178
J. Scholtens and M. Bavinck
diversity matters, and that governance solutions should match the nature of the
problems at hand.
Our conceptual entry point is interactive governance theory and the concept of
governability, de fi ned as “the overall capacity for governance of a societal entity or
system” (Kooiman et al. 2008 , 3). Interactive governance theory assumes that societal
systems are characterized by diversity, complexity, dynamics, and scale variations, and
that these features have implications for the success of a governing effort. Applied to a
fi sheries context, this approach suggests that there needs to be a match between the
characteristics of a fi shery (i.e. the system-to-e-governed) and the set of prevailing
institutions (i.e. the governing system) that steer it in a required direction.
This chapter aims to contribute to the theoretical debate on the ‘match’ between
the governing system and system-to-be-governed, thereby advancing the methodology of assessing governability. It focuses on the features of diversity, dynamics and
scale,
1 and takes one speci fi c South Indian fi shery as a case-in-point. The trawler
fi shery of the Palk Bay provides many people in the region with economic opportunities, but has generated a range of ecological and social problems as well. Fish
stocks are declining, and there are substantial con fl icts between this category of
fi shers and others partaking in the fi sheries. Rather than attempting an answer to the
governability problems af fl icting this fi shery, we highlight the process of assessment.
Our supposition is that if one can get a grip on the nature of systemic mismatches,
it will be easier to make suggestions for improving governability.
The case study developed in this chapter is based on 5 months of ethnographic
fi eldwork on trawl fi shing in the Palk Bay by the fi rst author during two periods in
2006 and 2007. Fieldwork data were collected primarily through semi-structured
interviews with trawler owners and crewmembers, who were selected by means of
a strati fi ed convenience sample. Additional in-depth interviews were held with secondary stakeholders, such as government authorities, association leaders, coastguard personnel, boat breakers, fi sh and shrimp traders, and NGOs. For additional
details on methodology see Scholtens ( 2006 ) and Sathyapalan et al. ( 2007 ) . The
second author has been investigating the socio-economic character of the marine
fi sheries of Tamil Nadu since 1995, and currently leads a research project on fi shing
con fl icts in the Palk Bay.
Assessing Governability: A Matter of Matching Systems
Interactive governance theory argues that fi sheries systems are inherently diverse
and dynamic, and that they operate at multiple scale levels (Kooiman and Bavinck
2005 ) . Each system-to-be-governed possesses these features to varying extents and
1 A third feature ascribed to societal systems, complexity, is relevant to the topic (see Chap. 2 by
Kooiman and Bavinck, this volume), but left aside here for reasons of convenience. Not only is
complexity more dif fi cult to illustrate than diversity and dynamics – it would also have extended
this chapter beyond the available word limit.
J. Scholtens and M. Bavinck
diversity matters, and that governance solutions should match the nature of the
problems at hand.
Our conceptual entry point is interactive governance theory and the concept of
governability, de fi ned as “the overall capacity for governance of a societal entity or
system” (Kooiman et al. 2008 , 3). Interactive governance theory assumes that societal
systems are characterized by diversity, complexity, dynamics, and scale variations, and
that these features have implications for the success of a governing effort. Applied to a
fi sheries context, this approach suggests that there needs to be a match between the
characteristics of a fi shery (i.e. the system-to-e-governed) and the set of prevailing
institutions (i.e. the governing system) that steer it in a required direction.
This chapter aims to contribute to the theoretical debate on the ‘match’ between
the governing system and system-to-be-governed, thereby advancing the methodology of assessing governability. It focuses on the features of diversity, dynamics and
scale,
1 and takes one speci fi c South Indian fi shery as a case-in-point. The trawler
fi shery of the Palk Bay provides many people in the region with economic opportunities, but has generated a range of ecological and social problems as well. Fish
stocks are declining, and there are substantial con fl icts between this category of
fi shers and others partaking in the fi sheries. Rather than attempting an answer to the
governability problems af fl icting this fi shery, we highlight the process of assessment.
Our supposition is that if one can get a grip on the nature of systemic mismatches,
it will be easier to make suggestions for improving governability.
The case study developed in this chapter is based on 5 months of ethnographic
fi eldwork on trawl fi shing in the Palk Bay by the fi rst author during two periods in
2006 and 2007. Fieldwork data were collected primarily through semi-structured
interviews with trawler owners and crewmembers, who were selected by means of
a strati fi ed convenience sample. Additional in-depth interviews were held with secondary stakeholders, such as government authorities, association leaders, coastguard personnel, boat breakers, fi sh and shrimp traders, and NGOs. For additional
details on methodology see Scholtens ( 2006 ) and Sathyapalan et al. ( 2007 ) . The
second author has been investigating the socio-economic character of the marine
fi sheries of Tamil Nadu since 1995, and currently leads a research project on fi shing
con fl icts in the Palk Bay.
Assessing Governability: A Matter of Matching Systems
Interactive governance theory argues that fi sheries systems are inherently diverse
and dynamic, and that they operate at multiple scale levels (Kooiman and Bavinck
2005 ) . Each system-to-be-governed possesses these features to varying extents and
1 A third feature ascribed to societal systems, complexity, is relevant to the topic (see Chap. 2 by
Kooiman and Bavinck, this volume), but left aside here for reasons of convenience. Not only is
complexity more dif fi cult to illustrate than diversity and dynamics – it would also have extended
this chapter beyond the available word limit.