackle daily problems, and
when institutions are formed, values, norms and principles underpin how these are
formulated and addressed. Assessing governability of poverty will therefore involve
examining variables such as values, norms and principles, and the ways in which they
in fl uence decision-making and the institutions within the systems-to-be-governed,
governing system and governing interaction (Table 9.1 ).
Assessing Poverty by Governing Orders
The fi rst order of governance regards daily decision-making in order to address the
quotidian problems that fi shers are confronted with as they go about doing their
regular business. Here small things can make a difference, such as creating the
facilities for storing fi sh on the beach, securing regular access to markets by providing necessary transport, keeping the school or the health clinic open and so forth. In
doing so, governors are often faced with the hard choice of having to determine
whether to address the immediate needs of the fi shers or focus on things that matter
more in the long run, such as building institutions for sustaining the fi sh stocks
(Onyango and Jentoft 2011 ) . This places Lake Victoria governors in a dilemma as
far as poverty is concerned. Restrictions on harvesting may bene fi t the resource and
P. Onyango and S. Jentoft
Governance Orders
The three systems model illustrated above for the case of Lake Victoria, i.e. the
systems-to-be-governed, governing system and governing interaction, provides a
means through which the poverty and poverty alleviation experiences can be analyzed. It indicates the conditions and challenges that governors face as they try to
address the poverty problem through what interactive governance theory calls, the
three orders of governance. As argued by Kooiman ( 2003 ) , the three orders of governance provide a clearer understanding of how governing activities takes place.
At the fi rst order, poverty alleviation governors are involved in addressing daily
problems and identifying or creating opportunities. The second order regards the
construction of institutions for governing in the fi rst order. The third order, or metagovernance, is about the constitutive values, norms and principles upon which governing activities and institutions are founded. In the interactive governance
perspective, understanding poverty and designing strategies to eradicate it requires
initiatives at all orders. These range from the more contemplative re fl ections that occur
about what kind of concern poverty is and what approaches would be ethically
sound at the meta-order level, to the actions and institutions (organizations, rules,
mechanisms) that represent instruments, right down to the actual implementation of
poverty alleviation strategies at the level of the administration and community.
Therefore, an assessment of poverty requires an examination of the role basic societal values, norms and principles among governing actors and fi shers/stakeholders
play in de fi ning and alleviating the poverty problem (Jentoft and Midré 2011 ) .
When poverty alleviation governors and stakeholders tackle daily problems, and
when institutions are formed, values, norms and principles underpin how these are
formulated and addressed. Assessing governability of poverty will therefore involve
examining variables such as values, norms and principles, and the ways in which they
in fl uence decision-making and the institutions within the systems-to-be-governed,
governing system and governing interaction (Table 9.1 ).
Assessing Poverty by Governing Orders
The fi rst order of governance regards daily decision-making in order to address the
quotidian problems that fi shers are confronted with as they go about doing their
regular business. Here small things can make a difference, such as creating the
facilities for storing fi sh on the beach, securing regular access to markets by providing necessary transport, keeping the school or the health clinic open and so forth. In
doing so, governors are often faced with the hard choice of having to determine
whether to address the immediate needs of the fi shers or focus on things that matter
more in the long run, such as building institutions for sustaining the fi sh stocks
(Onyango and Jentoft 2011 ) . This places Lake Victoria governors in a dilemma as
far as poverty is concerned. Restrictions on harvesting may bene fi t the resource and